>Yeah, that one brought me up short too. And that is exactly the problem with the whole presumption of innocence. On a battlefield the presumption is the enemy is hostile, a threat to your life and you are required to use lethal force to protect yourself and your comrades.
>
>In Eric Holder's universe, we need to Mirandize everyone we shoot at for fear that if they are only wounded and survive we will not be able to obtain a conviction. ( Next we will also need to apologize first and assure them they are not being profiled as a member of a victim class to protect ourselves from being accused of a "hate crime" )
>
>I don' see these guys as prisoners of war or criminals. I see them as imminent threats to be eliminated. If we are not sure enough about them to just take their pieces off the board with no regrets we have no business holding them the way we have.
>
>Horses for courses, obviously. American citizens who are not captured on a battlefield are entitled to all the protection of our law. Enemies out of uniform in time of war ... there's a *lot* of precedent on that one. Guilt is prima facie.

No uniform? They must be spies. Spies are shot.

>
>>>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.