Rep. King hammers Obama after first al Qaeda trial in civil court

Congressman Peter King (R - N.Y.) has called the Obama administration's decision to try terrorists in US civilian courts instead of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay (GTMO) "absolute insanity."

In the first civilian trial of a GTMO detainee, a jury convicted a Tanzanian man in Manhattan federal court of conspiring to destroy US embassies in 1998. Ahmed Ghalfan Ghailani, 36, purchased oxygen, acetylene, and a truck used in the twin suicide bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and stored explosive devices for the attack in his residence. The bombs killed 224 people - twelve of which were Americans - and wounded more than 4,000.

Ghailani fled to Pakistan along with other al Qaeda members the day before the attack, but was captured in Pakistan in 2004 and sent to the detention facility at GTMO.

"I am disgusted at the total miscarriage of justice today in Manhattan's federal civilian court," said King, who will be Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee once the 112th Congress is seated in January.

King continued, "In a case where Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was facing 285 criminal counts, including hundreds of murder charges, and where Attorney General Eric Holder assured us that 'failure is not an option,' the jury found him guilty on only one count and acquitted him of all other counts including every murder charge."

A key witness was expected to testify that he sold the TNT used in the Tanzania attack to Ghailani. However US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (appointed in 1994 by Bill Clinton) disallowed any evidence or witnesses obtained while Ghailani was allegedly "under duress" during his CIA custody. Following the five-week trial, the jury convicted Ghailani on just one charge of conspiring to destroy U.S. buildings and property, dropping the 284 other charges, including...

If this is “as good as it gets,” what do we have to look forward too?

Civilian courts are NOT capable of dealing with these sort of cases.

- The bad guys are caught on a battlefield and the conditions do not allow mirandizing, chain of custody of evidence, etc etc etc.

- Much of the evidence might be classified, or the techniques, or the sources, or the capabilities of certain agencies and systems etc.

- The jury pool in the civilian world is disconnected from the realities that allow for a successful prosecution. They have no understanding of the enemy, the battlefield, processes and systems etc.

This is self inflicted pain 100%. There is zero reason for prosecuting them in a civilian court nor do any sort of Geneva Convention rules apply as was floated around some time back when this topic was being politicized and used against the administration.

- Practically none of these people are US citizens. Since when does US law apply to Pakistani’s?

- Nearly all were caught outside the US. Since when does US law apply to Pakistan?

- Many were picked up on a battlefield and if they had been soldiers they would by tried for war crimes. Had this been the Civil War, WWI, WWII, these people would have most certainly faced execution and never had made it to their detainment at GITMO.

- They are not uniformed members of a combatant force fighting under a national flag and abiding to any rules of land warfare. Bottom line is the term “unlawful combatant” is not a new term made up during the Bush era, but rather a term coined many years prior for a real reason which I'm sure Holder and Obama are being schooled on now.

The entire “notion” of there being some requirement to take them to a civilian court is nonsense. It is in reality rooted in what became another bash the Bush administration years back topic and offering what amounts to very poor alternatives, which we are seeing unfold today right in front of our eyes. Just because things “sound good” does not mean they are indeed good ideas. The matter of GITMO was decided on an election campaign trail where politicians ran their mouth saying things that at least in a time of growing antiwar, administration and distrust towards the government “sounded good.”

This should be something Obama takes full credit for! It was he that made mention of this on the campaign trail repeatedly, he who announced GITMOs closure as soon as he was sworn in, he who ordered through executive orders that the wheels of justice turn this way. WHERE IS OBAMA TODAY ON THIS ISSUE? Why don't he talk about this? He finds the time to talk about everything else!

Here are the real consequences of what “sounded good” but which was completely unnecessary:

- This cases will be hard to prosecute in civilian court and many hard core terrorists WILL either go free or get minimal sentences.

- At some of these trails or there after, you're going to see the media and others give these guys the microphone and the terrorists will actually have a platform from where they can spew their crap, paid for by the American tax payer and made possible by a naive Obama administration that had no clue other than that this was a low hanging fruit and something under their direct influence where they can “show action” and have little resistance.

- Thee are real security concerns in three aspects.
1. Where the trials are held will become an area of elevated risk.
2. Once transferred to the Bureau of Prisons, like the Muslim Brotherhood (Which got their start and spread in prisons) this vermin will proselytize their hate to a very open minded crowd that is already convinced they are victims.
3. While they are a potential source of problems, they are themselves also at high risk of being killed, so they will have to make special accommodations for their security as well. Maybe the plan was to send them all to the one high security federal prison, Florance?

- The costs for these trials will explode and that won't be advertised.

- It will be very difficult to accommodate this population which in part has special needs due to language, security, etc. At GITMO where they were consolidated you had economy of scale and a staff that was essentially geared for these needs as well as exploiting any sort of intel, which now is minimized too.

Why isn't Obama bragging about his great accomplishments? He should take full credit for it, like he should when health care costs increase by over 7% next year on average because of “his” health care bill.

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.