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

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

has the jury been polled  as far as i know this is the closest we get to that
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/11/17/ahmed-ghailani-guilty-of-conspiracy-but-not-terrorism/

and this bears looking at
But aside from second-guessing the trial result, there’s a problem with that: Judge Lewis Kaplan strongly suggested that he refused to let Abebe testify not just because prosecutors wouldn’t have found him if it weren’t for the torture-induced confession of Ghailani, but also because Abebe himself was coerced to give the testimony he did. Which means we couldn’t know whether his testimony had been shaded to reflect what those coercing him to testify wanted him to say.


plus the one charge carries 20 to life

[Monkeyleg]

plus the one charge carries 20 to life

So he could be out in seven to fifteen.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

not federal time he won't be


no parole

[MillCreek]

not federal time he won't be


no parole

Don't the Feds have good time off sentences?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

maybe  but thats limited  i've never done fed time let me check with a friend who just got out

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://ezinearticles.com/?Calculating-Federal-Good-Time-Credit-and-Time-to-be-Served-on-a-Federal-Prison-Sentence&id=1077955

[MillCreek]

Hmmm.  Only 15% good time credit.  I have read about some of the more crowded state prison systems having 33 % good time credit.

[lupinus]

The result was predictable as soon as it was decided to take it to a civilian court. While a military tribunal isn't a pre-ordained slam dunk either, a civilian court and it's rules are not designed for enemy combatants. Obama was an idiot for choosing this way to go.

Enemy combatants should be tried in a military tribunal, no exceptions IMO.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Hmmm.  Only 15% good time credit.  I have read about some of the more crowded state prison systems having 33 % good time credit.

shoot  back in the day i maxed out a year in 93 days  same courthouse same judge  gave me 12 months county time and it took 248 days to get out

[Monkeyleg]

Obama was an idiot for choosing this way to go.

And it's now getting some press, and people are mad. Obama's not a good politician. Anybody on my local city council could have foreseen the repercussions of this and avoided it.

[drewtam]

The axioms I am arguing from...

* US citizens have an absolute right to trial by jury and all other constitutional protections safeguarded by jurisprudence.
* Non-US citizens who are active in combat operations against the US have no constitutional rights (jury, trial, etc).
* Non-US citizens have human rights (no torture, standard POW practises, etc).
* Other non-US citizens have legal rights according to the treaties we sign with the other particular nation (ex. Geneva)
* I don't play the moral equivalence game... by which I mean, one sin does not cancel another sin.
If the terrorist kills and IF the US commits torture. That does not excuse the terrorist... he should still be shot. That does not excuse the US... the manager/CO and torturer should be imprisoned/impeached.


What Obama has done, is chosen a venue to put on a show trial for the people. He DID NOT have to do this. He had other legitimate options for handling a foreign POW.

The plan backfired for reasons thinking people already knew. Civilian courts are no good for prosecuting wars on foreign soil. Civilian courts are no good for exposing military intelligence. Civilian courts are no good for getting witnesses from hostile foreign countries. Civilian courts are no good investigating hostile armies for acts of war.

We know it is a show trial: After the plan backfired for these obvious reasons, Obama is promising to imprison this guy indefinitely regardless of the sentencing.

[lupinus]

* US citizens have an absolute right to trial by jury and all other constitutional protections safeguarded by jurisprudence.
* Non-US citizens who are active in combat operations against the US have no constitutional rights (jury, trial, etc).
* Non-US citizens have human rights (no torture, standard POW practises, etc).
* Other non-US citizens have legal rights according to the treaties we sign with the other particular nation (ex. Geneva)

True.

But one has to ask, at one point does one give up his citizenship? Someone who renounces their allegiance to this country and takes up arms against it still entitled to all the rights of citizenship?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The axioms I am arguing from...

* US citizens have an absolute right to trial by jury and all other constitutional protections safeguarded by jurisprudence.
* Non-US citizens who are active in combat operations against the US have no constitutional rights (jury, trial, etc).
* Non-US citizens have human rights (no torture, standard POW practises, etc).
* Other non-US citizens have legal rights according to the treaties we sign with the other particular nation (ex. Geneva)
* I don't play the moral equivalence game... by which I mean, one sin does not cancel another sin.
If the terrorist kills and IF the US commits torture. That does not excuse the terrorist... he should still be shot. That does not excuse the US... the manager/CO and torturer should be imprisoned/impeached.


What Obama has done, is chosen a venue to put on a show trial for the people. He DID NOT have to do this. He had other legitimate options for handling a foreign POW.

The plan backfired for reasons thinking people already knew. Civilian courts are no good for prosecuting wars on foreign soil. Civilian courts are no good for exposing military intelligence. Civilian courts are no good for getting witnesses from hostile foreign countries. Civilian courts are no good investigating hostile armies for acts of war.

We know it is a show trial: After the plan backfired for these obvious reasons, Obama is promising to imprison this guy indefinitely regardless of the sentencing.

and the same fed judge has said its kosher

[De Selby]

The result was predictable as soon as it was decided to take it to a civilian court. While a military tribunal isn't a pre-ordained slam dunk either, a civilian court and it's rules are not designed for enemy combatants. Obama was an idiot for choosing this way to go.

Enemy combatants should be tried in a military tribunal, no exceptions IMO.

What is it about a civilian court that is "not designed" for enemy combatants?  Excluding evidence obtained through torture is pretty basic; if a military commission won't do that, it has no hope of meeting even the most bare-bones test for a fair trial.

