Obama Justice Department Political Stunt Leads To Mass Murderer Getting Off The Hook

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Anyone ever notice that everyone who is ever arguing on the internet always ends up being a genius of some sort? I've always wondered how so many threads devolve into stupidity when everyone in them claims to be a Mensa member.
Why, all of them. You'd know that if you were a genius like me. ;)

I can back it up to some degree. You can actually look up my PSAT scores in Who's Who in American High School Students - I think it's '78 edition, might be published in '77 or '79. So if you care and you're easily impressed, you can actually look me up and bask in the reflection of my faded, tarnished glory. Remember though that I'm of the school that says test and education performance is immaterial to worth and accomplishment; an ounce of sense equals a pound of IQ.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
That committed a crime not on our soil. He killed how many Tanzanians, or other nationalities, but now that he's here in jail on a lesser charge, he will never face the consiquences for his murder of non Americans.
Trying war criminals in a civilian court is a fucking joke. We didn't try the Nazi or Japanese in civilian court. They were tried in a military tribunal, found guilty and executed as thye should be.

While I'd have to check to be sure, I'm pretty sure he did commit the principle crime on our soil, as the truck detonated on embassy grounds, and that's sovereign US territory.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Do we have such little faith in out justice system that we fear using it on "everyone" because of an outcome we would be uncomfortable with?

Shame.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
While I'd have to check to be sure, I'm pretty sure he did commit the principle crime on our soil, as the truck detonated on embassy grounds, and that's sovereign US territory.

IIRC, Embassys and Consulates are not considered "Sovereign Territory". But rather are under the jurisdiction of the host country, albeit often with special priveledges (diplomatic immunity, etc..). It's not unheard of for countries do assert the right to defend/prosecute crimes against their citizens committed overseas, but usually that takes the form of our Ambassador/Consul/Staff working with local law enforcement.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
IIRC, Embassys and Consulates are not considered "Sovereign Territory". But rather are under the jurisdiction of the host country, albeit often with special priveledges (diplomatic immunity, etc..). It's not unheard of for countries do assert the right to defend/prosecute crimes against their citizens committed overseas, but usually that takes the form of our Ambassador/Consul/Staff working with local law enforcement.

Whoops, you're right! We do have a history of prosecuting those who commit crimes against US persons/property overseas though, yes. But, I was incorrect about the embassy thing.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Anyone ever notice that everyone who is ever arguing on the internet always ends up being a genius of some sort? I've always wondered how so many threads devolve into stupidity when everyone in them claims to be a Mensa member.

But you've studied politics for 6 years!
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Whoops, you're right! We do have a history of prosecuting those who commit crimes against US persons/property overseas though, yes. But, I was incorrect about the embassy thing.

No worries: I learned this in a rather graceless fashion in a conversation elsewhere. (Like most, I imagine) I thought that Embassys were Sovereign prior to that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
But you've studied politics for 6 years!

Okay, so I guess one person just exposed themselves as not being a genius. Education and intelligence are not the same thing. It is quite possible that every person participating in a thread could have studied the subject, but it is exceedingly unlikely that all people participating were in the top 1% or whatever for IQ.

Keep reaching for that rainbow, Corn! If you try hard enough, maybe I'll pay more attention to you. :)
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Okay, so I guess one person just exposed themselves as not being a genius. Education and intelligence are not the same thing.

Irrelevant to the context of my comment: Undeserved hubris

Nice try though, you're nearly as clever as you think.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
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.

I like the spin on the thread to be anti obama and assert that the guy will be freed. 20+ years in prison is a pretty big deal....

That being said... how the hell can you try any of these people in a US civilian court?

Truely a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. You either come out looking in humane or looking too humane.

If you're going to keep him in a prison where the cost to hold a prisoner is at least $20,000 per year, for 20 years, that is $400,000 conservatively.

How can you make tax payers pay that money to keep a terrorist alive? And you can't just let them go and deport them... they'll just rejoin their terrorist group. So, that leaves death being the only logical course of action.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/1...ilani-guilty-terrorism-charges/#ixzz15eMjJxf6
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Irrelevent to the context of my comment: Undeserved hubris

Nice try though, you're nearly as clever as you think.

I'm not interested in getting in a pissing match with you, but you're more than welcome to keep following me around nipping at my heels. And if you think that believing you know more about politics than most of the people on here is 'hubris', just how low are your standards?

Then again, you have made a habit of chasing internet people around for attention, so I guess that sort of answers my question.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,524
126
I've stayed away from this thread until now because this is a topic that brings out the worst from some Americans and it's pointless to argue with them.

