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
Buddha’s dumber than we thought:
“A closing thought: One needn’t be a Neocon or a Stalinist to recognize shabby logic.”
Logic isn’t his strong suit, although he tries to use it as a cudgel to make people back away from his “turgid” arguments. I guess it works with people who have no nodding association with the rules of logic.
People who do, seem to take him to task on a regular basis and usually are right.
Thanks for pointing that out.
BIL,
Don’t you expect the overwhelming majority of Americans to “think like an untrained civilian”?
Was Sun Tzu the author of “The Art of Peaceful Negotiation”? “The Art of Ignoring Threats”? Or was it “The Art of War”?
Tsun Tzu and Togo Shigekata knew how to identify the enemy and effectively eliminate them.
The TSA/Fourth Amendment comment departs from this thread, however, I think it is deserving of a brief response:
I see no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The scan or pat-down are both voluntary. When was the last time you entered a courthouse? Didn’t you have to empty your pockets into a little basket? If the reason for your visit to the courthouse was in response to a summons, I think you would have a much better argument with regard to a Fourth Amendment protection in that your submission ws not voluntary.
The only way for the TSA to be more effective, thereby addressing your “dubious purposes and negligible effect, it is ignorant to the true nature of the problem and is a tactic without a strategy” would be to engage in profiling. When we insist on treating everyone the same, it makes it extremely difficult to support an argument in favor identifying a specific group and treating them differently.
“Fear is the appropriate response to a legitimate immediate threat.”
If you think like an untrained civilian.
“One finds life through conquering the fear of death within one’s mind. Empty the mind of all forms of attachment, make a go-for-broke charge and conquer the opponent with one decisive slash.” – Togo Shigekata
“If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.” – Sun Tzu
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” – Sun Tzu
The security theater of the TSA not only preys upon mathematically irrational fear to usurp your Constitutional 4th Amendment rights for dubious purposes and negligible effect, it is ignorant to the true nature of the problem and is a tactic without a strategy . . . unless your strategy is the usurpation of civil rights.
Bob Esq.,
I asked you to specify you mean by “the means taken of late to prevent them”. Your response indicates that you find “the means taken of late to prevent them” to mean pretty much any expenditure of resources whatsoever. Is that correct?
If we follow the premise presented by Luke Mitchell, we should be calling for the elimination of our standing military forces. The expenditure simply cannot be justified when compared to other sources attributed to the loss of life.
Who is Luke Mitchell, and what are his credentials when it comes to assessing a threat?
Is the accumulated loss of life the only reason we fight against terrorism? I’m not even sure we would consider the loss of life to be the primary reason. Terrorism is the attempt to control/influence by fear. Fear is the appropriate response to a legitimate immediate threat. We don’t currently live in fear, because there is no recognized legitimate immediate threat. The purpose of military intervention is to keep that threat at bay, which keeps it from becoming a legitimate immediate threat.
Are you going to tell me that al Queda, if left to prosper, would not once again become a legitimate immediate threat? Is it unrealistic to think that al Queda would not present a legitimate immediate threat, capable of sustained attacks against our people and our infrastructure, in the near future?
Terrorism doesn’t just threaten our lives, it threatens our way of life. The American people have experienced real fear. Most adults don’t have a problem recalling the way they felt in the aftermath of 9/11. I sure don’t. You go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
“Real valor consists not in being insensible to danger, but in being prompt to confront and disarm it.” —Sir Walter Scott
Just ignore the problem, Bob, and someday in the near future you may just get your wish. When the death toll by act of terrorism is significant enough for you to then choose to address the problem, you’ll have all the fear you need to muster support for addressing it.
In support of your position, you suggest that the number of deaths were not sufficient to warrant our response. How many people must die by an act of terrorism before you think we should find a need to actively fight against it? At what point will you stop considering the those deaths acceptable?
Ooooo.
More minor league insults from sub-standard trolls.
Whatever will I do!
I think I’ll have a cup of coffee and enjoy your jealousy.
“As opposed to terror, murder, at the hands of Al Qaeda or anyone else, is a very real threat. But it is not a supreme threat, and by calling it what it is we can recognize that it does not require the wholesale reorganization of the American way of life. The prevention of murder does not require the suspension of habeas corpus, nor does it call for the distribution of national identity cards, nor does it require the fingerprinting of Brazilian tourists. Preventing murder certainly does not require war, which of course is quite murderous in and of itself. What preventing murder requires is patient police work.” Ibid
BBB: “You need to be more specific about what you mean by “the means taken of late to prevent them”.
