[Politics] Terrorist convicted, Conservatives, Press, Public call it 'weakness.'
"All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects, would they?" -Troops Announcer
People have already started calling the successful conviction of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani a 'setback' for the trying of terrorists in civillian courts. Ghailani has been convicted in connection with the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He will serve a minimum of twenty years in federal prison; The prosecutor is seeking life without parole as the trial moves into the sentencing phase.
But the headline at CNN reads "Landmark terror trial ends in acquittals."
Hell, even NPR opened the story with "acquittal."
MSNBC says "Terror verdict deals blow to Obama Gitmo Plan."
USA Today says "Obama's plan to try KSM in civillian court may be done."
I'd ask what planet these people are from, but I reserve that question for the folks over at Keep American Safe, whom the USA Today article quotes as saying, "This result isn't just embarassing, it's dangerous. It signals weakness in a time of war."
Ghailani will never get past a parole hearing. The guy is going away, and he's going away legally. But somehow that's weakness, and a massive failure. Why? Because Ghailani was charged with 285 counts and the prosecutor could only make one charge "Conspiracy to Destroy United States Property" stick.
Ghailani was, in public opinion, guilty of everything he was charged with, and probably eating babies and selling bootleg mp3s. The public, the media, and especially right-wing nutjob PACs like Keep America Safe, don't give one whit about due process, justice, or morality - they wanted vengeance.
Locke, that father of America social contract theory, warned of exactly this brand of mob rule. Sentiments like that are precisely why we have a court system and checks-and-balances. Sentiments like that are as natural as a pulse, and as damaging to America as any bombing could be.
Part of the irony here is that military trials have failed to produce outcomes as harsh as civillian courts. Al-Qosi was sentenced to the near-maximum 14 years, but will likely only serve 2 of those. Hamdan was sentenced to five years - didn't serve most of it. Both men provided direct, material support to Bin Laden. David Hicks was sentenced seven years but only served nine months, he fought for the Taliban.
But the public, conservative PACs, and lately the press, all seem to be howling for military trials, because Ghailani's 20 years (minimum, most likely life) isn't harsh enough. It's not the military trials they want. They want Ghailani put up against a wall and shot, his body dumped in a ditch to rot in the sun shortly thereafter.
That's ugly and it's unamerican. One of the major reasons that most of the major charges against Ghailani couldn't stick was because the star witness against him was prevented from testifying by the Judge presiding over Ghailani's case. Judges don't exclude witnesses on a whim, just so we're clear here. In this case the witness was excluded because his identity came to the prosecution via torture. In order to be a system of justice, there are some things which the authorities must be prevented from doing - and torturing people is very prominently featured on that list.
But no one talks about the torture. No one talks about the fact that Ghailani is going away - most likely forever. No one is talking about the fact that the authorities that grabbed Ghailani blew right past the line that demarks basic human rights because they were angry - and that by doing so they tainted evidence that they could have acquired by other means.
They talk about how a jury in New York found insufficient evidence to convict him of murder. And they demand that the justice system be thrown out in favor of what they imagine to be a much more brutal process where evidence doesn't matter, and sentences are visceral and savage.
They want his warm blood on their hands, and they don't much care how it gets there.
People have already started calling the successful conviction of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani a 'setback' for the trying of terrorists in civillian courts. Ghailani has been convicted in connection with the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He will serve a minimum of twenty years in federal prison; The prosecutor is seeking life without parole as the trial moves into the sentencing phase.
But the headline at CNN reads "Landmark terror trial ends in acquittals."
Hell, even NPR opened the story with "acquittal."
MSNBC says "Terror verdict deals blow to Obama Gitmo Plan."
USA Today says "Obama's plan to try KSM in civillian court may be done."
I'd ask what planet these people are from, but I reserve that question for the folks over at Keep American Safe, whom the USA Today article quotes as saying, "This result isn't just embarassing, it's dangerous. It signals weakness in a time of war."
Ghailani will never get past a parole hearing. The guy is going away, and he's going away legally. But somehow that's weakness, and a massive failure. Why? Because Ghailani was charged with 285 counts and the prosecutor could only make one charge "Conspiracy to Destroy United States Property" stick.
Ghailani was, in public opinion, guilty of everything he was charged with, and probably eating babies and selling bootleg mp3s. The public, the media, and especially right-wing nutjob PACs like Keep America Safe, don't give one whit about due process, justice, or morality - they wanted vengeance.
Locke, that father of America social contract theory, warned of exactly this brand of mob rule. Sentiments like that are precisely why we have a court system and checks-and-balances. Sentiments like that are as natural as a pulse, and as damaging to America as any bombing could be.
Part of the irony here is that military trials have failed to produce outcomes as harsh as civillian courts. Al-Qosi was sentenced to the near-maximum 14 years, but will likely only serve 2 of those. Hamdan was sentenced to five years - didn't serve most of it. Both men provided direct, material support to Bin Laden. David Hicks was sentenced seven years but only served nine months, he fought for the Taliban.
But the public, conservative PACs, and lately the press, all seem to be howling for military trials, because Ghailani's 20 years (minimum, most likely life) isn't harsh enough. It's not the military trials they want. They want Ghailani put up against a wall and shot, his body dumped in a ditch to rot in the sun shortly thereafter.
That's ugly and it's unamerican. One of the major reasons that most of the major charges against Ghailani couldn't stick was because the star witness against him was prevented from testifying by the Judge presiding over Ghailani's case. Judges don't exclude witnesses on a whim, just so we're clear here. In this case the witness was excluded because his identity came to the prosecution via torture. In order to be a system of justice, there are some things which the authorities must be prevented from doing - and torturing people is very prominently featured on that list.
But no one talks about the torture. No one talks about the fact that Ghailani is going away - most likely forever. No one is talking about the fact that the authorities that grabbed Ghailani blew right past the line that demarks basic human rights because they were angry - and that by doing so they tainted evidence that they could have acquired by other means.
They talk about how a jury in New York found insufficient evidence to convict him of murder. And they demand that the justice system be thrown out in favor of what they imagine to be a much more brutal process where evidence doesn't matter, and sentences are visceral and savage.
They want his warm blood on their hands, and they don't much care how it gets there.