The American Spectator

hook| 11.17.10 @ 10:57PM

I thought this civilian court verdict terrifying. If you add up this, the Black Panthers, the Mosque, Arizona, you wonder whose side the administration is on. Pete

Christopher Holland| 11.17.10 @ 11:02PM

I don't wonder at all about whose side Obama is on - not yours or mine. Obama simply does not care about the security of America, he never did and he never will. He thinks the people who worry about these things are stupid, religious nuts with gun fetishes. Don't expect him to change - he is far too arrogant to concede that he might be wrong.

Booger| 11.18.10 @ 6:36AM

From the desk of Eric Holder:

To the American people:

As Attorney General of the United States, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention our resounding success in the prosecution of Ahmed Ghailani. For those of you who are not familiar with Mr. Ghailani, he is the Al Qaeda operative who succeeded in bombing two of our embassies, one in Kenya and Tanzania. These bombings resulted in the deaths of 224 innocent people, many of them U.S. citizens. We have now brought this case to a close with the acquittal of Mr. Ghailani on all 224 counts of murder, although he was convicted of one count of conspiracy to destroy U.S. buildings and property.

Many of this administration's enemies in the Republican party and right-wing press have malevolently asserted that Mr. Ghailani's acquittal for murder demonstrates that this administration's policy of trying foreign terrorists in civilian courts is a failure. I would like to point out that this is completely inaccurate, and that in point of fact this trial has been a complete success. Too often we allow ourselves to be caught up in notions of "winning" and "losing", and in so doing lose sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture here is that we have demonstrated to the world that we are willing to live by our own rules.

What exactly does this mean? This means that no matter what you do to a U.S. citizen, you can be assured that we will abide by all laws and rules of civil procedure if and when we happen to capture you. True, this may lead to a loss of life, especially for those in foreign service and the military, but this loss of life is completely justified in demonstrating our moral superiority, and that is what really matters.

Please be advised, when I refer to our moral superiority, I do not mean we are morally superior to the rest of the world, or to those impoverished unfortunates whose misunderstanding of Islam has led them into the extremist camp of Al Qaeda. No, I mean the moral superiority of this administration to that cowboy George W. Bush. I have no doubt that were Bush still in office poor Mr. Ghailani would meet a gruesome end regardless of the verdict in court. In fact, I believe it is quite likely that Mr. Ghailani would never have seen the inside of a civilian courtroom were Bush still in office. More likely it would have been some military star chamber, and then a bullet in the back of the head, and that would have constituted a complete failure of our system.

I am proud to say that the Obama administration in which I serve has proven today that regardless of the outcome, regardless of the implications for national security, and regardless of how much innocent American blood must be shed, we will never forsake our principals. These principals must hold fast. We will always adhere to the right of every unfortunate soul who misunderstands Islam and engages in extremist activities to have a fair trial in a civilian court. That is the bedrock principal upon which this nation rests, and we must never forsake it.

In closing then, allow me to re-iterate. We won today. The verdict was irrelevant, for we have proven to the world that we will always play by the rules of the civilian courtroom, regardless of the implications for the lives of our citizens, and in so doing have proven ourselves morally superior to that cowboy Bush and his fascist cohorts in the military and the Republican party. This is indeed a great day for America.

Sincerely,

Attorney General Eric Holder

Dixie Pixie| 11.18.10 @ 7:34AM

You were too accurate in your latest post, Booger.

SunshinesVoice| 11.18.10 @ 10:21AM

I can not believe this .one conviction. 224 acquitals for them and the 224 acquitals were 224 of our people in the building when it was blown up. Yep he blew up the building with 224 Americans inside,but, we could not convict him for even one. This is absured,but, what Mr Holder says next is more than absured. If my reading of his statement is true he said the loss of the 224 Americans was completely justified in that he showed our moral authority. Then he went on to apoligize to any Muslim who thought he was saying they had less moral authority than us. How sad that we have to put up with Mr Holder and his boss for two more years.

LARRY| 11.18.10 @ 2:36PM

I'll take the cowboys over the idiots anyday!!!

Max Coats| 11.18.10 @ 9:25PM

The comments by Mr Holder are disgraceful! His rhetoric ( proven ourselves morally superior to that cowboy Bush and his fascist cohorts in the military and the Republican party.) clearly displays his arrogance, raging superiority complex and demonstrates his disdain for the men and women in our military who sacrifice for my country.
His piece also states that 'I have no doubt that were Bush still in office poor Mr. Ghailani would meet a gruesome end regardless of the verdict in court. In fact, I believe it is quite likely that Mr. Ghailani would never have seen the inside of a civilian courtroom were Bush still in office. More likely it would have been some military star chamber, and then a bullet in the back of the head,'. This from a high level 'official' from the administration that has put out the order to assassinate a US citizen with out an trial.
I note a serious disconnect!

