Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other suspected 9/11 masterminds in a New York City civilian court has led to a fierce debate across the country and a firestorm of controversy on Capitol Hill.  The Obama administration has come under heavy scrutiny from opponents because of the decision. Sadly, the decision has also given the media, and others who are quick to chalk up scrutiny of the administration to partisan politics, the opportunity to paint reactions to the decision into a picture of political affiliation.

A Nov. 15 CNN.com headline said it all: Dems hail, Republicans bash decision to try 9/11 suspects in New York.  The article states that “Democrats hailed Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the men in a civilian court as a demonstration of America’s might and moral certainty, while Republicans called it a bad idea based on politics rather than pragmatism.”

This broad statement, and others like it, are unbalanced, unfair and only tell half of the story. That sounds about right for mainstream media, but dare I say we should ask for more? Yet such statements have become commonplace. Few can praise or oppose decisions made by the administration without their opinion being turned into a partisan agenda.

This statement does not take into account all of the facts.  It fails to account for powerful statements from politicians such as Virginia Democrat Sen. Jim Webb or New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican. Webb strongly opposes the decision, saying, “Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor.  It will be disruptive, costly and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.”

On the other hand, Bloomberg supports the decision. In a statement, Bloomberg said, “I support the Obama administration’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists here in New York. It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered.”

Furthermore, the broad statement by CNN makes no mention of the people who might be most strongly impacted by this decision—the families of 9/11 victims. I find it hard to believe that all of the 143 family members, who signed the open letter to the United States Senate urging against this decision, are Republicans. It is doubtful that their decision to send the letter was based on party line support, so why turn the entire debate into Democrats versus the GOP?

Instead of wasting time drawing partisan conclusions about reactions to the administration’s decision, media outlets should strive to answer some of the more pressing questions surrounding this case. For example, I’d like to know the answer to a question posed by South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham—if we continue to follow this precedent and eventually capture Osama bin Laden, when does custodial interrogation begin in his case? Would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of his capture? Or why would it be easier to convict Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in an Article III court than a military commission, as Holder has expressed?

Holder’s decision and the subsequent reactions should not be turned into yet another measure of political divide.  Doing so just adds to the never-ending political rhetoric and partisan wars.  Instead, this should serve as an opportunity for politicians and citizens to have an open, honest discussion about all facets of the case without having to worry about who they might offend and how that might influence the 2012 elections.