“Accused 9/11 Mastermind to Face Civilian Trial in N.Y.” Charlie Savage has this article today in The New York Times. Today’s newspaper also contains articles headlined “9/11 Trial Poses Unparalleled Legal Obstacles“; “How New York May Tighten Security Vise“; and “Trial Venue Leaves 9/11 Families Angry or Satisfied,” along with an editorial entitled “A Return to American Justice.” And Sunday’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “Portrait of 9/11 ‘Jackal’ Emerges as He Awaits Trial.”

Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Alleged Sept. 11 planner will be tried in New York; A shift to civilian court; Four co-conspirators also will be transferred“; “For Holder, much wrestling over decision“; and “A staggering ego, at the center of difficult issues,” along with an editorial entitled “Terrorism on trial: There are good reasons to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York” and an op-ed by CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen entitled “A terrorism trial’s myths.”

In The Los Angeles Times, Josh Meyer and David G. Savage have an article headlined “Strong reaction to announcement of 9/11 trial in New York court; Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.’s decision raises legal, political and ethical questions — and criticism from some key Republicans.” Today’s newspaper also contains an article headlined “Illinois prison eyed for Guantanamo detainees; The nearly empty rural facility is being considered, an Obama administration official says; But obstacles remain, including a law that bars the detainees from the U.S. unless they’re on trial” and an editorial entitled “Plan for Mohammed’s trial upholds U.S. values; The decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 conspirators in the civilian judicial system shows a commitment to the rule of law.” In addition, Sunday’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “Remaining detainees leave Guantanamo’s closure up in air; Trying five 9/11 suspects in the U.S. leaves the fate of more than 200 others unclear. Some may have to be held long-term — but where?”

The Wall Street Journal contains articles headlined “Alleged 9/11 Plotters Face Trial; Civilian Court in Lower Manhattan Will Hear Terror Cases in Big Test of Justice System“; “New York, Court Brace for Logistical Hurdles“; and “Mukasey Fears Attacks on New York During Trial of 9/11 Defendants,” along with an editorial entitled “KSM Hits Manhattan–Again: Eric Holder’s decision to move a trial on war crimes to American soil is morally confused, dangerous and political to a fault.”

Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald reports that “NYC trial won’t close Guantanamo war court; The Obama administration will pursue military trials for some and civilian trials for others accused in the 9/11 attacks.”

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “New York trials for 9/11 suspects raise new safety concerns” and “Republican lawmakers decry Obama decision on terror trials.”

“President’s Top Lawyer Is Leaving White House”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “Obama Chooses an Inner-Circle Man.”

The Washington Post reports today that “Obama taps new counsel; Republicans criticize pick; Bauer also president’s personal attorney.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Craig to Leave White House Counsel Job.”

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “In White House shakeup, counsel Greg Craig resigns.”

“Court Silences CIA Operative Despite Yellowcake Scandal”: David Kravets has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

“Federal judge criticized for handling of claimants’ assets; Manuel L. Real was entrusted with $33.8 million meant for victims of the late Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos; A federal appeals court calls his accounting ‘curious'”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge rebuked by panel over Ferdinand Marcos money.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit order appears at this link.

“Federal judge sues impeachment panel”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A Louisiana federal judge sued a House impeachment task force Friday, contending the panel is making the case for his ouster by using testimony he gave under a promise of immunity.”

This development follows the news that Bruce Alpert reported yesterday in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, in an article headlined “Porteous impeachment request to be subject of hearings,” that “A House Judiciary Committee task force has scheduled its first hearings next week on a request from federal court officials that Federal District Judge Thomas Porteous be impeached.”

I have posted online U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.‘s complaint initiating suit against the U.S. Congress, the brief in support of his motion for a temporary restraining order, and the U.S. Congress’s brief in opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order. The lawsuit and these briefs were all filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.