The following are editorial opinions from newspapers from around the world which may be of interest to Royal Gazette readers.

The Kansas City Star, on the –aftermath of the GM bailout:

The dramatic turnaround story of General Motors has etched another milestone with a successful stock market offering, reducing the government’s ownership share well below the crucial 50 percent mark.

GM’s improved prospects are welcome news for taxpayers, who backed a $50 billion bailout for the company, and a clear sign that the economic recovery remains on track. So far this year, the company has reported earnings of nearly $5 billion.

In 2009, when GM emerged from bankruptcy, its future was shaky. The economy was crawling out of recession, and the recovery has been glacial.

But the company has sliced its debt load, cut its executive payroll, gained a new labor contract, shuttered factories, pared its excessive portfolio of dealerships and eliminated some brand names, such as Pontiac. Remaining are solid performers like Buick, Cadillac and Chevrolet, including the popular Malibu made in the Kansas City area.

Despite GM’s successful return to public trading, the company still owes a hefty amount to taxpayers. ...

Even so, GM is undeniably on its way back, and that’s something to cheer.

Chicago Tribune on trial for –suspected terrorists:

From the start, the Obama administration made a weak case for trying terror suspects in civilian courts. Last week’s acquittal of Ahmed Ghailani on 284 of 285 counts in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania only confirms the folly of that approach.

The mystery is not why a jury reached that verdict. The mystery is why Attorney General Eric Holder thought it was worth the trouble to find out what a jury would do.

In practical terms, it wouldn’t necessarily have mattered if the defendant had been found guilty on all counts. ...

The administration assumed it had a slam-dunk case. It was surprised when the judge barred testimony from the key witness because the government had found out about him only by its harsh interrogation of Ghailani. Deprived of that evidence, prosecutors faced a much tougher fight.

Some of Holder’s critics accuse him of dangerous recklessness in refusing to try Ghailani before a military tribunal. But there is no guarantee that a tribunal would have allowed the evidence either. ...

At any rate, Holder’s decision didn’t put national security at risk because the defendant was assured of remaining behind bars no matter what the outcome. His conviction entitles him to a long stay in prison. An acquittal would have sent him back to Gitmo indefinitely.

The essence of a trial, in civilian or military court, is that it requires the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt or let the defendant go free. If the latter option is off the table as it was and should have been for Ghailani putting on a trial is a pointless waste of time and money. Even Holder should be able to see that now.