Gitmo detainee cleared of 284 charges
Ahmed Ghailani, a participant in the bombing of the US embassies in eastern Africa in 1998 was being tried in a New York City federal district court and was the Obama Administration’s centerpiece trial for avoiding trial by military commissions and escaping the shadow of the Bush Administration. Well, the civilian jury cleared Ghailani of all of the murder charges leveled against him as well as nearly 60 other charges. The Washington Post tells us;
The outcome, a surprise, seriously undermines – and could doom – the Obama administration’s plans to put other Guantanamo detainees on trial in U.S. civilian courts.
Yeah, it was a surprise if you’ve been locked in a closet for the last nine years. The Bush Administration and everyone who ever knew the smallest details of the military commissions predicted this would happen…but not the Washington Post and the Obama Administration apparently.
The Washington Times reports the Obama Administration’s reaction;
The Obama administration didn’t address such criticisms Wednesday and focused instead on the one charge on which Ghailani was convicted.
“We respect the jury’s verdict and are pleased that Ahmed Ghailani now faces a minimum of 20 years in prison and a potential life sentence for his role in the embassy bombings,” Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement.
Yeah, they barely dodged a bullet and they think it’s a success.
Of course, this is a result of doing the opposite of the Bush Administration just for the sake of being contrary. Closing Guantanamo isn’t going as smoothly as it sounded while the Obama crew was on the campaign trail – all of those Obama voters can tic off another thing he promised and didn’t accomplish because the president has been gob-smacked by reality.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Do You Miss Me Yet?, Legal
i would suggest that your typical NYC jury is made up of barely literate left wing progressive ideologues who were just sooooooooo happy to give this creep a pass
This is one area where I am not at all a fan of Bush the younger. He could have ordered military court martials begin years ago, and never did it. This could have been no significant problem, but now it is going to be, as long as a nutless socialist is the president.
You gotta think an NYC jury would be deeply conflicted in a case like this. I’m sure a number of the jurors lived in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, and dearly want justice to be served. Hat’s off to them for putting their emotions to one side and looking at facts and evidence. The beauty of our leagl system is that our laws and principles trump our desire for a quick conviction. In some ways it is a victory for the rule of law. I would much prefer the jury find one notorious defendant not guilty than put its stamp of approval on illegal torture as a means of extracting “confessions”. Thank goodness trials are still trials where actual evedince is weighed and considered, instead fait accompli’s that arrive at a foregone conclusion. If you must blame someone that it didn’t turn out the way you wanted, blame Bush for allowing all the illegalities that resulted in the not guilty verdict. I hope we learned something (and no, the lesson is not that it should have been a military kangaroo court).
Joe, the first part of your post I agree with. Despite some of our legal schenanigans, I would rather stand before a judge and jury in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world.
It has to be remembered, though, that the accused in this trial was not a simple cat burglar. The evidence gathered against him could not possibly have met the stringent requirements placed on law enforcement when they investigate a domestic crime. There is an agony of confusion anytime our intelligence community has to present evident in a standard court of law. Torture being used to gather information is only one part of the problem; ongoing operations being compromised because of endless overlap and connections is another. I would think a standard jury would be nearly worthless for dealing with the level of internation complexity this trial probably saw.
He said “blame Bush” again. I’m shocked.
Do you really not comprehend the fact that, as a Tanzanian, Ghailani isn’t entitled to Constitutional protections? Do you really not comprehend that he is an ADMITTED al Qaeda terrorist and participant in the mass murder of Americans?
Does all of this absolutely escape your blind and obtuse self?
ROS,
After being sent to Gitmo and tortured, who knows what he did/didn’t do. “ADMITTED al Qaeda terrorist”? How many times had he been boarded before he admitted that? Don’t you get that once you torture people, aside from the moral concerns, you muddy the waters so badly that it is impossible to know what to believe. I suspect Ghailani is/was a terrorist, but we have to prove it. Just ‘cuz we pick someone up, disappear/imprison them, and don’t like the way they look is not enough to convict them. We have to hold to a higher standard. We shoot ourselves in the foot every time we legal shortcuts.