The reason that this guy was acquitted is that the Government had a bunch of information that wasn't so good, some of it obtained through torture (who knows what its value would have been at trial), and as a result, a jury didn't buy it.  Now they want to find a trial venue where the law and facts won't be so scrutinized - they just want someone who will affirm the accusations. 

[TommyGunn]

    Civilian courts are for civilian criminals.
We're at war with terrorists; they are not criminals.
A military trbunal may ... or may not have come to the same verdict.
Our exalted Obama and Supercop Holder claimed that a civilian court would have no trouble with terrs ... only to achieve this embarrassment served up as humble pie.
There really was no doubt that this character was guilty except the court(s) didn't like the fact that he was identified by a critter who had been  aggressively interrogated.  Aggressive interogation is what you do when an enemy has information you need in a war.
I really am not at all comfortable with providing any of these terrorists with trials.  I am only saying that the military tribunal is the only appropriate place for them if they must be done.

The reason that this guy was acquitted is that the Government had a bunch of information that wasn't so good....

 Oh really?  It still got the thug convicted for 20 to life on the conspiracy charges.  We've released a number of the Quantanamo detainees only to find a substantial % of them actually do go back to the battlefield.  
So all in all I remain quite confident our government has good reason to ... "detain" these Islamonazis.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they might have floated it if they hadn't jacked up both the guy and their main witness. i can't say i disagree with excluding using info gotten under duress   too much of a good thing

[kgbsquirrel]

True.

But one has to ask, at one point does one give up his citizenship? Someone who renounces their allegiance to this country and takes up arms against it still entitled to all the rights of citizenship?

Oh they are citizens still, they simply committed treason, and should be tried for such in a manner befitting a citizen of our country. As for non-US-citizens caught in an active war zone shooting at our guys, without the sanction of a recognizable uniform and/or State entity, I would say a military tribunal is most appropriate and actually quite generous considering they have zero protections as a proper prisoner of war under the Geneva conventions due to their choice in the manner that they are waging war.

All this being said, I can't help but remember an axiom of Judicial process: It is better to be tried in a military court if you are innocent, and a civilian court if you are guilty.

[lupinus]

What is it about a civilian court that is "not designed" for enemy combatants?  Excluding evidence obtained through torture is pretty basic; if a military commission won't do that, it has no hope of meeting even the most bare-bones test for a fair trial.

The reason that this guy was acquitted is that the Government had a bunch of information that wasn't so good, some of it obtained through torture (who knows what its value would have been at trial), and as a result, a jury didn't buy it.  Now they want to find a trial venue where the law and facts won't be so scrutinized - they just want someone who will affirm the accusations. 

Rules, chain of custody, evidence, Miranda rights, etc. Military tribunals have different rules, rules which work with someone caught on a battlefield. Should torture count? No, course not. But that isn't the only thing at issue. They painted him as a poor little errand boy, and some nitwit bought in to it. If he is guilty of helping blow up the buildings, he is guilty of the resulting murders. I have a hard time buying that a military tribunal would have come to a likewise finding.

[MicroBalrog]

If a trial accepts coerced testimony, then it is not a fair trial.

Period. No discussion.

Any evidence received through coerced testimony should be thrown out.

[Monkeyleg]

If a trial accepts coerced testimony, then it is not a fair trial.

You ever been interrogated by cops?

[MicroBalrog]

You ever been interrogated by cops?

If you believe that 'harsh police interrogation' is the same as sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and the other methods authorized for use on illegal combatants, I have news for you.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

You ever been interrogated by cops?

yea  couple dozen times you?   gonna try to equate it with torture?really?  bad decision with me in the room as it were.
they wanna torture him fine use the info to stop further crimes ?  fine  just be aware its not gonna fly in court.  i'm ok with taking him outside and putting oner in his ear but don't try to play games n court to put lipstick on the pig

[De Selby]

Rules, chain of custody, evidence, Miranda rights, etc. Military tribunals have different rules, rules which work with someone caught on a battlefield. Should torture count? No, course not. But that isn't the only thing at issue. They painted him as a poor little errand boy, and some nitwit bought in to it. If he is guilty of helping blow up the buildings, he is guilty of the resulting murders. I have a hard time buying that a military tribunal would have come to a likewise finding.

Well, here's the thing - how do you know that the jurors were "nitwits" to believe this guy was an errand boy in the grand scheme?  Because the Government said so? Or because some guy named him during a session of simulated drowning?

How on earth did anyone become convinced of guilt before these trials even started?

[TommyGunn]

In as much as I don't believe anyone here was present at the trial, that is a rather pointless question.  One might as well ask you why you seem dubious of his guilt when you have as little reason to believe anything as anyone else.

I suppose there are still a few people here who don't believe the government just grabs "terrorists" off the street (or battlefield ... or where-ever) in a willy-nilly fashion.  We don't have to suspend common sense, as we are not yet appointed to a jury to try any particular defendant.

[Monkeyleg]

Yes, I've been interrogated and, no, it was not torture. However, it was coerced.

If a trial accepts coerced testimony, then it is not a fair trial.

How many hours of interrogation before it's "coerced"?

I've been sleep deprived. In fact, I was for many years. Did I torture myself?

As for waterboarding, three terrorists were waterboarded, and this guy wasn't one of them.

He was found guilty of conspiring to blow up two embassies. How could he be not guilty of conspiring in the deaths that resulted?