>>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.

That did seem odd when questioning how a court will work.

The rest need to be answered.

They need to ask, are security background checks going to be done on all jurors and alternates. Will they be sworn to secrecy? Will they all get top security clearance? There' going to be evidence that I have no doubt will require it.

My assumption is that the evidence will have to be suppressed. Probably make the Messiah happy to let these ba$turds off.