Obama DoJ brings Gitmo detainee to the US for trial
posted at 12:55 pm on June 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
How does one hold a criminal trial for a Gitmo detainee charged with 286 separate crimes? As though the Obama administration’s reputation on national security depends on it — because it does. Earlier this morning, the US flew Ahmed Ghailani from Guantanamo Bay, his home for almost three years, to New York City to stand trial for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998:
Ghailani, currently being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, faces 286 separate criminal charges stemming from his alleged role in the Aug. 7, 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, including conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to kill Americans, and a separate charges of murder for each of the 224 people killed embassy bombings.
He is the first Guantanamo detainee transferred to the US to stand trial in federal court and will appear in a federal court in Manhattan later today.
“With his appearance in federal court today, Ahmed Ghailani is being held accountable for his alleged role in the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the murder of 224 people,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. “The Justice Department has a long history of securely detaining and successfully prosecuting terror suspects through the criminal justice system, and we will bring that experience to bear in seeking justice in this case.”
Ghailani is an expert document forger and travel facilitator, the US government says. Known within al Qaeda circles as “Haytham al-Kini,” Ghailani worked for al Qaeda’s former chief of external operations, Hamza Rabi’a — forging passports for al Qaeda members. Press accounts say he is also referred to as “Foopie” and “Ahmed the Tanzanian.”
Can we call him Foopie without violating the Geneva Convention?
On a more serious note, the Obama administration has taken a throw of the dice with Ghailani, although one with some reason for optimism. Bill Clinton sicced the FBI against Ghailani and the rest of al-Qaeda after the embassy bombings; His capture and detention at Guantanamo will probably have little to do with trying him on the hundreds of counts of murder and terrorism Foopie faces related to his actions in 1998. The problem facing the White House and DoJ on the rest of the inmates will be applying a law-enforcement standard in civil court, with the rules of evidence that do not account for the circumstances of war.
This point eludes the AP in their report:
Now, the Obama administration is trying to put him into the U.S. criminal justice system, despite claims by Republican critics that doing so would endanger American lives. Some lawmakers have opposed bringing any Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for trial, even in heavily guarded settings.
I’m not aware of anyone objecting to trying Foopie specifically in criminal court, as the government had most of its case built before the 9/11 attacks. The problem with bringing Gitmo suspects in general to the US for trial is that we didn’t use the law-enforcement method to capture most of them. We went to war in response to declarations of war, captured the detainees outside the jurisdiction of the US, and should adjudicate their cases in military tribunals where sensitive information can be protected. The problem isn’t that the Gitmo detainees would go berserk; it’s that criminal courts would most likely free them, allowing them to continue their jihad against the US unhindered.
And while some people might point to Ghailani as an example of why the law-enforcement model is preferable, it should be noted that we have Foopie in custody because we stopped using that model and went to a war footing.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
This will not end well.
ScareForce One and now this? How do you like your Precedent now New York moonbats?
Knucklehead on June 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Remember, if we don’t give them civil trials, we’re no better than the terrorists.
If the bomb belt don’t fit, we MUST acquit!
austinnelly on June 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Exactly Ed…this is why this general ‘law enforcement’ approach to terrorism is going to backfire…this is a global war in which US civil law arguably has no real jurisdiction in the first place. Either this causes a distortion of US criminal law…allowing unconstitutional concepts to creep in and be used against US citizens or a lot of these guys wind up going free because constitutional protections aren’t meant to deal with external threats.
AUINSC on June 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I agree completely… this will be a travesty of Justice if he is convicted and if he is set free… this is a lose lose situation bringing him here.
Kaptain Amerika on June 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
It’s just a punishment to the State of NY from the One, because the Senate changed leadership from Dem to Republican yesterday.
ChristianRock on June 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Protecting the terrorists from the victims.
shick on June 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
If Foopie is found innocent or let out on a technicality, Obozo is done. Well, that and 10% unemployment, inflation, and on and on and on.
txag92 on June 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Apparently we are back to the failed Clinton administration approach. Also, what happens if one of the defendants is acquitted? Automatic greencard? Lovely.
LibertarianRepublican on June 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Risking American lives for their liberal “code of ethics”, which are a really bad joke. Millions have died under that code, but let’s try one more time, really.
bbz123 on June 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
We were just wondering about what Obama would use as a distraction, weren’t we?
Daggett on June 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
So…. if(when?) we ever have to fight a ground war, let’s say, taking Seoul back from the Norks, do we send the EPWs to Alaska or Hawaii for trial?
Is that the next step?
reaganaut on June 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
This can only end in aquital. This is honoring the deaths of our citizens and soldiers?
shick on June 9, 2009 at 1:08 PM
That’s a real possibility. I’m not familiar with the case, any hot shots attorneys leading his defense?
These bombings were over 10 years ago, what are the odds that the ever-efficient Federal Government corrupted some of the evidence?
reaganaut on June 9, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I searched the article for any mention of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings — nope, not a mention.
Those were prosecuted in the criminal court system and the jihadists learned all about how we were tracking them through their cell phone usage. Jihadists stopped using cell phones. They learned lots of other tricks during the court trial, all of which led to the second bombing of the World Trade Center.
Yeah, I know, the 9-10 mentality is now ours again. Anyone want to go for coffee at Windows of the World and talk about it?
bonnie_ on June 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Really?
Not as successful as GITMO, though. Not as successful as the military.
Success, like WACO? I’m confused.
reaganaut on June 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM
It does? When did that happen?
Oh nevermind. This statement is coming from the same administration that will “save or create” a kazillion jobs.
TRANSLATION: long history = one conviction
fogw on June 9, 2009 at 1:13 PM
He is sooo cute. I don’t really think he bombed any embassies or killed any people. Let him go. He’s a good boy.
JiangxiDad on June 9, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I seriously think any competent lawyer could get this guy aquitted with one hand tied behind his back. So we either ask some lawyer to suspend his professional ethics and throw the case in order to get Foopie convicted, or most of the charges will probably be thrown out and there is a good possibility Foopie will walk.
The question is…what happens when or IF he does walk? Will he be released in New York? Under what authority could the US possibly continue to detain him? Maybey ICE could arrest him and deport him, but deport him to where?
Mord on June 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM
The media’s meme over the closing of Guantanamo has always been, no state wants to accept or “house” these prisoners in a max-security prison.
That misses the whole point – once you bring them into the US, you have to give them a trial. But what if you cannot prove their guilt? Are they set free on American soil? Are they deported and to where?
This of course also ignores the fact that they are not entitled to rights under our constitution.
mdenis39 on June 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM
That’s a real possibility. I’m not familiar with the case, any hot shots attorneys leading his defense?
These bombings were over 10 years ago, what are the odds that the ever-efficient Federal Government corrupted some of the evidence?
reaganaut on June 9, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I don’t know who will be representing Foopie but I’m sure Eric Holder’s firm would be happy to.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/23/pay-attention-to-eric-holders-law-firm-and-gitmo-detainees/
txag92 on June 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Hmmm… interesting….
of the 224 MURDER charges, only 12 are American.
Did this guy actualy plant the bombs himself? Did he ever enter US soil by going onto embassy grounds?
Or, are we now claiming jurisdiction in Tanzania? Under US Law?
And more importantly, was he ever questioned by the “harsh” techniques (not waterboarding, but the others, like yelling at him and such)…
A good defense lawyer, which I’m SURE this guy will have, will make a mess of this whole thing.
Romeo13 on June 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Bringing foreign terrorists into the US for trial is just insane. There is no justification for this stupidity, at all. None.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM
They are set free on American soil.
Period. The End.
Knucklehead on June 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM
A good defense lawyer, which I’m SURE this guy will have, will make a mess of this whole thing.
