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
What Buddha and Blouise have said…
Buddha,
I may even break out the REALLY good stuff. I’ve got a bottle of 2009 J.W. Lee’s Harvest Ale aged in Port casks that’s waiting for a special occasion. Which if you can get a hold of it is one of the four or five beers I’ve had that comes close to being art.
The odds are two times more likely that you’ll be killed by a falling vending machine than a terrorist attack.
During the ’50’s the enemy was defined by Joe McCarthy (“Tail-Gunner Joe”), a republican Senator (who was also a lawyer), as “Communist Subversion” – large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere … Communist infiltration into the State Department, the administration of President Harry S. Truman, Voice of America, and the United States Army.
McCarthy’s tactics even set Eisenhower back on his heels. Although Eisenhower did not approve of McCarthy’s tactics and worked behind the scenes to lesson McCarthy’s influence, he never directly confronted McCarthy or criticized him by name in any speech.
John Earl Haynes, historian, argues that “McCarthy’s attempts to “make anti-communism a partisan weapon” actually “threatened [the post-War] anti-Communist consensus,” thereby ultimately harming anti-Communist efforts more than helping.” Even William Bennett, noted gambler and Reagan Administration Secretary of Education, agrees, ” …McCarthy addressed a real problem: disloyal elements within the U.S. government. But his approach to this real problem was to cause untold grief to the country he claimed to love … Worst of all, McCarthy besmirched the honorable cause of anti-communism. He discredited legitimate efforts to counter Soviet subversion of American institutions.”
The reason I am citing this relatively recent history is to draw a comparison to the time the Constitution was written and ratified. At that time there were a great many “Tories”, Indians, French and Spanish citizens and non-citizens who did not want this fledgling new Republic to succeed. They lived here, they plotted here, they burned farms and villages and governmental buildings here long after the War was won and all through the time the Constitution was being written and ratified and implemented. The Framers had every excuse and reason to do as McCarthy, Bush and Cheney have done. To a certain extent one of my favorites, John Adams, did in the Aliens and Seditions Acts (four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the 5th United States Congress during an undeclared naval war with France and to which Jefferson strongly argued against as the Federal Government had overstepped its limits by attempting to exercise unjust powers)
It is for these basic reasons that I believe Buddha to be right when he writes, ” … nothing more damaging to America and citizens rights than that – no threat made from a cave, no plane hijacked, no dirty bomb has done more to degrade the very freedoms radical Muslim extremists hate so much as refusing to follow the rule of law for political reasons when the law has been manifestly broken.”
We have been there, we have done that, and it doesn’t work.
Gyges,
You’re on.
Buddha,
Next time you’re in Denver, swing by for a well deserved beer in honor of that speech.
And before you start crying “TERRORISTS!”, realize this: based on historical data your chances of being killed or harmed in a terrorist attack are about 9.3 million to one. This means you have a slightly greater chance of dying in an avalanche. The last time I checked, no one was trying to usurp civil rights due to excessive snow pack.
Bob,
I got a little carried away and included civil jury trials. Sue me.
BBB,
No, we are talking about something more important: the rule of law and its systemic value in light of Equal Protection. Either the law is applied equally in re rights or those rights are simply optional – which isn’t the case under the Constitution. And given the decline into corporatists interests demonstrated by both parties, soon “non-enemy combatant” will mean “anyone who wants their government back from special interests or opposes the GOP/DNC Complex of Self-destructive Venal Behavior”. You be an apologist all you want. It won’t change that you are craving a solution that throws out the baby with the bathwater. Execution and detention without trial is what terrorists do, BBB, not what the U.S. government is supposed to do under the Constitution. When you become like the bad guys in action, haHA!, you become the bad guys. Government under the GOP/DNC has proven that our government has not only ceased to look out for citizen interests if their corporate masters jerk their chain, but that both parties meet the requirements to be classified as ongoing criminal enterprises designed to usurp authority from We the People and give it to We the Campaign Contributors. Sorry, that’s not what I signed up for when I swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic – to let it be destroyed by those entrusted with its protection in the name of false security and fear mongering. If Rockefeller actually believed in the Constitution? He (or King) wouldn’t be afraid of the trial systems as applied to terrorists. Just like any other criminals, some will skate because the state can’t meet a burden of proof, but “perfect security” is an illusion to begin with just as is “perfect justice”. However, you can’t even have a semblance of justice if you are not only not pursuing it, but actively discouraging it.
BBB: “Who is the enemy? When do they become the enemy? When will there no longer be “an enemy” in this inadequately defined “war on terror”?”
Dobbs: You admit it!
Yossarian: I admit I’m being persecuted.
McWatt: Yeah? By whom?
Yossarian: By them!
Dobbs: But, who specifically is “them”?
Yossarian: Every one of them!
Dobbs: Every one of who?!
Yossarian: Every one of who you think!
Dobbs: I haven’t any idea!
Yossarian: Then how do you know they aren’t?!
The seventh amendment??
BIL,
“Like the 4th Amendment which prohibits illegal search and seizure?…”
Are you serious? Do you really intend to fight a war using the protections afforded those who have permanent or temporary allegiance to this country?
We’re not talking insurrection.
Apparently short posts with no vowels trigger the spam filter:
“Buddha,
Vwls r 4 sckrs.”
“Shouldn’t at least some of their effort be focused on creating law that would act as a successful deterrent to performing the illegal act?”
