Suspect Ahmed Ghailani Cleared of Nearly All Terror Charges

Scruffy wrote:

navycpo7 wrote:

Scruffy wrote:

The Viking wrote: Can you imagine how many terrorists just saw one of their own basically get off totally free because we are run by a bunch of pacifists? This was a great test and we failed and now they are more excited adn signing up more terrorists by the boatload as they have nothing to be afraid of if they get caught here. They know if we forget to read them their miranda rights, they can just go free. And on top of that, we will actually provide them with a lawyer to defend them. Obama is the most dangerous President in history!

Maybe he was not guilty? You think that maybe that's why he was cleared of charges?

They should be tried in a military court, So this guy will get a small time if any and then back out trying to kill Americans. So now we can celebrate nothing

So, you know he was out killing Americans before he was caught? The point is that he stood trial and was cleared of charges. To say that he got off scot free would imply that he was guilty of the charges. I'm not defending him, I'm saying that the justice system usually works and we need to let it work.

Unless you want to organize a lynching party.

They didn't allow the main witness against him due to the way they obtained some evidence. He is a TERRORIST!!! I don't care if they broke into his house and pulled it out of his ass! Everything should be shown when we are fighting against terrorism. THEY sure as hell don't kill us by any rules or laws so why do we have to get proper paperwork when doing searches and trying to stop them from killing Americans? Obama has turned this into a joke!

Batifa Zaxo wrote: Viking, obama, will save america from people like you and others. Why fight it, liberals will help get some better laws here in USA.

Off subject a bit here, but I was wondering if you voted for VL and CG in the election on here.

outdoor338 wrote: Yesterday Ahmed Ghailani, the first detainee held at Guantanamo Bay and the first terror suspect to be tried in a civilian court, was cleared of nearly all charges! The terror suspect now faces a minimum of 20 years in prison after key witness testimony was dropped.

Despite the charges, should we be trying terror suspects in military tribunals instead of civilian courts?

http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2010/11/1 ... l-setback/

outdoor338, are you saying that we should convict people without evidence or witness testimony? Think about what you are advocating.
How do you know that this person is guilty? Because the government says so? Really?

major bean wrote: How do you know that this person is guilty? Because the government says so? Really?

:VeryScared:
You stole Charlie Rangel's line!!!

The Viking wrote: They didn't allow the main witness against him due to the way they obtained some evidence. He is a TERRORIST!!! I don't care if they broke into his house and pulled it out of his ass! Everything should be shown when we are fighting against terrorism. THEY sure as hell don't kill us by any rules or laws so why do we have to get proper paperwork when doing searches and trying to stop them from killing Americans?

America is better than that. At least I hope it is.

But, doing it your way, we could have just tortured him until he confessed -- whether he was really guilty or not -- and then summarily shot him.

Since we have two threads running on the same topic...I have moved my response to here...

NY Gitmo trial spurs fresh debate over detainees
By TOM HAYS
The Associated Press

NEW YORK — The near-acquittal of the first Guantanamo detainee tried in federal court is reigniting the debate over whether to bring terrorism suspects to justice in the civilian legal system. The Obama administration made it clear Thursday that its position has not changed.

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in Washington that the administration will continue to rely on a combination of civilian courts and military tribunals to handle terrorism cases....

Some legal experts warned that Wednesday's verdict damaged the argument for trying detainees in civilian courts. They said the case could make the Obama administration more selective in deciding which suspects to put on trial, because of the risk that someone branded dangerous by the government could be acquitted.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ny ... 45866.html

So what do you think? Based on this first test run, is trying all these guys in civilian courts a good idea or not? Why would the Administration be "selective" about who is tried where?

Maybe it's better to acquit a terrorist on a technicality and let him go free to kill again. Or we could stick to military style trials. Is this guy and guys like him a war criminal or a common criminal?

Another option for troop on the ground could be to make sure that some of these guys never actually get to GITMO (or similar prisons). The whole mess can be sorted out on the battlefield. KIAs don't go to GITMO, don't get a lawyer and trial with a jury and don't get all the media attention. I think we are really heading in the wrong direction here but I may be completely wrong.

America is better than that. At least I hope it is.

But, doing it your way, we could have just tortured him until he confessed -- whether he was really guilty or not -- and then summarily shot him.

Yes - America should be better than that. We should have shot this guy first, and spared us the circus atmosphere that Obama has provided for us.

Terrorists should be shot first - then tried by a military court.

Another option for troop on the ground could be to make sure that some of these guys never actually get to GITMO (or similar prisons). The whole mess can be sorted out on the battlefield. KIAs don't go to GITMO, don't get a lawyer and trial with a jury and don't get all the media attention. I think we are really heading in the wrong direction here but I may be completely wrong.

No - I disagree, you are completely correct.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

America is better than that. At least I hope it is.

But, doing it your way, we could have just tortured him until he confessed -- whether he was really guilty or not -- and then summarily shot him.

Yes - America should be better than that. We should have shot this guy first, and spared us the circus atmosphere that Obama has provided for us.

Terrorists should be shot first - then tried by a military court.

True, at least until they label you a terrorist...