Romeo13 on June 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM
And if that happens, Obama will have to spin some kind of answer for it, let Eric Holder be the scapegoat, or blame Boooosh. Anyway he does it, I don’t think the public will let him off the hook for it. Especially, if things keep progressing the way they are, both foreign and domestically.
kingsjester on June 9, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Another thought, Foopie represents the first raindrop in the coming storm. Does anyone think the people who want GITMO closed are going to wait to see how the Foopie trial turns out before they start screaming about ending the “inhumanity” of Gitmo and bring ALL of those guys to the US? Foopie’s trial could end up seeting a Precedent, after all of the other detainee’s are already in the US and awaiting their own trials, that could possibly affect all of the rest of the cases.
I know thats alot of IF’s and MAYBEY’s but WTF? These guys are literally making all this up as they go along.
Mord on June 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Now that Ghailani is a landed immigrant…for legal purposes a US-person now.
This is going to get bollixed up and fast.
coldwarrior on June 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
In a jury trial they have to have jurors that are his peers. What constitutes as his peers? Are they going to have to ship in jurors from Africo or maybe some of his fellow prison mates from Guantanamo?
AC on June 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
It sounds like he’s innocent to me; anyone with a nickname of “Foopie” can’t be all that bad. I say set him free ROR and wait for trial.
Bishop on June 9, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Hang on Foopie, Foopie hang on.
Dont even think of calling him Macawcaw.
faol on June 9, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I’m guessing in the future he’ll serve on a committee with Obama, teach at some Ivy League supermarket, and get published on how he only blew up buildings and not people. Obama seems to have a real soft spot in his head for these types.
Whether destroyed through bombs, bullets or abortion, American lives come cheap to our newly elected POTUS.
Hening on June 9, 2009 at 1:31 PM
They’re going out of their way to protect muslims from evil Americans, just like Michelle Malkin blogged about.
SouthernGent on June 9, 2009 at 1:31 PM
It’s not that Foopie would go berserk, it’s that the moonbats and the press (sorry for being redundant) will go berserk.
I can see the bumper stickers now: “Free Foopie!”
*sigh*
bluelightbrigade on June 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Maybe Columbia U needs a guest speaker.
faol on June 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM
BINGO!
In addition to the very real and very terrifying possibility of acquittal and release, it is simply impossible to not reveal important information about sources and methods during a highly publicized trial. At the very least, some juror will spill a key bean or three during an interview on “The View” after it’s all done, and our foes will implement countermeasures. And people will die.
This is madness.
Noocyte on June 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM
It seems they’re not willing to go too far out on this limb, since we’ll actually be trying Ghailani for terrorism against US sovereign territory, and the deaths of people who were under our protection at the time he participated in killing them.
I’m certainly sympathetic to arguments against trying generic terrorist detainees in US courts. But even if we hadn’t launched a War on Terror, we would, by finding and detaining Ghailani, have come to the day when he would be tried in a US court for attacking our embassies. We’ve always had the recognized right to try him in our own justice system — as Russia or China or Japan would have, if he had attacked their embassies. Kenya and Tanzania have probably formally yielded their claims on him to us.
This case isn’t really much of a test of the principle of trying generic terrorist detainees in the US justice system. That kind of test will only occur if we try someone who has not attacked, or plotted to attack, the US.
J.E. Dyer on June 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I’ve said all along we should have found out everything we needed to know then shot these terrorists- – problem solved.
klb on June 9, 2009 at 1:38 PM
What happens if we experience a giant up tick in terror attacks in the future and we need to arrest thousands if not ten thousands of people from all over the world? What happens then??
I don’t like this at all.
Oil Can on June 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM
How long before we see leftists brandishing “Free Froopie” signs?
PattyJ on June 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Oil Can on June 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM
We have already arrested tens of thousads of people from all over the world. The only people who are in GITMO are high value detainees. The rest are detained in the country we captured them in.
klb on June 9, 2009 at 1:38 PM
The only problem with that is…I know it’s a shocker….most enlisted men would find it distasteful to summarily excecute a prisoner once the adrenalin wears off.
Mord on June 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM
A quick search doesn’t come up with the actual indictment…
Is the charge conspiricy? Are they saying he helped MAKE the bombs? Or, was he just part of the conspiricy to move folks around (as he is apparently known as a forger).
