No Trial for KSM?

[willhaven]

You're comparing sentences of people charged with providing material support to terrorist groups to the sentence of someone charged with the murder of 280 people. Apples to oranges.

They were convicted of material support, he was convicted of conspiracy to destroy government buildings. At worst, he is going to get a harsher sentence than they will. At best, he will spend his life in prison without parole.

 

[WildCat]

They were convicted of material support, he was convicted of conspiracy to destroy government buildings. At worst, he is going to get a harsher sentence than they will. At best, he will spend his life in prison without parole.

Material support charges do not carry the same sentences as conspiracy does, neither in civilian nor military law..

You are comparing apples to oranges in a deliberate attempt to deceive and mislead.

 

[willhaven]

Keep moving those goalposts.

 

[WildCat]

Keep moving those goalposts.

The goalposts are right where they've always been. You moved them by compaing a material support charge to a conspiracy to destroy US property charge, apples to oranges. A deliberate attempt to mislead.

The fact remains that this guy was acquitted of every single charge of murder and terrorism, the most serious ones he faced. This after Holder expressed confidence that he would be convicted of every single one of them.

It's been my contention all along that trying these cases in civilian courts would result in acquittals due to military and intelligence agencies (are you still unsure if the ISI and CIA got wiretap warrants, search warrants, read Miranda rights, etc?) working under a completely different set of rules than civilian law enforcement does. And that's exactly what happened in this case.

 

[Meadmaker]

The fact remains that this guy was acquitted of every single charge of murder and terrorism, the most serious ones he faced. This after Holder expressed confidence that he would be convicted of every single one of them.

Juries are hard to predict.

I read a little bit about the evidence in this case, and he seems to have gotten lucky in the jury selection phase. However, that's only if you consider a minimum twenty year sentence lucky. Sentencing guidelines is one area of the law that the media doesn't cover so well, so i don't know too much about what the judge can and cannot do, but I'm confident he will get the maximum sentence allowed by law. The judge even was willing to note his "enemy combattant" status and say that he could be held indefinitely as a POW without trial.

What was the downside of trying this guy in a civilian court? I suspect he will be locked up for the rest of his life, and that was a result of a trial that was unquestionably fair. Sounds like a win.

 

[willhaven]

The fact remains that this guy was acquitted of every single charge of murder and terrorism, the most serious ones he faced. This after Holder expressed confidence that he would be convicted of every single one of them.

The fact remains that this guy was convicted and is going to go to jail for a long time, possibly his entire life.

Was he convicted on every count? No.

Should we have suspected that evidence obtained through alleged torture (key witness) would work in court? Of course not. It would have been nice if it weren't thrown out by the judge, but a pretty damn strong conviction stands, if only on one count.

 

[bokonon]

And this just in:

Bold emphasis mine.

Let's see 1 divided by 280 equals... ~0.36%. A bit lower than the claimed 90% conviction rate.

Yeah, trying him in civilian court was a great idea.

Yes, it absolutely was.

The United States should not be a country which tortures people.

Evidence obtained by torture SHOULD NOT be admitted.

If that means terrorists go free altogether (unlike this guy), that's the price of principles. Either we have them, or we don't.

Kudos to the jury which told the government to stop acting like Saddam Hussein. I hope they listen.

 

[applecorped]

Yes, it absolutely was.

The United States should not be a country which tortures people.

Evidence obtained by torture SHOULD NOT be admitted.

If that means terrorists go free altogether (unlike this guy), that's the price of principles. Either we have them, or we don't.

Kudos to the jury which told the government to stop acting like Saddam Hussein. I hope they listen.

So are you ok with KSM going free to uphold our principles?

 

[bokonon]

So are you ok with KSM going free to uphold our principles?

If that's how it shakes out, I am.

Terrorists are much less of a threat to the United States than those who want to transform us into a police state where torture is an acceptable use of power.

 

[willhaven]

Hillary nails it.

Video in the first link or go straight to the 2nd link to watch if you don't want to bother reading.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/clinton-majority-detainees-civilian-trials/
http://rawreplaymedia.com/media/2010/1009/fox_fns_clinton_trials_101121a.mov

When you look at the success record in civilian courts of convicting, sentencing, detaining in maximum security prisons by the civilian courts, it surpasses what yet has been accomplished in the military commissions.

