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.

I can't believe the turn this thread took. Instead of discussing the details of the trial and the implications of it in the future, here we are debating whether show trials are a good thing.

ace, your acceptance and support of authoritarianism is a bit unnerving.

most authoritarian regimes justify themselves as being mostly about expedience.

Feynman perfectly explains the problem we have in this thread. Jump to 0m50s if the link doesn't.

If you're talking to someone who truly (and I never know with ace) believes that trials where the victor is already determined, or one where "everyone" knows the result before the trial begins, then you can't even begin to have a conversation about this trial in any sort of objective light. You're coming from entirely different assumptions, assumptions about what makes us America, about when the 'end justifies the means' (if ever), about whether being "at war" with someone should determine our actions, etc. The reason for this derailment is because ace made it a point to get his position addressed, and it's entirely a different topic than the OP's. You can't ever reach agreement on THIS issue if you don't even come from a similar set of assumptions about the rule of law or the nature of America.

I'll take a labyrinthine bureaucracy over an efficient authoritarianism any day.

ace, what risks were so great?

The Bush administration tried and convicted hundreds of "terrorists" in civilian courts sinjce 9/11:
Where was your outrage in these cases, ace? Where was the risk that concerns you so much?

The President of the United States, a lawyer, Constitutional law professor - stated that KSM, another Gitmo detainee, would be convicted and put to death when asked about the concerns of a civilian trial. His guarantee in light of the many concerns should be more disturbing than anything I post here. President Obama set the tone. We should not have civilian trials for enemy combatants. It is this administration that put the concept of "show trials" on the table. I think if we are going to have them, they need to turnout correctly.

Do you need me to find the President's actual quote or do you recall it?

---------- Post added at 12:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 AM ----------

I have no power in this regard, so are you directing your comment to the current administration that elected to conduct "show trials"?

I enjoyed a good roller derby match back in the day, so the issue of me wanting to see a good "show trial" should be put into perspective. I am not President, not the AG, not a Supreme Court Justice, not in Congress - I just want to see justice be done and I want to send a message to those who want to kill us and not a message that we are a joke.

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 AM ----------

The risk that there is a judge or juror unwilling to do what is right for some reason.

This is an evolving matter. As we have gained more information it has become clear to some that many of these terrorist activities are not criminal matters and should not be treated as such, they are enemy combatants engaged in war.

My outrage is with a known guilty terrorist who killed innocent people not being found guilty for those deaths.

---------- Post added at 01:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------

If a mass murderer has been convicted of a crime and is scheduled to be executed and he was then connected to additional murders - would you conduct a trial? If so, why? What would be the point?

Answering those questions is the opening to understanding my position. I would conduct the trials, even delay the execution, and part of the reason would be to send a message. One, the family of the victims deserves closure. Two, to show that crimes will be solved. Three, to send a message to wanna be murderers. The trial would not so much be for justice but to send those messages, for the "show". In my mind, this has nothing to do with political persecution or fabricated justice.

I have no idea what you mean by an evolving matter, given that some of the most potentially dangerous terrorists were convicted in a federal court -- the so-called 20th hijacker Zacharias Moussaoui, the shoe bomber Richard Reid, the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla.

The risk? That a jury might demonstrate greater respect for the rule of law than those who are unwilling to acknowledge that torture and other questionable treatment of detainees in CIA black prisons is illegal under US law and treaty obligations... not to mention such testimony being highly questionable and unreliable.

I'm a big fan of justice. I really like the way our justice system works, where evidence is presented and adversaries, for and against, are charged with fulfilling their duty regardless of personal feelings. I especially like innocent until proven guilty. It's quite brilliant. I like most of all that its central aim is to convict the guilty and free the innocent.

We won't know who in Gitmo, or any other detention center (or whatever you'd like to call them), is guilty until they're tried in a court of law. The evidence should be presented for and against guilt and an impartial juror or jurors decide, based solely on the case, if the individual is actually guilty. The guilty should be necessarily sentenced and the innocent should go free.

