so much for the "slam dunk"

[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

[scottw]

yeah Spence this is great...did you read any of what you posted?

Acquittal in terror case shows justice system's strength
Thursday, November 18, 2010; 8:44 PM
THE STUNNING verdict in the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee is an embarrassment for the Obama administration, but it should not deter officials from considering federal court prosecutions for others being held at the U.S. naval base.



" fairly pervasive myth that military commissions represent the tough option, while federal courts represent the soft, wussy option. You know the trope:" is this legal lingo?

and this guy sounds balance and fair and "separated from politics"

A Fair Trial, Without Torture's Taint
Updated November 19, 2010, 07:58 AM

David Cole is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and the author, most recently, of “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable.”

Right-wing commentators, always eager to say “I told you so,” have jumped on the verdict in the criminal trial of Ahmed Ghailani as proof that we cannot try Al Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.


...............................

Andy McCarthy has been very good on this throughout...

Coercion Is Not Torture
November 19, 2010 12:05 P.M. By Andy McCarthy
I empathize with commentators on legal matters. There usually isn’t enough airtime or print-space to explain adequately complex issues. So commentators naturally take shortcuts. Often, the shortcuts do a real disservice. That is consistently happening in the Ghailani coverage, in which experts are conflating two very different things: coercion and torture.

The issue comes up because Ghailani’s confessions were not offered into evidence and a key witness identified during interrogation was not permitted to testify. Ghailani was subjected to enhanced interrogation tactics by the CIA in 2004. He repeated what he’d told the CIA to the FBI under the latter’s gentler questioning methods in 2007. Commentators are saying that the witness was barred and the confessions were not introduced because Ghailani was “tortured.”

This is not true. It is also a slanderous allegation, and I’m surprised to hear normally careful people throw it around so casually.

That’s undoubtedly why the Obama Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone over it, despite ceremoniously reopening torture investigations against the CIA. In any event, while we can stipulate that Ghailani was made very uncomfortable, there is no colorable evidence that he was “tortured” in the legal sense of that term


..............
and offers a compromise...something in here for everyone I think

How Should Terrorists Be Tried? - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online