But as things stand right now, we have actually gotten more convictions and more people, more terrorists are serving time in prison right now because of article 3 courts than military commissions.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This is the Guantanamo military commission track record so far.

- Out of 5 cases that have been tried, 2 (40%) had all charges dropped.
- Out of 5 cases that have been tried, 2 (40%) of cases have been sentenced, served their time and are now free men (5 month and 9 month sentences after detention).
- Out of 5 cases that have been tried, 1 (20%) of cases got a sentence of life without parole.
has plead guilty. The military jury at Guantanamo's proposed sentence? 14 years. Less than the minimum sentence in this case. He will probably get credit for time served since 2001. So ~5yr sentence.

Face it, the tribunals suck compared to the civilian system. They suck and should only be used when absolutely necessary.

What metric are you using? Why does it suck? It seems to work quite well from my seat.

 

[WildCat]

If that's how it shakes out, I am.

Terrorists are much less of a threat to the United States than those who want to transform us into a police state where torture is an acceptable use of power.

The torture is just a part of it. As far as the civilian courts are concerned warrantless searches, wiretaps not approved by a court, failure to give Miranda rights or attorney access, etc etc are also reasons to throw out evidence. These are things the military and intelligence agencies simply aren't equipped to do. If they raid a safe house in Afghanistan and discover a computer that contains detailed information on terrorist sleeper cells operating in the US, and the members of said sleeper cells are consequently arrested, those arrests would likely be found to be unlawful as well and the information leading up to them inadmissable. The same applies to a covert CIA team raiding a safe house in Pakistan or anywhere else.

The military, the intelligence services, are not law enforcement agencies. That simply isn't their purpose or mission.

 

[willhaven]

What metric are you using? Why does it suck? It seems to work quite well from my seat.

I've already explained why it sucks. You can read for yourself.

The torture is just a part of it. As far as the civilian courts are concerned warrantless searches, wiretaps not approved by a court, failure to give Miranda rights or attorney access, etc etc are also reasons to throw out evidence. These are things the military and intelligence agencies simply aren't equipped to do. If they raid a safe house in Afghanistan and discover a computer that contains detailed information on terrorist sleeper cells operating in the US, and the members of said sleeper cells are consequently arrested, those arrests would likely be found to be unlawful as well and the information leading up to them inadmissable. The same applies to a covert CIA team raiding a safe house in Pakistan or anywhere else.

The military, the intelligence services, are not law enforcement agencies. That simply isn't their purpose or mission.

Tell that to the men in prison for the WTC bombings.

 

[WildCat]

Tell that to the men in prison for the WTC bombings.

They were apprehended in a military operation? I could swear the FBI was responsible for that...

 

[willhaven]

They were apprehended in a military operation? I could swear the FBI was responsible for that...

Ramzi Yousef was captured by the ISI/DSS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_Security_Service#Terrorist:_Ramzi_Yousef

Same with KSM. Same with Ghailani.

 

[WildCat]

Ramzi Yousef was captured by the ISI/DSS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_Security_Service#Terrorist:_Ramzi_Yousef

But the evidence had already been collected. All the DSS did was arrest him.

Same with KSM. Same with Ghailani.

And we've already seen how that is working out.

I notice you're avoiding the scenario I gave above whereby a sleeper cell in the US is discovered by a military raid on a safe house in Afghanistan. How could such evidence be admissable in a civilian court?

 

[willhaven]

But the evidence had already been collected. All the DSS did was arrest him.

I doubt it's that cut and dry. We were out to get KSM before he was apprehended. We must have had some evidence to go through all that trouble like we did with Yousef.

And we've already seen how that is working out.

20-to-life is a harsher sentence than the majority of cases tried through tribunals, even on the low end of the sentence.

I notice you're avoiding the scenario I gave above whereby a sleeper cell in the US is discovered by a military raid on a safe house in Afghanistan. How could such evidence be admissable in a civilian court?

I'm not sure about the evidence, but those taken by the military still have access to the US court system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

If the evidence is inadmissible in a civilian court, don't use a civilian court. If you have the evidence, a civilian court is faster, isn't subject to the same legal challenges, has a higher conviction rate and harsher sentences than tribunals.

Given a choice, the civilian court system wins.

 

[WildCat]

I doubt it's that cut and dry. We were out to get KSM before he was apprehended. We must have had some evidence to go through all that trouble like we did with Yousef.

It's hard to talk to you about this when you keep changing the subject from Yousef to KSM and back again.

20-to-life is a harsher sentence than the majority of cases tried through tribunals, even on the low end of the sentence.

There you go again, comparing conspiracy charges to material support charges. They're not equivalent, neither in severity of crime nor the sentencing. Stop doing that.

I'm not sure about the evidence, but those taken by the military still have access to the US court system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

We're not talking about a habeas corpus hearing, but an actual criminal trial. You do know the difference, don't you? A civilian habeas corpus hearing doesn't preclude a military trial, or even any trial at all.

If the evidence is inadmissible in a civilian court, don't use a civilian court. If you have the evidence, a civilian court is faster, isn't subject to the same legal challenges, has a higher conviction rate and harsher sentences than tribunals.

Once again, you haven't shown that civilian penalties are harsher for the same crimes. You are comparing relatively minor crimes with more serious ones. Stop doing that.

Given a choice, the civilian court system wins.

Once again, I never said some cases couldn't be brought in civilian courts. However, you seem to be of the opinion that they all should be whereas my position is that only a small fraction can be.

 

[willhaven]

It's hard to talk to you about this when you keep changing the subject from Yousef to KSM and back again.

There are analogous elements between many of these cases. It's hard to talk about what will or won't happen to KSM without bringing up cases with similar elements. Otherwise it's baseless speculation.

The closest two cases I can see are Yousef and KSM.

There you go again, comparing conspiracy charges to material support charges. They're not equivalent, neither in severity of crime nor the sentencing. Stop doing that.

With such a small sample size from tribunals, it's hard to find an analog.

We're not talking about a habeas corpus hearing, but an actual criminal trial. You do know the difference, don't you? A civilian habeas corpus hearing doesn't preclude a military trial, or even any trial at all.

Ah yes, fair point about it being habeas-only. But one of the points I was attempting to make was that, even though he wasn't nabbed by a police agency or the FBI, he still had access to the non-tribunal system if we had wished to do so.

If there had been a case against Boumediene, it could have been taken to a US court. He wouldn't necessarily be stuck in a tribunal because of how he was apprehended or because he had been kept at Guantanamo. And, in the case of Ghailani, he could have been convicted of crimes even if he had been tortured. Tribunal or not, the tortured evidence would be thrown out, so we have to have other evidence.

Still, Yousef and KSM are still very similar cases. If the evidence against KSM isn't derived from torture, the case should be solid. If the evidence is derived from torture, even a tribunal would throw it out.

Once again, you haven't shown that civilian penalties are harsher for the same crimes. You are comparing relatively minor crimes with more serious ones. Stop doing that.

Material support for terrorism is a relatively minor crime compared to conspiracy to destroy government buildings?

Once again, I never said some cases couldn't be brought in civilian courts. However, you seem to be of the opinion that they all should be whereas my position is that only a small fraction can be.

My position is that all cases that can be tried in civilian courts with admissible evidence should be. Use the tribunals where appropriate, but try to stick with what works.

Tribunals have been subject to various legal challenges that would not likely be challenged in the civilian system that has tried hundreds of people.

 

[WildCat]

Material support for terrorism is a relatively minor crime compared to conspiracy to destroy government buildings?

Yes, when it's conspiracy to destroy government buildings with explosives, which is what he was convicted of. That's a bit more serious than, say, sending money to Hamas, don't you think?

My position is that all cases that can be tried in civilian courts with admissible evidence should be. Use the tribunals where appropriate, but try to stick with what works.

I don't nesessarily disagree with this, but I don't think this is the case for most of the detainees. Ghailani was wanted pre-9/11, for example.

Tribunals have been subject to various legal challenges that would not likely be challenged in the civilian system that has tried hundreds of people.

The tribunal process has since been hammered out in the courts. Such challenges are unlikely to be a factor any longer.