This mockery of a civilian trial for combatant terrorist has got to stop. In a military tribunal, all evidence is presented. While in civilian court, a judge may dismiss certain evidence to be presented in a trial. In this case with Ghailani, I'm not surprise he didn't get not guilty in all counts. It disgust me when Eric Holder said he was please with the trial, but never remark how Ghailani was not guilty in killing all those people.
(MyWay.com) Jurors in New York City on Wednesday convicted Ahmed Ghailani of conspiracy to blow up government buildings in the al-Qaida attacks on two U.S. embassies in 1998, but they acquitted him on more than 280 other charges. He is the only person transferred from Guantanamo Bay for trial since the U.S. began filling the military prison in Cuba eight years ago.
In some ways, the conviction was a vindication for an administration that believes the judicial system established by the Constitution has proved itself capable of handling terrorism cases.
Ghailani, like Mohammed, was held for years in a secret CIA prison overseas and subjected to some of the harshest interrogation tactics. His trial was seen as a test of whether those actions would sink the case or whether prosecutors could salvage a conviction. Prosecutors could face the same challenge in the 9/11 trials.
Ghailani now faces 20 years to life in prison, longer than three of the four sentences handed down by military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Despite the acquittals, which included murder counts for each of the 224 people killed in the bombings, the Justice Department said it was pleased Ghailani faces up to life in prison and said it would seek that sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment