I'm back doing what I do best, simplifying the complicated after it's been complicated by the simple. So today I'm looking at Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to give the 9/11 conspirators a civilian trial in New York CITY.
This is
KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED
He orchestrated the
9/11 ATTACKS
The US Military had him held at
GITMO
But
ERIC HOLDER
The US Attorney General
is moving
KSM
to a civilian trial in
NEW YORK CITY
Even though
KSM
Already plead guilty and demanded execution while held at
GITMO
ERIC HOLDER
claims that the
CONSTITUTION
demands it
But the reality is that
KSM
As a terrorist is an
UNLAWFUL COMBATANT
And under the law as an
UNLAWFUL COMBATANT
He can be
SHOT
without trial (military or civilian)
Because they have no rights under the
CONSTITUTION
or the
GENEVA CONVENTION
So
ERIC HOLDER'S
decision has no basis in law or history and
DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE
Or does it?
Because...
HIS OLD LAW FIRM
is up to its neck in
GITMO CASES
And it also gives him a chance to put
THE CIA
on trial
for being mean to
KSM
And can then use it to slag the
BUSH ADMINISTRATION
AND ALL
And to neuter the War on Terror campaign
And hopefully distract everyone from the
fact that