You've pretty much nailed it. This fellow is going away for a long time to forever. He's not going to be causing trouble. What is troubling is the kind of patriotism that Samuel Johnson referred to being displayed by others. "The Constitution only applies"... whether it does in a legal sense is one thing, but the reasons we enjoy the benefits of it is laid out in the moral arguments found in the Declaration.



Note "all". The founders didn't think we were somehow entitled to rights the British shouldn't enjoy nor the French nor any other nation. All of them have should have those basic rights.

When it came to the establishment of our government a legally binding document had to be written that attempted to put the principles put forward in the Declaration into practice. Was it perfect? No, but it has stood the test of time and has enabled us to enjoy freedom of individual action that had never been seen before.

Was the Constitution written because just Americans deserve it's advantages? No! It defined what our government would be like because our laws can only be applied in our land, but our principles are universal.

When we have a choice we can choose to apply those principles or look for excuses to deny them. That's the heart of the matter here and sadly the lust for revenge overrides true patriotism which is adherence to the core principles we said ought to apply to all.

So let me be the "progressive" because I don't care any more about that tag than "corporate shill". I won't accept that which ought to be scorned, waving our Flag while denying what it stands for.

Despite our imperfect application, Justice WAS served. This person was removed from doing harm and our core principles were preserved.

Count me a "Progressive" today.

Extremely well put.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Are all crimes against Americans that occur on foreign soil to be tried in American courts?

Do you realize how easy it is to get evidence thrown out due to minor technicalities?


What if I go to the Phillipines and kill an American, then I get arrested in Vietnam... where is my trial?

"Minor" technicalities, such as revealing information while being tortured?

You right-wing patriots sure do love the U.S. Constitution.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0


I like the spin on the thread to be anti obama and assert that the guy will be freed. 20+ years in prison is a pretty big deal....

That being said... how the hell can you try any of these people in a US civilian court?




Well... I suppose that's because a story like ..."Damn... We Were flying Them Out of Gitmo With A Shipment Of Small Arms Ammunition but Shortly After Take Off The Plane Caught Fire, Which Cooked Off The Ammo Which Just Happened To Be Stacked 3 To 4 Feet Off The Floor Which Coincidentally Is Right At Head Level With A Seated Passenger, Causing The Aircraft to Crash Into The Bermuda Triangle And They All Died... And Yes, Of Course The Prisoners Were Handcuffed - They Were Prisoners. We Always Do This When Transporting
Murdering Terrorists
Prisoners Because We Are Concerned With The Safety Of Our Valiant And Heroic AirCrews - (who bailed out - thank goodness - and were immediately picked up by a US Destroyer which just happened to be in the immediate area...)"
as the reason to explain why bullet riddled bodies were washing up on Cuban Beaches... wouldn't work?

...but I can be way~over~the~top Sarcastic like that from time to time. :biggrin:

They ended up in Civilian court because the US Justice Department, Senate/Congress, and the President said "No Military Tribunals". You can argue the political reasons for that, why those reasons exist, and who's "fault" those reasons are. But ultimately, it's because "The US Government Said So".



*****


Anyways, it looks like the US Court followed US evidentiary laws, as we should fully expect and demand of our courts. And since much of the evidence was obtained without the nicities of Miranda, search warrants, and proper oversight, then said evidence was thrown out and the prosecution had to work with whatever was left. Hayabusa said it right: In the end, we did the right thing.
 
Last edited:

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
I've stayed away from this thread until now because this is a topic that brings out the worst from some Americans and it's pointless to argue with them.

You've pretty much nailed it. This fellow is going away for a long time to forever. He's not going to be causing trouble. What is troubling is the kind of patriotism that Samuel Johnson referred to being displayed by others. "The Constitution only applies"... whether it does in a legal sense is one thing, but the reasons we enjoy the benefits of it is laid out in the moral arguments found in the Declaration.



Note "all". The founders didn't think we were somehow entitled to rights the British shouldn't enjoy nor the French nor any other nation. All of them have should have those basic rights.

When it came to the establishment of our government a legally binding document had to be written that attempted to put the principles put forward in the Declaration into practice. Was it perfect? No, but it has stood the test of time and has enabled us to enjoy freedom of individual action that had never been seen before.

Was the Constitution written because just Americans deserve it's advantages? No! It defined what our government would be like because our laws can only be applied in our land, but our principles are universal.

