PRECEDENTED VERSUS UNPRECEDENTED

THE TRIAL OF KSM AND HIS COMRADES IS UNPRECEDENTED.

THERE HAS NEVER EVER BEEN A TRIAL OF A FOREIGNER CAPTURED IN A FOREIGN LAND TRIED IN THE USA FOR AN ACT IF WAR.

EVERY OTHER FOREIGNER EVER CAPTURED AND TRIED FOR AN ACT OF OF WAR OR A WAR CRIME WAS TRIED IN A MILITARY TRIBUNAL.

WE HAVE EVEN TRIED US CITIZENS IN MILITARY TRIBUNALS FOR ATTACKS ON THE USGOV AND US MILITARY.

WHEN PRECEDENT IS BROKEN IT USUALLY HAS TO BE DONE FOR A VERY VERY VERY GOOD REASON AND A HUGE POTENTIAL BENEFIT.

THERE AHAS BEEN NO SUCH BENEFIT ENUNCIATED FOR THE TRIAL OF KSM.

SO WHY DID THEY DECIDE TO DO IT!?

THERE ARE ONLY THREE POSSIBLE REASONS:

THEY ARE IDIOTS.

THEY WANT TO ASSIST THE ENEMY IN THEIR PROPAGANDA EFFORTS AND SEE THE PERP'S RELEASED.

THEY WANT TO USE THE TRIAL TO ATTACK BUSH/CHENEY.

ALL OF THE ABOVE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?