http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-the-verdict-is-in-on-obamas-terrorism-policy-after-the-ahmed-ghailani-acquittals/19723171

Quote :

"Just two weeks after suffering a crushing setback in the midterm elections, the Obama administration suffered another blow after the acquittal on all but one charge of ex-Gitmo detainee Ahmed Ghailani in a lower Manhattan federal courthouse. "

Quote :

"In its signature case designed to prove that Guantanamo detainees could in fact be successfully prosecuted in the civilian justice system and afforded protection under the U.S. Constitution, the administration whisked Ghailani out of Guantanamo and into a New York courtroom in June 2009. "

Quote :

"A Tanzanian national, Ghailani was accused of participating in the U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998. Ghailani was acquitted of 224 murder charges and instead was found guilty of just one charge of conspiracy to destroy government buildings. Sentencing will take place at a later date. "

Quote :

"Sadly, the Ghailani trial is par for the course for Obama. He has severely misjudged each and every facet of Guantanamo -- from immediately halting military commissions and mandating the closure of its detention facilities as his first priorities announced at inauguration, to insisting on moving detainees to the mainland U.S. and trying some of them in civilian courts. "

11/18/2010 4:06:48 PM

ITT: Norrin Radd and opinion writer J.D. Gordon find minor events that, if stretched and sensationalized, could reflect poorly on Obama.

Quote :

"If rolling the dice to get unanimous verdicts from 12-member juries isn't enough, the strict curtailing of evidence makes convictions even harder."

ITQuote: AOL News writer declares trial by jury to be basically a random number generator.

11/18/2010 4:26:11 PM

Wouldn't a trial with a pre-determined outcome have been a sham?

11/18/2010 4:34:23 PM

^


also I think he could get life in prison on the one charge anyways

11/18/2010 4:35:32 PM

^^They're from that special brand of conservatives that don't understand due process or why we should follow it. The goal of the legal system is to get convictions, not conform to silly standards like individual rights.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 4:35:40 PM

Quote :

"declares trial by jury to be basically a random number generator. "

What else could it be if you are forced to ignore a majority of the evidence in the case?

ITT tromboner claims that if you take the equation 1+1=2 and take out a 1, then the answer can still be 2. 1+x=2 while rational logic shows that 1+x=y

Due process went out the window before these trials started. There is no way to have a proper trial unless you could somehow have a 3rd party "rediscover" evidence in a lawful way.

Quote :

"They're from that special brand of conservatives that don't understand due process or why we should follow it. The goal of the legal system is to get convictions, not conform to silly standards like individual rights. "

ITQuote: tromboner950 stretched and sensationalized the fact that due process was doomed to fail because of the parameters of this trial specifically.
I think we all understand the need for due process under any other circumstance.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 4:54:53 PM

these terrorists shouldn't be in civilian courts.

11/18/2010 5:46:11 PM

There won't be any more trials. They'll just hold everyone else in Guantanamo indefinitely. America is dead. May God bless some other country.

11/18/2010 5:52:18 PM

It's funny how so many of you still think "terrorist" means something other than "criminal we want you to be really scared of..."

11/18/2010 6:02:11 PM

Quote :

"...found guilty of just one charge of conspiracy to destroy government buildings."

...which carries a sentence of 20 years to life in prison.

Also...

Quote :

"Mr. Ghailani, a 36-years-old Tanzanian, was the fifth person to face U.S. charges in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The other four were also tried in civilian court, in 2001, and received life sentences."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703374304575622841902150252.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

11/18/2010 6:02:23 PM

Quote :

"It's funny how so many of you still think "terrorist" means something other than "criminal we want you to be really scared of...""

I hope you aren't talking to me, because that's nowhere close to the definition.

Quote :

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."

-wiki

sounds pretty accurate to me.

11/18/2010 6:19:48 PM

ITT: norrin and others try to defend using evidence gained through torture and try to argue against the system of trial by jury.


[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 6:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 6:21:44 PM

[for non-citizens]

11/18/2010 6:24:29 PM

^^^
Sure, there are different types of criminals.
Ones that kill people are called "murderers".
Ones that steal from people are called "thieves".
Ones that harm innocents to create fear in the name of ideology may be called "terrorists".

But they are criminals. "Criminal" is the most general case. A terrorist is merely a criminal, albeit a specific type.


You guys act like 9/11 changed everything.

I assure you it didn't.

11/18/2010 6:28:50 PM

I never said they weren't criminals.

11/18/2010 6:31:00 PM

Sure, but that's all they are.

People act like they're a different class or order, like foreign soldier, "combatant", or space alien.

They are just criminals.
Nothing is different than it has ever been.
There is no "new threat" to mankind... it's still enemy nations and individual criminals.
(note: individuals form groups, but the group doesn't transcend the individual criminals within it.)

11/18/2010 6:35:46 PM

what's your point? yes. they're criminals. yes, they're murderers and violent and should be punished accordingly. so... ?

11/18/2010 6:45:28 PM

Quote :

"what's your point?"

This: message_topic.aspx?topic=605051&page=1#14409202

The threat of terrorism is not qualitatively nor quantitatively different than the threat from crime in general.

