Part of my job is to read newspapers. I spend a decent portion of my downtime catching up on the nation’s news. I was doing just that when I stumbled on my column topic for this Sunday.

I was reading the venerable Washington Post’s opinion offerings on Friday. Two prominent columnists, one, Eugene Robinson, a liberal and one, Charles Krauthammer a conservative, were weighing in on the decision to let Khalid Sheik Mohammed, self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks, stand trial in a civilian New York City court.

Both Robinson and Kraut-hammer make passionate arguments for and against the Obama Administration’s decision to give Mohammed, known in Washington circles by his more ominous initials KSM, a trial.

I’ll sum up the two arguments as best I can:

Conservatives say that treating a terrorist like KSM with kid gloves, the same as any other criminal — rather than a mass murderer and enemy of the state — is insane. Krauthammer argues that the trial will offer KSM a megaphone to espouse his views.

He writes:

“KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable — a civilian trial in the media capital of the world — from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America. ...

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.”

The final point may have been lost in the ellipses. Krauthammer details an exchange between Attorney General Eric Holder and a senator on the Judiciary Committee, who asked the logical question “what if he isn’t convicted?” Holder’s response was that KSM will remain in the military’s custody regardless.

All fair points from Krauthammer. I don’t want to give a terrorist a microphone any more than anyone else. I think the guy should rot in hell, and the sooner the better for all of us. I would venture a guess that most Americans — particularly those who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks — would feel the same way.

Enter Robinson, who writes just as passionately — and logically — in favor of the decision to let KSM stand trial for his crimes.

Robinson stands — as liberals are wont to do — on principle. He argues that if we treat KSM differently than any other person who commits a crime, large or small, then the terrorists are winning. They are altering our way of life. They are undermining our justice system.

Furthermore, Robinson writes, simply executing KSM or holding a military tribunal, offers fodder to the jihadist narrative that Americans are evil and out to destroy Islam.

He writes:

“The critics can’t really think a judge is going to give Khalid Sheik Mohammed an open microphone to spew his jihadist views, or fear that a jury — sitting just blocks from Ground Zero — will look for reasons to let an accused mass murderer off on some technicality. ...

The problem is that we can vanquish al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups, but still be left with a larger enemy: a militant, fundamentalist perversion of Islam. We can and should go after Osama bin Laden and his collaborators with relentless determination and, yes, that fight should be led by our armed forces. But to achieve a meaningful victory, we also have to win the war of ideas — and in that philosophical and theological struggle, the concept of justice is a key battlefield.”

Call me nuts, but I think they’re both right. At least, they both make a strong case.

I wonder how many people in this red-versus-blue America read both of these columns, rather than skipping the one by the author opposite of their personal political persuasion. I wonder how many people actually grappled with the difficult issues inherent in prosecuting a war against an idea (terror), rather than a country, like in World War II.

I wonder how many people tried to hold the two opposing arguments in their head at the same time.

What’s sad is that I think most Americans are predisposed to listen only to the people with whom they presume they’ll agree.

And it turns out that quite frequently, the other side can make a lot of sense.

Eric DuVall is the managing editor of the Tonawanda News. His column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Contact him at eric.duvall@tonawanda-news.com.