So much for Obama's promise of tough civilian trials of terrorists

[Monkeyleg]

Remember Obama promising that Guantanamo terrorists brought to trial in civilian courts would get everything that they have coming?

I guess Obama misspoke again. In case you missed it, Al Queda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani--who blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing 224 people and injuring far more--was found guilty of just one of the scores of charges he faced. He was found guilty of conspiring to destroy US government property, and faces 20 years.

Way to go, Obama! I can't wait to find out what the others will get. Maybe some will just get a fine, eh?

Ghailani might have been convicted on more charges, but the judge ruled that testimony given by another Guantanamo detainee was inadmissible because the CIA used coercive methods to get the name of the witness from Ghailiani. (The potential witness was probably forced to watch reruns of Al Franken Saturday Night Live skits). 

How is it that the jury was able to find him guilty of conspiring to destroy the property, but not of the deaths and destruction once the conspiracy was committed? I guess only Obama and God know the answer to that (but I repeat myself).

I don't expect this to get a lot of press coverage. People would be really steamed if they heard about it.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

He was found guilty of conspiring to destroy US government property, and faces 20 years.

WTF? What state was the jury from?

[De Selby]

Well, one thing's for sure - this couldn't possibly indicate that the Government was throwing people in Guantanamo on facts that weren't so clear, or that it was failing to properly investigate.  I mean, the fact that he was acquitted of hundreds of charges could only possibly show how inappropriate civilian trials are. 

There's no questioning the Government's accusations comrades!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/11/19/2010-11-19_stop_the_terror_trials.html

and follow some of the links there for more background

[roo_ster]

Well, one thing's for sure - this couldn't possibly indicate that the Government was throwing people in Guantanamo on facts that weren't so clear, or that it was failing to properly investigate.

In the case of this particular person, your snark is a true statement.  His guilt WRT to the embassy bombings is not in question by anyone who is allowed to look at the facts.  Which the jury wasn't.

Military tribunal for the mohammedian or, since he conducted war as an unlawful combatant, an execution out of hand and be done with it.

[MillCreek]

Perhaps you can explain to me what role the President plays in the conduct of a civilian trial such that the President is held accountable for the outcome.  I must have missed that lecture in law school.

[drewtam]

The cherry on top of this story, is that Obama suggested that the military could indefinitely imprison him after the civilian sentence. Which reveals that this was a show trial to begin with, and they SCREWED UP A SHOW TRIAL!   (amateur hour!).

The second thing to note is that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did (military POW) - huh, imagine that. Remember that fierce moral urgency they had to get Bush out of the WH? I guess Bush was doing it right all along.

Well, at least he's not releasing the guy just to prove himself loyal to a stupid, rash, empty-headed campaign promise.

[drewtam]

Perhaps you can explain to me what role the President plays in the conduct of a civilian trial such that the President is held accountable for the outcome.  I must have missed that lecture in law school.

He is the boss of the Attorney General.

He is the guy who took the enemy out of POW camp and put him in a civilian trial.

He is directly responsible for creating this mess.

[MillCreek]

He is the boss of the Attorney General.

He is the guy who took the enemy out of POW camp and put him in a civilian trial.

He is directly responsible for creating this mess.

I see.  And does the President pick the judge, select the jury, make rulings on the admissibility of evidence and prepare the jury instructions? 

[MillCreek]

Ghailani might have been convicted on more charges, but the judge ruled that testimony given by another Guantanamo detainee was inadmissible because the CIA used coercive methods to get the name of the witness from Ghailiani. (The potential witness was probably forced to watch reruns of Al Franken Saturday Night Live skits). 

It has been a pretty long-standing precept in most American jurisdprudence that evidence obtained by torture is not admissible.  Perhaps you should educate yourself on some of the 'coercive methods' used and see how you would like them.

[drewtam]

I see.  And does the President pick the judge, select the jury, make rulings on the admissibility of evidence and prepare the jury instructions?  

In essense, yes he did. Becuase he had 3 options:
1 Military POW forever
2 Military tribunal
3 Civilian trial

He chose #3. He chose the circumstances to deal with this guy.

It has been a pretty long-standing precept in most American jurisdprudence that evidence obtained by torture is not admissible.  Perhaps you should educate yourself on some of the 'coercive methods' used and see how you would like them.

Then don't take a foreign enemy non-combatant to a civilian trial.

I might agree that the US should have no part in torture or "harsh interrogation". But that doesn't mean a guy responsible for 200+ American deaths should be allowed to live; let alone go free after 20yrs (minus time served already). This isn't a moral equivalency game.

The facts were corroborated by a witness who was not tortured. This evidence also wasn't allowed because the name of the witness came from the prisoner. That might not be admissible in civilian court, but sure is in military court.

[MillCreek]

In essense, yes he did. Becuase he had 3 options:
1 Military POW forever
2 Military tribunal
3 Civilian trial

He chose #3. He chose the circumstances to deal with this guy.
Then don't take a foreign enemy non-combatant to a civilian trial.

I might agree that the US should have no part in torture or "harsh interrogation". But that doesn't mean a guy responsible for 200+ American deaths should be allowed to live; let alone go free after 20yrs (minus time served already). This isn't a moral equivalency game.

