Ahmed Ghailani Acquitted on 284 of 285 Counts in Civilian Court

[teamnelson]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/11/18/debacle_terrorist_ahmed_ghailani_acquitted_on_284_of_285_counts_in_civilian_court

The first former Guantanamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court was acquitted on Wednesday of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists.

The defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, 36, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property. He was acquitted of four counts of conspiracy, including conspiring to kill Americans and to use weapons of mass destruction.

[powderman]

I'm sure not shocked at this, dismayed yes, but not surprised. This is why bo didn't want the military to try him. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

If he's not guilty of the charges, good that he was acquitted. Looks like he's still jacked up for 20-plus years... that ought to be of some consolation to those who'd like to see him dead because of his religion!

[powderman]

How did the US government manage to amass its pitiful .0036 batting average in this case?  Crucial evidence was thrown out by a judge because, according to our criminal justice system, its genesis was legally questionable:




Nuff said, more than likely another pantywaist liberal judge. Trying these scum in a civilian court is a travesty. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

Crucial evidence was thrown out by a judge because, according to our criminal justice system, its genesis was legally questionable

I don't enough about the particulars to say much about that particular case, but in general... I'd like a judge to throw out bogus evidence/improper, regardless of who it was against. Otherwise, it's just a lynching.

[srussell]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/11/18/debacle_terrorist_ahmed_ghailani_acquitted_on_284_of_285_counts_in_civilian_court

The first former Guantanamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court was acquitted on Wednesday of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists.

The defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, 36, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property. He was acquitted of four counts of conspiracy, including conspiring to kill Americans and to use weapons of mass destruction.

he has a good chance of getting of one the one charge on an appeal.how can he be acquitted on conspiracy to kill Americans then found guilty of conspiracy to destroy gover nment property.thats why it was put in civil court

[SHOOTALL]

Crucial evidence was thrown out by a judge because, according to our criminal justice system, its genesis was legally questionable

I don't enough about the particulars to say much about that particular case, but in general... I'd like a judge to throw out bogus evidence/improper, regardless of who it was against. Otherwise, it's just a lynching.

That sounds good on paper but under battle conditions it may be impossible to follow American laws to a tee. When in other parts of the world for example. BTW our laws say to be tried by peers , would it not make sense to have other combatants try combatants ? Should school teachers , plumbers , bakers and candle stix makers really understand what went on if they have never experinced it ?
 It was almost predictable that the one on his side and protecting him would bring up hating his religion - I see you and raise you one rase card ......................... BS !

[yellowtail3]

That sounds good on paper but under battle conditions it may be impossible to follow American laws to a tee.

That may be. Does it sound good on paper? I'll tell you what - were you to find yourself prosecuted by the feds - and they'll have all the powers/resources of the state behind them, all you'll have is the law - you'd be very glad to have a judge require that he state follow the law.

It was almost predictable that the one on his side and protecting him would bring up hating his religion - I see you and raise you one rase card ......................... BS !

First off, I'm not on his side - remember, I wrote that I don't know enough about the particulars of the case to have an informed opinion on it - but I'm all in favor of throwing out improper/illegal/unethical evidence, NO MATTER WHO IT IS PRESENTED AGAINST. That may not dovetail with you point, but it is the truth, and the truth should matter.

You got a problem with that?

Otherwise... I'm happy to be predictable, for recognizing obnoxious prejudices expressed by some participants on this board. I'll keep doing it.

[teamnelson]

I'm predictably suspicious of appointed Judges, and I'm also predictably suspicious of the first case results for an unprecedented case which is highly political and important to the politics of the judge. Given the results, an appeal should result in throwing it out, as he was only found guilty of a civil offense, which begs the question of jurisdiction. He was however detained outside his home nation, and outside of Kenya and Tanzania, associating with known terrorists during a time of war. In any other rational scenario, the military has a system for this; its fair, and I'm subject to it myself.

They must not have been able to prove that Ahmed "intended" to harm anyone, just property. So why not a few hundred cases of negligent homicide or manslaughter?

[SHOOTALL]

So you think that military combatants should be tried in our criminal courts ? You do realize military law is some times different ?
As far as facing court and having laws to guide the way . As a US citizen yes I would be glad. Here we are not talking US citizen now are we ? We are talking war . I see a difference and in fact have a problem with the idea of the attackers not facing military law. Why because military combatants are held to a standard of conduct that non military jury's and judges applying criminal law may not know or even be aware of . Truth is evidence may be admited under military law that is not in our criminal courts. Evidence gained in other countries under their laws may be true but not allowed here. The idea of affording them rights that Americans died to gain is pure BS .  And for the record if the Pope and a bunch of his buddies attacked America I would feel the same way .

[yellowtail3]

So you think that military combatants should be tried in our criminal courts ?

It's a lame rhetorical device, starting off so you think... but to answer, yes. No. Maybe. Not sure.

You do realize military law is some times different ?

Well, I was subject to the UCMJ for years; does that count? But I'm not a lawyer - I hate 'em, even though I'm dating one - I'm not even a sea lawyer. SO, I wouldn't try to spell out all the differences. Maybe you can?

I do know this - I DO NOT TRUST the federal gov't, and esp. DOJ/Fed prosecutors. It's all about winning, not a damned thing to do with justice.

Something you don't to learn about first-hand... .

[Oldshooter]

I posted earlier on this thread and it went into cyber space! Just as well, i had nothing good to say about the news or some of the posts/ers!

American rights for foreign enemy combatants! 

[mcwoodduck]

If he's not guilty of the charges, good that he was acquitted. Looks like he's still jacked up for 20-plus years... that ought to be of some consolation to those who'd like to see him dead because of his religion!

Other facts came out in inhanced questioning of subjects that found he was the one that supplied TNT to the attacks.
Since there were multiple people that were inhanced to gain the information and all of it was checked and double checked to make sure they had the right guy.  The judge disallowed that guy who sold the TNT to testify and the defense made it out that he was a doup who was hired to run errands not knowing what was going to happen.
Other was Osama's Personal Driver while he was planning the attack.
Making these civil trials for forgien nationals that have declared a terror war on the US for things that Saudi Arabia did (Saudis turned down Osama and his Mujaheen and invited the US Armed forced to protect the Kingdom when Sadam and the Iraqi army was threatening to invade in 90-91.)
The Blood lust for wanting to see this guy fed into a wood chipper feet first with a slab of bacon has nothing to do with his religon and everything to do
with getting them to stop attacking us for no good reason.  I have nothing agaist them or their "religon" as long as they do not press it on me.  I do not want to live under their system.  Christians, Jews, and Musliums all pray to the same god.
If there is a way to stop them we need to take every advantage of it.  If terror is what they understand the ngive it back to them in the form of them not going to paradise.  What really made me mad was on 9/11 different news stations had sceenes from different muslium neighborhoods.
I remember seeing palastinians dancing in the streets, looking like their team just won the world series, super bowl, or world cup, and I really wanted to lob shells, cruise missles, thermonuclear weapons into those towns.  When ever there is an earth quake, famin, flood or volcano American send aid all over the globe to help, and when we have problem no one sends us anything, we take care of our selves.  but when we were attacked and they cheered it pissed me off to no end.  Not one of their Imams have denounced the terror actions.  Not one has said that the later hate suras are wrong and that Musliums should not hate but obey the earlier suras that say they should like side by side with other groups.  As I have said in other posts, if this were others starting a new religon that preached hate and world conquest we would denounce them and call them hate groups and lump them in with the Neo Nazi, KKK, David Koresh morons.  Had some outside group attacked us and we used millitary force to deal with them, the leaders would have been delt with by the Military and not brought here for a show trial.  The civilian trials are for Citizens,  The rules are different and while this war is still going on from thier side we need to treat them with a military trial that does not have the rules of evidence that the civilian trial does.  The military does not have to show how the evidence was obtained even if it was the fruit of the poisonous tree.  The intell methods are not disclosed and in an ongoing war telling the other side in open court how we are tracking them, listening to them, and who is informing on them is insane.

[powderman]

MCWOODDUCK. Good post. POWDERMAN. 

[Pat/Rick]

Sounds to me like a "stacked" jury who didn't know their rights a jurors. If a juror thinks the evidence is prudent to the case they do not have to listen to the instructions of the judge to disregard them. I would view the judge in contempt of court for that reason.

  If a muslim wants me dead because of my religious beliefs, I find no fault in turnabout being fair play. The God given right to self defense is inalienable.

[billy_56081]

Hopefully he will be killed in prison.

From now on the soldiers need to kill them on the battle field. A dead enemy can do no harm. Heck they even make good fertilzer.

[powderman]

Hopefully he will be killed in prison.

From now on the soldiers need to kill them on the battle field. A dead enemy can do no harm. Heck they even make good fertilzer.

I have to agree with that. POWDERMAN. 

[SHOOTALL]

So you think that military combatants should be tried in our criminal courts ?

It's a lame rhetorical device, starting off so you think... but to answer, yes. No. Maybe. Not sure.

You do realize military law is some times different ?

Well, I was subject to the UCMJ for years; does that count? But I'm not a lawyer - I hate 'em, even though I'm dating one - I'm not even a sea lawyer. SO, I wouldn't try to spell out all the differences. Maybe you can?

I do know this - I DO NOT TRUST the federal gov't, and esp. DOJ/Fed prosecutors. It's all about winning, not a damned thing to do with justice.

Something you don't to learn about first-hand... .

Your entire post is lame IMHO !

[yellowtail3]

Your entire post is lame IMHO !

So you're saying that you won't discuss substance, but you want me to know that you don't like it?

[powderman]

alot of their Imans, etc have denounced attacks on civilians, etc....just not widely told on lamestream media. Most notably was Osama Bin Laden who a month after the 911 attacks soundly denounced that attack citing it had nothing to do with islam...saying islam does not attack innocent civilians and he had nothing to do with it.



tm. You have told some ridiculous bald faced lies but this one takes the cake, it is NUMBER ONE. Your beloved obl whooped for joy and danced with glee when he was told that the buildings collapsed and thousands of civilians were dead. He said it was better than his wildest dreams. He was so proud of the slaughter he made a video of him celebrating the deaths of 3,000 American civilians. I know you saw it too, just like millions of real Americans did. If you have a copy, post it  for us so we can all watch it again. You really outdid yourself this time. You will know the truth one day, and I doubt you will like it. POWDERMAN. 

[SwampThing762]

UCMJ is very different than civilian justice system.   In military courts, defendants have no rights.   I would think the central issue, and hopefully dukkillr will sound off on this, is recognition of these terrorists as enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions.  Beyond that, the civilian court system has no jurisdiction in these matters, not even legal standing.   

Beyond that, if they are dressed in a towel and point a gun at you, arrange their personal introduction to Allah.   

ST762

[teamnelson]

ST762, just to quibble a bit ... having sat through a few courts martial, and a couple dozen NJPs, the defendants always have rights under the UCMJ. They're just not the same as in a civilian court. These cases wouldve met the criterion for a court martial, with a plurality of presiding officers, and attorneys for prosecution and defense, who can offer evidence & testimony to the case.

Most folks think of an NJP when they think of UCMJ, and that's Non Judicial Punishment, as in it does not go on a criminal record. Sea lawyers get all upset that it's not ran like an episode of Law & Order, but it's not supposed to. It's a way of disciplining someone without giving them a record.

Enemy combatants per the UCMJ would meet Court Martial requirements, and wouldve had all the rights associated, which aren't much different than what they'd have in a federal court. Just no politically appointed Judges.

[SwampThing762]

TN,

You may be right.   I have only read sections of UCMJ.  However, I know that normal constitutional rights are ceded when you join the military.  Hence, my statement that defendants do not have rights.  Perhaps there is a flaw in the reasoning.  The central issue would be status of these terrorists under the Geneva Conventions.   

ST762

[mcwoodduck]

mcwoodduck:::

Not one of their Imams have denounced the terror actions.  Not one has said that the later hate suras are wrong and that Musliums should not hate but obey the earlier suras that say they should like side by side with other groups.  .

Actually, alot of their Imans, etc have denounced attacks on civilians, etc....just not widely told on lamestream media. Most notably was Osama Bin Laden who a month after the 911 attacks soundly denounced that attack citing it had nothing to do with islam...saying islam does not attack innocent civilians and he had nothing to do with it. As you know our FBI is not looking for him or has him on most wanted list for these attacks. Later Bush and company 'didn't know where he was or really care".....so there you have it.

As I have said in other posts, if this were others starting a new religon that preached hate and world conquest we would denounce them and call them hate groups and lump them in with the Neo Nazi, KKK, David Koresh morons

Well, there's quite a few folks here on this forum that preach eradication of the islamic godless devil's spawn...that's total indiscrimnate eradication and often using Christianity and judaeo-christianity cosmology to justify such acts. But I don't recall you speaking up or against this element; which by way of analysis could be construed as a neo-fascist movement in a historical context.



..TM7
.

I have heard alot of Imams talk about the early Suras in the Quran.  Talking about about peace and living side by side with other groups.  i have not heard one denounce the later suras telling them that Jews hiding behind trees will be killed.  Not one has denounced the attacks as cowardly.  Not one has said that the violent terror attacks are not part of the religon and the ones that practice this are not going to paradise.

I may have not spoken up about the people calling for the deaths of all Musliums.  Mostly because I did not think that they believe what they are saying.
Under the first amendment they can say what wever they want as long as it does not incite a riot, intise others to kill, or create pannic that leads to people being injured.  If you threaten to harm someone or their loved ones if they do not do X and they do X you are guilty of the crime.  If you yell Fire in a theater and people leaving are injured, you are responsible for their injuries.  You can believe what you want, you can be a poligimist, a satinist, a what ever, but until you practice it that is when you are breaking the law.  Satinists can worship the devil all they want.  they get in trouble when they do the human sacrifice.  The preaching of pologamy is fine when someone takes a second wife while still married to the first then he has broken the law.  
With Islam if the whole religon is based on killing the non believers and the teachers of the religon are telling the members to go out and kill and your reward is paradise in the after life.  If people actually do kill others.  Then they are breaking the protected speach and the 1st amendment no longer applies and we can make Islam illegal here.  Asking the whole population to change 300 years of history so as not to offend them is also not sane.
Treating the terrorists as if they were common criminals in a civil trial giving them the rights and protections they want to end does not fit.  Also holding single trials of the Terrorists one at a time while the war on terror still is being fought does not make sense giving them the methodes and people who and how they gathered information while others are still eing sought does not make sense.  Even in Gang and mob trials they arrest everyone and close the case not going after one then the next trying to use the same methods to catch the next.  The Military trials can protect the methods of how the evidence was collected, allowing those methodes to still be used locating current terror suspects.

As far as OBL making statements that he had nothing to do with 9/11 - every criminal denies doing the deed.  With the weight of the US military about to come crashing down on him, his orginazation, and the Taliban in Afganistan of couse he wanted to try to divert the attention, claim it was a crusade against Islam and not an atempt to get a terrorist / criminal/ mentally ill person and rally his supporters and hopefully recruit more followers.
Personally I think we should employ what we did in Germany in WWII.  We located factroies in german cities. flew over them and dropped maps with an X on the section of the city where we thought the factroy was.  The next day we bombed the section of the city.  And then added a new X to the next section.
I think we should do the same with towns that are supporting adn hiding the terrorists.  Make an example out of 1/2 a dozen towns by wipping them off the map and sooner or later some village will produce the terrorists.

[billy_56081]

TM that last whopper you told was right ion par with the "4000 watt death ray" that ran on AA batteries ypu linked up that one time.

Hey don't give away all your punchlines before the BBQ, we are gonna laugh pretty good at ya there.

[powderman]

tm. You seem to be the only person here that heard your hero osama say that he had nothing to do with it, but then again I don't read or watch the pro islamic garbage that seem to  be your sources. POWDERMAN. 

[SHOOTALL]

Your entire post is lame IMHO !

So you're saying that you won't discuss substance, but you want me to know that you don't like it?
[/quo
Ok what would you like to discuss ?

[yellowtail3]

Nevermind.

[SHOOTALL]

trolling didn't work ?

[yellowtail3]

trolling didn't work ?

can't speak to that, but casting pearls before swine (& ideologues) doesn't. I think I've sussed out your positions - you trust gov't prosecutors enough not to require them to follow the law, you believe that they're more interested in the truth and justice than in winning, and that not all men are endowed by their creator with certain rights.

we're good!