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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
I don't know what part you don't get. Our legal system is built to protect people on our soil with our laws. Once you cross the line to bring enemies of war against us into that system it fails. That is why we have different rules when off country.

I can kill you outside country in defense of my country with little recourse. If you attack me outside country and kill my countrymen then you are subject to international military court.

Don't try this principles of the US crap hippie. We are at war and to behave differently or coddle the enemy is to our detriment as witnessed in this atrocity of justice.

Obama screwed up big time here, BIG TIME. This outcome was predicted, so a big I TOLD YOU SO to all the leftists.

Explain how a sentence of 20 years to life is screwing up?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
The precedent has been set... every murder charge was thrown out.

If I burned down your house and killed your family, would you be happy if I got off with destruction of property?

How is 20 years to life "getting off?"
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Explain how how losing two-hundred some times on murder counts isn't?

Fern

What is the point of the criminal trial? To incarcerate offenders so they can't do it again, right? Did they succeed or fail in doing this?
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
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.

Yeah, it looks to me like this guy will be in prison. So I'm not sure where the problem is, other than right wing tards trying to smear obama over something...
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Um, had he come out and said that these "people" are morally superior than I'd hardly have suggested he say it, would I? I'm merely trying to save him the time required to defend every terrorist individually - which is he obviously going to do. That way we can just accept him as an idiot instead of having him relentlessly drive the fact home in post after post. (And actually, reading comprehension IS one of my strong suits, tested to be top 1/2% in the country.)
I agree with Manimal: I see no connection between your post and what Jackstar posted. Honestly, before encountering Manimal's post I read what Jackstart posted and how you responded, and I absolutely could not figure out the connection.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
What is the point of the criminal trial? To incarcerate offenders so they can't do it again, right? Did they succeed or fail in doing this?

It's idealogy over reality remember. Just like "I want to see the birth certificate".
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Every murder charged was tossed. How would you feel if I murdered your family and the only charge that stuck was breaking and entering?

"Success! I would be going to jail!"

:rolleyes:

There was no other charge that COULD stick, because all of the evidence supporting the other charges was illegally obtained. Does it actually upset you that the rule of law prevailed?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Irrelevent and likely overly simplistic.

There is room to argue whether it's more a crime or an act of war. But that is irrelevent to the point at hand - how to prosecute acts that were committed abroad?

Our civilian criminal system was designed to prosecute (domestic) acts committed here, not abroad. Accordingly it is a poor, and faulty tool for the job. If a group of (foreign) terrorists come here, and plan and/or commit one of these acts here then I have no problem with using our civilian criminal process. It is when they are done abroad I feel it is inappropriate to use our (domestic) civilian criminal system.

Fern

My point is that we have a system in place. The only true way to know it is not adequate would be to test it. You see this test as a failure. That about right?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Explain how how losing two-hundred some times on murder counts isn't?

Fern

"Getting off" means either being a free man or receiving a token sentence and getting out in a relatively short time. The charge he was convicted of carries a mandatory MINIMUM of 20 years, and it's quite likely the actual sentence will be life in prison.

Furthermore, you fools refuse to understand that the murder counts could NEVER be proven by illegal evidence. There could NEVER be a conviction on those charges. Those same considerations would have applied even in a court martial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805834.html

Moreover, there is no guarantee that a military commission, the preferred alternative of many critics, would have produced a tougher result. Such commissions are not apt to admit statements coerced through torture, so the star witness rejected by a federal judge probably would have been excluded by the military court as well. And in 2008, a military jury rejected the Bush administration's argument that Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was a hardened al-Qaeda operative, acquitted him of the most serious charges and sentenced him to a mere five months on top of time served.

So imagining Ghailani receiving 224 "Guilty!" verdicts for murder is just a right-wing wet dream. But keep on believing the fantasy.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
My point is that we have a system in place.

I don't think we do.

We do not have a system in place to prosecute foreign people for crimes committed in a foreign juridiction.

We do have a system in place to prosecute crimes committed here, but that's a different thing.

This reminds me of similar problems with the Geneva Convention and attemps to apply it's conventions to the area of terrorism. It came about during the time when we had soldiers in uniform and civilians in the way of combat. Things were clear-cut. Are these fighters/terrorists soldiers and afforded the protections under GC to soldiers in combat? If so, why aren't they executed for not being in uniform as the GC permits?

The tools we are trying to apply were not created for the job.

The only true way to know it is not adequate would be to test it. You see this test as a failure. That about right?

I don't agree a test was needed.

