The trial of alleged Al Qaeda accomplice Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani has resulted in an acquittal on all major terrorism charges in New York. Ghailani was charged with crimes related to the 1998 suicide bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. I will be discussing the verdict tonight on Hardball.
Ghailani, a Tanzanian, was convicted only of one count of conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property but cleared of 276 counts of murder and attempted murder. The important thing to note here is that this is a unanimous series of acquittal votes — not some hung jury.
The Obama Administration made little secret that it wanted the trial in New York — the scene of the 9-11 attacks. It did not help with the jury which found the evidence (as opposed to the emotions) lacking. The government still intends to seek life without parole on that one conspiracy charge.
In a truly disturbing response to the verdict, Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) denounced the jury verdict as “a total miscarriage of justice” and insisted “this tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama administration’s decision to try Al Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.” Of course, no one would accuse New Yorkers as being ambivalent on terrorism.
Nevertheless, Rep. King’s solution to a jury of citizens acquitting an accused person is to rig the system to avoid such juries in the future. It is the most raw demonstration that the interest in the tribunal system is the view that it is outcome determinative and pre-set for convictions. Rep. King appears to be joining the Queen of Hearts that we must have a system that guarantees “sentence first, verdict afterwards.”
Here is tonight’s debate with Governor Pataki on Hardball (title on youtube is not my own):
Source: LA Times
Jonathan Turley
And there’s this “new form of McCarthyism” (or something akin to it) playing itself out on the streets — a form of “torture” that’s come home to America. It’s covert, high-tech, and seems highly improbable to most.
I’m just guessing, but I don’t think that it’s the Republicans who “dreamed it up.” It’s conducted by “those who hate” — those who don’t feel the need to play by the rules — those who don’t understand that little thing called “the rule of law.” It’s conducted by those who would say, “Kill all the lawyers.” Or, at least, all the democratic lawyers.”
Those involved are overgrown bullies — “play actors” in a real-life “24.” They have nothing better to do than harass vulnerable Americans — and they’re doing it simply because they can. And in some twisted way, I think that they believe that they’re doing their parts to “help keep America safe.”
The truth will eventually out, but when? Bush/Cheney et al decided that it was necessary to root out terrorists everywhere. Does anyone think for a moment that they’re abiding by “the rule of law” in America? They aren’t.
They’re busily employing “torture techniques” to fight terrorism right here at home. But who would believe it?
@Buddha is Laughing:
you dont even get it do you.
Government is not business nor is business government.
They do not and cannot function in the same manner and “running government like a business” is what ran the economy into the ditch and got us in an illegal war with unconstitutional and illegal torture added just for spice.
business\ˈbiz-nəs, -nəz, Southern also ˈbid-\, n.,
1 (archaic) : purposeful activity : busyness
2a : role, function (how the human mind went about its business of learning — H. A. Overstreet) b : an immediate task or objective : mission (what is your business here) c : a particular field of endeavor (the best in the business)
3a : a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood : trade, line (in the restaurant business) b : a commercial or sometimes an industrial enterprise; also : such enterprises (the business district) c : dealings or transactions especially of an economic nature : patronage (took their business elsewhere)
4: affair, matter (the whole business got out of hand, business as usual)
5: creation, concoction
6: movement or action (as lighting a cigarette) by an actor intended especially to establish atmosphere, reveal character, or explain a situation —called also stage business
7a : personal concern (none of your business) b : right (you have no business speaking to me that way)
8a : serious activity requiring time and effort and usually the avoidance of distractions (got down to business) b : maximum effort
9a : a damaging assault b : rebuke, tongue-lashing c : double cross
10 : a bowel movement —used especially of pets
Contrast with the meaning of government . . .
government\ˈgə-vər(n)-mənt, -və-mənt; ˈgə-bəm-ənt, -vəm-\, n.,
1: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 (obsolete) : moral conduct or behavior : discretion
3a : the office, authority, or function of governing b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office
4: the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule
5a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
6: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b capitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal government c capitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1) : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry (2) : administration 4b
In this instance, our country has the Constitution which provides “the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it”. These are reflected in the operational constraints – also known as your civil rights – which (are supposed) to protect and represent all people equally under the law, not just businessmen operating out of a profit motive which may require them to seek to oppress your rights as a citizen to enhance their bottom line. Limitations of damages does nothing to enhance the administration of justice and, in fact, degrades the administration of justice by removing a tool which provides an economic consequence for bad actions against an organization which only has two operating parameters: avoidance of liability and maximum personal profits. The right for others to profit ends where their schemes to profits trample your rights. Or it would if business lobbyist graft hadn’t spent the last 30 years dismantling government oversight.
The business of government is equally enforcing the law.