9/11 did not change "everything".

That is my point.

These "enemy combatants" are just criminals, or at most, foreign soldiers.
Instead, the government is treating them like some new thing -- they are not new.

We have century-old methods of law and justice.
Instead, the government is scrapping that in favor of permanent detention, terrorism this, terrorism that.

IT IS CRIME. PERIOD. NOT WAR, NOT SOME NEW THING... JUST CRIME.

PEOPLE NEED TO GET A FUCKING CLUE.

11/18/2010 6:55:07 PM

I didn't realize conservatives hated the constitution and the founding fathers so much.

11/18/2010 7:10:02 PM

^^I thought the point of this thread was to point out that Obama's instance on treating these foreign soldiers, who have committed crimes against this country, differently has failed.

11/18/2010 7:19:00 PM

^ oh, so your problem is that you don't have any idea of what you're actually talking about. How conservative of you.

Quote :

"Mr. Ghailani, a 36-years-old Tanzanian, was the fifth person to face U.S. charges in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The other four were also tried in civilian court, in 2001, and received life sentences."

So, I guess Obama doing things that we've been doing someone how makes them worse than before? I wonder what quality of OBama makes people form this double standard for him, that the things he does are worse than when other people do them...

Seriously William D Price, don't be so stupid.

11/18/2010 7:26:50 PM

^I didn't say that it hadn't been done before. I was simply pointing out that Obama's doing it too. And no matter who did it, I don't agree.

11/18/2010 7:30:14 PM

I don't understand. I thought we were a nation of laws. Someone was tried and convicted. The only miscarriage of justice here seems to be that a jury convicted a man with insufficient evidence. The jury clearly made a bargain among themselves to convict him of something "just in case".

11/18/2010 7:31:57 PM

Ahmed Ghailani will bust up your chifforobe for a nickel.



Different century, different negro being convicted by a jury of his white peers.

11/18/2010 7:43:00 PM

^^^ so you're saying you disagree with Obama's policy of "business as usual"? That you would like to see more change from him?

And it's sad that you hate the principles of freedom and fairness that the modern day United States judicial system strives for. And you and other like-minded assholes would fit right in with the Taliban, they don't care about justice, truth, or virtue either.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2010 7:43:17 PM

Quote :

"century-old methods of law and justice"

are a good thing.
We don't need to re-invent the wheel.

Quote :

"doing things that we've been doing "

haha... and the 2-party system does its thing....

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 7:46 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2010 7:44:43 PM

Quote :

"ITT: norrin and others try to defend using evidence gained through torture and try to argue against the system of trial by jury. "

You missed the point - I didn't say that - the article didn't say that.

The point of the article was that Obama failed to recognize that a "fair" trial by jury was impossible under the circumstances.

Our "justice" system was doomed to fail in this case before it got started. What if your family was one of the 224 killed in the bombing?

Would you say that this trial was fair to you? How could you possibly hope to prosecute this man based on the events prior to the trial?

I am not defending using evidence gained through torture - I am asking what chance did the victims have of obtaining evidence legally? How can you possibly sit back and pretend this was fair to all parties involved because we "followed due process" ?

I don't have the answer - but this doesn't seem to be it.

11/18/2010 9:34:06 PM

Quote :

"What if your family was one of the 224 killed in the bombing?"

You wouldn't be on the jury. The defense would dismiss you during the jury selection process.

11/18/2010 10:17:58 PM

Quote :

"Obama's instance on treating these foreign soldiers, who have committed crimes against this country, differently has failed."

Quote :

"I was simply pointing out that Obama's doing it too. "

o_O

11/18/2010 11:14:51 PM

A jury of his peers would be muslims that hate america. There are lots of them, very easy to locate 12, even in the United States.

11/19/2010 12:15:21 AM

A suspected terrorist is tortured to extract dubious information.

When this suspect is finally brought to trial, much of this "evidence" is ruled inadmissible.

The suspect is acquitted of almost all charges and the torture-mongering wingnuts have no idea why.

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 12:24 AM. Reason : rawful

11/19/2010 12:24:15 AM

Quote :

" The point of the article was that Obama failed to recognize that a "fair" trial by jury was impossible under the circumstances."

Then drop the charges and set him free, as with any criminal when the police fuck up and don't have any evidence. You can watch and hopefully get them next time. Things are done this way for very good reasons.

Quote :

"Our "justice" system was doomed to fail in this case before it got started. What if your family was one of the 224 killed in the bombing?"

I would be very annoyed at the circumstances. Might even try to kill him myself, depending on the evidence. But if the combined might of the state cannot legally provide evidence of guilt, then that alone is proof of innocence. Just because George Bush was convinced of your guilt, does not make it so. Innocent people do exist.

that said, while confessions through torture are worthless, same goes for evidence that is not evidence, but improperly collected physical evidence (no warrant) should not be excluded. We should, instead, go back to the old English tradition of all evidence being admissible, but agents of the state are held liable for their transgressions (lose their job, sued into bankruptcy, and imprisoned if they cannot pay). Such would more properly align incentives. Far better than today, where violating someones rights gets the officer a slap on the wrist and a murderer a free pass out of jail.

