Thought #2 on the Holder Statement

I am really--and I mean really--looking forward to the New York Times editorial on Holder's announcement. Specifically, I'm looking forward to seeing how the Times thinks Holder should have acted given its insistence that (a) military commission trials are an affront to the rule of law ("unending, legally dubious military tribunals"); that (b) President Obama "was forced to sign" the transfer restrictions that prevent federal court trials,  "was right not to declare his intention to defy" them, and was even right to eschew a narrow interpretation of them; and that (c) the military detention of people like KSM prior to their trials is "illegal." (The Times has, to be sure, contradicted some of these points in other editorials.) So here's the question: Will the Times praise Holder for respecting the rule of law by holding the 9/11 conspirators in illegal detention before subjecting them to a trial of dubious legality? Or will the Times blast Holder for submitting, as the Times insists the administration must, to Congress' requirement that it behave unlawfully? I am, I confess, on tenterhooks.