acquitted of all but one charge in embassy bombing trial Are you freaking kidding me! Way to go BHO/Eric Holder and the other idiots in this administration. They got what they wanted----a "civilian trial" with all of the "rights" of an American citizen......This is going to be a tremendous blow-back on the "One" and I hope it sticks to him like sink on ****! Eric Holder should resign in shame or get canned.
well, i hate to say i knew this kind of crap would happen but...well there you have it. this is what happens when academics get involved with foreign policy and matters of national interest.
I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the facts of the case, but it seems that this put the Administration in a bad spot, and may force them to try the others in civilian court. Assuming that in a military court, more/different evidence might have resulted in a different result, and assuming: 1 The first trial would be the one with the DOJ's best evidence 2. The Admin/Holder wanted a different result, to prove we could handle it in civilian court Then the upcoming trial would be a political nightmare for this Admin. 1.Shifting future trials results in a global perception of America changing the rules just to get political prisoners put away or 2. Staying in civilian court will raise an even greater domestic outcry over letting terrorists off easy. Seems to me that regardless of what they do next, this makes the look bad. Big mistake for the Holder DOJ.
This is perhaps the DUMBEST thread in the history of the West Mall. It is the Bush Administration which coerced the testimony that resulted in so much of it being inadmissable. Ghailani was waterboarded, i.e. tortured, into revealing his relationship with Hussein Abebe, who in turn provided the most damaging testimony against Ghailani. And, in fact, Abebe’s own testimony against Ghailani was itself coerced. This is why, on Oct. 5, Judge Lewis Kaplan excluded Abebe’s testimony, on the grounds that it was a a fruit of a poisonous tree, i.e. was only available to the prosecution because Bush had had Ghailani tortured: In his October 5th ruling, Judge Kaplan wrote:
BI "Ghailani was waterboarded, i.e. tortured, into revealing his relationship with Hussein Abebe, who in turn provided the most damaging testimony against Ghailani." I am asking because I did not know Ghaliani was waterboarded. Was this part of the testimony ?
it's not civilian courts that are the problem, it's Gitmo that is the problem. __________________________________________________ didn't obama say he was going to close it? pundits would complain about gitmo every day when bush was president. now, you don't hear too much about it. it must no longer be newsworthy...like the war...
or the Patriot Act or renditions or tribunals or Drone attacks killing woman and children in villages. Amazing how hard presidenting is compared to being a rock star candidate
Whoever claimed that the defendant was waterboarded just made that **** up. Typical. The truth is that the most damning witness testimony was excluded because the testimony was obtained from the witness while said witness was at a CIA prison at which suspects were "reportedly tortured."
Mirr Thanks for the correct information. When I read Bevo Incognito's post saying Ghailani had been waterboarded I actually did not know whether he had or not which is why I asked him. So far he hasn't answered. Now I know why It seems lately so many posters just make crap up and think it will be believed. Of course Obama and all in his admin do it so maybe they are just following his lying. distorting lead.
One has to wonder then.........why didn't the Government appeal the ruling, and seek mandamus relief, ordering the Judge to allow the testimony? My answer........they were afraid of what the ultimate outcome of such an appeal may be.