The facts were corroborated by a witness who was not tortured. This evidence also wasn't allowed because the name of the witness came from the prisoner. That might not be admissible in civilian court, but sure is in military court.

Uh, no.  The President simply does not have the powers to control the outcome of a civil trial.  He does not call up the judge and jury and tell them how to decide the case.  And if you truly believe this and feel that torture should be allowed to produce evidence, then in fairness, I expect your next message to point out how President Bush is responsible for the outcome of the John Walker Lindh case.  

[TechMan]

WTF? What state was the jury from?

Case was tried in NY.

[makattak]

Uh, no.  The President simply does not have the powers to control the outcome of a civil trial.  He does not call up the judge and jury and tell them how to decide the case.  And if you truly believe this and feel that torture should be allowed to produce evidence, then in fairness, I expect your next message to point out how President Bush is responsible for the outcome of the John Walker Lindh case. 

The president doesn't have the ability to control the outcome of a civilian trial.

He DOES have the ability (and exercised that ability) to choose to put a foreign enemy, captured on foreign soil, in a domestic civilian court. We aren't criticising the court, most people EXPECTED (and so stated) that a civilian court was inadequate to the task of trying foreign enemy combatants.

His failure was not in the prosecution and outcome of the civilian trial but in choosing that venue in the first place. (The outcome was already predicted by those opposed to using civilian courts.)

[MillCreek]

So President Bush thought a civilian court was good enough for John Walker Lindh, but President Obama is wrong in thinking that a civilian court was good enough for Ghailiani.  I see.

If we truly believe that the only way to get justice is to use military tribunals, in the belief that 'of course they will make the right decision whereas a civilian court cannot', then there is a fundamental flaw somewhere.  This suggests that any military tribunal decisions are pre-ordained.

[makattak]

So President Bush thought a civilian court was good enough for John Walker Lindh, but President Obama is wrong in thinking that a civilian court was good enough for Ghailiani.  I see.

If we truly believe that the only way to get justice is to use military tribunals, in the belief that 'of course they will make the right decision whereas a civilian court cannot', then there is a fundamental flaw somewhere.  This suggests that any military tribunal decisions are pre-ordained.

Gee, if only there were some obvious difference between John Walker Lindh and Ahmed Ghailani that might suggest why we treated an American citizen differently from a foreign national... OH WAIT!

[De Selby]

This is fairly predictable - we've presumed guilt because the Government said so, and whatever trial the defendant gets is supposed to just be a formality to confirm the Government's accusation.

Now that a jury of 12 looked at the evidence and concluded that the overwhelming majority of the Government's accusations were baloney, the problem is that 12 ordinary people were allowed to exercise a choice.  Military commissions are better because they will just confirm the accusation.

It's a sad day for justice when a man's acquitted on most counts after having been tortured by the Government, and the only public response is "what bs! Next time we should just make sure it's a conviction."

[makattak]

This is fairly predictable - we've presumed guilt because the Government said so, and whatever trial the defendant gets is supposed to just be a formality to confirm the Government's accusation.

Now that a jury of 12 looked at the evidence and concluded that the overwhelming majority of the Government's accusations were baloney, the problem is that 12 ordinary people were allowed to exercise a choice.  Military commissions are better because they will just confirm the accusation.

It's a sad day for justice when a man's acquitted on most counts after having been tortured by the Government, and the only public response is "what bs! Next time we should just make sure it's a conviction."

Yes, all the evidence was included for the jury. War is peace and freedom is slavery, too.

[MillCreek]

Gee, if only there were some obvious difference between John Walker Lindh and Ahmed Ghailani that might suggest why we treated an American citizen differently from a foreign national... OH WAIT!

You mean sort of like Yasser Hamdi, and Jose Padilla, two American citizens designated as enemy combatants?

[MillCreek]

Yes, all the evidence was included for the jury. War is peace and freedom is slavery, too.

Yes, and a military tribunal will be sure to exclude just the right evidence. 

[makattak]

You mean sort of like Yasser Hamdi, and Jose Padilla, two American citizens designated as enemy combatants?

You mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi

A Saudi Arabian citizen with technical US citizenship who we sent back to Saudi Arabia?

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)

Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radioactive "dirty bomb" attack. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court.

An American citizen who was tried in civilian court?

You're right! That's TOTALLY different from John Walker Lindh, an American citizen tried in civilian court...

[MillCreek]

You must have missed the part where American citizens were designated as 'enemy combatants' and were facing the prospect of indefinite detention or military tribunals until the Supreme Court said that was a bad thing.  Or does American citizenship count for nothing?  And just what is 'technical' citizenship, anyway?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

a military court woulda kicked the evidence obtained by torture. in many ways military courts are more by the book than civvy ones

[longeyes]

If the idea is to send a message to global outlaws, we're doing that.  And it's not a good one.

[Monkeyleg]

Eleven of the twelve jurors voted to convict. One juror--for reasons known only to himself or herself--couldn't vote guilty.

Again, how could the jury find the defendant guilty of the conspiracy to destroy federal property (the embassies), but not in the conspiracy that resulted in the deaths from the destruction of the property?