Eric Cartman| 11.18.10 @ 10:33AM

What get me is that we all know Obummer's view on terrorism, but how do ya figure New Yorkers being such simps? Don't Liberal Aholes have a self-preservation gene? This is why I'm just not getting too upset the next time some Arab with a bomb for a hat hits NYC again and kills and maims hundreds or thousands. Oh, I'll feel bad. It will be a terrible act. Burning to death, choking on your own fluids, vaporizing in a cloud of expanding gas, being crushed by falling buildings. All terrible, terrible ways to die. But if the Ahole Liberals won't protect themselves (and treat the people trying to protect them like dirt), then they deserve to have the top floor of the Chrysler Building fall on their legs as the choke on VX gas. I'll tsk, tsk the act - be upset for a few minutes - then get on with my day. Good luck with your Liberalism, NYC. You're gunna need it. That and a gas mask.

M A Collins| 11.18.10 @ 1:10PM

Has Holder or Obama issued any statement about the trial results--not that I have seen or heard. And they probably won't; they are socialiats cowards. And who appointed the judge that prevented a key witness from testifying and getting on the record what everybody knows: that Ghailani did what he was accussed of and that he admitted it? Our wonderful past president Clinton. Of course Clinton made airport groping acceptable. If Clinton can do it in the White House on an intern, why can't government employees do it at the airport on kids. This administration--all of them--is the biggest bunch of incompetents that has every occupied the White House. Its a wonder they can walk through the slime they generate each day.

Loadmaster| 11.18.10 @ 9:34AM

Do we really have to tell you that?

Barbara| 11.17.10 @ 11:18PM

We elected Obama without actual evidence of competence but we've learned better. Guess the jury was filled with people that needed actual evidence of guilt - available but tossed out by a lib judge.
What a well-deserved smackdown for Holder's DOJ and a politicized judiciary. Too bad it comes at our expense and erodes our peace of mind.

Warrior| 11.18.10 @ 9:52AM

As I understand it, and I could be mistaken, then judge allowed the defense to block the testimony of a very key witness. The grounds that the witness was blocked was based on the claim that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used on the murderer after his capture thus the judge disqualified the key witness from testifying.

There was plenty evidence of guilt, the judge ensured the jury did not see it.

WL| 11.18.10 @ 12:20AM

Well folks....

We are all the kooks that saw this coming....

But who listens to us? We're just a bunch of racists...

WL| 11.18.10 @ 12:26AM

We only spoke out against civilian trials because we don't like Muslims...
We only voted against obama because we secretly keep our white sheets out of public view....
We are in collusion with big bad Isreal to cheat the Palestinians...
WE...ARE...THE...REASONS...THE OPPRESSED MUSLIMS...KNOCKED DOWN THE TOWERS

WE get ALL WEE WEE'D UP ABOUT TRIVIAL MATTERS LIKE THIS....

DARTH "DICK CHENEY" VADER HAS US UNDER A SPELL!!!!

If you are a liberal and don't get my point.....

Please do us all a favor and help cure the planet of global warming...BY CHOOSING NOT TO EMIT ANY MORE CARBON DIOXIDE PERMANENTLY.

Hex| 11.18.10 @ 2:59AM

"Well folks....We are all the kooks that saw this coming....But who listens to us? We're just a bunch of racists..."

Well, racist or not, you're still clueless.

So you set up an alternative system for terrorist suspects outside of civilian courts which have put hundreds behind bars forever. That alternate system, convicts like 4 over a decade, releases over 700 without charge...... and you're pointing at the civilian trials as a problem?

That doesn't make you racist, it makes you ridiculous.

Oh.... look it's that phenominally significant yet always skipped over detail when talking about civilian trials compared to military commissions. Well, actually never compared, for the obvious reason.

You know, it is hard to put into context just how pathetic your argument is when talking about how you should never have abandoned the system with a 4 and 700 win/loss record.
That's you moaning about the guy with no arms not being started for the LA Lakers.

And you're suggesting people not listening to you is anything but the only appropriate response.

Troll Hunter| 11.18.10 @ 4:06AM

Get lost, Lib.

The reason those tribunals "failed" as you so inaccurately say is because leftists politicians (your buddies!) started interfering with them, just as they've interfered, treasonously, with everything concerning the condcut of the war.

Go back to HuffPo.

Hex| 11.18.10 @ 5:44AM

LOL, you are really in Narnia territory aren't you.

I'm not aware of any unsuccessful military tribuneral prosecutions, pal. So liberals wrecked what exactly?

No, I was referring to them being let go without any trial. Released back to Yemen, Pakistan, UAE, etc by the Bush administration. Well before any habeus rulings.

The successful tribunerals convicted like half a dozen people and sentenced them to 3-9 month terms. These were the successes.

If Karl Marx comes back from the dead, how's he going to influence that into being any more of a complete shambles? Oh but somehow the democrats who bent to every program Bush wanted and neither derailed nor ended nor even investigated any of them were somehow the problem. Sure.

And this you say in defense of a program that based on results can only be described as one designed to release terrorist suspects from custody. I mean unless you want to argue that those 3-9 month sentences are meaningful, release without charge are the only other results.

This is your preferred system eh?
Well I'll go back to HuffPo and I guess you can go back to supporting the freeing of terrorists. Once you're done moaning about this terrorist getting sentenced to 20-to-life of course.

Ryan| 11.18.10 @ 8:34AM

Nonuniformed combatants who engage civilians and military waive their rights. Period.

Extended interrogation and detention, then military tribunals when we learn everything we need.

Legally, they could be executed on the battlefield.

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 12:13PM

Hex, there is no terrorism right? Just man caused incidents caused by pro-life moms with with right to life bumper stickers....

Warrior| 11.18.10 @ 9:57AM

Your post proves you to be a moron and eliminates all doubt of you being an asshole. You argue against what has been used effectively for many years including your liberal deity FDR. In fact, FDR even used military tribunals on prisoners of war. The detainees at Gitmo are enemy combatants and do not get the protections of the Constitution or the Geneva Convention. Liberals are truly pathetic and dangerous.

WL| 11.18.10 @ 10:50AM

Hex...you sure do enjoy throwing around your facts as if you know something special that I "ignore..." Hex you are a rube. Hex you are the poison that is killing idiot states that follow the likes of you...Are you in California Hex? Or did you run away from the Liberal Utopia yet?

Have you ever served and/or know anything about anything when it comes to terrorists/insurgents/counter-terrorism???

No..you haven't. I have sir. I have taken detained insurgents to our interrogation facilities in Iraq. You know what they did on the way...They thanked us profusely for not taking them to the Iraqi bases...because they knew us American warmongers (that you hate) would treat them humanely....go figure....

Now...your little argument for "civilian vs. Mil. Trib." is so far out there and ignorant that everyone here knows that you are doing nothing but VOMITING the Sour meat given to you by your crotch grabbing Liberal masters. . .

The facts are these:
1. Who was fighting the Bush administration to protect these very same individuals? HOLDER
2. Who is trying to shut down the Prison Camp where they are being held? OBAMA
3. Who fought, demonized, and litigated causing those 700 to go free? YOU and YOUR ILK...LIBERAL BUFFOONS
4. Who would shoot, hang, or inject these people the old fashioned way? US
5. Who is always crying and defending them? YOU

It is amazing how you people argue at how your "ideas" that were BORN OUT OF THE DESIRE TO BENEFIT these people and THWART our harsh and swift JUSTICE...are better at making that justice happen...

Admit it HEX...You are happy this guy was only convicted of 1 count aren't you? You have never sacrificed for America or it's people have you? (I know you will probably post that you have...) but you HAVEN'T, because those of us who have know one another by just a glimpse at an anonymous post...WE KNOW YOU AIN'T.

So, get back to the hole you came from. You sniffling liberal Traitor.

sarah| 11.18.10 @ 5:19AM

hey your blog design is very nice, clean and fresh and with updated content, make people feel peace and I always enjoy browsing your site.
wholesale wigs
wholesale wigs online

Eliza| 11.18.10 @ 7:21AM

Wish the current US government is as concerned about our welfare as they are the terrorist that kills 224 people. I guess that is too much for them and you, Hex because you know damn well those countries would just release them to kill people again. Look where those printer cartridges are coming from, Yemen. Those countries are producing terrorist in an alarming rate. And they're gunning for us. What happened before on 9/11 is happening again. And one day they won't be incompetent like the Time Square bomber or the underwear bomber.