Its going to be interesting to see what evidence the Government has in this case… they have to have some “witness” who puts him into this conspiricy…
From a quick read, there are a number of the origional conspiritors in Jail in Kenya… serving life in prison…
With the RIGHT to confront you accuser, they’d have to bring this “guy” (if there even is one) to America, which would also open up a whole can of worms about his “rights”, and whether the testimony is being bought off by getting him out of Kenyan Jail… even for a short time…
Gonna be interesting.
Romeo13 on June 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Time to apologize to all the German and Japanese prisoners of war we held without trial during the Second World War.
Steven on June 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Nah, need to go back a bit more… to the Unconsitutional taking of Property during the War of Northern Aggresion!
Yep… reparations to the Southerners for freeing the Slaves, as their property was taken without compensation.
Not to mention that HORRIBLE Sherman burning all those Plantations as he marched to the Sea…
/sarc off…
War is a crappy thing… but when lawyers get involved, it tends to get silly as well.
Romeo13 on June 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Execute them and scatter their ashes already and then you don’t have to house them anywhere
CMonster on June 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Can we swap Obama for Foopie and all the rest? Hussein can sit in Gitmo, get halal meals, and flush himself down the toilet. I think we’d be safer with him gone no matter how many terrorists float around the penal system.
Western_Civ on June 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM
So how many of the constitutional amendments will apply to protect “Foopie”? Did U.S. operatives read him his Miranda warnings when he was apprehended? Will he be entitled to cross-examine all of his accusers? What about the discovery process? In North Carolina, for instance, criminal defendants are entitled to open-file discovery. I’m sure the federal system is not so generous, but it’s probably more generous than it should be under the circumstances.
So how much is this about giving “Foopie” a “fair shake” versus seeking appropriate punishment for his crimes?
cackcon on June 9, 2009 at 2:17 PM
But what is the alternative? A system where the US government maintains the right to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone without any due process? Sounds like totalitarianism.
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM
All of them. Once he’s on US soil, it’s all over.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Mord, are the countries really holding them? Or releasing them a few years later?
Oil Can on June 9, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Sounds like a job for covert operations to me. You are aware that we have spy agencies which are tasked with going to foreign countries, breaking their laws, and dealing with America’s enemies in a quiet manner?
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Execute them and cremate the remains and scatter their ashes over pig farms, so no virgin will want anything to do with them.
eaglewingz08 on June 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
How is that? We are talking about non-Americans who are not on American soil. Totalitarianism describes a relationship between a government and its own citizenry on its sovereign territory. Why would you apply this to a government and non-citizens outside of its sovereign territory?
This idea that all people in the world, anywhere, must be dealt with by our government in the same manner as our own citizens on our own territory is quite ridiculous.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 2:30 PM
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM
No, the alternative is to maintain a strict wall between military and civil law. Trying foreign terrorists as US civilians what jeopardizes the distinction.
AUINSC on June 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Everything is a double-edged sword. But there is a well-defined direction in governance and that is that a government is obligated to its own citizenry above all others. Once one begins to promote the idea that our government is beholden to non-citizens all around the world in the same manner as to its own populace on our territory, then there is no longer any advantage to being an American, in the eyes of the American governmetn. That is totally unworkable and will lead to a disintegration of the government – as it should, as such a government is absolutely worthless.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 2:44 PM
It would be dangerous to travel anywhere if this were the protocol. What is the redress for mistaken identity or false accusations? Sounds like the system they have in North Korea.
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Andy McCarthy over at National Review Online has a good summation of this situation here
Short version:
If this has to happen now, this is a good case. But it’s highly unlikely that success in this case can translate to trying other detainees in civilian courts.
mjgreen on June 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I forget what your point is…what protocol? If you are arguing that the US must try these folks as civilians in court, then why doesn’t that apply to anybody we capture that we are at war with?
AUINSC on June 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Don’t like it when it happens to US citizens who are traveling abroad. Don’t want it to happen here.
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Traveling outside of the US always has its dangers, as the arm of the US government to protect its own citizens doesn’t extend beyond our shores, except when our government decides to force compliance by others. When you go to Mexico, you are subject to the whims of the Mexican government and that is just how it is. The Mexican government doesn’t care about your Constitutional rights, since they don’t exist outside of the US.
Not everyone in the world is entitled to redress. I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand. We bombed Dresden, regardless of any “rights” that anyone might have thought that the residents there had. By your way, we’d have to have warrants to do any bombing, at all, with the names and addresses of all people being bombed, including evidence that they warranted bombing.
No. It sounds like the system the US has had for the entirety of our existence. What do you think our spy orgs do? Why do you think we have covert ops, at all?
Tell me, what is the advantage that US citizens should have, with respect to the US government? Also, tell me what insures that US citizens maintain their Constitutional rights when not on US soil?
You are trying to rewrite all of US, and human, history.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM
If he gets off and is released in the States he’ll get welfare and legal status. This sure does not bode well for our Great Nation. I think there will be many attacks to follow on US citizens if they know they’ll get released on US soil. Not a smart move by teh one.
Brat4life on June 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM
I wouldn’t bet on that. An “Equal Protection” case (even though applied to those who don’t fall under the jurisdiction of our Constitution) would serve to bring the rest of the scum here, too.
People seem to forget why the CIA didn’t operate on American soil. The way they are trying to work things, there is now no difference between American soil or anywhere else in the world – to the US government, at least. That is totally unworkable.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM
I’m pretty sure those two reporters that NK just locked away didn’t blow anything up…if that’s what you mean. This guy did.
AUINSC on June 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Sorry, missed the link earlier. Andy McCarthy’s post is here
mjgreen on June 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM
He has legal status…that status conveyed the moment he stepped off the plane in New York, and his being brought here under US government auspices reinforces that he is here legally. Legally, he is a US-person now.
coldwarrior on June 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Not trying to re-write anything. You are certainly correct about the history of covert ops. But as a concerned libertarian, I worry about placing this type of power in government hands.
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Pardon me, is this your red flag you just dropped…
AUINSC on June 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
But why are you so concerned with treating non-Americans in the same manner as AMericans, no matter where they are? That is not libertarianism, but globalist thinking. Our government’s reach, practically and theoretically, is not global and is not intended to extend beyond our shores.
You are talking about government power that is only exercised on non-Americans outside of America. I don’t see where any concern of governmental power, with respect to Americans, comes into play.
You argued, earlier, that you were concerned about other governments doing the same to us. They do. That is a fact of life that none of the actions of our government changes.
You seem to forget that the single, most important task of the US government is protecting US citizens and protecting our rights on US soil. That is the number one job of the US government. You must look at all acts of our government with respect to this criterion, especially if you claim to be a libertarian.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 3:04 PM
AUINSC on June 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
What if the government of NK claimed they did? I would hope we would not just let these women rot in jail on such claims without having them proved.
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Actually, M_Laveau, there are plenty of safeguards against mistaken identity and false accusation.
You realize that of the approx. 775 detainees brought to the camp, more than half have been vetted by the military and released. There’s only about 225 left. The military undertook searching probes into these guys backgrounds, and was perhaps too liberal in their release policies, given that various reports identify many of those released returning to the fight.
In other words, we can keep these guys and ensure we’ve got the right guys without having to resort to national-security-endangering trials in civilian courts. (Read Andy McCarthy’s post I linked to if you want more info on this.)
mjgreen on June 9, 2009 at 3:07 PM
NK didn’t claim they did anything but cross the border…and ‘were spying’…at best, an immigration violation in any normal country.
AUINSC on June 9, 2009 at 3:08 PM
The Nork government does whatever it wants to do. So?
What are we going to do? Should we bomb the Norks? But then we will have violated the “rights” of Norks who were innocent but suffered from our bombing without proper warrants and evidence against all who were to be injured by it …
Your attitude about the proper role of our government, essentially extending the rights of US citizens to all around the world at all times, cannot be implemented without causing total paralysis of our government. Not a singel war could ever be waged with your sets of rules and Americans would lose all of our rights as this country became a sitting duck for everyone.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
You make great points. I hope you can agree that there are trade-offs for what you propose.
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 3:11 PM
This guy apparenlty neither drove the trucks, nor made the bombs.
He was part of a conspiracy to do so… but he apparently was more into false IDs from what I can find…
Unless the US Gov can proove that he is more than a “support” person in this plot, the Murder charges are a stretch IMO….
Add in the foreign involvement, and the fact that this guy never did anything on American soil… and it becomes even more interesting that they chose not to send him back to Kenya for trial… as Kenya has already tried some members of this very same conspiricy.
Romeo13 on June 9, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Come again?
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Sure. There are always trade-offs. The world is a dangerous place. It always has been and always will be.
But never forget that the real purpose of instituting national governments is to make the sovereign soil a decent place for the citizenry and to protect the rights of that citizenry while on sovereign soil – soil that falls under the jurisdiction of that government. Our government is beholden to no one but the American citizenry and should always act with the interests of the American citizenry on American soil oif foremost concern.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Problem is that these “Journalists” illegaly entered a country who does NOT have a free press.
They knew what they were doing was against North Korean law… entered that country anyway in order to get a story, which would make the NORKs look bad…
Press needs to take responsibility for its own actions when it goes into foreign countries, and should not pull the US Government into defending THEIR breaking of another countries laws.
Romeo13 on June 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Hening on June 9, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Right on!
kayo on June 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Agreed. It is just a question of how to best accomplish that without compromising rights of non-citizens here, and protecting the rights our citizens abroad.
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Sorry, inside joke. Wasn’t sure about the libertarian angle on this.
AUINSC on June 9, 2009 at 3:27 PM
And I would add that they intentionally put the entire US at risk by sticking their individual noses into the middle of a situation that involves missiles and nukes and that the US has not been able to deal with satisfactorily, so far.
These two, by their own actions (assuming that they entered North Korea on their own) put the entire US at risk, including risking Japanese and South Korean security as a result of what might end up being given in order to “free them”, and they should be held responsible for that. I am more than ticked at these two. Much more.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 3:27 PM
US citizens have no Constitutional rights, abroad. None. They fall under the jurisdiction of wherever they are and those governments. There is nothing to protect in that. That is the risk of traveling out of the US and why Americans should only travel to countries whose governments they trust.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM
He sounds like a bit more than an ID forger to me.
AUINSC on June 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM
No worries.
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Trial balloon. No pun intended.
All engineered to measure the public response to moving terrorists through the US justice system.
BobMbx on June 9, 2009 at 3:43 PM
No doubt. But that shouldn’t mean that they have no rights whatsoever. And that our government should not attempt to protect them just because they are arrested on foreign soil without acceptable proof of due process.
M_Laveau on June 9, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Just wanted to point out that in our legal system, if someone is robbing a bank and kills someone in the process, ALL persons involved in the robbery are treated as if they pulled the trigger. So, even the get-away driver who was unarmed and not even in the bank at the time of the killing would be charged with murder.
Of course, this terrorist will be judged by a jury of his “peers” in spite of not being a U.S. citizen. He will be portrayed as the little black Gitmo victim; the media will have a field day with it, and the “Justice Brothers” will be out in force to defend him.
Pathetic.
LeperKhan on June 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Good question – I suggest you check with an expert in these matters: the self-proclaimed “guilty as sin, and free as a bird”: ‘OhBomber’, alias Bill Ayres!
Sweet_Thang on June 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM
But unless you claim worldwide jurisdiction for US Law, as this was done in Kenya… which may or may not have that same precedent… it could become interesting as to whether we are even charging him with somthing for which he can be prosecuted under tha law.
And, by saying WE have worldwide jurisdiction for US Law, then it throws sovereignity out he window, and you have little things like the recent incident where a court in SPAIN wanted to prosecute AMERICANS for somthing done in other countries….
Hard to make an arguement that they can’t prosecute on a worldwide basis, if we do….
Romeo13 on June 9, 2009 at 4:03 PM
At best he’ll get to redecorate Nosairs old ‘terror’ cell.