ROS,
To continue, Amy Davidson put it well: “Our legal system is not a machine for producing the maximum number of convictions, regardless of the law. Jurors are watching the government, too, as well they should. Ghailani today could be anyone tomorrow.”
Hat’s off to them for putting their emotions to one side and looking at facts and evidence.
Did they? Do you really know that? What evidence and facts did they get to see? There was alot they didn’t get to see. But that’s okay, you can give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt…
Old Tanker,
They got enough info to reach a verdict. Your system is kinda like the Reign of Terror in 1793-94. You say he’s a terrorist, so he must be a terrorist, so off with his head. Nice legal system you got there.
Joey, do you know, for a fact, that he was water-boarded? Do you know for a fact that he was “tortured” at all? And, I think you really meant, hats off to the judge, for withholding information from the jury that would allow them to assess all the facts in the case at hand. Ghailani didn’t confess, he only named someone who could have testified to his involvement in the mass murder he was, in fact, a part of.
And, just a hint, your BDS, along with Owebowma’s, is really getting old, you both really do need a new schtick.
Let’s not forget that the Gitmo guests were captured ON THE BATTLE FIELD engaged in battles with our troops or there was enough evidence to support taking them out of action.
I’m not saying I believe this, but I can’t help but wonder if this was King Obama’s way of getting one of his subjects out of Gitmo.
If I were a gambler I would be willing to bet that after Obama looses his next election, if the Gitmo guests aren’t released or pardoned before he leaves office, he will pardon them before he leaves. Keep in mind that this is a crybaby that is used to having his way and takes VENGEANCE on anyone who doesn’t do what he thinks they should, and the guests are his people.
To cut thru all the legal fine print, you can’t (or shouldn’t be able to) pick people up on very scant or nonexistant evidence or rumor or for a bounty, subject them to extraordinary rendition, dump in a black site for months or years, torture them perhaps, then expect the evidence to hold up, whether in civilian court or military tribunal. It’s just that simple.
“…you…can’t pick people up on very scant or nonexistent evidence…”
So our intelligence agencies and troops and federal law enforcement types are wasting their time on litterbugs and jaywalkers, is that what you’re saying?
PintoNag,
Not sure quite what you meant in your last post, but I meant exactly what I said. Even in war there are (or should be) rules. As detestable as Ghailani may be, he should be accored some rights. Extraordinary rendition, black sites, torture – evidence gathered this way should always be inadmissable. If we can do what ever the hell we want with prisoners, where will it all end? How would we any better than the Al Quaeda goons who decapitate people? As a somewhat civilized society, we are obliged to hold to a higher standard.
Old Tanker,
They got enough info to reach a verdict.
Did they get enough to reach the *right* verdict?
You say he’s a terrorist, so he must be a terrorist, so off with his head. Nice legal system you got there
Where the hell did I say anything like that? I call him an enemy combatant and would put him in front of a military tribunal.
And I meant what I said — or asked, actually. Run back up and read my post at #4.
If we don’t learn fast how to balance our civilization with the savagery that the rest of the world accepts as normal, we’re going to have our “higher standards” handed to us…along with our heads.
“How would we any better than the Al Quaeda goons who decapitate people?”
You. have. got. to. be. kidding.
If your belief in moral equivalency really extends that deep, conversations with you have taken on a new meaning.
Please show me where in our culture we find it permissible or widely socially acceptable to commit atrocities such as disciplinary facial maiming, female circumcisions, or honor killings. Show me the last American news cast where we held a prisoner tied in front of the camera and threatened to chop his head off unless our demands were met.
We may have done some things during the prosecution of this war that aren’t exactly by the book, but the full extent of our transgressions come no where near to the deplorable depths of heinousness our adversaries comfortably embrace daily.
