Are KSM and His Jihadi Funky Bunch Lambs or Louts?

David Meir-Levi describes the vastly different way the New York Times and the New York Post are reporting the trial by military tribunal of a slew of jihadis, including 9/11 mastermind and proud decapitator of Daniel Pearl KSM. The Times has depicted them as being a pretty sedate bunch who

for the most part, [are] passively non-cooperative with occasional passive resistance, and a few understandable noisy outbursts.

As reported in the Post, however, "sedate" is the antithesis of what's going on; "raucous" and perhaps "screwy" would more accurately describe it:

The screaming headlines on the cover of the May 5 Post, “’I Spit on their Graves: KSM and pals mock victims, turn courtroom into circus,” sets the tone for the articles. The NY Post is clear and detailed in its description of the terrorists’ violent outbursts in the court, frequent attempts at disruption that were far from passive, doing all they could to defy the court, using obscene words and gestures to harass and insult the 9/11 victims’ families[ii], taking actions to delay the proceedings, and demonstrating that they were proud of what they did, and eager to do more.

Gee, I wonder which paper has a better grasp of reality?