- Image via Wikipedia
That Ahmed Ghailani was cleared of 285 of the 286 charges against him is being reported as a blow to the Obama administration’s policy of giving civilian trials to the terrorist suspects currently held in Guantanamo. The court obviously hadn’t been told that not guilty verdicts weren’t allowed.
Meanwhile, we’re told that Sarah Palin’s plan to run for the Presidency in 2012 is gathering pace.
If the public mood in the US is turning against giving fair trials and they have the opportunity to give power to someone like her, God help the rest of us.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Chris H 11.18.10 at 9:37 am
The text is all skew-wiff on this! Can’t really read it.
Richard 11.18.10 at 9:56 am
Thanks Chris. It’s fixed now.
PamBG 11.18.10 at 11:06 am
Meanwhile, we’re told that Sarah Palin’s plan to run for the Presidency in 2012 is gathering pace.
Well, we’re in for more grammatical entertainment with the Republicans. And you can’t “refudiate” that statement. (I’m now waiting for a comment that understanding how to use the English language isn’t actually all that important if you want to be the leader of The Empire.)
Alec Macph 11.18.10 at 11:54 am
Does that no refute any charge the system is unfair?
I am pleased for the hundreds of Kenyan and Tanzanian workers immolated, as well as US Embassy staff, that he has been convicted.
dh 11.18.10 at 2:52 pm
Richard, the trial was not fair. Witness testimony was not allowed. The fact remains that this was an act of war by the Al Quada group and as such should have been a war trial. It’s not fair that a judge would act in such a lack of looking at the facts as to not allow ALL of the evidence in court.
Also Richard, Sarah Palin will never win the Presidency. However, anything is better than the guy that is currently in office now.
Earl 11.18.10 at 3:11 pm
There is no problem here. Prosecutors have managed to bring a war criminal to justice and this in spite of a inadequate judge and an inappropriate venue. The accused has been given a fair trial. He has been convicted. He will now invest 20 years of his life in prison as payment for his crime. The system worked, no better or worse than the system that was previously used. Had he been found guilty of a capital crime, he would have been subject to a capital sentence. There is no problem here.
As far as political campaigns are concerned, the ability to understand and use language is of course important. It can be used to communicate as so aptly demonstrated by President Reagan. It can be used obscure or mask criminal perjury misconduct as demonstrated by Clinton. The current administration is proof positive that the demonstrated ability to read aloud from a teleprompter is a poor predictor that one will be able to demonstrate even modest competence in function.
In Nov. 2010 American voters passed judgment on the current administration and its party supporters in congress. That judgment was later described by the administration as a “shellacking.” Oddly the new minority leader in the house has yet to come to that realization. The rest of the world has not been so slow on the uptake. In Nov. 2012 American voters will decide what is best for America. They will then vote according to what is best for America. Much of what is best for America involves fixing what is wrong in washington. If American voters decide to just “refinish the furniture” in washington or if they decide washington needs a complete makeover, it will be their decision. The rest of the world will not be registered to vote.
Alec Macph 11.18.10 at 3:42 pm
Yes. For the prosecution.
It should be remembered that 224 of the charges were single charges of murder, overwhelmingly of ordinary African workers. This was three years before the invasion of Afghanistan (which was a response to a far greater act of mass-murder), and what A-Q represented at the time… undirected, poorly articulated ultra-violence.
dh 11.18.10 at 4:33 pm
“Yes. For the prosecution.”
Which isn’t fair. that was what I was referring to.
Earl, I agree but I still believe that the guy commited war crimes and justice wasn’t served by him getting off for those just because legitimate evidence was not allowed in court.
Earl 11.18.10 at 4:37 pm
“‘Witness testimony was not allowed…’ ‘Yes. For the prosecution.’ ‘… 224 of the charges were single charges of murder, overwhelmingly of ordinary African workers…’” This is just a very sad glaring instance in which someone acting in the name of Justice lifted their blindfold looked to make sure no one was looking and then used their thumb to adjust the tilt of the scale.
Alec Macph 11.18.10 at 4:49 pm
Oh, no, DH… I was augmenting your point. It’s not easy to insert stresses when on the Internet.
Earl, even in light of DH’s mis-reading my interjection, I can’t see how you could have. D’you think I was expressing any less sympathy for the victims of the bombings? If not, I apologize.
