>>>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.
>
>And here we thought the most dangerous trial to have to serve jury duty on would be for a mobster!

An old mentor of mine used to say "Game it out. Now play black." Meaning given a set of circumstances, turn the board around and play the other side.

Given that they are talking 75 million to try these 5 (my guess is three times that if you add security and incarceration costs ), I would be flooding the US with jihadis who wouldn't mind pretending to have (or who thought they really had) big plans to do evil - but who get caught. 100,000 cases in the US courts. Flood every federal court in the US. And then every prison - converting all ones fellow inmates to go out and start the process all over again.

And you have the additional sweetness of Politically Correct Citizens rending their garments over the extremely high incarceration rate of young Muslim males in Amerikkka.

Perfect a-symetric tactic in that it turns what the opponent sees as a strength into a crippling weakness - much like feeding insecurities about "profiling" and "diversity" (there must be a quota of homicidal jihadis doing psychiatric counseling in the military)

Holder obviously has no conception of "game it out". Sometimes the burning urge to see oneself (and, even better, to be seen by others) as righteous can be quite blinding.