Obama's reckless DOJ policy on trying terror suspects finally hits brick wall

[George Whorewell]

Prosecutors dealt blow as star witness can't testify against alleged Al Qaeda thug Ahmed Ghailani
BY Scott Shifrel and James Fanelli
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS


The judge in the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner dealt a major blow to prosecutors - and possibly all terror cases - Wednesday by tossing the government's star witness.

The startling decision undermined the case against accused Al-Qaeda member Ahmed Ghailani, who is charged with bombing U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998.

It could also potentially wreck the trials of other Gitmo prisoners, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's.

Federal prosecutors had banked on the testimony of Hussein Abebe, a Tanzanian miner who allegedly sold Ghailani the dynamite used in the explosion.

Instead, in a bold move, Manhattan Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan scratched Abebe from the witness list on the day the trial was to open.

He said the testimony is inadmissible because CIA agents only learned of Abebe by coercively interrogating Ghailani at a rendition site outside U.S. soil.

The "testimony would be the product of statements made by Ghailani to the CIA under duress," Kaplan said.

He added that allowing Abebe to testify violated the law.

"The court has not reached this conclusion lightly," Kaplan said. "It is acutely aware of the perilous nature of the world in which we live, but the Constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests."

Legal experts said Kaplan's decision called into question how the government has collected evidence against all Gitmo prisoners. It also encumbered their prosecution in civilian courts - a policy President Obama has championed over military tribunals, they said.

"This does not portend well for the government when they try to bring evidence for these other cases," said former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz. "Obviously, this is a significant setback for the government."

After the ruling, Kaplan postponed the trial for a week after prosecutors asked for time to consider an appeal.

Ghailani's defense lawyer, Peter Quijano, praised Kaplan's decision, saying the prosecution's case was based on illegally obtained evidence.

"We could not agree more," Quijano said. "This case will be tried upon lawfully obtained evidence only. Not torture. Not coercion. For our system of justice to work, the Fifth Amendment must apply to Ahmed Ghailani as much as any other defendant."

Ghailani is the first Gitmo prisoner to be tried in a civilian court.

He is charged with participating in a global conspiracy with Al-Qaeda head Osama bin Laden and for his role in two Aug. 7, 1998, bombings at U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. The blasts killed 224 people and injured more than 5,000.

Ghailani's case is seen as a test run before the civil prosecution of 9/11 plotter Mohammed.

sshifrel@nydailynews.com



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/10/06/2010-10-06_trial_for_alleged_al_qaeda_terrorist_ahmed_ghailani_dealt_blow_as_star_witness_c.html#ixzz11cGaWuwI

[Soul Crusher]

 

[Fury]

I'm looking forward to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being set free under these same conditions. 

[Soul Crusher]

I'm looking forward to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being set free under these same conditions. 

And guess who on this board said we had nothing to worry about: 

240
Blacken
Mons
KC

[Soul Crusher]

Bump for 240 

[Kazan]

Fucking brilliant, I sit amazed at the incompetence of the AG and the POTUS.

Those fucking assholes make me want to

[Arnold jr]

"Obama's reckless DOJ?" Try incompetent, corrupt and completely inept. They've already proven themselves far beyond corrupted, the complete blind eye to the Black Panther voter intimidation case proved that, then you have the present "Mexican Maid" case in CA screwing up the gov. race...will they act? Time will tell, but whatever they do, I'm sure it will be on par with allowing murderous Panthers the right to intimidate at the polls and allowing murderous Muslims to stand on a national stage crying for mercy because they only kill Americans out of the love in their hearts.

[Soul Crusher]

"Obama's reckless DOJ?" Try incompetent, corrupt and completely inept. They've already proven themselves far beyond corrupted, the complete blind eye to the Black Panther voter intimidation case proved that, then you have the present "Mexican Maid" case in CA screwing up the gov. race...will they act? Time will tell, but whatever they do, I'm sure it will be on par with allowing murderous Panthers the right to intimidate at the polls and allowing murderous Muslims to stand on a national stage crying for mercy because they only kill Americans out of the love in their hearts.

Its not incompetence.   Obama is tryiong to give the terrorists a platform to trash america and show the "oppressed peopels" of the world that they have an ally in the WH who will help bring America to account for all the past mistakes. 

This is purely intentional and he is trying to collapse the nation from within. 

[The Showstoppa]

Oh, how I long for the days when the CIA would have just double-tapped this douchebag and thrown him in a dumpster somewhere instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on a trail.

[Fury]

Oh, how I long for the days when the CIA would have just double-tapped this douchebag and thrown him in a dumpster somewhere instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on a trail.

If only. Never understood this concept of keeping terrorists imprisoned in places like Guantanamo after they've outlived their purpose.

[The Showstoppa]

If only. Never understood this concept of keeping terrorists imprisoned in places like Guantanamo after they've outlived their purpose.

Neither do I my friend.  We are trying to be civil to people who have no respect for our country......how can you try to give justice to someone who just turns up their nose at all of the principles of our country?  Sickening.

[Fury]

Neither do I my friend.  We are trying to be civil to people who have no respect for our country......how can you try to give justice to someone who just turns up their nose at all of the principles of our country?  Sickening.

Because pouring water on these guys is apparently cruel and inhumane but please ignore the countless beheading videos posted on the internet, torture chambers, stoning victims and women who have had their noses cut off by these same people.  

Funny that there is no mass outcry to try Muslims on the innumerable crimes against humanity a lot of them have committed.

[The Showstoppa]

Because pouring water on these guys is apparently cruel and inhumane but please ignore the countless beheading videos posted on the internet, torture chambers, stoning victims and women who have had their noses cut off by these same people.  

Funny that there is no mass outcry to try Muslims on the innumerable crimes against humanity a lot of them have committed.

the Hague and UN remain utterly silent on the issue.

[Fury]

the Hague and UN remain utterly silent on the issue.

Much like everything else islamists do, they have carte blanch to kill, torture and oppress whoever they want. Good stuff.

Beheading videos of civilians being put on the internet = perfectly fine. 

[The Showstoppa]

Much like everything else islamists do, they have carte blanch to kill, torture and oppress whoever they want. Good stuff.

Beheading videos of civilians being put on the internet = perfectly fine. 

Yes, yes...it's "just another religion" and "part of their beliefs" BF......

[Fury]

Yes, yes...it's "just another religion" and "part of their beliefs" BF......

They're not "true" Muslims and they're just misinterpreting the Koran.

8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.”












(The reality is that they're probably the truest of Muslims but the MSM/leftists won't tell you that)

[Soul Crusher]

According to the far left:  


1.  Pouring water over someones' head - BAD

2.  Beheading people on film - CULTURAL ISSUE  WE SHOULD IGNORE SINCE WE ARE WORSE

[Soul Crusher]

 

[Fury]

[Soul Crusher]

Ha ha ha. 

[Skip8282]

hahaha...post of the day.

[Soul Crusher]

Holder Loses Gamble on Terror Trial
A ruling this week by a federal judge shows why the president and his AG were wrong in not conducting military tribunals for these unlawful combatants.
October 9, 2010 - by Clarice Feldman Share |

________________________ _____________


 
Practical commenters had noted from the outset of the war on terror that military tribunals for unlawful combatants in our custody made more sense than trying them in civilian courts under normal evidentiary rules. To take the most obvious example, we have what we call the Miranda rule, which requires that police interrogation of a suspect cease when he requests counsel. If the police do not follow that rule, the evidence they obtain from the suspect is not permitted to be introduced into evidence against him. This is not because statements made outside the presence of counsel are necessarily less trustworthy as evidence.

Similarly, we have what’s called “the fruits of the poisonous tree” rule, which means that if the prosecution found evidence only as a consequence of having obtained an inadmissible confession, that evidence as well as the confession are excluded. Again, this means that perfectly relevant and credible evidence must be excluded. These exclusions are justified as the only means by which to enforce the prohibited police conduct, not because the evidence itself is untrustworthy or unreliable.

Because military tribunals involve matters of combat and not criminal enforcement, of necessity they deal with more exigent matters than normal criminal cases. Battlefield interrogators rarely have the time and security advantages of civilian interrogators, for example. It is therefore unsurprising that in the absence of more egregious conduct that bars the use of evidence in civilian criminal courts, like physical torture (the kind of conduct which is really likely to go to the reliability of the evidence itself), many kinds of evidence barred in civilian trials would be permitted, without in any way undermining the tribunal’s obligation to provide a fair adjudication of the matter.

To be sure, there are other considerations which make military tribunals more appealing venues for trials of enemy combatants. For example, they can be held in locations and in such a way as to provide greater security for the judges and jurors. And they are more adept in the handling of classified information which one reasonably anticipates will be needed in cases involving al-Qaeda warriors.

But the relative inflexibility of the evidentiary rules in civilian courts was the most compelling reason for trying the detainees by military tribunals.

Attorney General Eric Holder ignored these sensible warnings and proceeded to a civilian trial only to be given a hard lesson about the law: you cannot count on judges to ignore the law to cover for the president’s moral preening and outreach to his far left base.

The denouement came in a case involving Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. He is a suspect in the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa which killed 224 people. He was picked up and in the course of an interrogation overseas by the CIA had given the interrogators the name of a man whom the government now had intended to call as its star witness in the case against Ghailani.

Minutes before the start of the trial, which it seems the administration intended to be a “yes we can [successfully try these guys in civilian court]” to the naysaying legal analysts, Judge Lewis A Kaplan ruled the witness was barred from taking the stand because the prosecution had not proved to the court’s satisfaction that the government could have found out about the witness even if the confession he made to the CIA — a confession the government was not introducing into evidence — had not occurred.

Ghailani will not be freed despite the collapse of the government’s case. The judge also  ruled that his status as an “’enemy combatant’ probably would permit his detention as something akin to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and al-Qaeda and the Taliban end, even if he were found not guilty.”

The day before the judge’s ruling gutted the government’s case, Andrew McCarthy correctly surmised (in an article in which he took issue with the court’s ultimate evidentiary ruling) that Holder was gambling and might lose:

The Obama administration has made Ghailani its test case to prove that the civilian criminal-justice system works perfectly well in wartime against enemy combatants — to show that we don’t need military commissions or other alternatives specially tailored to address the peculiarities of terrorism cases. The administration figured Ghailani was a safe bet. After all, the embassy-bombing case had already been successfully prosecuted once: In 2001, prior to 9/11, four jihadists were tried, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment (although the jury voted to spare the two death-penalty defendants).

Yet, to prove its political point that there is no downside in vesting Ghailani — a Tanzanian national whose only connection to the United States is his decision to make war on it — with all the constitutional rights of an American citizen, the Justice Department has had to slash its case. DOJ is also finding that even more critical evidence may be suppressed by the trial judge. In short, the slam dunk has become a horse race, one the government could actually lose.

So why did the Department of Justice take this big gamble? I suspect that Holder and those of his colleagues who were involved in the defense of the Guantanamo detainees were so persuaded by their own political posturing and their sense of the rightness of their cause that to this day they remain blinded to reality.

Clarice Feldman is a retired litigation lawyer who lives in D.C. She's a news junkie addicted to the internet.