Trying terrorists and reciprocal liability

More to my post of this weekend questioning the wisdom of trying the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., George Friedman of Stratfor.com has posted an excellent essay exploring the topic. The crux of the problem, according to Friedman, of trying terrorists as criminals in U.S. courts:

Spies, saboteurs and terrorists fall outside the realm of international law. This class of actors falls under the category of national law, leaving open the question of their liability if they conduct acts inimical to a third country. Who has jurisdiction? The United States is claiming that Mohammed is to be tried under the criminal code of the United States for actions planned in Afghanistan but carried out by others in the United States. It is a defensible position, but where does this leave American intelligence planners working at CIA headquarters for actions carried out by others in a third country? Are they subject to prosecution in the third country? Those captured in the third country clearly are, but the claim here is that Mohammed is subject to prosecution under U.S. laws for actions carried out by others in the United States. And that creates an interesting reciprocal liability.

This essay is highly recommended. It might not cross its T's or dot its I's perfectly, but in terms of teeing up the larger issues, I think it's right on target.