When we have a choice we can choose to apply those principles or look for excuses to deny them. That's the heart of the matter here and sadly the lust for revenge overrides true patriotism which is adherence to the core principles we said ought to apply to all.

So let me be the "progressive" because I don't care any more about that tag than "corporate shill". I won't accept that which ought to be scorned, waving our Flag while denying what it stands for.

Despite our imperfect application, Justice WAS served. This person was removed from doing harm and our core principles were preserved.

Count me a "Progressive" today.

Bravo!
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
When you want evidence to be admissible in court, you don't get it via torture.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/18/national/main7066702.shtml
He spent two years in a secret CIA prison overseas, where he was subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" his lawyers called torture. Then he was moved to Guantanamo for three years before his transfer to the U.S. last year. He has been held in the high security wing of the Metropolitan Correctional Center adjacent to the courthouse.

In a critical decision on the eve of the trial, Judge Kaplan prohibited the government from calling a Tanzanian miner, Hussein Abebe, who testified in a pretrial hearing that he sold Ghailani TNT in 1998, because the government learned of that witness only from Ghailani's interrogations while in military custody where he was not apprised of his rights or granted counsel.

"It is fair to say it changed the way the case would be tried," Quijano said.

Avoiding another legal showdown, prosecutors did not try to introduce any of Ghaliani's post-arrest statements in the CIA-run prison or Guantanamo, however, Ghailani never confessed to knowing the targets in the embassy bombings.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
When you want evidence to be admissible in court, you don't get it via torture.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/18/national/main7066702.shtml

Pffft. Cruel and unusual punishment, illegal search and seizure. These are silly things that conservatives all agree should be ignored if you're not American, are a terrorist, suspected of being a terrorist, may have met with a terrorist, may have heard the word terrorist on TV somewhere, are Muslim, or don't watch Fox News regularly.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Trying war criminals in a civilian court is a fucking joke. We didn't try the Nazi or Japanese in civilian court. They were tried in a military tribunal, found guilty and executed as thye should be.

Except when it was more convenient to let them go and use their research.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
So the lawyers... the jury... that's just all theater? The system dealt with Tim McVeigh. Not sure why you think it was incapable of dealing with what appears to be another moron.

McVeigh's crime was committed here on US soil. It is irrelevent, because the crux of this issue is the location of the crime - not on US soil, and the inherent problems of using our (domestic) civilian criminal court system to prosecute non-US citizens for crimes committed abroad.


-snip-
I believe the FBI goes where it must to deal with criminal acts. Those criminals should then be tried in our court system because that's the process we live by. To change our methodology with regards to "special" criminals certainly sounds like political change brought to you by successful terrorists.

So you are recommending that our FBI run around in other countries acting as if they have juridiction?

Should authorities from other countries likewise have free rein in the USA?

This strikes me as ridiculous.

I personally think we should have FBI agents stationed at embassies to be more quick to the scene of crimes...snip-

That's astonishing.

How would people in other countries react to that?

Probably about how I would I react to another country's police, let say oh Saudi Arabian police, coming up to me at home or work to conduct an investigation based on their rules and laws (meaning they can beat my feet until I tell them what I know).

It strikes me as intensly arrogant to believe we can go charging around the world acting as if we have jurisdiction there and our rules apply everwhere and supercede their rules.

The fundamental prioblem is that terrorism doesn't fit neatly into either our civilian criminal process or military process. neither were designed for it.

This case readily demonstrates the inherent weakness in our criminal system in handling these type of cases. 4th amendment rights exists here in the USA. We cannot reasonably expect other countries to follow our 4th amendment, it is OUR 4th amandment, not theirs. Consequently when we bring these people over here to our criminal system we have significant problems all working to the advantage of the criminal.

These problems were widely predicted and thus it qualifies as a bona fide "I told so" type event. The fact that one charge out of hundreds was upheld does not change that.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
McVeigh's crime was committed here on US soil. It is irrelevent, because the crux of this issue is the location of the crime - not on US soil, and the inherent problems of using our (domestic) civilian criminal court system to prosecute non-US citizens for crimes committed abroad.




So you are recommending that our FBI run around in other countries acting as if they have juridiction?

Should authorities from other countries likewise have free rein in the USA?

This strikes me as ridiculous.



That's astonishing.

How would people in other countries react to that?

Probably about how I would I react to another country's police, let say oh Saudi Arabian police, coming up to me at home or work to conduct an investigation based on their rules and laws (meaning they can beat my feet until I tell them what I know).

It strikes me as intensly arrogant to believe we can go charging around the world acting as if we have jurisdiction there and our rules apply everwhere and supercede their rules.