If this was a test, yes it was a failure and amply demonstrated why the civilian criminal system is a (likely fatally) flawed tool for this purpose.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
"Getting off" means either being a free man or receiving a token sentence and getting out in a relatively short time. The charge he was convicted of carries a mandatory MINIMUM of 20 years, and it's quite likely the actual sentence will be life in prison.

Furthermore, you fools refuse to understand that the murder counts could NEVER be proven by illegal evidence. There could NEVER be a conviction on those charges. Those same considerations would have applied even in a court martial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805834.html



So imagining Ghailani receiving 224 "Guilty!" verdicts for murder is just a right-wing wet dream. But keep on believing the fantasy.

Evidence illegal by domestic criminal rules is not necessarily illegal in a military court. However, since you're equating orchestrating the terrorism murder of hundreds of human beings with the crime of being Saddam Hussein's driver, I doubt that will slow you down.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
I'm damn sure the president and holder were in on the decision to try military criminals and enemies of our nation in our courts. Terrible idea and the expected results are seen.

This president is an absolute disgust to our nation.

This is the system of the founding fathers, so how can you and "we the people " complain?
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
The justice system worked as intended, and for that I am glad.


That said, I would prefer these trials under military tribunal.


That said, I would mostly prefer killing these fckers on the battlefield.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Evidence illegal by domestic criminal rules is not necessarily illegal in a military court. However, since you're equating orchestrating the terrorism murder of hundreds of human beings with the crime of being Saddam Hussein's driver, I doubt that will slow you down.
Tell you what: I don't think a military court would gives you the guarantee you desire. There's maybe only a 2% chance the court would rule the torture-induced evidence admissible. And then when Ghailani got off on a "wrist slap" life sentence, you righties would be posting more of your shit threads, complaining that Ghailani "got off the hook."

Yeah, so let's just create a special court that doesn't care about the rules of evidence - or evidence at all, for that matter. We can perform a show trial and present all the illegal evidence as if it's kosher. We'll even muzzle the defense attorney and prevent him from objecting on the torture grounds - we don't want the American people to have any doubt at all that our cause is just and Ghailani is getting a fair trial. And after all the damning testimony is presented, all the cameras will roll as the judges intone "Guilty!" And if Ghailani doesn't show the correct level of mental anguish as the verdict is read, we'll have a Ghailani double waiting in the wings to to act all upset and fearful. We'll show the American people how we can make terrorists really SUFFER for their crimes. And, naturally, we'll impose the death penalty, which will be carried out immediately - no point in muddying the waters with appeals and such.

Happy now?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
I don't think we do.

We do not have a system in place to prosecute foreign people for crimes committed in a foreign juridiction.

We do have a system in place to prosecute crimes committed here, but that's a different thing.

This reminds me of similar problems with the Geneva Convention and attemps to apply it's conventions to the area of terrorism. It came about during the time when we had soldiers in uniform and civilians in the way of combat. Things were clear-cut. Are these fighters/terrorists soldiers and afforded the protections under GC to soldiers in combat? If so, why aren't they executed for not being in uniform as the GC permits?

The tools we are trying to apply were not created for the job.



I don't agree a test was needed.

If this was a test, yes it was a failure and amply demonstrated why the civilian criminal system is a (likely fatally) flawed tool for this purpose.

Fern

Thanks for explaining your position both in a non-douchey tone (as others seem to be locked into) and also clearly. I think it is hyperbolic at this point to say the system is fatally flawed, but I understand your position and if someone proposed a system to deal with crimes of this nature, I'd be interested in evaluating the methodology of that system.

I would also be interested to see the international response to an American doctrine of justice for foreign crimes against our people or interests. I don't imagine it would get two thumbs up regardless of however reasonable it might be.

Again, thanks.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Tell you what: I don't think a military court would gives you the guarantee you desire. There's maybe only a 2% chance the court would rule the torture-induced evidence admissible. And then when Ghailani got off on a "wrist slap" life sentence, you righties would be posting more of your shit threads, complaining that Ghailani "got off the hook."

Yeah, so let's just create a special court that doesn't care about the rules of evidence - or evidence at all, for that matter. We can perform a show trial and present all the illegal evidence as if it's kosher. We'll even muzzle the defense attorney and prevent him from objecting on the torture grounds - we don't want the American people to have any doubt at all that our cause is just and Ghailani is getting a fair trial. And after all the damning testimony is presented, all the cameras will roll as the judges intone "Guilty!" And if Ghailani doesn't show the correct level of mental anguish as the verdict is read, we'll have a Ghailani double waiting in the wings to to act all upset and fearful. We'll show the American people how we can make terrorists really SUFFER for their crimes. And, naturally, we'll impose the death penalty, which will be carried out immediately - no point in muddying the waters with appeals and such.