A Stephens| 11.18.10 @ 8:09AM

Hex may, or likely may not, have a point. Fact is, that his is a default response to a specific criticism, try and deflect argument by injecting separate narratives that, while related, don't necessarily have bearing on the topic at hand. Give him/her credit for some intelligence at least, they know we aren't going to go through the history case by case to rebut their theory.

In his/her mind this tactic is a win. However in the real world, where we're debating the wisdom of a process of giving war prisoners constitutional protections and access to a justice system that is by deliberate design set up to give every reasonable advantage to the defendant, his/her logic is ill informed and indefensible. Hence the razzle-dazzle.

JP| 11.18.10 @ 9:32AM

The only problem with Hex's critique was his accuracy. Military Tribunals didn't release the dozens of hundreds of prisoners from GITMO. The Bush administration released these prisoners under pressure from Congress and various activist groups who already had filed thier briefs in Congress. It was a bad move, of course.

JoeCitizen| 11.18.10 @ 9:20AM

Why exactly do you think he was acquitted on all those counts? Most likely because some evidence was not allowed, because it was obtained through torture. Problem for you guys though, is that evidence obtained through torture is not allowed in a military tribunal either.

It remains extremely disturbing to all lovers of American democracy to see conservatives (i.e. those who should be most likely to be defenders of American institutions and traditions) have such open contempt for our Constitutional practices and our judicial system.

You people have been utter failures in the role one expects of conservatives. With the slightest pressure (and yeah, compared to the Nazis, the Japs, and the Soviet Union, al-Q is trivial), you completely abandon basic American principles on issues of torture, civil liberties, and the rule of law. Shame on you.

WL| 11.18.10 @ 11:00AM

Hey there JoeCITIZEN,

Since when are enemy combatants protected by the Constitution? NEVER HAVE BEEN
Since when are Non Uniformed soldiers protected by even the Geneva Convention? NEVER HAVE BEEN
Since when has dunking someone under water etc (WHICH LEAVES NOT PHYSICAL DAMAGE)WHILE A MEDIC IS NEARBY... TORTURE??????? I-T'-S NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But then again...you think I have to pay for Foreign persons to come into my country without our permission to go to college CHEAPER than my kid can...Eat the food I pay for in taxes...VOTE in the elections I SERVED TO PROTECT...

ALL WITHOUT A SINGLE EFFORT TO STOP THEM????????????????

SIR...you folks need to keep it up...please don't stop....

The american people are just now figuring out what comes from governance by the like of you...

and you can't stop now.

The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 11.18.10 @ 9:57AM

We took a shellacking, Hex. Well we won't have to put another innocent black man in jail. Anybody might be caught with explosives, connected to van that was used in the bombing and with all kinds of special knowledge about Al Qaeda. It is a little worrisome. I guess I will have to unleash the Predator drones. There is nothing in the world like a 19 year old performing state sanctioned executions of bad guys. That is how peace loving leftists like ourselves settle our legal disputes. I fear if I keep this up we might have to call it a war. I mean really how can we whine about harsh interrogations of the same guys we blow up in their houses without due process? We libs are really nuanced. When you think of it in these terms Bush looks pretty smart and I look like a reckless hip shooting cowboy. Well in a Brokeback Mountain kind of way. Well really a hip shooting shepherd if we are being totally rational and scientific. It is like my gay nanny used to say, "sometimes you just have to bend over and take it." Well off to the golf course. I must prepare for my conflict with Boehner. I have a lot of ground to make up. This guy can really play golf. We'll be closing gitmo any day now, baby. Really, you can trust me.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 10:46AM

First, for those who insist America does not torture, a key witness was barred from testifying because the Government under George Bush and Dick Cheney learned of his identity not through legal means but instead by torturing Ghailani. So it was the crimes of the Bush admin (namely torture) that prevented a more severe verdict from being found.

Secondly for people arguing that if Ghailani should have been tried by military tribunal, they would have also had to exclude evidence gained by torture. To whit, Rule 304(a)(1) and (5) of the Military Commissions Manual, found on page 205 of the document:

[304(a)(1)] No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. . . . whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission . . . .

[304(a)(5)] Evidence derived from a statement that would be excluded under section (a)(1) of this rule may not be received in evidence against an accused who made the statement if the accused makes a timely motion to suppress or an objection . . . .

Sorry.

Warrior| 11.18.10 @ 11:26AM

At the time, there were legal opinions that gave the administration the foundation for allowing enhanced techniques. In fact, military trainees were having the same techniques applied to them as part of training. Thus it was not torture and the arguments become specious.

