A kind of dangerous stupidity.

It was clear this decision was coming within a week of the announcement that KSM would be tried in NYC: Guantanamo eyed for 9/11 trial.

Whatever one thinks about the proper venue for these trials - civilian or military - the most troubling aspect of this affair is the Obama Administration's suspect decision making process. The ramifications of choosing Manhattan seem not to have occurred to Obama, the DOJ, or the President's political apparatus. One might argue that they did occur to all of them - and they were ignored. I doubt that. The decision immediately felt similar to the rushed announcement in Obama's first week that Guantanamo was closing. Appearance mattered. Logistics and specifics did not.

There seems to be two ways Obama makes decisions. One is to make a broad announcement without thinking ahead then hoping everything works out - with others doing the "working out" - Health care and the KSM trial are examples. The other is to avoid making a decision at all for as long as possible, then make a decision that covers every possible outcome - which is, of course, not a decision at all. Afghanistan comes to mind. Both processes indicate an empty mind, a kind of dangerous stupidity.

It's disturbing that neither Holder or Obama could see that New York would rebel the moment the enormity of the trial became obvious. This is a separate issue from the civilian vs. military tribunal argument. That was, for better or worse, debated internally. That no one seems to have looked Holder or Obama in the eye and said "This location is trouble, here's why..." is beyond reckoning. As is the possibility that they did - and the concern was not taken seriously.

A combination of imperiousness, fear, ideological blindness, arrogance, and resentment at something animates too much of Obama's decision making process. When decisions like the location of KSM's trial, or when Guantanamo is to close are made the desire to prove something outweighs what makes the most sense or what is best for the nation.

(To be clear - I think Guantanamo should be closed and I'm torn about the proper venue for terrorist trials. It's the rashness of both these decisions that disturbs me deeply.)

Understanding how the politics of the KSM trial would eventually play out in New York and taking it into account is actually the least political decision. Insisting that lower Manhattan would "show the world our system works" was purely political. It's like saying the Manson family should have been tried in the LaBianca's living room to prove to the killers that the neighborhood was resilient.

How a President and his advisers make decisions is extraordinarily important. It's difficult to examine some of the Administration's biggest decisions and not be unnerved.