11/19/2010 4:08:38 AM

^ so i'm guessing you didn't read the article or case

there was no coersed confession to the crimes - no improperly collected physical evidence

Quote :

"the judge disallowed testimony from a key witness -- Hussein Abebe, whom prosecutors say sold Ghailani the TNT used to blow up the Dar es Salaam embassy (in Tanzania). Citing Ghailani's coerced statements while in CIA custody, which led to Abebe's identity, the judge ruled that any evidence gathered under those conditions -- known as fruit of the poisonous tree -- could not be used. "

We had testimony of the guy that sold him the explosives - but we obtained his "name" through coerced statements. So any real detective work after finding out a name was invalidated because of the way we got the name.

Your last paragraph would lead me to believe you would be in favor of finding guilt in this situation.

11/19/2010 10:31:11 AM

the fed lost the case because they fucked it all up. good. thats the way it should be.

if they declared a mistrial and got a new jury and/or allowed the tainted evidence, then this would be worrysome

11/19/2010 12:50:18 PM

^^ and I would. Indisputable evidence should always be admitted, in my opinion, alongside arrest warrants for whoever elicited the coerced testimony.

But, given what was allowed at trial, I suspect this guy should have gone free, as there was insufficient evidence admitted to court to convict him.

It would be better if the guilty went to jail, rather than the current system which lets criminals go free, including criminals working for the Government that go around coercing statements.

To put it another way, a cop should have the option of sending himself to jail in exchange for nailing a particularly bad guy.

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/19/2010 1:24:48 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you're right.

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2010 1:52:26 PM

Quote :

"A suspected terrorist is tortured to extract dubious information. When this suspect is finally brought to trial, much of this "evidence" is ruled inadmissible. The suspect is acquitted of almost all charges and the torture-mongering wingnuts have no idea why"

Just to touch back - because so many of you seemed to have missed the point on several fronts while posting on the moral high ground.

The premise behind the article was that the "wingnuts" knew exactly why. I believe the author was indicating it was Obama who had no idea why... and if he did - then why didn't he just set all of the prisoners free and be done with it?

Quote :

"Wouldn't a trial with a pre-determined outcome have been a sham?"

This exactly what it was - my whole issue with this situation is that it was a big waste of time. I believe that is what the article was trying to point out. For what reason did Obama send this sham of a trial to our court system?

It feels like a dog and pony show to promote an illusion for both sides politically... and indy sums this up with...

Quote :

"haha... and the 2-party system does its thing...."

11/19/2010 3:40:36 PM

Quote :

"For what reason did Obama send this sham of a trial to our court system?"

Because he decided that showing the world that the US tries its suspects in open court rather than detaining them indefinitely was worth the risk of some of the suspects being found not guilty. I happen to agree with that decision also. So far it's looking pretty good if the only thing you have is one guy getting 20 years instead of life in prison.

11/19/2010 3:50:26 PM

I bet $100 that Obama has authorized torture just like Bush did. He just doesn't brag about it.

11/19/2010 4:24:22 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Ghailani, a 36-years-old Tanzanian, was the fifth person to face U.S. charges in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The other four were also tried in civilian court, in 2001, and received life sentences"

Quote :

"Because he decided that showing the world that the US tries its suspects in open court rather than detaining them indefinitely"

So he put on a dog and pony show and the net result is the same. I'm glad it helps you sleep at night. Still seems like a farce to me.



[Edited on November 20, 2010 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2010 8:59:24 PM

either they are tried in civilian courts and are afforded the rights there in, or they are prisoners of war and are afforded rights guaranteed to them by the geneva conventions and need to be released after the war is over. you can't pick and choose, the war-law hybrid model of justice we had was not just.

11/20/2010 11:53:29 PM

THE "WAR" WILL NEVER BE OVER.

11/21/2010 12:18:59 AM

Quote :

"The first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in a US civilian court has been sentenced to life in prison for conspiring to blow up US embassy buildings."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12283111

Great thread, jackass.

1/25/2011 10:24:16 PM

great.

Quote :

"They're from that special brand of conservatives that don't understand due process or why we should follow it. The goal of the legal system is to get convictions, not conform to silly standards like individual rights."

too bad the government isn't, by law, forced to give non-citizens this right.

1/27/2011 7:11:15 AM

show me in the constitution or penal code where those things are restricted to citizens

1/27/2011 7:47:22 AM

Quote :

"too bad the government isn't, by law, forced to give non-citizens this right."

pretty sure they are, chap.

1/27/2011 8:04:43 AM

before he spends too much time looking, maybe someone should point out that the 5th amendment says "person"

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 10:09 AM. Reason : or maybe not, let him look]

1/27/2011 10:08:52 AM

1/27/2011 7:15:01 PM

facepalm seems about right

1/27/2011 8:23:56 PM

Quote :

"Indisputable evidence should always be admitted, in my opinion, alongside arrest warrants for whoever elicited the coerced testimony"

i actually kinda like this. any particular reason we haven't adopted this policy?

1/28/2011 12:20:01 AM