Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Nov '10 00:33 / 1 edit
    Ghailani Found Not Guilty on 284 of 285 Charges

    Jurors have delivered mixed a verdict in the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee.

    After hitting a snag earlier this week when one juror said she felt threatened by others, the panel on Wednesday delivered a guilty verdict against Ahmed Ghailani on only one of nearly 300 counts against him.

    The Manhattan jury deliberated over seven days before finding Ghailani guilty of just one count of conspiracy to destroy U.S. buildings. He was acquitted of multiple other counts including murder and murder conspiracy.

    Prosecutors said Ghailani helped an al-Qaida cell buy a truck and components for explosives used in a suicide bombing in his native Tanzania on Aug. 7, 1998. The attack in Dar es Salaam and a nearly simultaneous bombing in Nairobi, Kenya, killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.

    The day before the bombings, Ghailani fled by boarding a one-way flight to Pakistan under an alias, prosecutors said. While on the run, he spent time in Afghanistan as a cook and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and later as a document forger for al-Qaida, authorities said.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ghailani-found-not-guilty-285-286-charges_518130.html


    Holder and Obama sure aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Another stuning success Mr President!
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Nov '10 00:41
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]Ghailani Found Not Guilty on 284 of 285 Charges

    [quote]Jurors have delivered mixed a verdict in the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee.

    After hitting a snag earlier this week when one juror said she felt threatened by others, the panel on Wednesday delivered a guilty verdict against Ahmed Ghailani on only one of nearly 300 coun ...[text shortened]... Obama sure aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Another stuning success Mr President! [/b][/b]
    He'll get a minimum of 20 years for the conviction and may get life; you consider that a loss for the government?

    If the Bush administration hadn't engaged in torture mandating the suppressing of certain evidence it's highly likely Ghaliani would have been convicted on far more charges. Said evidence would also have been suppressed according to the rules of the military tribunals BTW.
  3. 19 Nov '10 00:45
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    He'll get a minimum of 20 years for the conviction and may get life; you consider that a loss for the government?

    If the Bush administration hadn't engaged in torture mandating the suppressing of certain evidence it's highly likely Ghaliani would have been convicted on far more charges. Said evidence would also have been suppressed according to the rules of the military tribunals BTW.
    20 years for the murder of 200+ people. Great deal.
    If he had been tried in a military tribunal like he should of been we wouldnt be having this discussion. He nearly walked Perry Mason.
  4. 19 Nov '10 00:47
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]Ghailani Found Not Guilty on 284 of 285 Charges

    [quote]Jurors have delivered mixed a verdict in the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee.

    After hitting a snag earlier this week when one juror said she felt threatened by others, the panel on Wednesday delivered a guilty verdict against Ahmed Ghailani on only one of nearly 300 coun ...[text shortened]... Obama sure aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Another stuning success Mr President! [/b][/b]
    Obama had them in the palms of his hands and said oh well let's let them slip away dee derp dee derhh dee derdilee derhhh
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Nov '10 00:53 / 11 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    20 years for the murder of 200+ people. Great deal.
    If he had been tried in a military tribunal like he should of been we wouldnt be having this discussion. He nearly walked Perry Mason.
    Why do you assume that military tribunals ALWAYS convict? You're quite wrong (as usual).

    If evidence is insufficient, people should walk.

    BTW, 20 years in prison is the minimum sentence the judge can give; he can (and quite possibly will) give a sentence of life without parole (which is what the actual bombers got 10 years ago).
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Nov '10 00:53
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    Obama had them in the palms of his hands and said oh well let's let them slip away dee derp dee derhh dee derdilee derhhh
    How exactly has this defendant "slipped away"?
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Nov '10 01:09
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    20 years for the murder of 200+ people. Great deal.
    If he had been tried in a military tribunal like he should of been we wouldnt be having this discussion. He nearly walked Perry Mason.
    Some unpleasant facts for your argument:

    The Bush administration prosecuted, after 9-11, 828 people on terrorism charges in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law last year, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.

    With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 such cases. So far just three convictions have been won. The highest-profile is the conviction of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. The Hamdan legal saga, rehearsed here, doesn't exactly suggest that military tribunals provide swifter and surer and tougher justice. In the end, he was convicted all right, but sentenced -- not by a bunch of New York City Democrats, but by a military jury! -- to five and half years.

    Then, the tribunal judge, a US Navy captain, gave Hamdan credit for time served, which was five years. So he served six months after conviction. Today he's back in -- guess where? -- Yemen.

    http://current.com/groups/us-politics/91881376_civilian-courts-vs-military-tribunals-the-shocking-numbers.htm
  8. 19 Nov '10 01:27
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Why do you assume that military tribunals ALWAYS convict? You're quite wrong (as usual).

    If evidence is insufficient, people should walk.

    BTW, 20 years in prison is the minimum sentence the judge can give; he can (and quite possibly will) give a sentence of life without parole (which is what the actual bombers got 10 years ago).
    Incorrect. I am rarely wrong. You on the other hand are often wrong. Such as "Iran is not trying build a nuke". Remember that one Matlock? Or, "the Pentagon has a Mosque in it". That was a good one too, eh Mr. Pro Bono? Hows that redistribution of your wealth working out for you these days?
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Nov '10 01:36
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Incorrect. I am rarely wrong. You on the other hand are often wrong. Such as "Iran is not trying build a nuke". Remember that one Matlock? Or, "the Pentagon has a Mosque in it". That was a good one too, eh Mr. Pro Bono? Hows that redistribution of your wealth working out for you these days?
    Grow up and stop trying to personalize everything; it's pathetic.
  10. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    19 Nov '10 14:05
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Incorrect. I am rarely wrong.
    Oh deary me.