Skip to comments.
U.S. jury clears Ghailani of terrorism charges
Reuters on Yahoo ^
| 11/17/10
| Basil Katz
Posted on 11/17/2010 4:24:52 PM PST by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
To: NormsRevenge
It was a milk factory. No, wait...........
2
posted on
11/17/2010 4:27:00 PM PST
by
Paladin2
They did get a conviction on one charge, he ain’t going anywhere.
3
posted on
11/17/2010 4:27:04 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Obama: Epic Fail or Bust!!!)
To: NormsRevenge
What happens when you put one of America’s enemies on trial in front of a jury of America-hating Manhattanites.
4
posted on
11/17/2010 4:28:37 PM PST
by
Thane_Banquo
(Mitt Romney: He's from Harvard, and he's here to help.)
To: NormsRevenge
What is 0bama and Holder going to do with this guy when he gets out jail in a few months? If he cannot be deported because no other country wants him, what American city will be his new home? How much will he collect in welfare benefits?
5
posted on
11/17/2010 4:28:45 PM PST
by
forgotten man
(forgotten man)
To: NormsRevenge
Holder and Obama Please give us a Statement. The fake one, we know your happy.
6
posted on
11/17/2010 4:29:48 PM PST
by
scooby321
To: NormsRevenge
However it isn’t going to make life any easier for Holder.
7
posted on
11/17/2010 4:30:29 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
To: NormsRevenge
The jury was tampered with, when eleven says guilty, one says not guilty. Money or intimidation bought that twelfth one.
Check his bank account in six months.
8
posted on
11/17/2010 4:30:32 PM PST
by
Doulos1
(Bitter Clinger Forever!)
To: forgotten man
What is 0bama and Holder going to do with this guy when he gets out jail in a few months? The one charge he was convicted on carries a amndatory minimum of 20 years in prison without parole, and a maximum of life.
To: NormsRevenge
The first suspect transferred from Guantanamo military prison to face a U.S. civilian court was found not guilty of terrorism charges on Wednesday in a setback to President Barack's (sic) Obama plans for trying terrorism suspects. How in the hell does Reuters figure that this is a setback for Obama's "plans for trying terrorism suspects"?
This is exactly what he and Holder wanted!
10
posted on
11/17/2010 4:32:24 PM PST
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.)
To: NormsRevenge
...gov had 46 witnesses,hundreds of exhibits.......
defense spoke for 20 mins...no witnesses
jury deliberated for seven days......
and rats say their “happy” with outcome....
11
posted on
11/17/2010 4:32:36 PM PST
by
Doogle
((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
To: NormsRevenge
...found not guilty of terrorism charges on Wednesday in a setback to President Barack's Obama plans for trying terrorism suspects From Obama's perspective this is not a setback at all. This is the type of outcome he and Holder wanted all along.
To: forgotten man
Sorry for the typo— that’s a mandatory minimum.
To: Doulos1
Like it or not, its exactly the way civilian juries are supposed to work. No juror has to convict if they don't want to, period. This is why military traials are the way to go with enemy combatants.
THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."
U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has...."unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge."
14
posted on
11/17/2010 4:35:06 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
To: NormsRevenge
The important thing here is a jury in a civilian court can be stacked and the person can be set free. A good reason for a military court. It’s just starting folks.
15
posted on
11/17/2010 4:36:02 PM PST
by
RC2
To: NormsRevenge
If he was part of the conspiracy, how can he not be guilty of the results of that conspiracy? The jury must have spent that week with medical marijuana.
16
posted on
11/17/2010 4:38:57 PM PST
by
kingu
(Favorite Sticker: Lost hope, and Obama took my change.)
To: NormsRevenge
17
posted on
11/17/2010 4:43:03 PM PST
by
FightThePower!
(Fight the powers that be!)
To: NormsRevenge
They did get a conviction on one charge, he aint going anywhere.
Yes conspiracy, but cleared of all the murder charges. Main reason for that is because a key witness was not permitted to testify. This was not a victory.
To: NormsRevenge
Impeach Obama!!! Fire Holder!!! Traitors, both of them!!!
To: cripplecreek
I agree with you completely. Just as you said these combatants should be tried in military tribunals and not civil courts.
This is why Osambo is doing it this way. These combatants (there is a hint of what they are by just their title) are rag tag soldiers not criminals in the common sense. These combatants should be tried, and if found guilty, hanged.
20
posted on
11/17/2010 4:49:41 PM PST
by
Doulos1
(Bitter Clinger Forever!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson