Anyone concerned about the weakness of using civilian courts for the trial of terrorists captured overseas were confirmed in their opinion by the verdict in the Ahmed Ghailani case. Ghailani was tried in New York City and the Jury found him not guilty in 284 of the charges, including the 224 charges of murder for those killed in the embassy bombings which included 12 Americans. He was only found guilty on one count of conspiracy to destroy U.S. property.
The verdict is a slap in the face of the Obama Administration as Peter Finn writing at the Washington Post reports:
The Obama administration had hoped that a conviction on most, if not all, of the charges would help clear the way for federal prosecutions of other Guantanamo detainees - including Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators accused of organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
...
The failure to convict Ghailani, a native of Tanzania, on the most serious terrorism charges will bolster the arguments of those who say the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be kept open, both to host military commissions for some prisoners and to hold others indefinitely and without trial under the laws of war.
Finn goes on to say that the verdict was a "close call" and one wonders what would have happened if Ghailani had been found innocent on all charges. Would the terrorist had been set free?
Key testimony in the case was blocked by the judge because the identity of the witness was learned as a result of the milder forms of enhanced interrogation techniques which did not include waterboarding (which was done on only the three worst terrorist saving thousands of lives)
The verdict is another in a long line of failures in nearly every sphere of governance which continue to pile up and haunt the Obama Administration. So far, they seem impervious to the lessons that those with a less rigid far left ideological perspective might take from the experience!
No comments:
Post a Comment