so much for the "slam dunk"

[scottw]

another nice job by Holder and the Obama Admin.



Alleged Al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani acquitted of all but one charge in embassy bombing trial

the panel cleared Ghailani of more than 280 other counts, including the top charges of murder and murder conspiracy.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

another nice job by Holder and the Obama Admin.

you mean 'another nice job by the jury'

[scottw]

this case was supposed to be a "test case" for future trials....

The first detainee from Guanatamo Bay to be tried in U.S. civilian court has been acquitted on all but one of the more than 280 charges he faced for his alleged role in the coordinated terror bombings of two U.S. embassies overseas.
A jury convicted Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani Wednesday on just one count of conspiracy for the 1998 al Qaeda car bomb attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania — attacks that killed 224. Prosecutors had alleged that Ghailani helped an al-Qaeda cell purchase a truck and components for explosives used in the suicide attack.
“This is Ahmed Ghailani. This is Al Qaeda. This is a terrorist. This is a killer,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Chernoff said in closing arguments.On Wednesday, Ghailani was acquitted on all 276 murder and attempted murder accounts, as well as five other conspiracy charges.
After deliberating for five days, the jury returned with a guilty verdict on just one conspiracy count, a minor charge for “conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property with explosives.”



Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee under questioning from Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat:

Kohl: Mr. Holder, last week you announced that the department will bring to Guantanamo [sic in transcript] detainees accused of planning the 9/11 attacks to trial in federal court in New York, as we've talked about this morning. On Friday you said that you'd not have authorized prosecution if you were not confident that the outcome would be successful. However, many critics have offered their own predictions about how such a trial might well play out.
One concern we have heard from critics of your decision is that the defendants could get off on legal technicalities, in which case these terrorists would walk free. Does this scenario have any merit? If not, why? And in the worst case scenario that the trial does not result in a conviction, what would be your next steps?

Holder: Many of those who have criticized the decision--and not all--but many of those who have criticized the decision have done so, I think, from a position of ignorance. They have not had access to the materials that I have had access to.
They've not had a chance to look at the facts, look at the applicable laws and make the determination as to what our chances of success are. I would not have put these cases in Article III courts if I did not think our chances of success were not good--in fact, if I didn't think our chances of success were enhanced by bringing the cases there. My expectation is that these capable prosecutors from the Justice Department will be successful in the prosecution of these cases.

Kohl: But taking into account that you never know what happens when you walk into a court of law, in the event that for whatever reason they do not get convicted, what would be your next step? I'm sure you must have talked about it.

Holder: What I told the prosecutors and what I will tell you and what I spoke to them about is that failure is not an option. Failure is not an option. This--these are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result.

[buckman]

Holder needs to be fired.

[RIJIMMY]

failure is not an option

[Nebe]

This upsets me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I think you're forgetting the part about the guy having to serve 20 to life depending on the sentence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you're forgetting the part about the guy having to serve 20 to life depending on the sentence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are appealing the one charge that he was found guilty of...so I guess we'll see...

[PaulS]

The problem was not the choice of a court. The problem with this case was Bush’s authorizing the illegal detention, abuse and torture of detainees. Ghailani was held for five years in outlaw C.I.A. prisons and at Guantánamo and was abused and tortured.. The prosecution could not use his interrogation b/c of that and couldn't introduce testimony by another witness because interrogators learned his name from Ghailani’s coerced testimony. That tainted evidence would have been excluded in a military trial. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. He had a fair trial and now will prob. never see the outside of the prison.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The problem was not the choice of a court. The problem with this case was Bush’s authorizing the illegal detention, abuse and torture of detainees. Ghailani was held for five years in outlaw C.I.A. prisons and at Guantánamo and was abused and tortured.. The prosecution could not use his interrogation b/c of that and couldn't introduce testimony by another witness because interrogators learned his name from Ghailani’s coerced testimony. That tainted evidence would have been excluded in a military trial. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. He had a fair trial and now will prob. never see the outside of the prison.

yeah, that's the first Blame Bush attempt I 've seen over this..Spence didn't even offer it up...

Holder: Many of those who have criticized the decision--and not all--but many of those who have criticized the decision have done so, I think, from a position of ignorance. They have not had access to the materials that I have had access to.
They've not had a chance to look at the facts, look at the applicable laws and make the determination as to what our chances of success are. I would not have put these cases in Article III courts if I did not think our chances of success were not good--in fact, if I didn't think our chances of success were enhanced by bringing the cases there. My expectation is that these capable prosecutors from the Justice Department will be successful in the prosecution of these cases.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The problem was not the choice of a court. The problem with this case was Bush’s authorizing the illegal detention, abuse and torture of detainees. Ghailani was held for five years in outlaw C.I.A. prisons and at Guantánamo and was abused and tortured..

What "illegal" detention affected this case? Judge Kaplan said that he could be detained even if he was found not guilty. Unlawful enemy combantants can be held until combat has ended. How was Ghailani abused? How was he tortured? He may have been coerced through "enhanced" interogation, but has torture been proven? Which C.I.A. agents have the Obama administration convicted for "outlaw" prisons or torture?

The prosecution could not use his interrogation b/c of that and couldn't introduce testimony by another witness because interrogators learned his name from Ghailani’s coerced testimony. That tainted evidence would have been excluded in a military trial. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. He had a fair trial and now will prob. never see the outside of the prison.

It was judge Kaplan that decided the Ghailani confession was coerced, I don't know if a military tribunal would have concluded the same, but the judges decision barred the evidence from the civilian trial as well, so how does that make the point that "tainted" evidence would have excluded a military trial? The over 280 counts for which Ghailani was found not guilty didn't depend on that "tainted" evidence. Ghailani was indicted before the government even knew about the "key witness" that was excluded because of the so-called "tainted" evidence. Eric Holder felt he had enough evidence on those counts to slam dunk guilty verdicts. The military tribunal could also try Ghailani on other counts than that which depended on "tainted" evidence. And it would not have to depend on jurors of uncertain persuasion to find a verdict.

As far as blaming Bush for the civilian verdict, his choice of Attorney General, and his choice of which court to try, were not in play. Neither you nor I can know what the outcome would have been under Bush. This is Obama's game now. It's his team and his decisions.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The problem was not the choice of a court. The problem with this case was Bush’s authorizing the illegal detention, abuse and torture of detainees. Ghailani was held for five years in outlaw C.I.A. prisons and at Guantánamo and was abused and tortured.. The prosecution could not use his interrogation b/c of that and couldn't introduce testimony by another witness because interrogators learned his name from Ghailani’s coerced testimony. That tainted evidence would have been excluded in a military trial. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. He had a fair trial and now will prob. never see the outside of the prison.

They should have gotten what they needed from him and dropped him off in the Atlantic with a row boat and then he could have been granted his freedom. If his comrades got a hold of one of us I guarantee they would not have been that kind.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

they are appealing the one charge that he was found guilty of...so I guess we'll see...

The judge in this case has stated that the conviction wasn't even close, and I think 4 other terrorists have already been sentenced to life in civilian trials on basically the same evidence.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The judge in this case has stated that the conviction wasn't even close, and I think 4 other terrorists have already been sentenced to life in civilian trials on basically the same evidence.

-spence

wasn't even close?
Jury ends day without verdict in NY terror case
Deliberations at the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee hit a snag Monday when a juror told the judge she felt threatened by other jurors and asked him to be removed from the panel.

By TOM HAYS

Associated Press

Related

NEW YORK —
Deliberations at the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee hit a snag Monday when a juror told the judge she felt threatened by other jurors and asked him to be removed from the panel.

The note raised the specter of a hung jury because the juror said she was at odds with the rest of the panel as they try to settle on a verdict on terror charges against Ahmed Ghailani in federal court in Manhattan.

"My conclusion is not going to change," she wrote without indicating her position. "I feel (I am being) attacked for my conclusion."

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

wasn't even close?

Legally speaking on the indictment for which he was convicted, yes...

I guess we could remove the jury from the process if it would help make the conviction easier. We might as well just admit the evidence obtained under torture and/or coercion as well.

Hell, if the point of the exercise is to punish the man, we might as well just ship him off to an undisclosed location and rub him out.

The point is retribution and not justice...right?

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

I think people.....myself included....prefer he was hanging from the end of a rope

[PaulS]

so he got off?

[scottw]

I'm sure that the families of the 212 murdered feel that way, yes....

this was the test trial for future prosecutions...he "escaped" all but one of nearly 300 charges...and will appeal the one that he did not escape...not looking good for future trials...dumb decision by Holder and Obama

[PaulS]

I thought the sentence could be 20 to life? If I had anything to do with the case, I'd be pissed at anyone whose actions led to some of the evidence not being allowed in court (civilian or military).

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I thought the sentence could be 20 to life? If I had anything to do with the case, I'd be pissed at anyone whose actions led to some of the evidence not being allowed in court (civilian or military).

then you can thank the Clinton appointed judge for hamstringing the prosecution as well as Holder for giving a foreign terrorist access to our civilian legal system

[PaulS]

So what would have been the difference if its was a military court - nothing. Much of the evidence would have still been thrown out. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. Blame Bush.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So what would have been the difference if its was a military court - nothing. Much of the evidence would have still been thrown out. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. Blame Bush.

I don't know about that...and I'm sure that this would not have happened..

"One news report suggests the verdict was a compromise to appease one juror who was holding out for an acquittal on all charges."

Review & Outlook: The Verdict on Holder - WSJ.com

[PaulS]

The article never mentions the all important fact that that the tribunals act bars coerced evidence.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The article never mentions the all important fact that that the tribunals act bars coerced evidence.

you are the only one that I've seen mention it and/or suggest that the outcome would have been the same in a military proceeding...