The comment you made above has got to be one of the stupidest things I’ve seen you say yet.
Joe, just as one small / huge example of what I’m saying, consider this:
Think of the just the legal ramifications of one of our intelligence agencies capturing and handing over an (“alleged”)terrorist to one of our federal law enforcement agencies. Understand that, by law, our federal law enforcement agencies cannot act independently outside of the US, and our intelligence agencies cannot act indepently within the US.
Just that handoff — how long it took, where it took place, — would give a criminal trial lawyer tons of exceptions to US law to get the defendant released on a technicality. And you haven’t even dealt with the criminal charges yet. Do you see what I mean here?
Jacobite,
You’re absolutely correct that a) “We may have done some things during the prosecution of this war that aren’t exactly by the book” (a breathtaking euphemism for a large list of human rights violations), and b) “but the full extent of our transgressions come no where near to the deplorable depths of heinousness our adversaries comfortably embrace daily”. I want to keep it that way, that we don’t, bit by bit, go “to the deplorable depths of heinousness our adversaries comfortably embrace”. We already torture, let’s not backslide any further. That’s why we have to be vigilant not to gradually slide towards those depths little by little. Frog in the saucepan and all that. It’s a slippery slope we’re on, and I hope we can climb back up at this point, but the jury is still out.
PintoNag, you’re right, it’s a balancing act. There are risks either way you go. But if you torture, etc., you may or may not get actionable intelligence, but you’ll probably invalidate any evidence you hoped to present in court. I have to hope we can both maintain our morality (which we lost a little of in the last ten years, and the rest of the world knows it) and defeat islamic fundamentalism.
Jacobite,
Thinking more on what you said, how do we really know how “deplorable” we’ve become? We know some heinous things have happened out of sight at black sotes, even murders, we don’t really have any idea if we’ve sunk to the depths that Al Queada has, but we really have no way of knowing. With zero transparency, anything is possible. So I don’t think we should necessarily pat ourselves on the back at this point. We can maintain a pious public face, but we really don’t know….
“We know some heinous things have happened out of sight at black sotes, even murders, we don’t really have any idea if we’ve sunk to the depths that Al Queada has, but we really have no way of knowing.”
Really Joe? OK, so again I ask, “Please show me where in our culture we find it permissible or widely socially acceptable to commit atrocities such as disciplinary facial maiming, female circumcisions, or honor killings. Show me the last American news cast where we held a prisoner tied in front of the camera and threatened to chop his head off unless our demands were met.”
Too bad you can’t muster up enough guilty feelings for things that should matter to Americans, like not delivering on the promise of safety to the citizens of this country in a manner sufficient to make those who were most brutalized on 9/11 feel safe in their own country, or the lack of a promise from 100% of the people of this country to support their troops and to allow them to prosecute the war to this country’s fullest ability while they endure things more than 90% of our population wouldn’t dream of enduring even in the interest of their own safety.
Citizens that speak as you do are what many returning vets mean when they feel like they no longer wish to associate with civilians. Not having been there you can’t possibly comprehend what it takes to get the job done, and how damaging it is to the effort to try and draw us as any where near the kinds of people we are fighting.
I submit that we’ve been way, way, way further down the road you so greatly fear, in wars past, and have had no problem hanging onto our moral grounding. Thank the powers that be that voices like yours were so marginalized during WWII, else we’d all be speaking German or Japanese.
Jacobite,
This started with an article about Ghailani’s acquittal on most of the charges, and how that bodes for civilian trials and closing Gitmo. So I’ll get back to that discussion. As Karen Greenberg put it, in the prevailing political climate, defendants accused of terrorism are guilty until proven guilty. But they shouldn’t be. What about the innocent ones? I appalaud the jury in Ghailani’s trial for cutting thru the static, noise, and pressure and evaluating the facts. If that means he was found not guilty, so be it. That’s the process, that’s why we have jury trials. So I have confidence in the civilian courts to fairly try these people.