“In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,622, and homicide, not including the attacks, another 17,330. As President Bush pointed out in January, no one has been killed by terrorists on American soil since then. Neither, according to the FBI, was anyone killed here by terrorists in 2000. In 1999, the number was one. In 1998, it was three. In 1997, zero. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality ought to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those people killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors.”
The rising cost of fear itself, by Luke Mitchell, Harper’s, March 2004
Oh my, what a frightfully stinging rebuke. I dare say, I shant sleep for a fortnight. “Clown college”? Why, why your rapier wit is truly formidable, sir.
I think I’ve identified the problem: Buddha is Laughing’s reading comprehension skills are decidedly underdeveloped. Clearly he’s a duly credentialed pettifogger, but with such a limited grasp of the language I have to wonder if that means much of anything at all.
Let’s array the relevant facts in a manner that even our daft friend BIL can grasp:
Jonathan Turley says in a Hardball segment that Ghailani had been waterboarded. A poster points out that Mr. Turley’s statement was factually dubious. BIL responds by reciting the legalisms associated with the practice of waterboarding.
Surely, even a dolt could recognize the disconnect here.
A closing thought: One needn’t be a Neocon or a Stalinist to recognize shabby logic.
Say the following until it sinks in . . .
“Then there’s the not-so-subtle semantic distinction separating the words ‘coercion’ and ‘torture’.” – Jonny’s Mommy
Torture is illegal. This is without question.
Waterboarding is torture. This is also without question.
In describing that torture as illegal, waterboarding is a fine example of 1) an activity legally torture 2) forbidden by law.
What’s the matter? They no longer teaching logic in clown college? Argument by analogy out of your grasp? Or are they teaching “Media Defense of Torture” at Breitbart’s School of Neocon Apology?
Jonny’s Mommy points out, correctly, that Ghailani was not waterboarded, despite what Professor Turley would have the Hardball audience believe, and BIL responds with a turgid disquisition on federal and international law as they relate to … the practice of waterboarding. Can you say non sequitur? Or are they no longer teaching rhetoric in law school?
“All kinds of shit you can’t control can kill you every day.”
Pardon, cold fingers.
Compare:
Chance of dying in terrorist attack – 9.3m:1
Chance of dying in an airplane accident – 354,319:1
That means you have approximately a 26 times greater chance of dying by simply flying versus dying in a plane crash caused by terrorists.
Compare to a known risk of natural disaster, the asteroid strike.
Chance that Earth will experience a catastrophic collision with an asteroid in the next 100 years – 5,000:1
Chance of dying in such a collision – 20,000:1
Creation is no gentle place. All kinds of shit can’t control can kill you every day. Not to speak for Bob, but those kind of odds in no way justify the destruction of 4th Amendment rights by means of excessive radiation exposure and physical abuse by the TSA.
Bob Esq.,
“The threat of casualties by terrorist attacks in no way justifies the means taken of late to prevent them.”
You need to be more specific about what you mean by “the means taken of late to prevent them”.
BBB,
The threat of casualties by terrorist attacks in no way justifies the means taken of late to prevent them.
Bob Esq.,
“And I contend that the threats to this nation were greater during the cold war than they are now.”
Active threat vs. posturing.
State against State. Nation against Nation. Neither side willing to become the aggressor.
It’s nothing like the threat of al Queda activity. Comparing the cold war to the current terrorist efforts is akin to comparing the possibility of a wreck in a Nascar race to that of a bridge collapse.
In partial defense of Jonny’s Mommy, she is correct, as far as I know, that Ghailani was not waterboarded. American waterboarding, as far as we know, was only done to 3 persons, KSM, Abu Zubaydah, and Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri.
Where she errs is assuming that this means that his treatment did not amount to torture. It is instructive to consider the case of Mohammad al-Qahtani. He was not waterboarded, and yet the convening authority at Guantanamo Bay (Susan Crawford, a Bush appointee) ruled that he could not be tried because his treatment amounted to torture. She ruled that the combination of interrogation tactics used, their duration, and affect amounted to torture.
That’s why the ‘math’ counts.
Terrorism is a fulcrum based activity; the real terrorists are the ones who use the fear as leverage for their agenda.
BBB: “You’ve got to admit that the capability of successfully launching a terrorist attack has increased dramatically in recent years along with the potential to result in mass casualties.”
And I contend that the threats to this nation were greater during the cold war than they are now.
BBB,
Crossed wires then.
As to the corporation rant?
I’ll stipulate two things:
1) I wrote that.
2) It wasn’t meant to be funny.