The five terrorists that will be put on trial in an American courtroom plan to use the event to spread their virulent views, one of their attorneys admits.
We love that the attorney is being so open and honest about it. But as courtroom blockbuster surprises go, this is hardly one of them. The terrorists' plot to use the unwarranted mouthpiece of an American courtroom to spread their bile is so patently obvious that you have to ask: Is it just what the Obama administration wants?
Does the Obama administration have that dim a view of America and how it has protected itself against Islamic terrorists that it wants to give five of them a soapbox? Do they hate the Bush-Cheney team so much that they're willing to use terror trials and terrorists to indict the former administration in a public courtroom?
Otherwise, what could possibly be the point of trying enemy combatants in a civilian courtroom? The administration even admits that acquittals won't set the suspected terrorists free.
Again, what is the point?
Asks The Wall Street Journal : If military trials are unjust, why is President Obama still using them for other terror suspects? If they aren't unjust, the paper says, why aren't they good enough for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Good questions. It's as if the president of the United States and his attorney general, Eric Holder, were sympathetic to the terrorists' cause and want to give them a pulpit from which to attack America.
Since that's a quite unpleasant notion, you find yourself asking: Is there another benefit of giving some of the planet's most heinous killers a Broadway stage from which to belt out their ugly tunes?
Other than giving the killers the chance to desecrate the nearby grave that we used to call the World Trade Center, that is.