Like the 4th Amendment which prohibits illegal search and seizure? Or the right to a timely trial where witnesses can be confronted and to be free of cruel and unusual punishments like water boarding – which in addition to violating the Constitution also violates Federal law and numerous international treaties – found in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments?
When the law is lawless, there is no law, BBB. Only the “the other guys do it” defense and your make believe reading of the Constitution which says nothing at all about uniforms but is quite clear about enemies as related to those engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. regardless of dress code, or giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States vis a vis treason which is exactly what Bush did in protecting Saudi Arabia.
Yours is the language of apologists; those who would say “murder is a crime when you do it, but a political expediency when a government official orders it”.
Or as they say on the farm, “Pure bullshit.” And that would be according to the Constitution. Equal protection is a corollary to equal responsibility. Those wishing to avoid responsibility are those seeking to destroy equal protection and the associated trial rights. There is nothing more damaging to America and citizens rights than that – no threat made from a cave, no plane hijacked, no dirty bomb has done more to degrade the very freedoms radical Muslim extremists hate so much as refusing to follow the rule of law for political reasons when the law has been manifestly broken.
Regarding last night’s Hardball segment:
As always, Jonathan Turley was “a class act”…
Re: Who is the enemy?
The answer’s pretty clear, if one just looks around…
“We have met the enemy and he is us”. -Pogo
Gyges,
Those I-talians and their love for vowels would probably call that Fascismo using the proper noun, but use a lower case ‘f” for the generic noun.
“rule of law”???
Most of us recognize that the “rule of law” does not have a precise definition. Its accepted meaning usually varies between different nations and legal traditions. It is generally accepted to be a legal and political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties. The intent is to create a system of order and predictability regarding how a country functions. Basically, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.
http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/Rule_of_Law.shtml
In this case we aren’t just talking about “citizens”. Are we? We’re talking about “terrorists”. Though some citizens can be terrorists, the majority are subjects or citizens of other nations.
In the past, when the subjects or citizens of a foreign nation would attack another nation, they did so under the sanction of that foreign nation or nations. It was considered an Act of War, and such acts were considered to be an offense against the laws of nations. The “rule of law” then imposed was the “Law of War”.
If it were only that simple! We have a plethora of accepted doctrine that provides us with the “do(s) and don’t(s)” involving conflict between nations, but when it comes to how to deal with a non-sanctioned force, operating in a multi-national environment, capable of fighting an international war; we have entered uncharted territory. This is exactly why the “War on Terror” is so frustrating to many. Do we need to prevent future attacks? I think everyone would agree that we do. The question is how? And what “rule of law” to we rely on?
Who is the enemy? When do they become the enemy? When will there no longer be “an enemy” in this inadequately defined “war on terror”?
Most wars are ended by treaty. Those on each side reach an agreement, and bind their respective nations to that treaty. There is give and take, so that peace may be achieved. How do we achieve this when it comes to our “war on terror”? Can an end ever be achieved? If an end cannot be achieved by treaty of peace, how do we, as a nation, best defend ourselves from further loss?
Back to question of who is the enemy?:
Members of the military from either side are known as “enemy combatants”. Under the accepted “law of war” (the “rule of war” generally accepted as applicable in these situations) those enemy combatants wear the uniform of the nation they represent. The rank identified by that uniform, and other identifying information, provides them with privileges afforded under the agreements reach at the Third Geneva Convention. The rules promulgated by that convention even affords them the right to a hearing to ensure the privileges of rank are observed.
This leaves us with those who actively engage in the hostilities while failing to don the uniform. They are known as “illegal enemy combatants”. The Convention does not provide them with the same “rights”. Why?; Because that would encourage all wars to be fought without a need to distinguish between soldiers and innocent bystanders. This type if “illegal” intervention caused a lot of problems in the Vietnam War. It increased the number of innocent civilians killed or injured.
What currently acts as a deterrent to becoming an “illegal enemy combatant”. From where I see it; nothing at all. If there is no deterrent to engaging in an illegal act, as opposed to a legal act (under the law of war), how come so many are insistent upon following the rule of law? Shouldn’t at least some of their effort be focused on creating law that would act as a successful deterrent to performing the illegal act?
Buddha,
If only there were a name for the merging of business and government interests. Something Italian maybe.
ain’t laughing,
Oh, I get “it” far more than your corporatist apologist bullshit indicates that you get “it”, sport. What I want is the liberty and freedom guaranteed under the Constitution. What you want is corporate slavery where your “masters” are free from prosecution as long as they are operating out of a profit motive. The DNC may be spineless graft swilling toads, but the GOP are outright fascists at this point. Screw ’em both, but clearly the GOP is deserving of the larger finger as it was their failed economic and foreign policies that led us to this sorry state of affairs. I loathe the DNC and think Obama is a criminal with his pronouncement he can assassinate American citizens without due process, but the GOP merits actual hatred for their perpetual war and their perpetual rape of the Constitution for their personal profit and at their lobbyist pimp’s behest. They need to be excised from the body politic like a cancer, along with the rest of those monkeys – regardless of party affiliation – who have forgotten whom their real bosses are (We the People) and that We outnumber those in government service 10 to 1. Failure to understand basic math can be as fatal as failure to understand the lessons of history. Particularly French or Russian history.
But what do you care? Your corporate buddy has no liability for their crimes. Let them eat cake!
Let’s see how well that works out for you corporatist clowns in the long run.