John Navratil| 11.18.10 @ 11:41AM

Margie,

Be careful what you wish for. If a detainee is more trouble to capture and coddle, then he may never have the chance to become a detainee. The fog or war becomes thicker, indeed.

Dai Alanye| 11.18.10 @ 1:22PM

The only evidence that Ghailani was tortured is his own unconfirmed claim, while contrary evidence was effectively suppressed. Once the initial claim of torture went uncontested all other evidence found with assistance from the initial information would be suppressed under the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine.

But the critical point is the mistaken use of constitutional safeguards to protect someone who should never have been in a civilian court in the first place. In a military court this doctrine wouldn't have been brought into play.

But look on the bright side--this outcome makes Obama and his lackey Holder look all the more stupid, although I imagine some way will be found to blame it all on Bush.

Bob Miller| 11.18.10 @ 11:24AM

Isn't this sorry outcome exactly what Holder and Obama wanted?

Ron Holt| 11.18.10 @ 11:31AM

Booger, buddy, it's principles, not principals. No school administrators should be involved in this discussion.

Dale Cord| 11.18.10 @ 1:02PM

RULE OF LAW?, CIVIL LIBERTIES?, AMERICAN CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS?, CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES?, JUSTICE?............. WORDS THAT HAD SUBSTANCE BEHIND THEM IN YEARS LONG GONE BY........ Lets see, if we as a nation would have been paying attention since these words and their meaning became a part of our life blood, that courses through our veins keeping us alive and well, and had they became the wisdom of our nations future generations and their implementation into the vocabulary of everyday conversation and actions, and had we taught and instilled in our children these moral and ethical codes of conduct? Then we would truly be an example nation for those in the world to pattern their life and follow after. Receiving the blessings of prosperity of a joyful existing life. Tragically though we have gone the way of the past pagan nations, using money as our Golden Calf and intoxicating ourselves with the corruption and the vile filth, of pornography, drugs, homosexuality, Lesbianism, Satanism, gambling and a host of other life threatening behaviours, that have turned the brains of our leaders into a quivering blob of regurgitating vomit. We have no one to blame but our own selfish ambitions to gain wealth, power and personal material possessions in this temporary world we live in, and the hell with everyone else. Allowing our Creator to take a back seat and not to interfere in our life as we travel down this dead end road at a high rate of speed is: a recipe for disaster, death and enslavement as those in the days of Lot, in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and Moses in Egypt before their liberation by the power of our Creator. We are truly unruly Juvenile Delinquents spiralling into a cesspool of raw sewage and, oblivious to all warning signs for our survival. Yes.... rub the sleep from your eyes and awaken you foolish children, for you have been dreaming far to long. Now see what your folly has bestowed upon you and the future generations to come.

Brubaker| 11.18.10 @ 2:42PM

Issues like the propriety of evidence collection and the chain of custody were inevitable stumbling blocks in the heedless liberal effort to try terrorists in civilian courts.

I still haven't decided to my own satisfaction whether that effort stems from a desire to undermine the trial process or simple stupidity. Most likely, it's a bit of both. In any case, the outcome in this trial was both foreseeable and foreseen.

Contrary to the hyperbole of the left, military commisions are not kangeroo courts. They are perfectly capable of handling the trial of accused terrorists while protecting all applicable rights, and Congress explicitly intended that they do so. Only the fantasies of Obama and Holder prevented that logical and effective process.

Perhaps this will serve as a "teachable moment" for Obama, Holden, et al., but I doubt it.

Mark In Irvine| 11.18.10 @ 5:19PM

Many of you are distressed by the Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani verdict. I suspect that is because you considered him to be guilty unless proven innocent. This country was founded on principles that require the government to PROVE (through rules of evidence carefully derived from experience) guilt of the crimes with which an accused is charged. Do you want to abandon those principles, and if so, are you ready to have them no longer apply to you as well?

Hank| 11.18.10 @ 7:26PM

I'm not embarrassed in the slightest. Ghailani received a fair TRIAL. That includes the possibility of the jury saying the STATE did not prove its case.

The jury didn't necessarily say he was innocent. They said the state had not met its burden of proof. That's good for us, and its good for the state.

There's this thing... I can't remember what it's called. The Conflamrnusatution? The Constizlmr?
Wait... The Constitution! That's it! Constitution! Yes. That thing. The courts have to sort of abide by it. And one of the thing it says is you don't get to sort of DECIDE someone's guilty, and then hold a trial in which a bunch of people on the internet decide in advance what the outcome is without knowing a goddamn thing about the case. Yes, yes, I'm certain I've heard of this before ....