Civilian jury acquits terrorist

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-ghailani-verdict-20101118,0,5943189.story

There are no words. For the first time in my life, I am utterly speechless at what I have just read.

I guess the only thing I can say is that I sincerely hope he gets the maximum sentence possible. Either that, or someone picks him off.

Yes, because obviously everyone in Guatanamo is a terrorist and there was no reason the jury found him innocent at all. Looks like this guy has other charges against him anyway, so it's not like he's getting off scot-free. They do this sort of thing with even serial killers. Dropping charges or finding them innocent on a bunch of charges so they can convict them of the stuff they're obviously guilty of, but hey they're still getting 3 life sentences anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Danarchy said:

Yes, because obviously everyone in Guatanamo is a terrorist and there was no reason the jury found him innocent at all.

I don't see eye-to-eye with that argument at all. Especially since he ADMITTED to buying explosives that were used to kill civilians.

And look at the one charge they nailed him on: Conspiracy to damage US property. That implies that he planted the bombs himself with a clear intention to cause harm. Did he plant the bombs, let them explode, and 236 people just magically passed away due to unknown causes? No. Ergo,he is guilty.

"This tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama administration's decision to try Al Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts," Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said, calling the Ghailani ruling "a total miscarriage of justice."

uhhh... what? is it insane to judge them in a proper legal system instead of burning them at the stake in secretive military trials?

mr. freeze: so you don't trust your court system? i thought it was the most sacred principle of american society, how comes it's suddenly not enough? torture all the nasty terrists to your heart's content to obtain life-saving information about enemy forces or whatever, that's a possible war crime, but who cares in a war. don't use those same information at a court, that just equates usa to the inquisition.

Mr. Freeze said:

I guess the only thing I can say is that I sincerely hope he gets the maximum sentence possible. Either that, or someone picks him off.

Would that be justice or would it just make you feel better to kill another brown person after the legal decision didn't go your way?

This is why we have a legal system in the first place. Because just under the surface, we're all raging neanderthals who would just as soon bash someone's head in if they pissed on our shoes.

dew said:

mr. freeze: so you don't trust your court system? i thought it was the most sacred principle of american society, how comes it's suddenly not enough? torture all the nasty terrists to your heart's content to obtain life-saving information about enemy forces or whatever, that's a possible war crime, but who cares in a war. don't use those same information at a court, that just equates usa to the inquisition.

I never said anything about not trusting the court system. I DO trust the court system, but I don't trust the bleeding-heart jurors who let this asshole (mostly) go.

As for torture, I'm not agreeing with it in a civilian court of law. I don't. But read what I said above about the charge he WAS hit with. Does it sound like anything else BUT guilt?

Bank said:

Would that be justice or would it just make you feel better to kill another brown person after the legal decision didn't go your way?

The maximum sentence possible is life in prison. Is that justice? You fucking bet.

And don't twist this into a racial debate, either. You and I both know that isn't the issue.

This wouldn't have been a problem if they hadn't held him for years and tortured him. This is the Bush administration's fault from start to finish.

These aren't Bond supervillains, just criminals. The civilian judicial system works just fine for prosecuting them... so don't fuck it up by torturing them and ruining the evidence. If there is one thing the US is good at, it's putting people in jail.

I love the American 'hang the nigger from the highest tree' mentality. But I guess that's really the worlds mentality.

Scuba Steve said:

These aren't Bond supervillains, just criminals. The civilian judicial system works just fine for prosecuting them... so don't fuck it up by torturing them and ruining the evidence. If there is one thing the US is good at, it's putting people in jail.

I'm not saying otherwise. This man was not a enemy combatant, he doesn't belong in front of a military tribunal. What he NEEDS to belong in front of is a jury who'll realize what he is responsible for. "Conspiracy to damage US property" is only the tip of the iceberg. As I said before, 236 people didn't just suddenly die of unknown causes while a bomb went off.

Technician said:

I love the American 'hang the nigger from the highest tree' mentality. But I guess that's really the worlds mentality.

More like "we need to convict criminals for crimes and give them appropriate punishments", but if you want to turn this into a racial argument, go right ahead. You'll only be misinterpreting everything I'm saying.

Mr. Freeze said:
What he NEEDS to belong in front of is a jury who'll realize what he is responsible for.

someone should try this jury for being unamerican, then pre-screen the new jury. i thought jurors are selected from the general population to be neutral and unbiased in order to decide if the evidence is strong enough. picking a squad of bloodthirsty racist rednecks would get the "job" done, but the court would be a farce. the court system of my country doesn't use juries though, so my knowledge comes mostly from hollywood movies. :P

Mr. Freeze said:

More like "we need to convict criminals for crimes and give them appropriate punishments"

"...And if they don't get admonished to our satisfaction, we ought to take the law into our own hands and 'pick them off'."

Bucket said:

"...And if they don't get admonished to our satisfaction, we ought to take the law into our own hands and 'pick them off'."

In this case, it probably isn't necessary. Some inmate will probably do that anyway.

Mr. Freeze said:

What he NEEDS to belong in front of is a jury who'll realize what he is responsible for.

He was. The jury was presented with evidence and decided, unanimously, that he wasn't guilty of most of it. The most damning evidence came from torture, so they were not allowed to see that evidence. Blame the Bush administration for torturing him and rendering that evidence illegal. As it stands, without the illegally obtained evidence, 12 random people agreed that he was not guilty of anything other than conspiracy.

Mr. Freeze is just trying to get out of jury duty. He'll point to this thread and say "see? I claim to be able to determine someone's innocence or guilt solely by reading a website about their trial! Obviously I am not qualified to be a juror and can go home now!" It's brilliant...

Heh, reminds me of the Michael Jackson trial with a bunch of wanky commentators effectively saying "how dare they find him innocent?". Ship these filth off to Zimbabwe if they really don't want to live in a democracy.

Wait.... you're pissed off because he was found guilty and faces a minimum of 20 years in prison, and can get up to life in prison without parole? What the fuck? Also

Mr. Freeze said:

I never said anything about not trusting the court system. I DO trust the court system, but I don't trust the bleeding-heart jurors who let this asshole (mostly) go.

You mean the jurors who make up an integral part of the American legal system? That's like saying, "I trust that my food will taste good, but I don't trust those damn cooks making it." How can you trust the final result when it's determined by the thing you don't trust? Could you explain this to me?

Snakes said:

You mean the jurors who make up an integral part of the American legal system? That's like saying, "I trust that my food will taste good, but I don't trust those damn cooks making it." How can you trust the final result when it's determined by the thing you don't trust? Could you explain this to me?

I trust the system AT LARGE, but sometimes I make exceptions. This is one of those times. I DON'T trust the final result, because it falls short of what I *think* this guy should've been charged with.

CODOR said:

Mr. Freeze is just trying to get out of jury duty. He'll point to this thread and say "see? I claim to be able to determine someone's innocence or guilt solely by reading a website about their trial! Obviously I am not qualified to be a juror and can go home now!" It's brilliant...

I already did jury duty over the summer. Drunk driving case over a 23-year-old. He had his license taken, but didn't go to jail. I was Juror No. 6

Mr. Freeze said:

I trust the system AT LARGE, but sometimes I make exceptions. This is one of those times. I DON'T trust the final result, because it falls short of what I *think* this guy should've been charged with.

The jurors likely thought the same thing. Fortunately we don't live in your ideal world where people have their lives destroyed by the government based on what random people think. They based their decision what they could prove given the limited untainted evidence they had. This is justice as it should work. It fails to reflect (at least in writing) what this guy did, but it sets up a framework to prevent the government from acting somewhat worse than it already does. The guys at the top should be throwing some of their security people under the bus to teach them a lesson about how to do things properly so they can have better convictions.

Mr. Freeze said:

I trust the system AT LARGE, but sometimes I make exceptions. This is one of those times. I DON'T trust the final result, because it falls short of what I *think* this guy should've been charged with.

Your dumbassery is now making me mad. You trust the court system and not the jury system? Let me guess, you trust your clock but not the pendulum? Your opinion doesn't matter and quite frankly you're insulting the rest of us with your ignorance. You were not at the trial, you didn't witness the interrogation, studied the evidence or weighed the sides. It wasn't even the "bleeding hearted" jury that let this guy off, it was the government's unjust actions, not the legal system.

Mr. Freeze said:
Especially since he ADMITTED to buying explosives that were used to kill civilians.

The article says that these statements are considered a result of torture in Gunatanamo. They depend on human rights violations by the government and are thus not judicially acceptable or reliable. If the jury tolerated that means of getting information they would themselves be giving legal support to torture practices. The Bush administration (to a degree backed by Democrats) raped the legal system as one of the steps to create a framework for the Iraq war, so it's no surprise if in the long run actual terrorists are going loose.

Aliotroph? said:

They based their decision what they could prove given the limited untainted evidence they had. This is justice as it should work.

Indeed. And it's quite surprising that it did given how juries tend to operate. There is always that spark of hope I guess.