The fundamental prioblem is that terrorism doesn't fit neatly into either our civilian criminal process or military process. neither were designed for it.

This case readily demonstrates the inherent weakness in our criminal system in handling these type of cases. 4th amendment rights exists here in the USA. We cannot reasonably expect other countries to follow our 4th amendment, it is OUR 4th amandment, not theirs. Consequently when we bring these people over here to our criminal system we have significant problems all working to the advantage of the criminal.

These problems were widely predicted and thus it qualifies as a bona fide "I told so" type event. The fact that one charge out of hundreds was upheld does not change that.

Fern

The most amusing part is that the same lefties who are always whining that America can't be the world's policeman actually want America to be literally the world's policeman. So what if the FBI has no authority to operate in other countries? So what if American courts have no jurisdiction over crimes committed outside our jurisdiction? Slapping down Bush requires that our military be turned into a police force and our criminal law take over the world.

I predict Michael Chertoff will earn a second fortune selling the government huge solar powered bullhorns so that our soldiers can inform the other side of their rights before "apprehending" them with our new, non-lethal Nerf weapons.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Do we have such little faith in out justice system that we fear using it on "everyone" because of an outcome we would be uncomfortable with?

Shame.

No.

The problem is using a system designed for something else in pursuit of an objective (justice) that is consequently going to be unsuccessful.

I think it supremely foolish to act as though letting obviously guilty criminals go free somehow demonstrates lofty principals and makes us look noble in the eyes of the world. It doesn't. We just look stupid, and stupid ain't a lofty principal (even though it's often practiced as one in P&N).

Fern
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The most amusing part is that the same lefties who are always whining that America can't be the world's policeman actually want America to be literally the world's policeman. So what if the FBI has no authority to operate in other countries? So what if American courts have no jurisdiction over crimes committed outside our jurisdiction? Slapping down Bush requires that our military be turned into a police force and our criminal law take over the world.

I predict Michael Chertoff will earn a second fortune selling the government huge solar powered bullhorns so that our soldiers can inform the other side of their rights before "apprehending" them with our new, non-lethal Nerf weapons.

Nice attempt at duh-version and false attribution. Embassy grounds are Sovereign territory for the US and anybody else, therefore jurisdiction applies.

It was the Bushistas who attempted to become the world's policeman, or pretended to- witness the WoT and the very existence of the extra- constitutional detention facility at Gitmo.

The guy's sentence will be 20 to life, meaning he'll never get out, because no parole board will ever allow it. And that's as good as can be expected, considering the way your heroes screwed it up.

Edit- Embassy grounds are treated as sovereign territory, to be most technical.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Nice attempt at duh-version and false attribution. Embassy grounds are Sovereign territory for the US and anybody else, therefore jurisdiction applies.
-snip-

Edit- Embassy grounds are treated as sovereign territory, to be most technical.

Somebody above claims they aren't.

I've been reading some cases about the subject (specifically one that arose when our embassy was attacked in Iran), it's not at all clear cut. For some purpose it is treated as US souil and we have juridiction, for some purposes we don't.

Fern
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
You are an absolute idiot and understand nothing about the American constitution Petranus.

Yes there was the crime of 911, but who caused it and who did not?

But just hypothetically saying, if you Petranus had been arrested and charged with a part of that crime, would your arrest prove you were part of that 911 crime?

Of course not, because under US law, you are innocent until proved guilty. And what we have here, Petraus, is a case that a USA jury, found that our government had scant evidence against the person in question. Yet still, that poor smuck was imprisoned without a trial for God knows how many years.

When the British government did exactly that to American colonists before and during the American revolution over 200 years ago, it perfectly explained why we Americans have a legal system that demand a prompt trial, the right of habius corpus, and government proof, determined by a jury of Americans that the person in question was arrested for a good reason or no reason at all.

Eat shit and die Petranus, what you think is a miscarrage of Justice is simply a triumpth of American values and our American legal system. Go back to other governmental systems like Russia or other tyrannical government systems if you are not a believer in the American justice system.

You can be a proud American or you can be a believer in guilt without proof. But you cannot be an American if you believe in the latter.

If American legal values are good enough for Americans, why should we assert all others have lesser rights? We already know many in GITMO we basically innoicent and that is already known.

What kind of a sadist would demand that people basically innocent be detained to validate the sadism of the sadists? Evidently Petranus for one.

On the other hand, many in Gitmo are guilty, and a similar American jury will find for the government that quite properly imprisoned them.