Ahmed Ghailani

Ahmed Ghailani had a good day yesterday.

Although he was found guilty on one count of conspiracy to destroy U.S. property, he was acquitted on 284 charges, including murder and murder conspiracy.

No doubt, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is as pleased with "justice" via trial in U.S. civilian court as Ghailani.

Osama bin Laden may be celebrating in a cave somewhere.

(By the way, does anyone know if bin Laden, Al Gore fan, is observing Green Week?)

From the Washington Post:

The first former Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in federal criminal court was found guilty on a single conspiracy charge Wednesday but cleared on 284 other counts. The outcome, a surprise, seriously undermines - and could doom - the Obama administration's plans to put other Guantanamo detainees on trial in U.S. civilian courts.

After deliberating for five days, a jury of six men and six women found Ahmed Ghailani, 36, guilty of conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property but acquitted him of multiple murder and attempted-murder charges for his role in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa.

The Obama administration had hoped that a conviction on most, if not all, of the charges would help clear the way for federal prosecutions of other Guantanamo detainees - including Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators accused of organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The administration did not want to rely exclusively on the military commissions that the George W. Bush administration had made a centerpiece of its detention policy.

President Obama's strategy, however, has run into fierce, cross-party opposition in Congress and New York, in part because of concerns that it would be harder to win convictions in civilian court.

The failure to convict Ghailani, a native of Tanzania, on the most serious terrorism charges will bolster the arguments of those who say the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be kept open, both to host military commissions for some prisoners and to hold others indefinitely and without trial under the laws of war.

"You deserve a lot of credit," U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan told the jurors after the verdicts were announced. "You have demonstrated also that American justice can be delivered calmly, deliberately and fairly, by ordinary people - people who are not beholden to any government, including this one."

Ghailani could be sentenced to life in prison and faces a minimum of 20 years, according to the Justice Department.

"We respect the jury's verdict and are pleased that Ahmed Ghailani now faces a minimum of 20 years in prison and a potential life sentence for his role in the embassy bombings," the department said in a brief statement.

Ghailani's sentence will be imposed by Kaplan, and prosecutors in New York said they would seek life in prison.

...But the verdict was still a blow to administration officials, who were quietly confident that Ghailani would be found guilty on all charges. For some, a conviction on only one count amounted to a close call. Had he been cleared of all charges, the administration would probably have been forced to take Ghailani back into military custody rather than see him released.

So administration officials were "quietly confident that Ghailani would be found guilty on all charges."

Oh, well. Sorry about that.

Are they also just as "quietly confident" that other cold-blooded murderers will be found guilty on all charges?

I'm not too comfortable at all with the "quiet confidence" of the Obama administration.

It's possible that Ghailani will receive a life sentence. I wonder if Obama and friends are "quietly confident" that will occur, and taxpayers will have the privilege to proudly provide for the care of the 36-year-old man for the rest of his life.

I find this observation to be an absolute joke in terms of the "justice" meted out in Ghailani's trial:

Had he been cleared of all charges, the administration would probably have been forced to take Ghailani back into military custody rather than see him released.

What is that?

Obama touts trials for terrorists in civilian courts but if their "quiet confidence" proves to be unfounded and the terrorists are cleared of all charges, then he and his administration would dismiss the courts' decisions, ignore the verdicts, and take the terrorists back into military custody rather than seeing the murderers released.

What kind of "justice" is that?

Trials in civilian courts for ruthless terrorists are great, America at its best! BUT, not if we don't like the verdicts.

That's ridiculous.

Obama insists on giving terrorists, individuals openly at WAR with the U.S., their day in court. However, if they have a good day, never mind.

Don't worry. The Obama administration will simply ignore the outcomes of trials that didn't warrant their "quiet confidence."