Happy now?

No need for a special court to hold a show trial, we've already got one. http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/ghailani-and-the-torture-trail/
But in justifying his decision to exclude the tainted evidence, Judge Kaplan said 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 an Al Qaeda and the Taliban end, even if he were found not guilty in this case.”

To be clear, if Ghailani is found guilty he will go to jail, and if he is found by some legal quirk to be not guilty .. well …he will go to jail. While this may reassure a few, it should concern us all, the point of a trial ought to be to determine the facts and pronounce a sentence, or in this case vice versa.
He's an enemy combatant, so he can be detained for the course of the conflict regardless of the outcome. However he deserves a civilian trial because, um, ah . . . Because Bush eats babies?

This would all be amusing if not for the threat of returning terrorists to their team. It WILL be amusing, in a black comedy fashion, to see what the Obama administration does with the first high level defendant who is found completely innocent. Continuing to detain him would make a mockery of our legal system. Releasing him would make a mockery of our country, not to mention undermining our fight against Islamic terrorism.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Tell you what: I don't think a military court would gives you the guarantee you desire. There's maybe only a 2% chance the court would rule the torture-induced evidence admissible. And then when Ghailani got off on a "wrist slap" life sentence, you righties would be posting more of your shit threads, complaining that Ghailani "got off the hook."

Yeah, so let's just create a special court that doesn't care about the rules of evidence - or evidence at all, for that matter. We can perform a show trial and present all the illegal evidence as if it's kosher. We'll even muzzle the defense attorney and prevent him from objecting on the torture grounds - we don't want the American people to have any doubt at all that our cause is just and Ghailani is getting a fair trial. And after all the damning testimony is presented, all the cameras will roll as the judges intone "Guilty!" And if Ghailani doesn't show the correct level of mental anguish as the verdict is read, we'll have a Ghailani double waiting in the wings to to act all upset and fearful. We'll show the American people how we can make terrorists really SUFFER for their crimes. And, naturally, we'll impose the death penalty, which will be carried out immediately - no point in muddying the waters with appeals and such.

Happy now?

You speak much of this torture induced evidence.

Are you familar with it?

The 'star witness' wasn't tortured. None of the star witness's testimony came from torture.

The star witness is the guy who sold the defendant the TNT for the bomb. When asked about it, he apparently willing testified.

This would seem like good evidence. Getting a confession through torture or enhanced interogation techniques would not.

But they found out the name of the TNT seller from the defendant himself. And so because of our "tainted fruit from the poison tree" doctrine created by the judicial branch we cannot use the witness's testimony even though it by itself is really untainted by "torture".

I have seen examples where this doctrine made sense to me, however in this case it doesn't. I can understand excluding any statements the defendant made himself about buying the TNT, but I do not now fully understand excluding the TNT seller's statements.

Fern
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
No need for a special court to hold a show trial, we've already got one. http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/ghailani-and-the-torture-trail/

He's an enemy combatant, so he can be detained for the course of the conflict regardless of the outcome. However he deserves a civilian trial because, um, ah . . . Because Bush eats babies?

This would all be amusing if not for the threat of returning terrorists to their team. It WILL be amusing, in a black comedy fashion, to see what the Obama administration does with the first high level defendant who is found completely innocent. Continuing to detain him would make a mockery of our legal system. Releasing him would make a mockery of our country, not to mention undermining our fight against Islamic terrorism.

GWB already made a mockery of our justice system when he created Gitmo. There's no downhill from there.

Justice has been served in this case. 20 to life means he'll never get out, which seems to be an entirely satisfactory outcome, particularly considering how badly the Bushistas botched it before he came to trial.

Some defendants may well be released if the govt can't make a case against them, and that's the way it should be, the way the Bill of Rights and even older concepts of jurisprudence declare it to be.

Familiarize yourselves with Blackstone's formulation-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

Or take up the philosophy of tyrants like Pol Pot and countless others before him.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
GWB already made a mockery of our justice system when he created Gitmo. There's no downhill from there.

Justice has been served in this case. 20 to life means he'll never get out, which seems to be an entirely satisfactory outcome, particularly considering how badly the Bushistas botched it before he came to trial.

Some defendants may well be released if the govt can't make a case against them, and that's the way it should be, the way the Bill of Rights and even older concepts of jurisprudence declare it to be.