Rea1ityCheck on June 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Upon acquittal, D’ohBummer will get Foopie a job with Acorn, heading up voter registration efforts among illegal immigrants for the 2012 elections. PERFECT!
Sweet_Thang on June 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM
I was stationed overseas in the military and was briefed that if I or my dependents violated a law of the host country while off the installation we were subject to the law of the host country and had no U.S. rights (due process, etc.) nor would our government intervene with the legal processes of that country.
As much as I understand your point, you have no basis for it.
chemman on June 9, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Unless that American is subject to a status of forces agrgeement [specific treaty for dealing with military personnel on foreign soil] then, no, US citizens have no “rights” when abroad when it comes to foreign government other than those allowed by that government…permited by that govbernment, or doled out by the whim of that government.
In my younger days I had to respond many times to calls from frantic Americans who had a relative or friend arrested or otherwise hauled away by the local government. Was told many times by the same that “I had to do something since it was my job to protect the rights of Americans abroad in a consular capacity.”
Had to break it to them that while I would make an attempt or the consulate would make an attempt, there was basically nothing we could do unless the local government permitted it.
Talk about heads exploding. Outside the bounds of the US, or US territories, or under specific treaty arrangements…no US citizen has US Constitutional rights that convey to a foreign setting should they be rounded up by the locals.
We can pressure, we can cajole, we can beg, we can send in the 7th Fleet…but that is another matter entirely.
However, what this Ghailani episode has broken is new ground…and dnagerous ground at that. Ex-jurisdictional trial for crimes committed on foreign soil can easily lead to any government at any time taking it upon themselves to arrest US citizens and charge them for crimes not committed in their nations. Thus, if you or your son or daughter deployed to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Philippines or anywhere else in pursuit of terrorists or just performing milit6ary duty, it is no stretch to see a foreign government viweing such as “illegal” under their laws and rounding up you, your son or daughter while on vacation and charging them with “crimes.”
We have just opened a box that will not easily be closed again.
coldwarrior on June 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Exactly what did these guys do? Tell me details? First you tell me we can’t hold these guys without a trial, then you advocate that North Korea hold two guys without trial on the vague charge of ‘endangering world stability’.
I call Bullsh*t.
Chaz706 on June 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Uh, the two LADIES in question crossed into North Korea from China, trying to get some story.
They had a trial under N. Korean law, and were sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Romeo13 on June 9, 2009 at 4:37 PM
The two journalists while in North Korea apparently violated North Korean law…specifically which one, who knows. But, they had been filming…need a permit to do that, they had been talking to locals, need a permit to do that, and thwere is an allegation that they were involved in passing information about North Korean dissenters and defectors to the West..a violation of North Korean law in itself.
It is North Korea’s call as to whom they arrest, charge and put on trial. it is not like these two were “arrested” in Changmai or Djakarta and taken to P’yongyang by the North Koreans. They were arrested inside North Korea.
As for the detainees…solely because we desired to obtain operational information from bandits, brigands, saboteurs and terrorists, we violated the standards of Geneva. Had we stuck to Geneva strictly by the book, most of them would have been executed under the authority of the local US military commander within 24 hours of their capture. And there is a vast amount of precedent for doing so.
coldwarrior on June 9, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I prefer the Tanzanian Devil.
LeaningRt. on June 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
“Don’t Taz me, Bro?”
coldwarrior on June 9, 2009 at 4:43 PM
What the hell are you talking about? Where did I say anything close to what you are attributing to me?
Anyone who goes to North Korea takes their chances. That is a fact. Live with it. In addition, the fact that these two (gals, by the way, not guys) insinuated themselves in the middle of a major problem, that they have no business in, should give everyone great pause. If you don’t understand that, then … I don’t even know what to say. But I’m sure you’ll make some stuff up and claim I said it.
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Show me the quote where I say this, you disingenuous liar.
Show me where I said this.
Either you are a flat-out liar or your understanding of English is wanting for even a third grader. Which is it?
progressoverpeace on June 9, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »