Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/17/gitmo-detainee-tried-in-civilian-court-convicted-of-just-one-charge-out-of-280/

    This was the guy whom Obama and Holder lined up as their test case to prove that, yes indeed, we can convict Gitmo jihadis using good old-fashioned civilian court procedures. All was well until last month, when the district court judge barred the feds’ blockbuster witness from testifying, even though he was prepared to tell the jury that he sold Ghailani the explosives used to destroy the U.S. embassy in Tanzania in 1998. The feds had only learned of the witness’s identity during enhanced interrogation of Ghailani, and since the interrogation was deemed illegal by US civilian courts standards,  evidence derived from it was inadmissible under the 'exclusionary rule' (even though it is rock solid evidence of his guilt of mass murder!) Without that testimony, the case collapsed. And now, a month later, we have a full-blown fiasco on our hands.

    He was the first Gitmo detainee they sent to civilian court.
    That is why military tribunals exist, to try foreign terrorists who plan to blow up Embassies overseas...
    The civilian courts are not the proper place, the freaking 'exclusionary rule' has no place in instances of mass terror and war; it is so obvious even a radical leftist like AG Holder should realize this...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from schadenfreude99. Show schadenfreude99's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    hmmm....if he were cleared of all of the charges (by a jury of nitwits), would they have let him walk right out the front door?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Too bad the abuse and torture of said detainee made his coerced confessions inadmissable in court - the effective destruction of evidence that could have been used to convict.  A military tribunal would have had the same legal constraints.

    As it is, Ghailani will still spend another two decades in jail.

    But that's the Bush/Cheney legacy...the use of systemic torture means that all we can do is detain these suspects indefinitely. 

    The only thing proven is that trials can indeed be held in civilian courts with little to no security risk.  But by all means, keep ignoring the facts of the case to try and assert a false political advantage.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RevWright. Show RevWright's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Brilliant !!

    Try international terrorists in US courts.. with all government paid defense costs funded?

    Is this US $ against US $ in court? Are we footing both bills?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE]Brilliant !! Try international terrorists in US courts.. with all government paid defense costs funded? Is this US $ against US $ in court? Are we footing both bills?
    Posted by RevWright[/QUOTE]

    Wars are expensive.

    Torture, it turns out, even more so....

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    National Review:
    "Never mind that the laws of war — which support all the Bush-administration measures — are the rule of law during wartime. Never mind that at no point in our history have the nation’s wartime enemies been given access to the civilian justice system and endowed with all the protections and presumptions that American citizens receive. To the Obama Left, the law-enforcement approach is effective national security, a way to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and consequently make ourselves safer. It makes no difference that the country was demonstrably unsafe — and repeatedly attacked — during the Clinton years. Nor does it matter that people in Islamic countries have no idea of the legal differences between American civilian and military proceedings — they care only that we are imprisoning Muslims, not about the abstruse details of our basis for doing so."
     
    "The Obama Justice Department saw the Ghailani case as the perfect opportunity for the civilian system to prove itself. After all, the case had already been tried successfully: In 2001, before the 9/11 attacks, four terrorists were convicted and sentenced to life terms. Moreover, while critics of the law-enforcement counterterrorism model emphasize that civilian due process requires the government to hand over too much sensitive intelligence, thereby educating the enemy while we are trying to defeat the enemy, that argument was significantly diminished in Ghailani’s case. Because the case had already been tried in the civilian system, most of the relevant intelligence had already been disclosed. You could contend that this was not a good thing, but for better or worse it had already been done.
     
    But instead of a shining moment for proponents of civilian prosecution, the Ghailani case is a body blow."
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Isn't the penalty for the 1 count anywhere from 25 years to life without parole?

    The defense painted him as a dupe that was manipulated by higher ups in al qaeda.  Maybe that was the truth - maybe he was a dupe.

    There were reports of Al qaeda using special needs kids to carry out suicide missions in Iraq.  If they are willing to use a retarded kid to carry a suicide vest, then why wouldn't they use some idiot to do their bidding?  The republicans do it all the time.

    I figured the wingnuts would sympathize with someone that was duped.  Oh, I keep forgetting - they haven't realized they've been duped yet.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    So this guy is facing a minimum 20 year prison sentence with a potential life sentence still hanging in the balance even though he was only convicted on the conspiracy count and not the murder count, (the murder charge was duplicated for every person killed, but it doesn't change the fact that there were two distinct charges...murder and conspiracy).

    So if the judge gives this guy life, are people going to claim that the end result was flawed?  He isn't walking free, why is this being left out of the discussion?


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Yes, the jury must have been a bunch of Hated Liberals or Terrorists, planted by Obama specifically to acquit him of most counts.

    You cons can really make me sick to my stomach sometimes.

    Do you love the Constitution or what? 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE]National Review: "Never mind that the laws of war — which support all the Bush-administration measures — are the rule of law during wartime. Never mind that at no point in our history have the nation’s wartime enemies been given access to the civilian justice system and endowed with all the protections and presumptions that American citizens receive. To the Obama Left, the law-enforcement approach is effective national security, a way to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and consequently make ourselves safer. It makes no difference that the country was demonstrably unsafe — and repeatedly attacked — during the Clinton years. Nor does it matter that people in Islamic countries have no idea of the legal differences between American civilian and military proceedings — they care only that we are imprisoning Muslims, not about the abstruse details of our basis for doing so."   "The Obama Justice Department saw the Ghailani case as the perfect opportunity for the civilian system to prove itself. After all, the case had already been tried successfully: In 2001, before the 9/11 attacks, four terrorists were convicted and sentenced to life terms. Moreover, while critics of the law-enforcement counterterrorism model emphasize that civilian due process requires the government to hand over too much sensitive intelligence, thereby educating the enemy while we are trying to defeat the enemy, that argument was significantly diminished in Ghailani’s case. Because the case had already been tried in the civilian system, most of the relevant intelligence had already been disclosed. You could contend that this was not a good thing, but for better or worse it had already been done.   But instead of a shining moment for proponents of civilian prosecution, the Ghailani case is a body blow."
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    If there was any reason to think the US would ever declare the war on terror "over", you might have the beginnings of a point.

    Of course, there is a bit of an absurdity in saying that we should follow old conventions relating to prisoners of war insofar as not trying terror suspects in civil trials....


    ...but then ignore the rules governing holding prisoners of war in all other respects by putting them in Guantanimo and torturing them forever, etc.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Darn Constitution getting in the way of torturing people to get information of their guilt.  We really should chuck the thing so we can do "real" justice. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE] the freaking 'exclusionary rule' has no place in instances of mass terror and war
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Of course not.  There's no need at all to deter government agents from torturing whoever they like.  We're AMERICA mother-f*cker! 


    Oh right, but you have personally declared waterboarding not to be torture, though you yourself have never been waterboarded.  Try it some time.  I'm sure it's a walk in the park...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RevWright. Show RevWright's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE]Yes, the jury must have been a bunch of Hated Liberals or Terrorists, planted by Obama specifically to acquit him of most counts. Posted by WhatIsItNow[/QUOTE]

    Please post reputable link.
    Chill. Stooge or not.. he's got 20+ years to think about it.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Why should a terrorist be treated differently from any other criminal?

    I can see how some people would support torture, wire tapping, kidnapping suspected terrorists and whisking them away.

    But this is a guy that had already committed the act.  After they've committed the act, why should they be treated differently for any other criminal.

    A guy tries to blow up a plane.  Should the guy be treated differently because he was in Al Qaeda than if he was just some loser?  And I'm not suggesting that terrorists shouldbe treated with leniency. 

    But if a jury trial was OK for Tim McVie then why isn't it OK for this loser?  Tim McVie killed more people than this guy was accused of killing.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders


    "There's no need at all to deter government agents from torturing whoever they like.  We're AMERICA mother-f*cker!"

    Idiotic post. This terrorist was not tortured.
    Liberals torture the word torture. They have no clue about how intelligence services need to do their job. Libs stay on their high horse and smear by using allegations of 'torture'.  

    Enhanced interrogation is not torture. They needed inteligence information about the bombing that killed hundreds, they didnt give him a lawyer right away... 

    So, any time the exclusionary rule is used in civilian court, the defendant was 'tortured"?
    The exclusionary rule was not interpreted as required by the US Constitution until "Mapp v Ohio" in 1961. So before that, the entire US police force was 'torturing' and all defendants should have walked?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    Posts: 3395
    First: 6/1/2008
    Last: 11/18/2010
    Darn Constitution getting in the way of torturing people to get information of their guilt.  We really should chuck the thing so we can do "real" justice.
    What part of
    "at no point in our history have the nation’s wartime enemies been given access to the civilian justice system and endowed with all the protections and presumptions that American citizens receive"
    do you not understand?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    This just became "Exhibit A" in my ongoing argument as to why the Democrats can't be trusted with our national security.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders


    [QUOTE]This terrorist was not tortured. Liberals torture the word torture. They have no clue about how intelligence services need to do their job. Libs stay on their high horse and smear by using allegations of 'torture'.   Enhanced interrogation is not torture. Tntire US police force was 'torturing' and all defendants should have walked?
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]


    Says you and Dick Cheney.

    http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/04/05/open-letter-attorney-general-alberto-gonzales

    Oh right, but they're "liberals" so you're excused for sticking your head up your *ss and not considering it.