I'm a big fan of justice.

I've heard of some folks who suffer from a condition in which a narcissistic conviction that they are right (and therefore the concept of justice does not apply to them exactly) is combined with a tedious preoccupation with their own honor and virtue. They call them qaida, qeada, qayda...something like that.

I will admit that I will let the lawyers decide this stuff and pay attention to the details. But, I'm wondering if military law is applied in Civilian court if these prisoners were captured by the military? If they were tortured, would that evidence be admissible? And shouldn't some parts of the testimony be classified and not put into public record for a set number of years?

And everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Now, it is debatable what the burden of proof is, but that needs be worked on.

For those whose guilt is in question, a trial is fine. The problem I have with a civilian trial is the expense for security and such. There were claims that one trial in NYC would cost $1 billion which I found absurd. So let them have a military trial at Gitmo.

For those who admit/brag they are guilty like the guy claiming credit for 9/11, or those who were caught in the act like the shoe bomber, why even bother with a trial. Just parachute them into a live fire military training exercise or something.

I used this example before and I will put more emphasis on it.

The Saddam Husein trial was a show trial.
There was absolutely no possibility that he was going to be found not guilty.
There was no possibility that he was ever going to be a free man.
Our government allowed the trial, because we knew these things.
The only point of the trial, was for the "show".

Yet, we play pretend here.

How about a Osama Bin Laden trial if he is captured, is there any possibility that we would allow him to not be convicted?

Would you have a trial for him? Why? Would you risk him walking the streets of NY a free man if he is found not guilty? Would you risk the message sent if a judge or a juror with an agenda cause an innocent verdict?

And it goes for some others - if all you see in the concept of "show trial" is Stalinistic justice, that is your limitation, not a problem with me.

I think you protest a little too much, Ace. So you misunderstood the concept of a show trial. So what?

I think he just "misunderestimates" the effectiveness of the American system of justice....that has resulted in the capturing of more alleged terrorists through legal criminal investigations than through detainment and torture in black prisons and prosecuting those alleged according to due process and with evidence that was gathered according to law.

Perhaps you're right.

Sadly, I expect he will continue to "refudiate"(dont you just love those Bushisms and Palinims) the rule of law and the concept of holding ourselves to higher moral standards than the enemy.

Hey "refudiate" is Oxfords "word of the year." Who knows maybe next years will be "ya'betcha?"

On the topic at hand- Data and facts have little to do with many people opinion of the world around them. For many it's much easier to watch "24' and think that's the way we should do things, it works so well. Myself I prefer to watch "The Family Guy" and think "yeah, that's pretty much the way things are."

What scares me is that it appears that some here would not know when a "show trial" is occurring. At first I simply expressed frustration over a trial that should not have been a civil trial, but given the responses to the concept of a "show trial" it is interesting. Now you state that I don't understand, there are different types of "show trials" - I described one type previously - here is another type - During the Jim Crow era in this country, there were often trials of KKK members - these were "show trials" where everyone knew a not guilty verdict would be obtained. Everyone knew it. Were those not "show trials"?

um, not to my understanding. There may be another term for trials that are slanted toward a pre-determined not-guilty verdict, but it's always been my understanding that 'show trials' were ones in which a guilty verdict was pre-determined and the court proceedings are played out in a way which makes possible no other conclusion. Kind of like Alice in the Queen of Hearts court, lol.

Not that it matters really. Quibbling.

I simply try to think things through to the logical conclusion. I can appreciate missing important points and some things that are obvious, it happens to the best. But, I don't run from my views and I defend them until I see a reason to change them. At this point I am not clear on what the disagreement is.

Do you think "show trials" are a perversion of justice in all cases?
Do you think the US Judicial system is too sophisticated for "show trials"?
Do you think our Constitution prevents "show trials"?
Do you think people don't get satisfation from "show trials"?
Is it that, it is distasteful to acknowledge what I present can be correct?
Do you need other examples of "show trials" to get beyond Stalin style "show trials"?

