Thursday, November 18, 2010

Terrorists in US Courts, get off?

"A federal jury in Manhattan acquitted the first Guantanamo Bay prison detainee to face a civilian court of all but one of the charges he faced.
NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports:
"It took a Manhattan jury seven days to find Ahmed Ghailani guilty of just one count of conspiracy and acquit him of murder and terrorism charges.
Prosecutors said Ghailani bought a truck and explosives for the bombing before he left Africa and hid in Pakistan.
The defense said Ghailani was a dupe and had no idea that he was helping with a terrorism plot for al-Qaeda."
"Federal prosecutors had charged Ghailani with 276 murder and attempted murder counts in connection with the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people, including a dozen Americans." by Eyder Peralta

I think this is a good argument to not try this type of crime in a court that will only find them guilty of 1 out of hundred of crimes against Humanity. Perhaps the World Court is the place; a court where this is handled and has been handled well, in the past. But to do that, we need to follow certain guidelines and perhaps that is part of the problem in this current situation.

But I would argue, they need to either execute them on the spot, or treat them appropriately so they can be tried, and sentenced for the crimes they have committed; and not be able to wiggle away. Those arrested by the Military, need to be handled by the Military, don't they?

No comments:

Post a Comment