so much for the "slam dunk"

[PaulS]

The article never mentions the all important fact that that the tribunals act bars coerced evidence.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The article never mentions the all important fact that that the tribunals act bars coerced evidence.

you are the only one that I've seen mention it and/or suggest that the outcome would have been the same in a military proceeding...

"So what would have been the difference if its was a military court - nothing."

wait..I apologize..Biden hailed the result and claimed that the outcome would have been the same..or worse in a military proceeding....Vice President Joe Biden is not only painting the single Ahmed Ghailani guilty verdict as a victory, but saying that the outcome of this first-of-its-kind trial is better than if Ghailani had been tried in a military tribunal.

Biden....."He's getting a longer sentence. He'll be in jail longer than if any other method were tried."

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are the only one that I've seen mention it and/or suggest that the outcome would have been the same in a military proceeding...

Plenty of legal experts, including the Judge in the case have said exactly that.

While there is a reasonable argument to the merits of trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts, 95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security.

The proof is in the pudding.

Federal courts have a solid track record of trying and convicting (150 or so since 9/11) real terrorists. The result is a lot of life sentences. Say what you want about the most recent case...he's going to prison and may very well die there.

How many terrorism convictions have military tribunals brought? I believe the answer is a thunderous THREE with two of those cases bringing no more than a slap on a wrist.

As PaulS rightly observes, this debate is really about what you believe in.

Do you respect the Rule of Law and believe in the proven strength of the US Constitution? Or do you find secret detentions, torture and tribunals (that may not even meet international legal standards) to be an acceptable and ethically sound mode by which to operate?

Separate the politics from reality and the absurdity of threads like this is painfully clear.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Plenty of legal experts, including the Judge in the case have said exactly that. name one

-spence

....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

maybe watching too much MSNBC?

[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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security.

and that is the only reason I posted here. Its a constant theme in the Repub. attacks.

King and McCain know better.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=PaulS;812265]

Originally Posted by spence

95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security./QUOTE]

and that is the only reason I posted here. Its a constant theme in the Repub. attacks.

King and McCain know better.

absolutely...

11/18/2010 Democrat Senator Jim Webb said that the verdict proves “that those charged with crimes of war and those who have been determined to be dangerous law-of-war detainees do not belong in our courts, our prisons or our country. I again call on President Obama to use the new military commission system that is in place to try the terrorist detainees.” He points out that this new system balances robust procedural and substantive rights for the defendants, including prohibiting the introduction of evidence obtained through torture.