Restate the issue.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

I think your definition is too narrow. I presented how I define the concept - and predetermination is key but in my mind it can be guilt or innocence. Also, to me the another important component is the goal of sending a message trumping justice.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

With new and more information we can make better decisions. For example given the results of this trial I suspect any non-US citizen being with at Gitmo will be given a military trial. There should be no more thought or consideration of trying high value known terrorists as if they are criminals in US courts.

...

Humor me once and answer some of the questions I present and I may walk away with a different view.

Was the Saddam trial a "show trial"?
Would an Osama Bin Laden trial be a "show trial"?


I gave my view, do you understand it and disagree? I tell you that I think there were "show trials" during Jim Crow involving innocent verdicts - what do you call those trials?

...

Silly me, of course you can not answer my questions - I must remember my questions are always rhetorical and I heard they often lead to headaches, so please be careful.

Now I am just piling on- you guys get me all worked up and then run away, what teases you are - but thinking of some other show trials, what about the Scopes Monkey Trial?

Scopes Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point of this trial was to obtain a guilty verdict (everyone knew the defendant, including the defendant was guilty) to challenge an unconstitutional law for the purpose of.....sending a message! What would you call that trial, if not a "show trial"?

So are you purporting that we set up kangaroo courts without allowing defendants due process or not? I can't quite get a handle on what your definition of show trial is.

...

No. However, I would not try non-US citizens who are enemy combatants in the US Court System. I would use military courts or establish legitimate courts outside the US for the purpose of trying non-US citizen terrorists.

Well, a start may be telling me if you think the Saddam trail was a "show trial"? Or, how or if you would try Osama Bin Laden?

Or, a start could be stating if you think we are in a war or not? If you see criminal activity where I see war activity we will never see eye to eye on the subjects that follow from that point.

in today's episode ace lets us in on his private language.

it's a bendy place, his private language, where words mean whatever ace says they mean.
that makes ace the decider.

sometimes he doesn't like what words come to denote.
he puts them on the witness stand and asks them lots of questions.

so mister bad word, why do you mean this thing and not that?
why?
why?
why?
why?

stop meaning this thing. mean that thing.

why?
why?
why?
why?
why?
why?

stop meaning this thing. mean that thing.

the guilt of words is determined in advance of course. but it's the theater that's important.

once he's demoralized the words with his penetrating line of questioning, he takes the bad meaning downstairs and shoots it in the head.
just like beria used to do except of course not like beria because he was a bad man. a stalinist.
bad.


after ace has shot the conventional meanings of word in the head and buried them in his basement, he replaces them with special ace-meanings that make the whole world do exactly as ace-the-decider thinks it should.


now let's return to our regularly scheduled programming in which ace works to make the term show trial mean whatever he wants it to mean.

...

That would actually help, I actually appreciate the effort people put into analogies. I also think they are very effective and they make communicating fun. If you have one please share.:thumbsup:

Look at it this way, given my personality, if you can get me to change my mind when I get entrenched, as I am now, everyone else you interact with with be like a piece of cake.

If I am missing substantial responses to the points presented, rather than complaints about me, my style, etc., perhaps I need to re-read this thread. Can you give me an example of a post that I may need to re-read?

Look at it this way, I am not mainstream America, I am cutting edge. It is not that I don't understand, I don't agree - there is a difference. If Webster defines the term the way you show - can we change it? I think we should.


Yes, yes, it is all about me and my problems. I am not going to change, my style is not going to change - if you want to improve the discourse I am more than happy to stick with the substance in each post, how about it?

Was the Sddaam trial a "show trial"? Would you try Osama Bin Laden in US courts risking that he go free?

---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

What do you call some of those KKK trials during Jim Crow where everyone knew they would be found innocent?