The government of business is profit over all other considerations, including your rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, free speech, freedom of religion, right to petition, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.
Government being run like business is a good thing? Hardly. It’s the primary mechanic that is ruining our democracy by buying decisions that give corporations – a legal fiction – equal or superior rights to actual people – combined with liability limitations far beyond the original intentions behind the corporate form which were designed to foster R&D, not act as an unlimited shield against prosecution for criminal and civil corporate wrongs.
Great job last night Prof. Turley. It is amazing how much the Teapublicans hate our Constitution and its justice system. That darn jury system of our peers keeps getting in the way of their agenda. It is a good thing it is still in place because who can trust people like Patacki to actually follow the law?!
Prof. I didn’t see you smirking during the debate. I saw you looking down in frustration with your lips pursed while Pataki rudely talked over you. Good job keeping your composure.
As others have said, these repugs have no interest in a real debate, they use the news segments as opportunities to spew propaganda.
Another fact: the sentences being handed down in civilian trials are harsher than those being handed down in military tribunals. Don’t know if it’s true but I heard it on NPR so I suspect it’s true.
Once again, great debate. Thank you.
The Lawyer’s Party ~
This is very interesting & I never thought about it this way. Perhaps this is why so many physicians are conservatives or Republicans.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The Lawyers’ Party by Bruce Walker ~~
The Democratic Party has become The Lawyers’ Party . Barack Obama was a lawyer. Michelle Obama was a lawyer. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer. Bill Clinton is a lawyer. John Edwards is a lawyer. Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate)…
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress: Harry Reid is a lawyer.& Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different ~
President Bush is a businessman. Vice President Cheney is a businessman. The leaders of The Republican Revolution ~ Newt Gingrich was a history professor. Tom Delay was an exterminator. Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon. Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer?
Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago & who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976..
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers. The Democrat Party is made up of alot lawyers. Democrats mock & scorn men who create wealth, like Bush & Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods & services that people want & need, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of The Lawyers’ Party…
The USofA has 5% of the world’s population & 66% of the world’s lawyers ~ Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself & suing the establishment that sold it to you” ~ also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to The Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical & product costs being so high.:!!
*sigh*
Every time I listen to that interview, I just want to slap the shit out Pataki. Fear mongering jackass.
FFLEO,
I submit Elmer’s education won’t ever get in the way of his ego and lust for personal power. As a politician in the modern mold, the rule of law is more of an inconvenience to be avoided as it applies to him rather than a standard to uphold.
What Matthew said and
mespo…..we still do that….it is called spin dry….
Good debate and composure, Prof. Turley. I do not understand how George Elmer Pataki, an attorney (Columbia Law), can be so blindly biased and abjectly ignorant of the rule of law.
we didn’t go after the wrong people for the 93 wtc bombing. we went after the wrong people after the 2001 wtc attack.
Jonathan:
You committed the same error that all reasonable people do when they debate republicans. You were to nice. BIG mistake. Their strategy is to crowd you out by not letting you speak. Please be rude don’t let them talk over you.
John Pruitt
There will probably be a much more welcome enviorment on faux news for the Governor or The Repesentative tonight.
I watched the SHAMEFUL performance of PAW TACKY who does not like the jury system, does not have common courtesy to allow the other side to speak, and who just like his forefathers were the lackeys of King George.
About 18% of those living in the colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence worshipped the king who could do no wrong, which was also the time we gave them the shaft.
They want to go back to worshipping the king.
God bless the jury system because the king can and will do every wrong.
He calls a person a terrorist, a criminal, and this and that, before, during, and after a trial where the jury acquitted them of 254 out of 255 accusations.
PAW TACKY is a pathetic excuse for an American, who proves the reality of the science of the lizard brain, as well as the fact that we have passed the peak of sanity.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/11/peak-of-sanity.html
I also noticed the Professor smirking a time or two. I got the kind of black humor behind it, but I’m not sure it’s a good habit to be in.
Rickman,
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
After watching this guy smirk as Pataki (sp) made his points I had to look him up. Surprise!! Get rid of MSNBC and Fox News (commentators) – the world will be a better place.
An excerpt:
In October 2006, in an interview by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, he expressed strong disapproval of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.[7] In numerous appearances on Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show, he has called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, namely torture.
The Governor is showing us what type of mindset to expect come January 1.
My question is what makes him think the outcome would have been different in a military tribunal? Is he saying that tribunals are fixed?
God job keeping your composure professor,I know it was hard.
The professor is coming across way better than the governor. The governor absolutely is judging the system based on its outcome. It’d make a great talking point.
The one guilty charge of conspiracy to destroy U.S. property carries a 20 to life sentence. Explain that one to me. Over here in Europe, a sentence of that type is reserved for the most heinous forms of murder.