Earl 11.18.10 at 5:27 pm
There was no failure of sympathy observed on your part for the victims. The failure observed was on the part of the one who lifted his blindfold and then perverted justice.
dh 11.18.10 at 5:43 pm
Alec, I know you were trying to augement my statement and we both agree that the trial was fair in that he was convicted (which is great) but I believe the trial was unfair for the prosecution in that much evidence was not allowed for the prosecution in the trial and as such his punishment did not fit the crime because the crimes he commited were much more than as you described. Does that make sense? I totally appreciate you and Earl’s input. Look forward to your response. I always try to gauge agreement as to what extent agreement there is. We agree that it is great the guy got convicted but there were many more charges that the guy should have been convicted of that he got away with. That’s all.
Paul F. 11.18.10 at 7:38 pm
I’m all for the trying and sentencing of war criminals, including our last president.
We’re all in agreement, right? Since, after all, he proudly sanctioned acts of torture–the same acts we executed Japanese soldiers for after WWII.
And, DH, please mind your use of the word “war”. Al Qaeda does not commit acts of war. They commit acts of terror and murder. It may seem like a moot point, but slapping “war” on all of their activities actually reinforces the exact kind of narrative Bin Laden wants. Keep calling him and his friends warriors, and this war on terror will never be over.
Unless, of course, you’d rather it never end. In that case, screw semantics.
dh 11.18.10 at 8:16 pm
Past President war criminal? hogwash Also, these were NOT the same acts that were done by the Japanese in WWII. They may seem similar but people died by Japanese acts of torture but no one died on what was done for this guy. In fact US soldiers go through as part of their trainning experience the same thing that this guy experienced and no one has ever died. The fact is it was not torture.
Al Quada DOES acts of war and it is NOT the narrative Bin Laden desires. He doesn’t desire his leadership structure to be dismantled by the war on terror. Stating that Al Quada does not commit acts of war attempts to diminish the type atrocities that Bin Laden actually does.
Also, I see no way that your idea for dealing with Al Quada actually prevents future atrocities by Bin Laden, Al Quada or any other terror group or nations atrocities in the world. Those groups or nations which do atrocities will continue to do their thing as long as they can get away with it. The whole reason for 9/11 was that Bin Laden didn’t believe the US had enough resolve to respond harshly to the attacks that were delivered by him.
I personally I do desire that it end. However, Al Quada will never desire it to end and will continue no matter what resolve or lack of resolve the world and/or the US has toward him. Stopping the war, changing the terms away from war, etc., etc. does nothing to change the resolve of Bin Laden to continue his atrocities. However, slamming hard the regime of Saddam Hussein DID prevent the future atrocities of Saddam’s regime.
Being kind to Bin Laden and those who support him does nothing to prevent Bin Laden from continuing his atrocities. Your ignorance of Bin Laden is what makes the war on terror never end.
Paul F. 11.19.10 at 9:10 am
Jamal Naseer
Abu Malik Kenami
Abed Hamed Mowhoush
Abdul Wahid
Abdul Wali
Nagem Sadoon Hatab
Manadel al-Jamadi
Those are just a few names of detainees that were alive and in good health before they were taken into U.S. custody.
DH, people have been tortured to death in U.S. detention, whether you choose to believe it (and then make excuses for it), or not. The rest of your post shows you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say.
dh 11.19.10 at 7:04 pm
Paul F., there has not been evidence of that if one looks at the specific sources . Your reference to the similarity to Japan was in regard to waterboarding and no one has ever been killed by the US being waterboarded (period). As I mentioned even US soldiers are waterboarded and we don’t say “soldiers are being torturered”.
Paul F., I DID understand your post. You mentioned things that are actually incorrect. What you totally are ignorant of are the intentions and understandings of Bin Laden and terrorists in genreal. You ignorance in thinking that looking at Bin Laden and terrorists as not being in a war will prevent them from future atrocities is where you are short.
The terrorists, Bin Laden or nations like Iran and N. Korea will continue more of”their thing” as long as they think they can get away with it. The more they think they cannot get away with the less able they are to “do their thing”.
I understood your point and my point before your point was my counterpoint of where you are short in your understanding of terrorism from a logical standpoint and I then showed what a proper understanding would be in response and attitude to terrorism and all associates therein.