Familiarize yourselves with Blackstone's formulation-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

Or take up the philosophy of tyrants like Pol Pot and countless others before him.
Blackstone's formulation rather falls apart when those ten guilty men each kill a couple hundred people.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
You speak much of this torture induced evidence.

Are you familar with it?

The 'star witness' wasn't tortured. None of the star witness's testimony came from torture.

The star witness is the guy who sold the defendant the TNT for the bomb. When asked about it, he apparently willing testified.

This would seem like good evidence. Getting a confession through torture or enhanced interogation techniques would not.

But they found out the name of the TNT seller from the defendant himself. And so because of our "tainted fruit from the poison tree" doctrine created by the judicial branch we cannot use the witness's testimony even though it by itself is really untainted by "torture".

I have seen examples where this doctrine made sense to me, however in this case it doesn't. I can understand excluding any statements the defendant made himself about buying the TNT, but I do not now fully understand excluding the TNT seller's statements.

Fern
But of course you don't like the tainted fruit doctrine. It makes it so hard to make use of torture-obtained evidence. Why not just relax the rules of evidence developed over the past decades? Who needs constitutional protections? Rulings based on the Constitution should be ignored, unless of course they have to do with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, let's start allowing cops to beat up suspects again during interrogations, like they did 50 or 60 years ago. We all know what we want: We want the bad guys convicted, and we don't care how we do it.

Come to think of it: The laws limiting illegal searches are pretty burdensome, too. Why don't we just allow the cops to break into pretty much anyone's house - if you have nothing to hide, why be concerned? Why require search warrants - they just protect criminals, after all.

Does that about sum up your attitudes?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Blackstone's formulation rather falls apart when those ten guilty men each kill a couple hundred people.

Hardly. It sets the bar high wrt the power of the State to convict and imprison people.

I thought Righties wanted smaller and less intrusive govt. Apparently just for themselves, not for anybody accused of being a Terrarist! by the govt they profess to to distrust... With the Constitution and Bill of Rights cited as scripture, except when it's convenient to piss on them...

When their thinking processes have been poisoned by fearmongering and manipulative lies...
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
No need for a special court to hold a show trial, we've already got one. http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/ghailani-and-the-torture-trail/

He's an enemy combatant, so he can be detained for the course of the conflict regardless of the outcome. However he deserves a civilian trial because, um, ah . . . Because Bush eats babies?

This would all be amusing if not for the threat of returning terrorists to their team. It WILL be amusing, in a black comedy fashion, to see what the Obama administration does with the first high level defendant who is found completely innocent. Continuing to detain him would make a mockery of our legal system. Releasing him would make a mockery of our country, not to mention undermining our fight against Islamic terrorism.
No, no, you NEED a show trial. You and your right-wing friends have made clear that merely keeping Ghailani incarcerated for the rest of his life isn't nearly sufficient: Life imprisonment is "getting off the hook" - the thread title tells us this.

No, we definitely need a way to get Ghailani convicted of murder, and we can accomplish that only with a show trial. In fact, the ideal result would be a public execution. That will appease our blood lust.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
You speak much of this torture induced evidence.

Are you familar with it?

The 'star witness' wasn't tortured. None of the star witness's testimony came from torture.

The star witness is the guy who sold the defendant the TNT for the bomb. When asked about it, he apparently willing testified.

This would seem like good evidence. Getting a confession through torture or enhanced interogation techniques would not.

But they found out the name of the TNT seller from the defendant himself. And so because of our "tainted fruit from the poison tree" doctrine created by the judicial branch we cannot use the witness's testimony even though it by itself is really untainted by "torture".

I have seen examples where this doctrine made sense to me, however in this case it doesn't. I can understand excluding any statements the defendant made himself about buying the TNT, but I do not now fully understand excluding the TNT seller's statements.

Fern

This is the same application of the principle:
1) Police suspect man is a drug dealer
2) Police detain main, torture him until he gives the name of a buyer
3) Buyer goes on the stand and testifies against drug dealer
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Every murder charged was tossed. How would you feel if I murdered your family and the only charge that stuck was breaking and entering?

"Success! I would be going to jail!"

:rolleyes:

Blame Bush and company for torturing information that is inadmissible in court.

When a murderer gets off in court, because police beat a confession out of him, do you blame the court system or the police? You should be blaming the police, they are the ones that caused it, not the courts.

But since when do worry about that little thing called "US law". It only applies when you want it, in your eyes.