1st Terrorist in civilian court in NYC cleared of MURDER charges. WE TOLD YOU!

[Soul Crusher]

Ex-Gitmo Detainee Ahmed Ghailani Cleared of All but One Charge in U.S. Embassy Bombings

Published November 17, 2010 | FoxNews.com


  
Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Ahmed Ghailani was found not guilty on all but one charge Wednesday by a civilian jury in New York, in a case with ramifications for President Obama's policy toward Guantanamo and civilian trials for terror suspects.

Ghailani was acquitted in federal court on more than 280 charges in connection with the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, including one murder count for each of the 224 people killed. He was found guilty for only one charge, conspiracy to destroy government buildings.

Ghailani faces a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a possible life sentence. He will remain in custody and sentencing will take place on Jan. 25, 2011.

The acquittal is seen as a major blow to the U.S. government, as Ghailani was the first former Gitmo detainee to be tried in a civilian courtroom. The case had been viewed as a possible test case for President Barack Obama administration's aim of putting other terror detainees -- including self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- on trial on U.S. soil.

The anonymous federal jury deliberated over seven days, with a juror writing a note to the judge saying she felt threatened by other jurors.

Prosecutors had branded Ghailani a cold-blooded terrorist. The defense portrayed him as a clueless errand boy, exploited by senior Al Qaeda operatives and framed by evidence from contaminated crime scenes.

The judge had earlier decided that a star witness would not be allowed to testify because the witness was identified while Ghailani was held at a secret CIA camp that used harsh interrogation techniques. It is unknown what effect this witness would have had on the case.

Prosecutors had alleged Ghailani helped an Al Qaeda 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 boarded 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 Qaeda, authorities said.

He was captured in 2004 in Pakistan and held by the CIA at a secret overseas camp. In 2006, he was transferred to Guantanamo and held until the decision last year to bring him to New York.

Despite losing its key witness, the government was given broad latitude to reference Al Qaeda and bin Laden. It did -- again and again.

"This is Ahmed Ghailani. This is Al Qaeda. This is a terrorist. This is a killer," Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Chernoff said in closing arguments.

The jury heard a former Al Qaeda member who has cooperated with the government describe how bin Laden took the group in a more radical direction with a 1998 fatwa, or religious edict, against Americans.

Bin Laden accused the United States of killing innocent women and children in the Middle East and decided "we should do the same," L'Houssaine Kherchtou said on the witness stand.

A prosecutor read aloud the fatwa, which called on Muslims to rise up and "kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they can find it."

Other witnesses described how Ghailani bought gas tanks used in the truck bomb with cash supplied by the terror group, how the FBI found a blasting cap stashed in his room at a cell hideout and how he lied to family members about his escape, telling them he was going to Yemen to start a new life.

The defense never contested that Ghailani knew some of the plotters. But it claimed he was in the dark about their sinister intentions.

"Call him a fall guy. Call him a pawn," lawyer Peter Quijano said in his closing argument. "But don't call him guilty."

Quijano argued the investigation in Africa was too chaotic to produce reliable evidence. He said local authorities and the FBI "trampled all over" unsecured crime scenes during searches in Tanzania

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 Print     Close URL

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/17/gitmo-detainee-ahmed-ghailani-guilty-terrorism-charges/

[Soul Crusher]

Obama's Terror Trial Policy? DOA.
Neoavatara ^ | November 17, 2010 | Neoavatara

Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:16:45 PM by Neoavatara

Does it get any worse than this?

From the New York Times:

The first former Guantánamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court was acquitted on Wednesday of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result may again fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists.

This is a failure of epic proportions . Obama rode into office two years ago, promising immediate closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility by moving the terrorists to a facility within the United States, and then trying them under federal statutes. 2 years later, Gitmo remains not only open, but under no threat of closing any time during the Obama First term.


(Excerpt) Read more at neoavatara.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[George Whorewell]

Not to gloat or make light of the fact that both of us know about law and predicted a similar outcome, but where are all of the liberal fucksticks who said that nothing like this could ever happen and that it was guaranteed that none of the detainees would see the light of day?

Presumably because our brilliant AG and President anticipated all of the potential legal pitfalls that would result in trying Al Queda members in American civilian court rooms?

Do any of you morons still think a civilian trial for KSM is a good idea?

W/o going conspiracy theory SAMSON ape dung-- Do you think that this is being done on purpose? Ideology above justice? A symbolic branch extended to the far left base to justify all of the numerous shortcomings with regard to foreign and domestic policy?

Just something to consider.

[240 is Back]

IMO, these d-bags would have walked whether the trial took place in 2008 or 2010.

That's why bush just kicked the can down the road.  next guys' problem.

It was a lack of evidence, correct?

[tonymctones]

Sorry but LMFAO

wheres 240 with his "they will get convicted no matter where they get tried"

LOL come on 240 come comment on your saviors latest accomplishment

[George Whorewell]

IMO, these d-bags would have walked whether the trial took place in 2008 or 2010.

That's why bush just kicked the can down the road.  next guys' problem.

It was a lack of evidence, correct?

LMAOOOOOOOOOOO- What TRIAL!?!?!? There weren't supposed to be any fucking trials. A military tribunal isn't a trial! There are no rules of evidence, no presumption of innocence, no jury and no discovery. That is the point.  I would normally ignore your blatant hypocrisy, dishonesty and stupidity but this takes the cake. Bush wanted military tribunals; that's why Guantanamo was established in the first place. It was only after douchebag liberal lawyers like our esteemed AG started suing, our douchebag supreme court overruled 50 years of precedent, and Bush left office, that this comedy of legal incompetence was allowed to move forward.

Bush had the right idea. Everyone else was fucking clueless.

[240 is Back]

Bush had the right idea. Everyone else was fucking clueless.

I guess what I'm not seeing is - why weren't these bad guy fed to the sharks in the 7+ years that Bush had them?

I mean, he didn't give a shit about invading countries, torture, etc - but somehow he was powerless to prosecute bad guys?  i guess that's what is unclear to me.  If I'm Bush - don't I realize around 2006 that things aren't looking good for GOP in 08 - and tried these guys?

I dunno...

[2ND COMING]

At one point in time i was in favor of bringing ksm to nyc to stand trial for symbolic reasons. It was a point of view based on emotions most likely. I thought, there is no chance in hell he could walk away innocent. Which is probably correct, however its not the sensible move. Why waste the time, money and most importantly, give ksm that stage? Put him through the military tribunal and be done with it.

im baffled why ghailani was given a chance to go through trial.

[240 is Back]

i'm baffled why they didn't accidentally sink the boat on the way to trial.

[2ND COMING]

or slipped and bumped his head when he was caught.

[Straw Man]

HOLY SHIT

what didn't the jury hear ?

this guy must be guilty of something

right??

 

[Hereford]

ummmmm, didn't he get a minimum of 20 years?

20 year minimum = getting off?

[Emmortal]

ummmmm, didn't he get a minimum of 20 years?

20 year minimum = getting off?

Where will he serve his sentence?

[Hedgehog]

The guy is probably getting a life sentance.

He was tried and found guilty.

And like the Nürnberg trials, this holds legitimacy.

So this is IMHO a big step forward actually.

The whole situation that Bush started with Guantanamo and torturing is a mess.

It has to be handled somehow.

[Soul Crusher]

Please.  This verdict is a joke.  Anyone who has a clue knows that it is ridiculous to convict someone for conspiracy but not for the resultant crimes.  This is total nonsense.

[Hedgehog]

Please.  This verdict is a joke.  Anyone who has a clue knows that it is ridiculous to convict someone for conspiracy but not for the resultant crimes.  This is total nonsense.

Maybe they couldn't convict him beyond reasonable doubt.

And then they did what they should.

Your reaction is that it's something bad when this happen.

My reaction is quite the opposite.

I believe it shows that the law actually functions. That jurors, that no doubt wanted to sentence this terrorist, were able to look at the evidence and look at what could be proven.

He will most likely serve a life sentence.

But my point is that a judicial system can't sentence people based on emotions and gut feelings.

[blacken700]

Ghailani faces a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a possible life sentence. He will remain in custody and sentencing will take place on Jan. 25, 2011.




First Terrorist tried in civilian court in NYC cleared of charges.  WE TOLD YOU!               i little misleading

[Fury]

So he played a direct hand in killing 224 people and people are actually happy that he was found guilty of one charge of conspiracy that may put him in jail for a minimum of 20 years?

Morons. 

[blacken700]

The Ghailani verdict and American justice
By Glenn Greenwald  A federal jury in New York yesterday returned a guilty verdict against accused Terrorist Ahmed Ghailani on one count of conspiracy to blow up a government building, a crime which entails a sentence of 20 years to life, but acquitted him on more than 280 charges of murder and conspiracy relating to the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.  Last month, the federal judge presiding over the case, Lewis Kaplan, banned the testimony of a key witness because the Government under George Bush and Dick Cheney learned of his identity not through legal means but instead by torturing Ghailani (and also possibly coerced the testimony of that witness).  The verdict will provoke predictable, fact-free, fear-mongering attacks on the American judicial system and on President Obama for using it in this case -- renowned legal scholar Liz Cheney and heralded warrior Bill Kristol wasted no time spewing these trite accusations -- but this outcome actually proves the opposite.

Initially, it should be noted that the verdict in this case -- no matter what it was -- would be largely inconsequential in terms of Ghailani's imprisonment.  He has already been imprisoned without charges for six years, including two years at a CIA "black site," and yesterday's verdict means he will spend decades more in prison. 

But even had he been acquitted on all counts, the Obama administration had made clear that it would simply continue to imprison him anyway under what it claims is the President's "post-acquittal detention power" -- i.e., when an accused Terrorist is wholly acquitted in court, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely by the U.S. Government under the "law of war" even when the factual bases for the claim that he's an "enemy combatant" (i.e. that he blew up the two embassies) are the same ones underlying the crimes for which he was fully acquitted after a full trial.  When he banned the testimony of the key witness, Judge Kaplan, somewhat cravenly, alluded to and implicitly endorsed this extraordinary detention theory as a means of assuring the public he had done nothing to endanger them with his ruling (emphasis added):

[Ghailani's] 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 in this case.


Most news accounts are emphasizing that trying Ghailani in a civilian court was intended by the Obama DOJ to be a "showcase" for how effective trials can be in punishing Terrorists.  That's a commendable goal, and Holder's decision to try Ghailani in a real court should be defended by anyone who believes in the rule of law and the Constitution.  But given these realities, this was more "show trial" than "showcase" since the Government would simply have imprisoned him, likely forever, even if he had been acquitted on all counts.

Then there is the false premise -- found at the center of every attack on the Obama DOJ's conduct here -- that the key witness would not have been excluded had Ghailani had been put before a military commission at Guantanamo.  That is simply untrue.  The current rules governing those military tribunals bar the use of torture-obtained evidence to roughly the same extent as real courts do.  Anyone who doubts that should simply read Rule 304(a)(1) and (5) of the Military Commissions Manual, found on page 205 of the document:


[304(a)(1)]  No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. . . . whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission . . . .

[304(a)(5)] Evidence derived from a statement that would be excluded under section (a)(1) of this rule may not be received in evidence against an accused who made the statement if the accused makes a timely motion to suppress or an objection . . . .


The only exceptions to those exclusionary rules are essentially identical to those used in the judicial system, which were applied by Judge Kaplan but found to be inapplicable ("the evidence would have been obtained even if the statement had not been made; or [] use of such evidence would otherwise be consistent with the interests of justice").  As The New York Times' Charlie Savage pointed out this morning, "Judge Kaplan strongly suggested in a footnote that a military commission judge would have excluded that testimony, too, pointing to restrictions against the use of evidence obtained by torture in military trials."  Savage went on to note:  "still, arguments over the factual details of the case were overshadowed by the political dynamics of the verdict" -- meaning that nobody is going to let the facts get in the way of a nice right-wing, fear-mongering, liberty-attacking orgy.  (And all of that's entirely independent of the fact that civilian trials have proven far more effective [if not more just] at punishing accused Terrorists than military commissions have been.).

[240 is Back]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Says the same people who aren't upset that OBL isn't even wanted for 911.

oh brother!

[Fury]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Says the same people who aren't upset that OBL isn't even wanted for 911.

oh brother!

You were already shut down on this. I'll point it out again, though. It is not possible to fit every crime that OBL is charged with on the FBI wanted poster that you referenced to make this claim.

Comments like this are why you have no credibility on anything regarding 9/11.

[Soul Crusher]

The Ghailani verdict and American justice
By Glenn Greenwald  A federal jury in New York yesterday returned a guilty verdict against accused Terrorist Ahmed Ghailani on one count of conspiracy to blow up a government building, a crime which entails a sentence of 20 years to life, but acquitted him on more than 280 charges of murder and conspiracy relating to the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.  Last month, the federal judge presiding over the case, Lewis Kaplan, banned the testimony of a key witness because the Government under George Bush and Dick Cheney learned of his identity not through legal means but instead by torturing Ghailani (and also possibly coerced the testimony of that witness).  The verdict will provoke predictable, fact-free, fear-mongering attacks on the American judicial system and on President Obama for using it in this case -- renowned legal scholar Liz Cheney and heralded warrior Bill Kristol wasted no time spewing these trite accusations -- but this outcome actually proves the opposite.

Initially, it should be noted that the verdict in this case -- no matter what it was -- would be largely inconsequential in terms of Ghailani's imprisonment.  He has already been imprisoned without charges for six years, including two years at a CIA "black site," and yesterday's verdict means he will spend decades more in prison. 

But even had he been acquitted on all counts, the Obama administration had made clear that it would simply continue to imprison him anyway under what it claims is the President's "post-acquittal detention power" -- i.e., when an accused Terrorist is wholly acquitted in court, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely by the U.S. Government under the "law of war" even when the factual bases for the claim that he's an "enemy combatant" (i.e. that he blew up the two embassies) are the same ones underlying the crimes for which he was fully acquitted after a full trial.  When he banned the testimony of the key witness, Judge Kaplan, somewhat cravenly, alluded to and implicitly endorsed this extraordinary detention theory as a means of assuring the public he had done nothing to endanger them with his ruling (emphasis added):

[Ghailani's] 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 in this case.


Most news accounts are emphasizing that trying Ghailani in a civilian court was intended by the Obama DOJ to be a "showcase" for how effective trials can be in punishing Terrorists.  That's a commendable goal, and Holder's decision to try Ghailani in a real court should be defended by anyone who believes in the rule of law and the Constitution.  But given these realities, this was more "show trial" than "showcase" since the Government would simply have imprisoned him, likely forever, even if he had been acquitted on all counts.

Then there is the false premise -- found at the center of every attack on the Obama DOJ's conduct here -- that the key witness would not have been excluded had Ghailani had been put before a military commission at Guantanamo.  That is simply untrue.  The current rules governing those military tribunals bar the use of torture-obtained evidence to roughly the same extent as real courts do.  Anyone who doubts that should simply read Rule 304(a)(1) and (5) of the Military Commissions Manual, found on page 205 of the document:


[304(a)(1)]  No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. . . . whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission . . . .

[304(a)(5)] Evidence derived from a statement that would be excluded under section (a)(1) of this rule may not be received in evidence against an accused who made the statement if the accused makes a timely motion to suppress or an objection . . . .


The only exceptions to those exclusionary rules are essentially identical to those used in the judicial system, which were applied by Judge Kaplan but found to be inapplicable ("the evidence would have been obtained even if the statement had not been made; or [] use of such evidence would otherwise be consistent with the interests of justice").  As The New York Times' Charlie Savage pointed out this morning, "Judge Kaplan strongly suggested in a footnote that a military commission judge would have excluded that testimony, too, pointing to restrictions against the use of evidence obtained by torture in military trials."  Savage went on to note:  "still, arguments over the factual details of the case were overshadowed by the political dynamics of the verdict" -- meaning that nobody is going to let the facts get in the way of a nice right-wing, fear-mongering, liberty-attacking orgy.  (And all of that's entirely independent of the fact that civilian trials have proven far more effective [if not more just] at punishing accused Terrorists than military commissions have been.).

Utterly clueless nonsense. 

It is logically nuts to convict a guy of conspiracy and not the resultant crimes.  This is Criminal Law 101.  I can't believe how stupid you people are. 

This is like cheering on a victory of the govt for getting Al Capone on a single tax charge while losing the case on murder, ambling, prostitution, etcetc. 

 

[Soul Crusher]

A Terrorist Victory
Frontpagemagazine ^ | 11-18-10 | N.M. Hungerford

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _



A landmark court decision was handed down Wednesday in the case against Ahmed Ghailani, a Guantanmo Bay detainee accused of taking part in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. Ghailani, a Tanzanian national, was acquitted of all but one of the 286 charges levied against him, most of which were for the murder of the 224 people killed in the embassy bombings. After a disturbed juror asked to be removed from the deliberation process last week, many feared that the Ghailani trial, the first U.S. detainee trial to be conducted in a civilian court, would yield a hung jury. Few, however, predicted such a propitious verdict for the al-Qeada collaborator, an outcome which carries heavy implication for the Obama administration and its controversial quest to try Guantanamo detainees in the criminal justice system.

The trial took place in lower Manhattan before a jury of six men and six women. In addition to the murder (and attempted murder) charges, Ghailani, who is a former Islamic cleric, was also accused of conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Ghailani had been held in Guantanamo since September 2006 until being transfered to New York in 2009. The decision to try Ghailani in New York City — a “trial” balloon, if you will — was met with fierce opposition from both hawkish conservatives and heedful liberals alike. The trial proceeded for five weeks and the jury deliberated for five days before rendering its verdict.

Many are already claiming a victory of sorts for the Obama administration, and the Justice Department wasted no time issuing a written statement claiming to be “pleased” that Ghailani “now faces a minimum of 20 years and a potential life sentence for his role in the embassy bombings.” Mason Clutter from the Soros-linked Constitution Project declared, “The system worked here.” Did it? In all likelihood, the now-convicted terrorist will indeed face life in prison. Such glowing pronouncements, however, fundamentally misunderstand the broader — and more disconcerting — issue at stake.

A puzzling aspect of the Ghailani case is the one count for which the defendant was found guilty: taking part in a conspiracy to destroy U.S. property. Prima facia, it is unclear how a jury could find someone guilty of conspiracy, but not, by extension, hold that person accountable for the deaths that resulted from that conspiracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In ordinary jurisprudence, the prosecution must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the defense portrayed the defendant as an unwitting collaborator, or, as Ghailani’s attorney Peter Quijano put it:

This innocent, naive boy was used as a dupe by his friends…Call him a pawn, call him a fall guy, but don’t call him guilty.

The upshot is that, according to his defense team, Ghailani knew that he was participating in a concerted effort of some kind, but, hypothetically speaking, this does not necessarily mean that he was aware that what he was participating in was meant to have lethal consequences. At least the jury decided it could not determine intent to kill given the lack of probative evidence and the apparently successful obfuscation of the true nature of the defendant’s state of mind at the time the bombing occurred.

However, this outcome was far from inevitable. Ghailani’s saving grace was that, just before his trial, a key witness was barred from testifying before the court. This witness would have admitted to selling explosives to Ghailani, and the prosecution claimed it was crucial to its case. Unfortunately, because knowledge of this witness was acquired using intense interrogation, his testimony was deemed inadmissible by the judge. The most important aspect of the Ghailani prosecution — which would have held him accountable for his part in the murder of 224 people — was impermissible. Had the Ghailani case been handled by a military tribunal, which doesn’t consider the method by which evidence is obtained, the damning testimony would not have been stricken and Ghailani’s guilt in this case would have been far less questionable. That is, unless a military commission would seriously entertain the idea that Ghailani would buy explosives for use in a conspiracy without intending to killing people. Even if there was doubt, military tribunals do not have to be unanimous and hearsay evidence is admissible. As a result, Ghailani could have been put to death, per the Military Commission Act, or otherwise justly held accountable for massacring hundreds of innocent people, including 12 Americans.

Instead, Ghailani was found “not guilty” of committing a mass murder. On the other hand, the fact that Ghailani will still face life in prison is practically accidental. If Ghailani had been a lone terrorist, and there was no conspiratorial evidence (yet the key witness’s testimony had been excluded on the same grounds), the outcome in the matter would have been far more sinister. Keep in mind that this is only the first case to be tried — and the system did not work.

The debate now turns to what the Obama administration will do henceforth. It has been almost two years since President Obama signed an executive order authorizing the shutdown of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. One hope was that the civilian court system would help handle Guantanamo terrorists and move the U.S. in a more “enlightened” direction. However, the outcry over this policy has been incredibly consistent. Mere hours after the verdict in the Ghailani case was delivered, public contempt only resumed more vigorously. This will surely put a chill on any hope of clearing out Guantanamo cells through the criminal justice system. If the Obama administration concedes that military tribunals are most appropriately dealt with through military tribunals (while implicitly legitimizing the idea that detainees are not criminals, but enemies of war) there will likely be an equally strong push to hold the tribunals in Guantanamo and keep the facility functioning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More pertinently, the Ghailani verdict comes in advance of the long-awaited decision in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the lead conspirator of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Attorney General Eric Holder recently tantalized the press by revealing that a decision was imminent regarding where the confessed-terrorist would be tried. The most recent reports, however, have suggested that the administration does not have the appetite to pursue this case further. In wake of the Ghailani verdict, perhaps it will lose the political will to enact this woeful policy for good.



________________________ ________________________ __________

Great article.   You far left communists/marxists/progressives are not going to be elated until one of these scumbags walks free in to Times Square.   

[240 is Back]

I see.  Size of the poster is a limitation for him being the guy behind the biggest crime of the century.  Gotcha.  Way bigger than USS Cole, but he's wanted for that?

Ummm

[240 is Back]

20 to life... I wouldn't exactly call that a 'victory'.