The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
John Yoo ·
Nov 20, 2010 at 9:41am
I set out today on the Wall Street Journal editorial page my dismay at the near-acquittal of Ahmed Ghailani case -- one of the al Qaeda agents responsible for the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. The Obama administration continues to think of terrorism as a matter for the civilian criminal justice system, and this is the result. Because of the administration's bungling, military courts may not be the answer either -- the best course may be to simply hold al Qaeda leaders until the end of hostilities and continue to exploit them for intelligence.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
How valuable can their intelligence be after 5,8, or 10 years? We could hold them until they convert to some other religion...any other religion works for me
Jun '10
Re: The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
Once they have been juiced for all their actionable intelligence, they should face a military tribunal and if found guilty, they should be shot. I'm not keen on three hots and a cot for years for these creeps. Bullets are cheap, and they have been given more justice and compassion than they have ever dispensed to their victims. It's time we got over our pusillanimity and acknowledged the fact that not everyone born into this world deserves to live.
Aug '10
Re: The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
The embarrassing failures are coming thick and fast now, piling up, and the stark contrast between Utopian Leftist fantasy and the brick wall of reality is seen and felt. With any luck, Statist/crypto-Marxists will be discredited for a century.
Oct '10
Re: The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
I understand the prosecution was taken aback by Judge Kaplan's Oct 5th Order on Abebe. Did they assume the coercion issue had already been resolved to advantage in his earlier ruling? Their subsequent decision to let the Ghailani charge of torture hang fire (whether true or not) sugests they knew that the details of his incarceration were too sensitive to be aired all along. I assume that is why Kaplan never released his supplemental opinion "containing the Court's findings of fact.” Or did I just miss it?
Politics aside, am I mistaken in thinking that the government could actually have returned Ghailani to military custody at that point, rather than risk his absolution on all counts?
IIRC, Andy McCarthy suggested at the time that the prosecutors must have had reason to believe they could win a conviction without Abebe's testimony. Given the outcome, does it look more likely that Holder's DoJ ordered them to proceed despite what turned out to be a terminal weakness in their case, and then sat back hoping for a miracle? Or perhaps Holder presumed, as Obama apparently did, that a jury of New Yorkers would never let Ghailani off the hook.
May '10
Re: The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
Agreed. Provide a fair trial in the form of military tribunal, and set 'em loose or shoot 'em based on that trial's outcome.
It's depressing to see the number of people who rush to defend the "terrorism as jaywalking" approach in comment threads at CNN, The Washington Post, etc. I'll never understand how someone could proudly deny there's any difference between a citizen and an enemy combatant.
May '10
Re: The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
An illegal enemy combatant.
May '10
Re: The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
I've been tied up with my day job over the last week and have not had much time to learn much about this whole debacle. One thing that I haven't heard yet is criticism of the jurors who acquitted Ghailani. Based on my admittedly limited understanding of the facts in evidence, I have a hard time imagining why any sane person would have voted to acquit. Please call me on this if I'm downplaying kooky evidentiary rulings during the trial, but the whole thing leads me to ask another big question: Are there certain places in this country where the citizens cannot be trusted to administer justice?
May '10
Re: The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
My understanding is that it all comes down to what you've described (accurately) as "kooky evidentiary rulings." Presented with a plainly guilty terrorist, the judge instructed the jurors to determine whether he should be convicted based on the fact that none of the vital evidence was admissible.
It's as if Holder decided, "We can beat Ghailani at football, but football is yucky. Let's play frisbee instead." The jurors followed the rules, but the Obama administration made them play the wrong game.
May '10
Re: The Failure of the Ghailani Verdict
outstripp
An illegal enemy combatant. · Nov 20 at 8:22pm
Touche.