    You doi realize, you miserable sack-of-shit you (or maybe its "pitiable coward"), that we executed Japenese officers for waterboarding our soldiers during WWII?  Because it was torture?

    Disgusting.  But it's the typica ultra-con attitude "F everyone but me." 

    You're a Christian, right?  Would Jesus waterboard?

    [QUOTE]
    " So, any time the exclusionary rule is used in civilian court, the defendant was 'tortured"? The exclusionary rule was not interpreted as required by the US Constitution until "Mapp v Ohio" in 1961. So before that, the entire US police force was 'torturing' and all defendants should have walked?"
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Hopeless imbecile.  Back to English class with you.  Reading comprehension seems to evade cons mercilessly.

    The exclusionary rule is founded on the rationale that evidence must be excluded to deter government misconduct. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    http://collegerelations.vassar.edu/2007/2406/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/waterboarding-is-torture--i-did-it-myself-says-us-advisor-398490.html



    I think Bobin and Skeeter need to be waterboarded.  If there's any justice in the world, they will be.  Then perhaps we can hear what they have to say on the subject.

    It takes a true snivelling coward to advocate torturing other people, just because you're scared you might be killed. 

    You come off as a perversion of the typical wannabe macho-man: You seem to  consider yourself a "tough dude" because you can shrug off torturing some brown people. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE]Reubenhop Posts: 3395 First: 6/1/2008 Last: 11/18/2010 Darn Constitution getting in the way of torturing people to get information of their guilt.  We really should chuck the thing so we can do "real" justice. What part of "at no point in our history have the nation’s wartime enemies been given access to the civilian justice system and endowed with all the protections and presumptions that American citizens receive" do you not understand?
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    When did we suddenly become able to torture prisoners of war to obtain information from them?  When did you lose any sense of humanity?  Can you put on the rubber apron and do the duty work necessary?  I bet not.  You would probably lose your cookies.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE]"There's no need at all to deter government agents from torturing whoever they like.  We're AMERICA mother-f*cker!" Idiotic post. This terrorist was not tortured. Liberals torture the word torture. They have no clue about how intelligence services need to do their job. Libs stay on their high horse and smear by using allegations of 'torture'.   Enhanced interrogation is not torture. They needed inteligence information about the bombing that killed hundreds, they didnt give him a lawyer right away...  So, any time the exclusionary rule is used in civilian court, the defendant was 'tortured"? The exclusionary rule was not interpreted as required by the US Constitution until "Mapp v Ohio" in 1961. So before that, the entire US police force was 'torturing' and all defendants should have walked?
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Whether it was "torture" or not, the defendant's rights under the fourth amendment were violated by the government.  It's not me saying so, it is a federal judge.  And it is 2010, not 1960 (although you probably wish it was 1660).
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE]This just became "Exhibit A" in my ongoing argument as to why the Democrats can't be trusted with our national security.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    How very Christian of you...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : How very Christian of you...
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Its not a Christian thing, it is a competency thing.  The Democrats repeatedly show that they are not up to the task of defending us.

    So, stay on point and stop taking gratuitous swipes at me through my religion.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders : Its not a Christian thing, it is a competency thing.  The Democrats repeatedly show that they are not up to the task of defending us. So, stay on point and stop taking gratuitous swipes at me through my religion.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    It's not gratuitous.  It's not unfair.  It's 100% on point.  Jesus wouldn't torture people for his safety.  If you want to be a Christian, you need to answer to that.

    Or are you playing the God Card?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders

    In Response to Re: Obama fiasco: Terrorist embassy bomber convicted of one charge only, acquitted in civilian court of 224 murders:
    [QUOTE]http://collegerelations.vassar.edu/2007/2406/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/waterboarding-is-torture--i-did-it-myself-says-us-advisor-398490.html I think Bobin and Skeeter need to be waterboarded.  If there's any justice in the world, they will be.  Then perhaps we can hear what they have to say on the subject. It takes a true snivelling coward to advocate torturing other people, just because you're scared you might be killed.  You come off as a perversion of the typical wannabe macho-man: You seem to  consider yourself a "tough dude" because you can shrug off torturing some brown people. 
    Posted by WhatIsItNow[/QUOTE]

    Finally, some one a progressive thinks should be waterboarded, Skeeter and Bobin.  Not to get information mind you, but as punishment.

    This is insight in to the dark evil soul of progressives.
     

Share