A while back we conducted a poll of who was the biggest hack in the Obama administration. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner won relatively easily besting the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department for whom we were pimping quite hard. Perhaps results would be different if we held this poll a second time.
Ahmed Ghailani was supposed to be the test case, the reason why political opposition to trying Guantanamo goons in civilian courts was just hot air.
But now, after "Foopie" Ghailani was acquitted on all but one count for his role in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings by Al Qaeda, Team Obama's hope of trying Gitmo's worst in civilian courts has been all but dashed.
Look for the secure courthouse at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba to get busy with military commission trials for many of the remaining inmates of the terrorist prison there, who number less than 200 now.
Never mind the five monsters in custody, led by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who've gleefully admitted orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks. Most Obama administration officials have given up hope they'll face justice in a federal court and aren't even planning another military commission trial anytime in the foreseeable future.
Want a little more balance in this analysis? You got it. Click here (sorry, won't let us embed video of Katie Couric) for a breakdown of this case from CBS News where you will hear:
"a disaster"
"test case"
"very bad news"
"acquitted Ghailani of the most serious terrorism charges against him"
"convicting on one count of conspiring to destroy U.S. property with explosives"
"minimum of 20 years"
and our favorite:
"they (Ghailani, KSM and the rest of the gang) remain at Gitmo and with this verdict, in all likelihood, will remain there for the foreseeable future"
The hubris and arrogance of the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department, aided and abetted by the President, has landed themselves and the rest of us in this pickle. They painted themselves into a corner, or onto an island as the case may be, with no foreseeable way out/off. Nice work.
Posts
3 comments:
Rule 304 from the Military Commission Manual.
"[304(a)(1)] No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. . . . whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission . . . .
[304(a)(5)] Evidence derived from a statement that would be excluded under section (a)(1) of this rule may not be received in evidence against an accused who made the statement if the accused makes a timely motion to suppress or an objection . . . ."
Steve
Steve,
Excuse me, but what's the point? Holder promises that this will show the superiority of civilian trials and failure to divulge intelligence sources results in acquittals on all but one count. Surely you're not suggesting that the U.S. government could have only successfully prosecuted this case except by evidence obtained by torture? If so, what evidence do you have?
Foreigners captured on foreign soil that are unlawful combatants lack legitimate standing in our civilian courts. This is a settled matter of international law. My only complaint is that the Bush administration proceeded without a specific authorization from Congress to proceed.
Bottom line, Holder screwed the pooch.
1) The guy was found guilty. He faces 20 years to life. Why is this a bad thing?
2) The judge noted that he had to throw out evidence that was connected to torture. The key witness was found through coerced information. That evidence would have been thrown out by a military court also. I would hope that the JAGs you met while in the service would have talked about this kind of stuff. In general, they are probably even more ethical than civilian lawyers. Note that a lot of evidence was tossed in the Hamdan case and he ended up getting only 5 1/2 years.
3) The Military Commissions Act precedes the 1998 bombing. A tribunal trial would have been subject to many appeals.
4) Civilian courts have a good record on convictions for terror cases. They have more experience.
"Foreigners captured on foreign soil that are unlawful combatants lack legitimate standing in our civilian courts. This is a settled matter of international law."
I thought you were Tea Party folks and not movement conservatives? Anyway, Geneva Conventions should still apply. That is what the Army suggested and thinks in FM 3-24. Read the Appendices. They suggest that they should be treated as criminals in their own country when possible.
Lastly, why turn these guys into soldiers? Better to treat them as criminals. If we just stay away from torture, it is pretty easy to try these guys.
Steve
Post a Comment