"So what would have been the difference if its was a military court - nothing."

wait..I apologize..Biden hailed the result and claimed that the outcome would have been the same..or worse in a military proceeding....Vice President Joe Biden is not only painting the single Ahmed Ghailani guilty verdict as a victory, but saying that the outcome of this first-of-its-kind trial is better than if Ghailani had been tried in a military tribunal.

Biden....."He's getting a longer sentence. He'll be in jail longer than if any other method were tried."

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are the only one that I've seen mention it and/or suggest that the outcome would have been the same in a military proceeding...

Plenty of legal experts, including the Judge in the case have said exactly that.

While there is a reasonable argument to the merits of trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts, 95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security.

The proof is in the pudding.

Federal courts have a solid track record of trying and convicting (150 or so since 9/11) real terrorists. The result is a lot of life sentences. Say what you want about the most recent case...he's going to prison and may very well die there.

How many terrorism convictions have military tribunals brought? I believe the answer is a thunderous THREE with two of those cases bringing no more than a slap on a wrist.

As PaulS rightly observes, this debate is really about what you believe in.

Do you respect the Rule of Law and believe in the proven strength of the US Constitution? Or do you find secret detentions, torture and tribunals (that may not even meet international legal standards) to be an acceptable and ethically sound mode by which to operate?

Separate the politics from reality and the absurdity of threads like this is painfully clear.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Plenty of legal experts, including the Judge in the case have said exactly that. name one

-spence

....I've read a lot regarding this case that is contrary to what you claim... neither of you have provided anything to support your claims and I've seen very little from anyone to support what either of you suggest....the WH isn't even rolling with your contentions....talk about separated from reality and absurdity

maybe watching too much MSNBC?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

....I've read a lot regarding this case that is contrary to what you claim... neither of you have provided anything to support your claims and I've seen very little from anyone to support what either of you suggest....the WH isn't even rolling with your contentions....talk about separated from reality and absurdity

Neither Holder or the Military Commission process was seeking the death penalty and it's quite likely he's going to spend life in prison. Is there something in between death and a life sentence that I'm missing?

Regardless, even the Judge says had the guy been acquitted on all counts he wouldn't have been set free.

Moreover, it is appropriate to emphasize that Ghailani remains subject to trial on the pending indictment, that he faces the possibility of life imprisonment if convicted, and that his status as an "enemy combatant" probably would permit his detention as something akin to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end even if he were found not guilty in this case.


United States v. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, S10 98 Crim. 1023 (LAK)

or this...

Second, it really is not clear that prosecutors would have fared better in a military commission. There is a fairly pervasive myth that military commissions represent the tough option, while federal courts represent the soft, wussy option. You know the trope: Military commissions represent a war mentality (tough, manly, conservative), while federal courts represent a pre-9/11 law enforcement mentality (weak, emasculated, liberal). The gross underperformance of the military commissions over many years has not shaken the trope, nor has their quiet development towards greater due process norms. There is no particular reason to think that the government would have gotten in before a commission the key witness that the court in New York excluded. The simple reality is that one cost of interrogating Ghailani in the CIA’s high-value program over a long period of time is to make any subsequent trial difficult.


Lawfare The Politics of the Ghailani Verdict

or this...

This problem, moreover, would in no way be “solved” by trying suspects in military commissions. Military trials also preclude the use of involuntary confessions – as indeed must any system of justice that could even hope to be called fair.

A Fair Trial, Without Torture's Taint - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

or this...

Moreover, there is no guarantee that a military commission, the preferred alternative of many critics, would have produced a tougher result. Such commissions are not apt to admit statements coerced through torture, so the star witness rejected by a federal judge probably would have been excluded by the military court as well. And in 2008, a military jury rejected the Bush administration's argument that Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was a hardened al-Qaeda operative, acquitted him of the most serious charges and sentenced him to a mere five months on top of time served.

Acquittal in terror case shows justice system's strength

According to the Military Commissions Manual:

[304(a)(1)] No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. . . . whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission . . . .

Seems like the system, yet again, worked.

-spence

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security.

and that is the only reason I posted here. Its a constant theme in the Repub. attacks.

King and McCain know better.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=PaulS;812265]

Originally Posted by spence

95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security./QUOTE]

and that is the only reason I posted here. Its a constant theme in the Repub. attacks.

King and McCain know better.

absolutely...

11/18/2010 Democrat Senator Jim Webb said that the verdict proves “that those charged with crimes of war and those who have been determined to be dangerous law-of-war detainees do not belong in our courts, our prisons or our country. I again call on President Obama to use the new military commission system that is in place to try the terrorist detainees.” He points out that this new system balances robust procedural and substantive rights for the defendants, including prohibiting the introduction of evidence obtained through torture.

[spence]

You said name one, I named several. You can try to shoot the messenger, but the fact remains they all make a pretty consistent point.

What's interesting is that of all those indicted in the 1998 US Embassy bombing that are still alive and have been apprehended, two are being held in the UK fighting extradition, one is still in GITMO and all the rest have been successfully convicted in US Federal civilian courts.

Why are you trying to distract people from the answer to your own question?

-spence