WH: No plan for Ghailani if not convicted
posted at 9:28 am on June 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Jake Tapper apparently caught the White House flat-footed with a question they should have already had answered before bringing Ahmed “Foopie” Ghailani to New York City for trial. Tapper asked Robert Gibbs what would happen to Ghailani if a jury failed to convict him on any of the more than 200 charges of murder and terrorism related to the two 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. Gibb’s essentially shrugged:
Yesterday, despite repeated questioning, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to answer whether the Obama administration will free Ahmed Ghailani if he’s found not guilty in court. The Obama administration flew the accused terrorist from Guantanamo to New York yesterday to try him for his alleged role in the 1998 embassy bombings.
“I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about how certain cases may or may not play out,” Gibbs said.
Both Tapper and Major Garrett of Fox pressed Gibbs for several minutes on this point, and Gibbs refused to give an answer. He repeatedly replied that the administration would wait until a verdict was reached to decide what the next course of action would be, if indeed one was necessary.
That didn’t satisfy Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Today Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, asked, “if we’re going to treat this terrorist detainee as a common civilian criminal, what will happen to Ghailani if he’s found not guilty? And what will happen to other detainees the administration wants to try in civilian courts if they are found not guilty? Will they be released? If so, where? In New York? In American communities? Or will they be released overseas, where they could return to terror and target American soldiers or innocent civilians?”
McConnell continued: “If Ghailani isn’t allowed to go free, will he be detained by the government? If so, where will he be detained? Would the administration detain him on U.S. soil, despite the objections of Congress and the American people?”
Hopefully, Foopie will get convicted and all of this will remain academic, at least until the next time Obama decides to try a Gitmo detainee in federal court rather than a military tribunal. Tapper makes the point in his post that the administration’s credibility doesn’t rest on guilty verdicts, but on not guilty verdicts. If they lock Ghailani up again after an acquittal, then it shows the entire idea of criminal trials for foreign terrorists was nothing but a White House conceit. If they let him go free after all they know about Ghailani’s involvement in al-Qaeda attacks, it will signal terrorists around the globe that attacking America carries little consequence except a big publicity show in federal court, access to the best attorneys and news media outlets, followed by the freedom to launch more attacks.
Plus, if the Obama administration lets Ghailani walk free after an acquittal, they will have to deal with an extremely angry American public. A clear majority don’t want Gitmo closed now; after a botched prosecution and a Get Out Of Jail Free card for Foopie, they’ll demand big changes to pull back on Obama’s unpopular policies. The White House knows it, too, which is why Gibbs can’t answer the question — both answers are wrong.
When you’ve worked yourself into a position where all the options are wrong, then you’ve made a mistake pursuing the policy that led you to the dead end. They may feel sanguine about rolling the dice with Foopie, confident of a conviction, and hopefully they’ll be right … this time. If they can’t give a good answer to this question, though, they’d better not roll the dice again.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 »
The word of the day is “deportation”. I hear Palau is nice these days.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Send him to Oprah’s neighborhood. Maybe she can give him a new car.
SouthernGent on June 11, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Foopie?
Didn’t the Obama administration assure us that the only people who would be brought to trial in the United States were people that were slam dunk convictions?
Obviously Foopie is going to be convicted because Obama has said he will be.
Jake Tapper should not be questioning the Great and Powerful Oz.
myrenovations on June 11, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Can you say Show Trial or Kangaroo Court.
The verdict has already been made. There’s NO way in hell that Ogabe would bring this terrorist into the US without the outcome being assured.
The irony is this terrorist would probably have got a fairer trial at Gitmo.
Caper29 on June 11, 2009 at 9:36 AM
What else is new with zero’s administration. Incompetent amateurs. He won, we loss and lost many things – freedom, security, financial independence, economic freedom… God have mercy on us.
atemely on June 11, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Pity the poor fool who might be on the jury voting “not guilty”. Glad I don’t live in that area to be in the jury pool.
usedtobeinmich on June 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM
DID ANYONE THINK THE WH WOULD THINK THIS THROUGH? THINKING REQUIRES A ADULT. BHO’S ADMIN IS A LITTLE SHORT IN THAT DEPT.