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

Like I wrote what scares me is when people are witnessing something that they think is something other than what it really is - it suggests the ease in which some can be manipulated.

When the President guaranteed a guilty verdict and execution of KSM, you thought that there is going to be a legitimate and fair trial where KSM might walk??????

Much of the evidence against the defendant was obtained with the understanding that the man would have been tried as an enemy combatant. When it was moved to the civil courts essential evidence was deemed inadmissible. Had this been declared a civil issue from the start the methods of interrogation would have, no doubt, been different. Perhaps the same incriminating information would have been gleaned from that. As it stands it's the lack of admissible evidence that saw the dropping of the charges.

The tragedy is that changing the rules of the game only served to negate bodies of evidence that had been gathered and prevent key witnesses from testimony. It's not on the weight of evidence but by the explicit lack of admissible evidence that the verdict was reached.

The tragedy is that Obama didn't understand this would happen when a previously military tribunal is suddenly transferred to a civil court.

The tragedy is that Obama wanted to use this case to prove to the world that such a case can be tried in a civilian court with clear convictions in, what his administration deemed to be a clearly guilty individual i.e. a "show trial." The administration's embarrassment over the verdict makes it all the more poignant.

The tragedy is that a case like this sets a precedent for other cases to follow - and that, should further civilian trials of terrorist suspects from Guantanamo continue, similar outcomes and even outright acquittals can be expected.

Regardless of what you might think of how suspects were treated at Guantanamo this particular case would have been better served in military tribunal.

In the long run you can argue that this outcome will improve the treatment of suspected terrorists in the future. I grant you that. But here and today we run the risk exonerating many people who remain a potential threat to the US and the world. And that is clearly a tragedy.

...

Good post.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SHOW TRIAL DEFINITION: THE END>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, anyway, about this trial: it seems that the key evidence against this guy was a witness, whose name was discovered through unlawful interrogation. The fruit from the poisonous tree can not be admitted as evidence. This is a fundamental principle to our legal system.

This appears to be the first real consequence of harsh interrogations. While they might yield information which prevents other terrorist attacks (some would say that makes them worthwhile), the information they yield can not be admitted at a trial as evidence.

I would say this also makes a civilian trial for KSM impossible, since his confession was post-interrogation, no? I don't know what to make of this. I can't say I want him walking around, but what choice do they have?

horseshit.

if "tragedy" there is in this, it all follows from the bush administration's actions. it follows from their bad legal and political decisions. it follows from the bush administration's decision to allow torture to be used as a "harsh interrogation technique." there was and is and can be no excuse for any of that. and i think it's a good thing that the infotainment extorted from people by these appalling means is not admissible in court.


and there are no national security arguments that should allow for the basic rules that prevent civilized countries from sliding back into the pathological muck.

it amazes me that there are conservatives willing to indulge the paranoia game so thoroughly as to result in condoning torture.

that's the tragedy.

You fail to recognize that more alleged terrorists have been caught as a result of good police work (primarily civil investigations with international cooperation) and by legal means than by snatching them off the streets of Baghdad or Kabul tossing them in a CIA black prison and coercing confessions (often unreliable in their very nature) ...and they were provided due process and tried and convicted in federal courts by the rules of law.

You also ignore the fact that the Supreme Court also declared the military commissions w/o providing some level of due process to be unconstitutional.

I think maybe you're conflating a show trial with a showy trial.

I don't know that much about Saddam's trial, other than it was an Iraqi trial and prob. not one I'd want us to emulate. His execution was showy if I remember correctly.

I would imagine that an Osama bin Laden trial would be very showy.

And no, I don't believe that we are in a 'war on terror.' I believe that the 'war on terror' is a figure of speech that denotes a network of ongoing covert operations to protect American interests.

The "tragedy" is that the previous administration wasn't happy with the limitations that both a military model or a civilian one present. They opted to make up the rules as they went and leave it to someone else to clean up.

The sentence isn't 20 yrs, it is 20 to life in a federal system that doesn't allow parole. We'll see; but I'd be surprised if he receives the minimum sentence.

We're a nation of laws and process. This sets a precedence for rules of evidence and process that will carry forward. It's hard to claim moral superiority when you violate your own rules.

StanT,

You got it right. If he gets, say, 40 years for this, I'll be fine with the outcome. I'm actually surprised they managed a conviction considering the rules of evidence they had to play under. I haven't located a detailed description of how they managed to get this charge to stick. Has anyone else seen that? Why was this charge different?

Unless they've been convinced already, all of their guilt is in question. You can't just assume the evidence against someone demonstrates their guilt. That goes against our understanding of justice.
They're not under military jurisdiction. They're not soldiers, they're (accused) criminals. Anyway, it wouldn't cost $1b multiplied by however many detainees there are. That $1b number is based on a show trial in NYC where one or a few detainees are tried publicly in what I would imagine would be an OJ Simpson kind of circus.

Military trials mean secret evidence and closed doors. Do you want the world to see that the United States doesn't kidnap and hold innocent people? You do that with trials on the public record.
You can't possibly believe this. At least let them plead guilty in court and then be properly sentenced. It won't cost $1b to have them take 5 minutes to plead and maybe a day in sentencing.

Sorry for the source, they broke the story - what can I do:

Obama Administration Denies Request for Fort Hood Report That Could Aid Suspect - FoxNews.com

Here is, perhaps, the best example of a trial which has a foreseeable outcome. What could this document POSSIBLY contain that would allow this man to be found not guilty? This would be an instance where the wheels of justice turn painfully slow.

It was conspiracy that stuck, the wonderfully amorphous catch-all statute, 18 USC s. 371

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...1----000-.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

IIRC, my professor, a 4th Circuit judge joked about how one can almost always get a conviction under conspiracy.

how do you prove conspiracy? isn't that like trying to prove intention? what is my intention as i write these words? how do you know? can you prove your assumptions? i don't see how.

KirStang,

Thanks. I did know it was the conspiracy charge. I guess I've yet to hear how what the evidence was on that charge - especially since the evidence would be prior to the 1998 bombing. I'll see it eventually, I guess.

---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------

It's been a while, but I thought conspiracy meant two people discussing the "planning" of the commission of a crime. That's why it's so easy to convict, they don't really have to prove you were going to take the crime all the way. That's why you don't talk about "fantasy" crimes at the coffee shop. :)

*you* might not talk about fantasy crimes at the coffee shop, cimmaron...nyuk nyuk.

i would think that it's either really easy or almost impossible to convict of conspiracy just because evidence has to be a problem given that conspiracy does speak to intent.

this would likely be a threadjack tho. not sure. we'll see i suppose.

When have I condoned the prior administration's behavior? I haven't.

Why is someone critical of Obama necessarily pro-Bush?

Put the straw man away.

maybe it derived from this:

which was the whole of the op you put up.

then your last post, which repeated many of the criticisms being tossed about by the republicans.

so not really a straw man. a reasonable inference from information you provided.
if you didn't want that inference made, you perhaps should have paid more attention to what you wrote.

"Why is someone critical of Obama necessarily pro-Bush?"

I haven't said one word to laud the behavior of the prior administration.

It wasn't an implication on my part so much as an assumption on your part.

And, as I believe our president ought have had better insight as to the potential outcome, I stand by my position that we've been "fucked."

I'm sorry if my inflammatory language provoked a partisan reflex, but I would have said the same if it was a Republican administration who moved this case to a civil court.

What has fucked us up is Gitmo (where nearly half of those detained committed no crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and held for years with no redress -- Faces of Gitmo), CIA black prisons, enhanced interrogation techniques in defiance of US law and treaty obligations....

What has served us well is restoring and following the rule of law.

