Sentence First! Verdict Afterwards!

The NY Times pokes at the shrewd Obama/Holder strategy of trying terrorists in civilian show trials with a pre-ordained outcome:

Ghailani Case Ruling Spurs Debate on Trial’s Value
By BENJAMIN WEISER

When a federal judge barred prosecutors on Wednesday from using a crucial witness in the first civilian trial of a former Guantánamo terrorism detainee, the ruling — widely perceived as a major setback for the government — contained an unusual observation.

It was, in a way, a polar opposite to a get-out-of-jail free card: even if the defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, is acquitted, his status as an enemy combatant will probably allow his return to military custody, to remain locked up, said the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court in Manhattan.

Judge Kaplan did not elaborate on his view, but his comment has stirred debate as to why he made the statement, whom he was addressing, and whether it would undermine or bolster the idea of trying detainees in federal court.

“This makes me wonder why the government is bothering to try Ghailani,” Jack Goldsmith, a senior Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration and now a law professor at Harvard, wrote in the Lawfare blog.

With all of the legal and political difficulties in holding such a trial, he added, “it can hardly bring the hoped-for legitimacy benefits if the government and the judge publicly agree that the defendant, if acquitted, will remain behind bars indefinitely.”

Well, no kidding.  But this is the Times, so they manage to find someone to defend the Administration.  Well, kinda sorta:

But Joshua L. Dratel, a defense lawyer who has handled terrorism cases in federal courts and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, said the judge seemed to want to reassure people who might worry that strictly adhering to constitutional principles, as the judge did in barring the prosecution witness’s testimony, could lead to a terrorism suspect’s walking free.

“Judges often feel the need to respond to controversial issues,” Mr. Dratel said, “and to be transparent and maintain confidence that the judicial system is not being insensitive to public concerns.”

Well, wait - the judge is trying to reassure people that the final result is not in doubt?  Who is the audience for that?  I don't think many on the right are clamoring for a civilian show trial; military tribunals work fine for most of us.

And on the left, I don't really believe that the folks who wanted Gitmo closed down are keen to see a civilian show trial which might end in acquital followed by a trip back to jail.  Although a Bill Ayers type burn-it-all-down radical might savor the pig circus element, I don't think that many commited progressives believe that somehow this process restore America's status in the world.

So what constitutiency is Obama trying to placate with this?  Or is this just another of his 'annoy everyone' gambits?

C'mon - if you want to be sure the Good Guys will win, watch professional wrestling. 

Comments

[iqvoice]

Goodness, Tom... you haven't watcher your WWE lately. The heels always win!

[Danube of Thought]

Six months or a year ago I'd have wondered what their thinking was. Now I just figure they have no idea what they're doing.

[In fact, it's the only sensible thing to do. Progress, Live it, Love it.]

It's stealth Anti-Constitutionalism. If it can be shown that the Constitution is a suicide pact, voila, it's OK to ignore it.
===============

[clarice]

It is hard to see why Holder thought this a good idea. I think he and Obama just got a bad attack of moral preening.

[Ignatz]

--It is hard to see why Holder thought this a good idea.--

1.It's the opposite of what Bush did.
2.It's stupid and Barry and Eric are nothing if not stupid.
3.They think it looks good to their real constituency, the rest of the world, especially our enemies.

[matt]

incompetence? ideology? it really doesn't matter. The result is the same. A perversion of justice.

Perhaps we should elevate it from simply forcing Holder's resignation to criminal prosecution.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet]

The motto of this administration of BoZos:

Change -- even from what was working.

The military tribunal is a perfectly good forum for cases like this one and and there is plenty of Supreme Court precedent for the use of that forum. It has long been recognized in domestic and international law, and has been used by all countries from long before the American Revolution through the Civil War, two world wars, and up to Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. But nooooooo. none of this history and good sense means anything to the maroonish incumbents who are trying to lead us to a new and improved world order that only a small percentage of our polity wants.

We can't turn them out too soon.

[Ranger]

Perhaps we should elevate it from simply forcing Holder's resignation to criminal prosecution.

Posted by: matt | October 08, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Show trials are a violation of the law of war. Since the judge has publicly stated that convict or aquit, the defendant will remain incarcerated, this would fit the definition of a show trial. I would say a prosectuion for conspiracy to commit a war crime is in order for Holder and the brain trust in the DoJ that proposed and approved this public prosecution in civil court.

[glasater]

Anyone watch the tv show The Good Wife where the attorneys on the show defended in a military tribunal?
I laughed through the whole episode...
It was just funny how Hollywood types interpret these things.

[daddy the ADN's censored commenter of the month]

I suppose the silver lining is that now any Jurist assigned to this trial can vote innocent. If they actually listened to the facts and voted guilty some flaming ACLU lawyer would have released the Jury's names and addresses and a Fatwa would have been placed on their heads and they would perennially fear for somebody from the Religion of Peace somewhere along the line popping up and murdering them and/or their loved ones.

Now Obama/Holder have removed that pressure from them. They are relieved from the responsibility of voting guilty and they can now vote not-guilty, knowing they have protected their families while still not allowing the perp to go free.

A bizarre new wrinkle in our US Constitutional and judicial system, but What the Hell, seems we get new wrinkles in our US Constitutional and Judicial system each and every day with this bunch. Samo, samo.

[clarice]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ag-holder-loses-gamble-on-terror-trial/>Ghailani

[daddy the ADN's censored commenter of the month]

Great article Clarice.

[clarice]

Thanks, daddy.

[Pagar]

Yes, that was a good article Clarice, what we need is a alert system to let us know as soon as you put up a new piece anywhere. Your pieces always explain any subject so well. Thanks for sharing.

[clarice]

Thanks, Pagar.
Well, tomorrow my AT piece is up. bigfurhat at iOwnthe world has designed a logo for it.