SHARPTOOTH on June 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Funny how that seems to be the way everything is going lately?…
katy on June 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM
The feds have been known to screw up a prosecution or two, one fairly recently.
a capella on June 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM
I wonder if they mirandized Foopie? And could the case be thrown out if they didn’t? Why are these idiots going back to a September 10th philosophy that resulted in the biggest Terrorist attack ever on American soil?
kingsjester on June 11, 2009 at 9:40 AM
if acquited…….turn him loose in chicago..obama’s old stompin ground
marktarheel on June 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Elections have consequences…Wake up America!
CaptKurgan on June 11, 2009 at 9:42 AM
No thanks. There are some of us here in Chicago who didn’t drink the Kool-Aid. Not many, but some.
CaptKurgan on June 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM
As I said in the first Foopie post, BO is done if Foopie is let go either via a not guilty verdict or a technicality.
You ought to add the video of BO recently saying that terrorists will not be mirandized like a common criminal. This is one of his most significant/dangerous flip flops.
txag92 on June 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM
This is so typical of the lefty mind. There is no thought to consequence.
Chaos is always the order of the day when the left are in charge.
katy on June 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout, Willis?
Professor Blather on June 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
[myrenovations on June 11, 2009 at 9:34 AM]
Steve Rattner as Juror Czar in 5, 4, 3, ….
Dusty on June 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
The jury screening process is going to be interesting here. New York has both people who remember 9/11, and people who have so totally bought into the Bush Derangement Syndrome meme that they’re perfectly willing to believe the White House played a role in the attacks.
Those are the type of people who were among Obama’s most fervent supporters last year, but who the current administration has to make sure Ghailani’s defense attorneys don’t get empaneled during the selection process. Even though his crime occurred during the Clinton Administration, all it would take is one juror to subscribe to the idea that the War On Terror is completely a Bush Administration fraud to scuttle the entire trial. Should make for some interesting questioning, juror background checks and profiling when the trial begins.
jon1979 on June 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
What do you mean no plan if there is a not guilty verdict? If the jury is unconvinced, the guy walks out the door a free man.
What part of not guilty escapes you?
“If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit!”
Skandia Recluse on June 11, 2009 at 9:45 AM
As usual, the WH makes a decision without a contingency plan. Granted there is no way in hell Ghailani is getting off, but the lack of planning in general regarding Guantanamo and the detainees continues to demonstrate how big of a n00b Obama truly is.
Shock the Monkey on June 11, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Can anyone say ‘Show Trial’??
As in showing how much more ‘fair’, and ‘understanding’ the Oblahma Admin is. Come Hell or High water, this guy is going to be found guilty.
Really wouldn’t mind seeing it blow up in their faces.
BigWyo on June 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM
I always thought that if you were found not guilty you were let free. I guess those were simpler days.
Terry Silver on June 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Serious question about miranda rights and trials in US:
If we give combatants our US citizen miranda rights, then hold trials in the US, isn’t that a tacit dissolution of our sovereignty by implication? If we give non citizens our rights, and they bring foreign legal defenders to our own courts, how can our government system be enough to hold them, ever? Doesn’t this set precedent for dissolved borders and international law/jurisdiction? I am really, really confused and disturbed about this.
Mommypundit on June 11, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Oops, I guess I should read preceding posts…
BigWyo on June 11, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Great minds…
Caper29 on June 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM
This recurring “Stick a Pin in it” attitude is proof that this administration doesn’t have a clue. And you can apply it to anything and everything they do.
fogw on June 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM
“I know what you’re thinking. “Did he file six writs or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a US Federal Court, the most powerless courtroom in the world, and would probably get you clean off on a technicality, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”
stonemeister on June 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM
That was what I was taught in school. I guess these days the standard is, your freedom after acquittal is dependent on the political calculus of the Obama administration.
Hope and change, baby!
Gator Country on June 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Will somebody explain to me how a Foreign Combatant, captured on Foreign soil, has the same rights granted to an American citizen under the U.S. Constitution?
kingsjester on June 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Ask this questions to Gibbsie and you’ll get the, “Hey! Look asquirrel!” Response. Sure seems that way. Once you open the door to this right for US citizens and legal residents, how to you close it? What happens when we fight the next war against uniformed combatents?