If anyone seriously shared the view that Bush broke laws and now Obama is restoring and following the rule of law why aren't they taking legal action against Bush? When will the reasoning presented above stop, it is no longer taken serious. It was possible to take serious when Obama took office and when Holder made his proclamation that what he thought occurred during the Bush years was actually torture and illegal but he did nothing. If he is not going to uphold the law as you see it , why aren't you calling for his resignation? It is not about the law, it is about bashing Bush - it is old. Then add in the class of Bush by being silent regarding the challenges of the current administration, the Bush bashing makes those doing it look small.

Obama's first act was an executive order to end enhanced interrogation and estraordinary rendition to countries with less than honorable legal systems of justice. An early commitment was to close Gitmo, which unfortunately, he could not do as a result of being blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

Bush created his own definitions of detainees and enhanced interrogation techniques to skirt the law. The Bush DoJ attorneys who wrote the questionable opinions were reprimanded by the Bush DoJ IG for inserting political interests into legal opinions that should have been solely on the points of law.

The question of prosecuting Bush remains. Many think the current DoJ should go forward.

I think it would tear the country apart and can live with the fact that Obama has overturned the worst of Bush's practices (while continuing other practices with which I disagree).

The greatest danger to the country is not terrorism, but extremists in positions of power who put their ideology and short term political interests above the law (and their followers, like you, my friend) who continue to justify their actions.

dc_dux,

At the risk of starting an argument, how do 60 democrats get blocked by republicans in the Senate?

They never had 60...unless you count pro-war independent Joe Lieberman? And yes, a few other Democrats were opposed.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

Beyond that, ace's argument that Bush didnt break the law by circumventing US laws and treaty obligations regarding treatment of detainees with highly questionable (among the legal community) and politically tainted legal opinions from his DoJ because he hasnt been prosecuted is simply bullshit.

Another example of compromising core beliefs. Reminds me of the saying - "if you won't stand for something, you will fall for anything." If I actually believed what you say you believe, I would not stop until justice was done. However, most reasonable people understand that "we" did not cross the line during the Bush administration, and that known terrorists responsible for killing thousands of innocent American deserve to pay a price for their actions either on the battle field or in a military trial. And that under no circumstance should they be allowed the opportunity of being legitimized or set free by a not guilty verdict for the deaths they are responsible for.

I get it, ace.

You believe your sense of justice is greater than the Constitution and the rule of law.

---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Here's a saying for you, ace:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- Ben Franklin

No. I am opinionated but I am open to learning and growth. When I see something that challenges my beliefs, I challenge it - if that something has the strength of conviction and does not wither upon scrutiny - I can be convinced. On the issue of Bush and torture, I don't believe Obama, Holder, any liberal with the power to do something about it, or you, because when challenged you folks too easily compromise your beliefs. I do not see a violation of the rule of law or the Constitution and you can't or won't make your case in a meaningful way.

ace...I know when I am banging my head against the wall and know its time to quit.

When you are an self-acknowledged ideologue who only sees things in black and white and views compromise for the better good as a sign of weakness, there is no reason for further discussion.

news flash will. we got rid of that system about 50 years ago.
now, all we do is let two guys tell us the evidence, then have a judge tell us we must rule according to the law as that judge explains it to us. we're not allowed to judge the law or it's use.

Really? So, say I walk up to a news reporter who is in the middle of a live newscast and blow his brains out on national TV, then I'm not guilty until I go thru a court trial? The evidence speaks for itself. Same as for KSM who claims to have masterminded 9/11 or the shoe bomber who was caught red handed by several people on the flight he was trying to blow up.

And yeah, in cases like KSM or the shoe bomber, I am serious about the pointlessness of a trial. There's no doubt the guy did it. Why pretend otherwise?

However you describe yourself, people like you will investigate the hell out of a guy like Libby and convict him for getting some trivial facts wrong under oath - but when you think the integrity of the Constitution, the rule of law, the very nature of a civil society has been circumvented at the highest level and that there was illegal torture, there is nothing!