Guantanamo Detainee Ghailani Convicted on Just 1 Charge
 

Thanks a lot, Mr. Obama. You fucked us royally.

BBC News - Ghailani guilty of one charge for 1998 US embassy bombs

BBC News - Ghailani case foreshadows future terror trials

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | World News :: US jury convicts Guantanamo man

Guantanamo Detainee Ghailani Convicted on Just 1 Charge by N.Y. Jury | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

i've seen this "argument" coming from various loons on the right, as if the only acceptable outcome for them for a "trial" was a conviction, which presumably would function to legitimate the legal black hole created by those lovely neo-fascists in the bush administration around the lovely non-category of not-quite-enemy-combattant-in-a-not-quite-war so that not only did basic due process and/or habeas corpus not apply but neither did the geneva convention.

so what the rightwing loons want is show trials. military kangaroo courts that should function to say effectively "so what about blowing off due process and the basic protections accorded prisoners of war? we got the right people."

and in that way, the rightwing loons can sleep a little better, using that fine stalinist mode of argumentation that the end justifies the means which of course they'd deplore as "communist" in any context in which it was convenient for them to deplore it. just as they don't deplore it when it's convenient for them not to.


one thing the rightwing loons cannot abide is that there were shabby, ill-considered cases often based on nothing that resulted in most of the people at gitmo being imprisoned falsely and without any recourse.

which i suppose is fine so long as it's just a bunch of brown people with funny names whose imprisonment makes white people everywhere sleep a little easier.

so the only people who seem to have been injured by this are american rightwing loons and other neo-fascists who have an interest in the overall process of trying to erase the problematic aspects of the bush period---you know, the war crimes----by trying to create the impression of necessity.

due process. what a bummer.

Bush illegally tortures this guy causing the court to throw out evidence leading to him getting acquitted on all but one charge and you blame Obama? What did Obama do wrong, follow the constitution that he swore an oath to uphold?

And they were off to such a good start by getting a plea bargain out of a child soldier they prosecuted.

this guy will get a minimum of 20 years. are the rabid anti-terrorist folks that upset that this character isn't going to be executed?

I am right-wing and I want a few good show trials convicting terrorists, but I don't consider myself a loon.

We are at war. There are people trying to kill us using any available means. Any type of trial during war should be considered above and beyond what is expected. And occasionally having a trial of a captive can be very useful propaganda to the enemy and to people who have had loved ones fall victim of war.

Yes, I used the word propaganda. Again, we are at war. To the degree you don't think we are at war in my view determines how extreme you perceive my view point. That is the root question. and no agreement can be had on any point that follows if there is no agreement on the answer to that question. Continue with the superficial name calling, it never gets old.:shakehead:

In other words, we are at war against people who want to destroy our way of life, so in order to deter them, we will voluntarily dispense with some of the very things that make our way of life valuable, like respect for the rule of law or faith in our system of criminal justice or our expectations of privacy or the idea that the president can't order extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens.

Is the idea that we can get the terrorists to stop hating us for our freedoms by getting rid of our freedoms?

On the subject at hand, I don't have a problem with it. All these folks should be charged in the criminal courts, where, you know, standards typically help ensure that the accused receive a fair trial using appropriately gathered evidence. While I have no doubt that military courts would successfully convict guilty folks, I also have no doubt that it is practically a statistical certainty that the government will use flawed evidence to convict people who aren't guilty.

In war, normally people kill other people - there is no judicial rule of law. In war, normally people destroy the property of other people - there is no judicial rule of law. The only reason to have a trial involving the enemy is to send a message. The message sent in this case is that the US is weak, we are being laughed at.

In war, people who aren't fighting it make trite allusions to the fact that war is currently being waged to justify the wholesale abandonment of their values. Because, why, I mean, WAR!!!!!!!!

That's dumb. Judicial rule doesn't exist in nature either, we choose to impose it because it makes sense to do so in a civilized society that cares about the rights of human beings, regardless of what they may or may not have done. The fact that we are at war is irrelevant.

Who's laughing at us, Ace? Have you been asking around at the supermarket again?

...

the call from the right for inquisitorial kangaroo courts is lunacy.

it's not about this war or that war. it is about the ongoing attempts from the right to obscure it's own record of disaster. one of the ways in which this argument has been made from the outset has been to say that if the obama administration continues a bush policy, it must be that the bush policy was rational or necessary.

this of course presupposes that it's possible to airbrush out pretty much the entire history of the past decade. and maybe the "tea party" indicates that for certain segments of the far right, this reality-optional move has some persuasive power. but that airbrushing is also a basic denial of what we call the reality principle. and that is a basic characteristic of dissociative disorders. and that is, strictly, lunacy.

so loons like peter king argue that something has been compromised because due process was in place and improperly gathered evidence was thrown out.
but they're really arguing against having to address the bush period.

Ace,

You are kidding, right? Show trials? I'm speechless.

One can not equate the immediate actions surrounding "take that hill" with the deliberative process of a trial, located safely outside of the war zone.

...

but what else does the right's criticisms of civilian trials amount to than a call for show trials?

and what other motivation could there be for show trials apart from the politics of avoiding the reality of the bush administration's choices by pretending their legitimate? the only way guantanomo could possibly be legitimated from that entirely cynical/tactical viewpoint is for there to be convictions.


because the law is drawn to the guilty.

http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/gallery_im...ouring_mid.jpg

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------

I will pretend that I am the only one who appreciates a good show trial, but didn't Holder say something like assuring us that he was going to get convictions.

Either we are at war and this guy was entitled to protections from the Geneva Convention or we're not and he is entitled to due process in a civilian court. You can't have it both ways, claiming the moral high ground while making up the rules as you go.

There is no parole in the federal system, this guy has a minimum 20yr sentence and likely more.

Do you take the position they don't exist? That they don't happen? If they do happen, why do you think they happen? You never followed a show trial? You never got satisfaction from a known guilty person being convicted?

Gee, am I the only person who can be honest?

That is not the connection.

---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

What about modern-era show trials. Wasn't Saddam Husein's trial was a show trial, I enjoyed that, didn't you?

The only, rare justification I could see for military tribunals in lieu of civilian trials is when the evidence presented could expose US intelligence gathering capabilities. This exception should be used with great discretion. Those being tried for breaking civilian federal laws should be tried in civilian court.

My trouble has always been, if the accused is convicted (emphasis on "if". Sorry, Ace.), the placement of these guys into civilian penal systems. Because they would need special consideration, it may place a strain on an existing system. I don't know the best answer there.

Due process has already failed, they should have moved through the judicial system years ago.

Ace, show trials imply the absence of due process.

...

Do you think he was responsible the the bombing? Do you think justice was done with a not guilty verdict on the charges involving the deaths of hundreds of people? Most people I know actually think he was guilty and that the trial was just a formality.

...

I pretty much agree with you here.

But I do think we're in a lose/lose situation simply because the laws that were in place at the start of "WOT" do not deal well with enemy combatants who are not in uniform.

Honestly I'd like to see the guy do more then 20yrs but I'll take that over letting him go free.

I think a show trial is when "everyone" knows and accepts that the person charged is actually guilty - and are used to send a message. Many, said that a civilian trial came with risks, but people in this administration assured us that the "Gitmo show trials" (my words) would go as expected. Wasn't that the message you heard, even if you don't call them "show trials"?

No guilty and innocent are two separate things. OJ was found not guilty in his wife and her friends murder. Doesn't mean he didn't do it, just means the legal evidence did not convince a jury.

you can't torture someone and expect that the evidence you gather is admissible.
you can't torture people period.
but if you're in some ethics-challenged world inhabited by neo-cons and their pet dogs like ace here, you might be too blinkered to get with the injunction against torture, so the other one---which is that what you get from torture is worthless---might stop you.

so i'm all in favor of due process.
and the fact is that i'm as concerned that the bush people tried to throw the rules of post world war 1 civilization out the window because of their Outrage over the fact that it was the Mighty United of States The Greatest Empire in the History of Empires Full of the Most Virtuous People in the History of Virtue Who Live in the Most Amazing Way in the History of Amazingness that got attacked.

...

My point is that I may be the only one to admit what I said or that millions share the sentiment - I agree that you may not share my views, but do you pretend that I am so in the minority that I am a "loon"? If that is your position, I don't think you understand human nature.

ace, are you really trying this argument again?

how is it any different from that old line: "eat shit: a hundred million flies can't be wrong."