I vote we start housing captured enemy combatants in Ivy League College dorms and fraterities. This may help the next generation of “leaders” to be more sensible.
WashJeff on June 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Because Obama said so.
myrenovations on June 11, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Hey its another post where Ed plays outrageously outraged.
How is this different than putting Ghailani before a military commission, as the Bush administration planned to do?
You still have the possibility of a “what if he’s found not guilty?” scenario?
And even beyond the mechanism by which terrorists are tried, there remains the point that “If you couldn’t prove he was guilty, then how is he a terrorist? Why not let him go?”
e-pirate on June 11, 2009 at 10:00 AM
+100. Excellent assessment, our recent miranda thrust on the battlefield is opening Pandora’s Box.
This is the danger of politicizing justice and muddying the line between military and civilian justice.
I find it odd that the basis of our justice system is “innocent until proven guilty”, yet the very Administration conducting this charade has already voided that basic premise – because I have yet to hear them say “he is innocent until proven guilty.” or “he should have his day in court”
They are playing politics of convenience by bastardizing the essence of our judicial system, which proves he should be held and tried under military justice, not Americna courts.
And to answer the question for Gibbs: Foopie can become a “distinguished college professor” and reside in Illinois…
Odie1941 on June 11, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I suggest you look up the difference between military justice and American justice systems before posing your ignorance as “proof”.
Odie1941 on June 11, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Except that the where to put him issue is not as complicated. In a military court it would be easy to send him somwhere that is not here in the US. IN a civilian court, he will have a easier time petition to remain here.
WashJeff on June 11, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Hey, but the adults are in charge now, so we can rest easy.
Right?
Bob's Kid on June 11, 2009 at 10:04 AM
If he’s found “not guilty” then he has to be set free. That’s how our criminal justice system works. If only Dear Leader had studied & taught the American Constitution.
The only question is where to set Foopie free. If his home country doesn’t take him, or if he claims he’ll be unfairly persecuted there, then he gets free in the US.
My preference: San Fransisco.
rbj on June 11, 2009 at 10:04 AM
+1
Hey, its another post where e-pirate displays his complete ignorance.
katy on June 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Of course he didn’t answer! They have no plan for what to do with him should he be found not guilty. This administration is, as has been shown for the past 5 months, clueless!
It is terrifying, but they are building the plane as they are flying it!
Puddleglum on June 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM
If this one goes south for Obama and also China decides to pluck the Uighurs off their new Pacific paradise, Gibbs’s life may become less pleasurable.
a capella on June 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Because Obama said so.
myrenovations on June 11, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I just had a vision of him on his back in the Oval Office kicking and screaming and holding his breath until he turns blue.
kingsjester on June 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM
[Terry Silver on June 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM]
Well, there are complications. He might be freed but would be deported. So, there’s at least that.
Unless of course, the trial takes a long time and he becomes eligible for a green card handout under the Comprehensive Immigration Reform the Dems push through.
Then again, Froopie could hedge his bets and just “accidentally” say a whole bunch of things that would make him eligible for a request for political asylum for the usual, fear for his life, torture, etc, if sent back.
If all else fails, he could try the I’m the President’s relative, don’t ya know.
Personally, I think Gibbs is just being discreet because Palau doesn’t know about Plan B yet.
Dusty on June 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Looks like McCain may have his finger prints on that one.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjBhMTRhNGJiZDA0YjcyYWM1MzlmNTMwZTRiYmJjYmQ=
katy on June 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM
“getalife” had spent months convincing us that the adults are now in charge. Are you suggesting that she was wrong?!?
Yoop on June 11, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Maybe Foopie Can bunk with the Chicago Jesus’s illegal auntie or use Bernie Madoff’s apartment in NYC.
Dire Straits on June 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Sure he does – a key “problem” is only the FBI is conducting miranda rights, whereas military, CIA, etc are not – causing a bigger problem. I dont agree with McCain and campaigned aginst him – but in that “Obama Way” – Holder and the admin is trying to have it both ways, causing more danger and confusion on the battlefield.
