U.S. jury clears Ghailani of terrorism charges

Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 11/17/10 | Basil Katz

[NormsRevenge]

NEW YORK (Reuters) – 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 Obama plans for trying terrorism suspects.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, 36, a Tanzanian from Zanzibar, had been accused of conspiring in the 1998 al Qaeda bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people. The jury found him guilty of one relatively minor charge of conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property with explosives.

Ghailani was cleared of 276 murder and attempted murder counts, along with five other conspiracy charges. It was a rare defeat for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, which has a near perfect record in prosecuting terrorism cases.

The jury deliberated for a week.

Obama has vowed to close the prison at Guantanamo amid international condemnation of the treatment of detainees, but he has run into political resistance at home.

The Obama administration has adopted what it calls a flexible approach, favoring military tribunals in some cases and civilian trials in others. Most Republicans say all terrorism suspects should be tried in military tribunals.

[oh8eleven]

The jury found him guilty of one relatively minor charge of conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property with explosives.
Minor charge? I heard the sentence could be 20 years to life.

[NormsRevenge]

one of the talking heads said he ain’t going nowhere no matter the sentence or outcome of trial.

[mrsmith]

Do you have a source for that?

For a first conviction I find 0 to 20 or 25 years.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/40/844
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002332-—b000-.html

[Lurking Libertarian]

Scroll down to (f)(3).

Fox News is also reporting the 20 year minimum.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Scroll down to (f)(3).

Fox News is also reporting the 20 year minimum.

[conservativeimage]

[untrained skeptic]

It wasn't a hung jury, the guy was acquitted. That requires a unanimous verdict. Stories about a lone holdout must have been about him not wanting to acquit while the majority did.

It would be the other eleven who would have had to have been bribed.

[mrsmith]

All right, thanks, here’s what I didn’t see.
“(n) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who
conspires to commit any offense defined in this chapter shall be
subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as
the penalties prescribed for the offense the commission of which
was the object of the conspiracy.”

[Doulos1]

Sorry, I was totally confused about this trial. Don’t know what I was thinking about. I think I was thinking about the Blago trial or something.
These terrorists trials should be in military court or tribunals though. Liberal federal judges have an agenda that is not ours.
“Obama is the graffiti on the walls of American history.”
Rush

[untrained skeptic]

I agree that they should be handled by military tribunals. There is too much evidence in most of these cases that can't be introduced in a public trial. I don't suggest reducing the burden of proof, but you can't release highly classified data or expose sources in order to have a public trial. Keeping such things hidden from the jurors however leaves gaps and creates doubts, quite possibly reasonable doubts since they may have reasonable questions that can't be answered.