>Eric Holder may turn out to be Obama's Rumsfeld. I do not predict a good outcome in this more than bone-headed decision.
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547681569546414.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I agree with the writer that most of the questions asked by the reps were reasonable, but for one. What in heaven's name kind of question is this: How can we be assured that these enemies will be found guilty?

Is this why they want a military trial? In order to assure a guilty verdict? Why bother with a trial at all - civil or military? Just pronounce them guilty and be done with it.