2 solutions: Get the FBI out of there. Or kill more people.
Odie1941 on June 11, 2009 at 10:19 AM
I must be from another planet. My parents taught me to think before I acted (or suffer the consequences). This admin seems to get it backwards every time. Maybe that’s why Barry is such a huge flip-flopper.
redfoxbluestate on June 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Don’t forget the big payoff, i.e. another look at US intelligence. I would be happier if Ghailani is let loose and we stopped advertising our intelligence to the world. An added bonus would be Obama takes a hit this time rather than the tenth time.
burt on June 11, 2009 at 10:23 AM
When you’ve worked yourself into a position where all the options are wrong, then you’ve made a mistake pursuing the policy that led you to the dead end.
That about sums up the entire BO administration.
txag92 on June 11, 2009 at 10:25 AM
If Ghailani is found not-guilty the Libs will have their chance to create a new celebrity. Unlike that evil Joe the Plumber…
mjbrooks3 on June 11, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Its actualy even more convoluted than you think.
He is being charged with murder because he helped buy the trucks and bomb parts. He was part of a conspiracy, and thus under US law can be tried for all the murders. However, he never entered US jurisdiction when commiting the crimes. He was in Kenya, and only 12 of the 224 counts of murder were Americans, most were Kenyan.
So, we are putting a trial a guy, for the murder of Kenyans, in Kenya? I can see the 12 counts for the Americans, but the rest are overreaching IMO. Kenya has also alread prosecuted a number of the conspiritors in Kenya, and they are serving life sentences. Jurisdictional problems IMO.
He was then captured in Pakistan and handed over to the US… and held under the War on Terror meme as an enemy combatant. Problem is that he was held for YEARS and will now be tried in Civilian court… so a speedy trial and due process problem. The Government does not get to continuously change the process under which you will be tried… nor if you are a CIVILIAN prisoner hold you indefinatly. This change of status creates legal problems of its own.
None of this even gets into the “harsh interrogation” techniques like… yelling at him… or threatening him… or what was done to him in Pakistan…
It also does not take into account that he will have the RIGHT to face his accusers… and cross witnesses, who are all in Kenya…
If they run this trial according correctly, the prosecution has serious problems… any reasonable attorney could tie this thing up for YEARS, and probably get this guy free…
There are just too many procedural problems.
Romeo13 on June 11, 2009 at 10:29 AM
I really do not see how Ghailani can be tried fairly under our criminal justice system. Rules of evidence have been sorely botched. Then there is that little thing about confronting witnesses. And being able to subpoena the government to provide evidence prior to trial.
If he is tried before a jury, Sheppard v. Maxwell may give him a pass…a new venue at least.
If he is tried before a judge or panel of judges, then “kangaroo court” comes to mind.
If he is acquitted by a jury, should h be granted a jury trial, the question is indeed, then what?
If he is acquitted due to government incompetence, a technicality or a jury just not paying close attention to details…yes, then legally he is no longer a terrorist…and he can walk out of court and into the streets.
If acquitted, we can’t deport him. He’s not a threat (anymore) and certainly cannot incarcerate him pending further charges, or send him back to Gitmo for safekeeping.
We could send him to Kenya…or Tanzania to face charges there.
As for the Obama Administration, the words of Sir Walter Scott come to mind, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!”
coldwarrior on June 11, 2009 at 10:34 AM
This pretty much describes the wests entire effort against Islam since the beginning.
BL@KBIRD on June 11, 2009 at 10:34 AM
To date, no one in this Administration has addressed or commented on Johnson v. Eisentrager. The Bush Administration used J v. E as a primary basis for sending the captees to Gitmo in the first place.
Your point about this not being the proper jurisdiction of the US judicial system is correct.
coldwarrior on June 11, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Nice break down and well thought out. You would think any 2 or 3 of these issues would cause a “pause” in acting – but as many have said “think it through”…
I had the pleasure of being taught a few pre law courses by a JAG instrutor from an Air Force base close to my college. She laid out coparisons in military law and American law throughout the classes.
Odie1941 on June 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM
On a slightly off topic note lucianne.com is reporting that four Chinese Muslim (Uigher) detainees who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility have been resettled in Bermuda, the U.S. Justice Department said on Thursday. Wonder how long they will stay in Bermuda before jetting off to more revolutionary climes? Also makes you wonder how many people will still want to make Bermuda their vacation spot with freed terrorists on the loose there and how much the US had to pay Bermuda to take them? Did Obama use TARP funds to place them in Bermuda?
eaglewingz08 on June 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Consequences shmonshsequences! Who cares about consequences? It’s how the sound bites about “American values, Close Gitmo, blah, blah, blah” energize the liberal base that matter.
olesparkie on June 11, 2009 at 10:46 AM
The whole thing that is so stupid about this is: You do not have to be a legal scholar to know that you don’t fight barbarian enemy combatants that are trying to destroy your company with the rules of law which govern your country’s citizens. Our enemies do not care about our laws except when they can use them against us to destroy us or gain their own freedom.
kingsjester on June 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM
They can turn him loose in my county…we’ll take really good care of him. Heh, heh, heh…
Wyznowski on June 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Yeah, and apparently China is already pressuring Pelau to cough up the rest of the Uighers…
Heck, all China would have to do is give Palau a couple of the US Gov IOUs that China has been buying… they are not worth much anyway…
Romeo13 on June 11, 2009 at 10:51 AM
1. Foopie will NOT be convicted, and the blame will fall on omnipotent Bush
2. Send Foopie to DC. He will blend right in!
DannoJyd on June 11, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Rev. J. Wright as a juror in 5, 4, 3…
Making sure “America’s chickens are coming home ….. to roost!”
And if this was not bad enough, there is the whole releasing of the CIA photos and the lack of action on Obama’s part.
I weep for my nation and all those who love America.
freeus on June 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM
There is a part of me that would like to see what would happen if this scenario played out? Then there is a part of me that is terrified if this were to play out as Tapper suggested it might.
theguardianii on June 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM
The whole situation is a mess. But I have faith in the principles the Founding Fathers laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Our enemies might not follow the rule of law, but we should.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I want to hear the administration’s reaction when enormous portions of the prosecution’s case are thrown out before the trial even begins.
Tonus on June 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM
FIFY
bluelightbrigade on June 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM
You clearly believe in a competence for this filthy administration despite all evidence to the contrary. This wasn’t a tough question, why is the White House clueless as to how to answer it?
highhopes on June 11, 2009 at 11:35 AM
And where exactly are the Principles of the Founders and Constitutionality to be found in this Ghailani trial?
coldwarrior on June 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Um…. We were when he kept the terrorist at Gitmo instead of summarily executing him on the spot. That doesn’t mean he has a right to all the benefits of the American judicial system. You people disgust me. Next thing you are going to demand is all POWs taken in combat are immediately Mirandized and sent to the US for trial in a civil court.
This man wanted to kill your family! He did kill Americans and Africans. Think about the victims for a change instead of spouting stupid high-minded platitudes!
highhopes on June 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM
We are talking an NYC juror pool here. Anything is possible.
MarkTheGreat on June 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM
He’s black, associates with know terrorists and has a long history with a racist organization.
Heck, he could become POTUS!!!!
Hening on June 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM
ROFL…outstanding!
Jeff from WI on June 11, 2009 at 12:19 PM
They clearly believed in the concepts of “unalienable rights” and “due process.” I have faith in these concepts and don’t trust the government to dictate who is not entitled.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Begin Water Boarding for 162 minutes to make certain he told us everything.
BigMike252 on June 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM
You are entitled to your opinion. Not necessary to make it personal. If the word of the government is enough for you to incarcerate, then fine. It is not enough for me, and I will say so.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 1:09 PM
You are the one who would grant them the power to arrest and detain people without due process.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM
So, that being your viewpoint, now, would it be prefectly permissible for a foreign country, say Burkino Faso, to arrest, incarcerate and convict a US service member on vacation in, say, Singapore, and all because that serviceman was a member of a support battalion which had served in al-Anbar during the Iraq War? A number of nations view the Iraq war, UN Resolutions notwithstanding, to be illegal, hence an act of terrorism.
Once we decided to abrogate Geneva and put combatants on trial in civilian courts in this country, for acts committed overseas, outside our jurisdiction, we have opened up the possibility that every member of our Armed Forces, past and present, can now be viewed as part of a criminal conspiracy by any other nation on earth.
Will you be part of the avant garde demanding that any service members so arrested and jailed by given their “unalienable rights” and “due process?” After the fact?
If so, why enable such an event to take place by defending the US judicial system having cognizance over foreign nationals committing crimes outside the jurisdiction of the US?
coldwarrior on June 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I think we are arguing “apples and oranges” here. I don’t know international law well enough to tell you if bombing a US embassy is considered outside US jurisdiction just because it is not on US soil.
I do know that if a US service member were arrested and detained under such charges, I would expect our government to demand proof of due process.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 1:33 PM
You are aware of Major John Andre? The British officer who conspired with Benedict Arnold to turn over the plans to West Point? Despite being an officer in the British Army, he was hanged as a spy, after a military trial. Not treated as a prisoner of war. We are likewise in a war (and if that concept escapes you, then the fault lies with yourself) and the enemy here was not in uniform. He gets a military trial, and if found guiilty, should hang.
rbj on June 11, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Um, embassies are considered to be part of that nation’s soil. A British embassy is considered to be part of Britain. A US embassy is considered to be part of America.
Same with ships carrying a particular nation’s flag. If a murder were to occur on the Queen Elizabeth II (British flag) even if docked in NY harbor, the trial would take place in Britain.
rbj on June 11, 2009 at 1:43 PM
That was my assumption. Thanks.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I am aware. Hard to compare the two as this case occurred seven years before the ratification of the US Constitution. And certainly many treaties have been passed since then in terms of international law. He was also clearly definable as a uniformed soldier in a time of war.
I understand your point, but I still don’t want to put that much power in the hand’s of the government. What are the safeguards against mistaken identity or wrongful prosecution?
I believe due process (trial by jury) to be the best and truest safeguard. Obviously we don’t agree, but I do respect your opinion. And appreciate the Andre reference.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 2:07 PM
The problem here is that the bombs never made it onto the Embassys themselves… so even though there were deaths on the embassies the crimes were commited on and from Kenya.
This conspiracy was commited from Kenya, and done PRIOR to the War on Terror, so the War Powers Act was not activated against Al Q yet… which these guys were members of. Creates an Ex Post Facto problem… and jurisdiction problem.
If’n I was this guys lawyer (which I am not, but I did stay with a female lawyer in a Holiday Inn once) I’d attack this on Jurisdiction grounds (crimes were commited in Kenya)… Due Process grounds (gov can’t make up its mind as to how to try this case), Speedy Trial grounds (guys been in Jail for years even after indicted)…
And thats even before looking at any evidence or witnesses.
Romeo13 on June 11, 2009 at 2:08 PM
OH, and equal protection grounds as well… as some GitMo detainees have had tribunals, some have not… so they are not being treated equaly…
Romeo13 on June 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Ha! ;)
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Jurisdictional issues have long been settled. The US did kidnap a Mexican drug dealer (during HW Bush’s term) from Mexico after he had killed a DEA agent (American citizen) in Mexico. SCOTUS said the kidnapping & trial were ok. Then there’s the whole Manuel Noriega thing, where he didn’t set foot in the US until brought here for trial after the military action.
Israel has kidnapped & brought to trial in Israel former Nazis.
Also, 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to non US citizens in other countries. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez
494 U.S. 259
IIRC, AQ declared war on the US long before the embassy bombings, and basically an attack on an embassy is an act of war as you are attacking a foreign state. The bombs hit our embassy, that gives us jurisdiction. As it’s basically an act of war, military trial, not civilian. Military trials are not show trials, they just have differing standards of proof & evidence. Valid evidence that doesn’t cross all the “t”s and dot all the “i”s for a civilian trial can get in in a military trial.
Now, if Foopie gets a civilian trial here, I’m sure he wasn’t given his miranda rights so any interrogation will have to be thrown out.
rbj on June 11, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Were you opposed to his trial in a civilian court?
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Let’s not take other cases not directly involved with the embassy bombings to try to build a framework to cover all exigencies.
Four of the bombers of the Kenya and Tanzania embassies have been tired and convicted by Kenyan and Tanzanian courts already.
Had Ghailani actually made it into the embassy and detonated the bomb inside the embassy, then jurisditional issues would be far more clear.
But, having had four of his co-conspirators already brought to justice in the appropriate jurisdictions makes the claim that the US courts have jurisdictions a bit of a stretch.
This entire Ghailani episode, and that of the Uighurs, as well, seems to be nothing but an attempt by this Administration to make the problem go away, regardless of law, international treaty obligations or common sense.
coldwarrior on June 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Fair enough. There simply is no perfect solution to these matters. One can find “slippery slope” arguments in any of these scenarios.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I would only add that it still puts 100% control in the hands of the government. That is a major concern to me in principle.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 3:01 PM
“Military trials are not show trials, they just have differing standards of proof & evidence. Valid evidence that doesn’t cross all the “t”s and dot all the “i”s for a civilian trial can get in in a military trial.”
Not a quote from my 2:39 PM post.
Actually, rules of evidence in a properly executed military trial under UCMJJ standards is actually far more attentive to the dotting of “i’s” and the crossing of “t’s” than in your average civilian courtroom setting.
Read up on your UCMJ Manual for Courts Martial.
Get back to me on that.
coldwarrior on June 11, 2009 at 3:04 PM
I was and still am uneasy about the whole thing, invading to arrest him. Not necessarily opposed, but it is unsettling to basically grab the leader of another country. However, that was a clear cut case of conspiracy to sell drugs.(basically, I’m pro legalization). That is a common criminal act. The attacks on our embassies were designed for political motives, not ordinary criminal ones (usually money, as in the Noriega case). Using violence against a nation for political reasons is war. Same as when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
The fact that these actors were not acting on behalf of a state (nor part of a recognized army) does muddy the waters. This is basically a sui generis situation, and I think international law & the law of war has to flesh this out more. But it is not common crime, these guys should not get the protection of the American criminal justice system. And hey, the military tribunals have released many detainees, not just the Uighurs. Some of whom have been killed or recaptured.
rbj on June 11, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Honest mistake. Was not attempting to misrepresent your quote.
I am still concerned about government influence and control in these matters. Which “rules of evidence” does not mitigate.
I cringe when I hear of US citizens being tried by military courts in other countries.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Those dumb bastards. With a jury, let’s say, composed mainly of West Side Manhattan liberals and a Sotomayor-type judge who believes that Ghailani was “victimized” by society, there is a chance, albeit small, that that this mass-murdering thug could walk.
If he does, it is only guesswork which Manhattan landmark will burst with explosive flames.Let’s say Ghailani, aided by Obama’s new buddies the Iranians, takes out the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel at rush hour with 5,000 dead. They should name the watery grave THE AHMED GHAILANI-BARACK OBAMA MEMORIAL UNDERWATER CEMETERY in honor of those responsible.
MaiDee on June 11, 2009 at 3:24 PM
I had and have exactly the same reservations. (also, basically pro-legalization)
Like I said there is no perfect solution. I can propose hypotheticals that would demonstrate better my concerns and why I prefer civilian courts, but I think we understand each other so I’ll spare you.
Best.
M_Laveau on June 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM
The whole debate, IMO, and its one that is playing out in the court, but not with our policy makers, is does US Civil law have worldwide jurisdiction? And how does that play into our Constitution and court system.
This is actualy somthing that CONGRESS needs to be involved with… a debate we as Americans need to have… and should not be left up to the Courts, or to the changing whims of succesive Administrations.
We should also be in the forefront of an updating of the Geneva Conventions, to figure out what is OK when fighting Non State groups, and asymetrical war…
But then again… that would allow for debate… which I don’t think anyone in Washington really wants.
Romeo13 on June 11, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Wait a minute! I thought Barry O. was the smartest man alive. You mean he didn’t think this all the way through…?
PersonalLiberty on June 11, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Bingo!! Dead on Target!!
coldwarrior on June 11, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »