[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

....I've read a lot regarding this case that is contrary to what you claim... neither of you have provided anything to support your claims and I've seen very little from anyone to support what either of you suggest....the WH isn't even rolling with your contentions....talk about separated from reality and absurdity

Neither Holder or the Military Commission process was seeking the death penalty and it's quite likely he's going to spend life in prison. Is there something in between death and a life sentence that I'm missing?

Regardless, even the Judge says had the guy been acquitted on all counts he wouldn't have been set free.

Moreover, it is appropriate to emphasize that Ghailani remains subject to trial on the pending indictment, that he faces the possibility of life imprisonment if convicted, and that his status as an "enemy combatant" probably would permit his detention as something akin to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end even if he were found not guilty in this case.


United States v. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, S10 98 Crim. 1023 (LAK)

or this...

Second, it really is not clear that prosecutors would have fared better in a military commission. There is a fairly pervasive myth that military commissions represent the tough option, while federal courts represent the soft, wussy option. You know the trope: Military commissions represent a war mentality (tough, manly, conservative), while federal courts represent a pre-9/11 law enforcement mentality (weak, emasculated, liberal). The gross underperformance of the military commissions over many years has not shaken the trope, nor has their quiet development towards greater due process norms. There is no particular reason to think that the government would have gotten in before a commission the key witness that the court in New York excluded. The simple reality is that one cost of interrogating Ghailani in the CIA’s high-value program over a long period of time is to make any subsequent trial difficult.


Lawfare The Politics of the Ghailani Verdict

or this...

This problem, moreover, would in no way be “solved” by trying suspects in military commissions. Military trials also preclude the use of involuntary confessions – as indeed must any system of justice that could even hope to be called fair.

A Fair Trial, Without Torture's Taint - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

or this...

Moreover, there is no guarantee that a military commission, the preferred alternative of many critics, would have produced a tougher result. Such commissions are not apt to admit statements coerced through torture, so the star witness rejected by a federal judge probably would have been excluded by the military court as well. And in 2008, a military jury rejected the Bush administration's argument that Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was a hardened al-Qaeda operative, acquitted him of the most serious charges and sentenced him to a mere five months on top of time served.

Acquittal in terror case shows justice system's strength

According to the Military Commissions Manual:

[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 . . . .

Seems like the system, yet again, worked.

-spence