One metric used to judge the “success” of terrorist trials is the conviction rate. But what about the acquittal rate? isn’t that a valid metric too?
You’re fucking unreal. Is there ANYthing you actually like about this country? Is there ANYthing in which you take pride?
I’m convinced that you believe the U.S. of A. to be some power-hungry titan bent on conquering any- and everyone in its path to become a world domineering force.
Your little simplistic blame games and ungrateful horseshit have surpassed tiring.
In Joe’s bizzaro world if this terrorist, Jihadi, asshole had gotten aquitted when he had been caught red handed (and make no mistake…he was) it would be considered a feather in the cap of the American justice system…
The justice system should be able to discriminate between defendants who are guilty or not guilty, shouldn’t it? If it had a 100% conviction rate that would be an indication that the game was rigged. If that were the case, why bother with trials at all? Again, kudos to the jury for understanding the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty. We lose that to expediency, and we’ve lost the war.
#22 Joe:
…”What about the innocent ones?”…
Please re-read my question in post #13. GITMO is not a regular American prison, anymore than this trial was a regular American trial. Not one individual inside those walls / fences is “innocent.” They don’t have the time or inclination to mess around with petty thieves. That’s not the task at hand for them.
And apparently the jury did not agree that he was caught “red handed” Old Tanker, and they were the ones who heard the evidence.
I wonder how many German POWs we held in this country during WWII would have been convicted if they had been tried.
If it had a 100% conviction rate that would be an indication that the game was rigged.
What if it were an indication that the police and prosecuters were doing a good job? Or is it your contention that ONLY the courts are perfect enough to get it right? The jury did agree he was caught red handed, they convicted him didn’t they? You tell me why Terry Nichols was found guilty of murder in the Oklahoma city bombings and Ghialani was not found guilty of murder but did EXACTLY the same thing as Terry Nichols?
Joe, the trial was a farce.
Ghailani was convicted of conspiracy to damage property in connection to the bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Saalam, Tanzania. These bombings killed 224 people, 12 of them American. He could possibly get life in prison, but likely won’t. Frankly I think he should fry. And if the 200+ murder charges hadn’t been thrown out I’m sure he would have.
Hell, a drunk driver would likely face a more serious conviction if he accidentally kills someone in a traffic accident. A drunk driver certainly wouldn’t be convicted of damaging property.
Justice for the surviving family members of the bombing victims was not served with this verdict, though I have no doubt political expediency was.
Jonn, to answer your question, it would probably have been somewhere near or at 100%. But would that really be the same thing? Most of the German POW’s were soldiers, weren’t they?
You say the trial was expedient, Jacobite. But what really is expedient is disappearing people and torturing them. Can’t you see how it has poisoned the whole process? Now we don’t know what we really know. Whether the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence because they knew it was gathered illegaly, or whether the evidence had been presented and then discounted by the jury because of the use of torture and general lack of transparency, the prosecutorial process was tainted. I, like you, strongly suspect Ghailani was guilty of most of the charges, but we can’t know that sitting here (or wherever you are). And we shot ourselves in the foot by what we did to Ghailani. I would rather that one guilty person should go free, or a hundred, or “only” get convicted of one offense, than that our courts accept confessions coerced by torture. Period. Back in the day when I drove a cab for a living, when I went to trial and successfully beat a traffic ticket on a technicality (and before you start screaming, I am not putting a traffic ticket at the same level as Ghailani’s crime[s]), the judge said to the officer testifying against me, “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a hundred times, you have to get it right the first time – case dismissed”. Well, same thing here.
Joe–tell ya what, shitstain–be a Muslim in NYC at night alone and unarmed, and see how you fare compared to, say, a Caucasian guy outside the wire in Khandahar after dark, alone and unarmed.
Do us a favor and try that one out for us and let us know how it went, won’t you fucktard?
NHSparky,
I kinda wonder how the Muslim in NYC at night alone and unarmed would fare if he met up with someone like you…..