...

I know the difference, my point is that in some cases the risk of guilty people walking is unacceptable. The message sent from this "show trial" is the absolute wrong message and it will cost us.

Well, I suppose due process and the rule of law isn't very popular when applied to enemies of the state.

I suppose that's why we have courts instead of mob rule.

o and i used the word loon in part to generate a debate around a really poorly formed op. i figured it was either do something like that or shut the thread down. i thought the topic interesting enough to try to kick it into something viable.

the person whom i had in mind as "loon" was peter king. but he is one.
you may well be too, ace. but i didn't refer to you specifically, nor did i have you in mind.

i was surprised when you came out supporting a stalinist line of political expediency though. thought you conservatives were above all that.

If he was tortured they should have a trial of those responsible of the torture. But, he was not tortured. He was the enemy in a war and should have been treated as such and not given a civilian trial that would lead to a not guilty verdict.

---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------

I don't argue morality. Morality is between you and your belief system. I argue that "show trials" have a purpose and that when they are conducted they need to go as planned. I doubt I am the only one who sees, understands and accepts this.

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 PM ----------

The word was used in a earlier post describing people who share my view. It was presented to you in the form of a question, if I failed to use a question mark, my apology.

...

What does rule of law and due process have to do with war? To me those are criminal prosecution concepts. The position of many is that these matters are not criminal matters eventhough they were treated that way many times in the past. The Bush administration approach was the correct approach in my view, and in this case the risks were simply to great for a civilian trial.

---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ----------

Perhaps someone will do a poll and tell some what to think. I bet the poll will show that the result of this trial was a very, very, bad thing. Perhaps, even a few liberals will agree.

personally, i don't see the result as a bad thing.
the bad thing was the policy direction chosen by the bush administration. had they acted like a civilized bunch in charge of a country for which the rule of law was important, the outcome would have been different.

so i see the problems with the verdict as being squarely at the feet of people like you, ace.

due process functions as a practical repudiation of bush period thinking.

so you've little choice but to oppose due process.

like a good little stalinist dog. do you do tricks? like purge all the engineers in heavy industry?


o and maybe if you read something not printed by conservative you'd know about the torture problem

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...trial-reaction

it explains why the proceeding went as it did.
it's transparent what's happening here, ace.
the more stuff that comes out about what the bush administration allowed to happen, the worse it is for republicans.
since conservatives routinely confuse their self-interest with that of all americans, a Problem for the republicans is a national security crisis.

plus show trials=stalinism.

Ace,

The generally accepted definition of "Show trial" is that the accused will be found guilty, regardless of whether he actually did it or not. Trying someone who was caught redhanded is not a show trial. It may feel like we are simply going through the motions, but it is not a show trial. "Show trial" has a very negative connotation to a civilized people because implies there is no rule of law in the land.

Since some people feel as if the Guantanomo detainees were either unjustly apprehended or that the evidence against them was plucked from the poisonous tree, the use of the term "show trial" only enhances their assertion that those wishing to have them convicted punished severely do not seek justice - but revenge. Once again, the rule of law being denied.

You and I are incapable of determining guilt for these people. We don't know the details of their alleged crimes or whether the rule of law was used in collecting the evidence against them. So, once again, assuming they are all guilty and should be sentenced as such to "send a message", only sends a message that the rule of law is not followed in
our land and that we are vengeful even in our deliberative trial environment. That's not what we stand for. I wish you could just say, "Yeah, that's a misuse of the term. Sorry for that."

rb -

....this is hilarious! I'm still chuckling over it. Good stuff! I didn't know you knew where the shift key was! :) (Yeah, yeah, I know it's part of your shtick.)

You mean they should have just shot him?

They aren't criminal matters? Are you saying no crime was committed and that no trial should have taken place at all? Are you saying that he simply remains an enemy combatant?

Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of law and war even after the 20th century has come and gone?

Which approach was that? Incarcerate them indefinitely without charges and leave them in legal limbo?

...

...and another thing, Ace, we are not at war, we are in military conflict. If this amounts to a war, as you assert, then we need to put poor people in Guantanamo as enemy combatants in the War on Poverty.