Cenk Uygur Bizarrely Bellows: Ghailani Trial Shows 'Our Justice System Worked'
While most of the country took a collective gasp over the verdict in the trial of al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani, Cenk Uygur spun the disconcerting outcome as a success story for the Obama administration.
Anchoring the 3:00 P.M. EDT hour of MSNBC's live news coverage today, the liberal host of "The Young Turks" boldly and bizarrely proclaimed "our justice system worked."
After accusing congressional Republicans of being "scared of terrorists," implying that terrorists who want to kill us aren't worth fussing over, Uygur dismissed the notion that acquitting Ghailani on more than 280 charges exposed the shortcomings of trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts.
"So what?" bellowed an incredulous Uygur. "We just gave this guy, who we believe helped to kill 224 people, a fair trial."
[Video embedded after the break.]
Perhaps someone forgot to inform Uygur that Ghailani was not convicted on a single murder charge, only conspiracy to blow up government buildings in an attack on two United States embassies in 1998.
Later in the "Cenk's Take" segment, Uygur intimated that proponents of military tribunals want to remake the American criminal justice system in the image of Saudi Arabia: "We must assume anyone we have ever detained for any reason is 100 percent guilty because while you weren't looking we renamed the country Saudi Arabia."
In contrast to Uygur, MSNBC.com reported that the verdict "deals blow to Obama Gitmo plan" and ABCNews.com noted a growing chorus of bipartisan opposition to the use of civilian courts to prosecute suspected terrorists.
Only in Uygur's warped sense of reality, in which Barack Obama is more conservative than Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is a war criminal, does the near-acquittal of a heinous terrorist who murdered more than 200 people represent a success story in the War on Terror.
- Alex Fitzsimmons's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Rockerfella, what's this smella?
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:38pm.
I bet Stank would think differently if some of his homies got killed.......
Actually being a leftist it wouldn't matter to him, he is that bleeped up in his ideology.
MessNBC is not in any way shape of form CLOSE to being in the same league as Fox and if you Jer and ADK still think so, then you have nothing more to add here ever.
What show on Fox in CONTENT and opinion is even CLOSE to this BS, Schultze, Ratigan, Olbermann and possibly Madcow?
O'Reilly, nope, Hannity, NOPE, Brett at 06:00, Greta???????
Maybe you would say Beck, but he actually produces more facts and less brutal opinion.
Got off 224 murder charges!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:48pm.
When your family gets killed, 224 of them, and he only gets 20 yrs.; that is a success? It is a CRIMINAL failure and all who persued this avenue should be thrown in jail for 20yrs with him! M-B
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
What a deplorable man.
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 7:37pm.
I'd respond but I'm just too damn mad right now. I still haven't simmered down from the earlier thread.
You left out the follow-up on this
Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 7:40pm.
This same MSNBC idiot asked some other idiot "why were the other charges dropped"? Then he accepted the answer -- "Because George Bush tortured him. He was waterboarded. That's torture according to the U.N."
And that's the lefist excuse. That we torture innocent Al Queda guys, so of course they deserve a pass for killing 280 people.
My God, MSNBC people are stupid. And blind. And beyond biased. That's a very, very twisted cable outlet they have over there.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
That's really rich
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:17pm.
We're accused of torture by a despotic group of thugs called the UN who have done and are still doing FAR worse things than a little dripping water.
Amazing.
-Jon
I do not recall any
Submitted by BD on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:23pm.
I do not recall any allegations that Ghailani was waterboarded.
Sooooooooo, because someone else totally unrelated was waterboarded all evidence is inadmissable? What kind of logic is this?
The Ghailani case is just the cherry on the top of the sundae which poves the Obama administration is incapable of prosecuting our enemies to the fullest extent.
If justice were performed Ghailani's body would now be assuming room temperature after having 7.62mm slugs tear through it last night.
But tue justice is anathema to lefties like Cenk....
Proof positive the Western world has committed mass suicide
Submitted by lsudolemite on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:12pm.
But aren't we just wonderfully progressive now? We can all just give ourselves a rousing applause, not because a mass murderer wasn't sufficiently punished for his crimes, but "the justice system worked." Aren't we just great people now? Obama has finally improved our standing in the world and shown everybody what amazing, fair-minded people we are. The new American exceptionalism, if you will.
Therefore, there should be no more terrorists from now on, right? W created them with his wars, so Obama must be eliminating them with such grand, magnanimous gestures as this, no? Oh and those new TSA searches where we get to treat grandmothers and children like criminals while Muslim women have their modesty respected goes hand in hand with the new American exceptionalism. Scratch that, it's even better, because even criminals get 4th amendment search and seizure protections. I bet all the liberals and civil libertarians screaming bloody murder about the Patriot Act are scheming to deprive us all of our government's protective...er, touch, as we speak.
Apparently
Submitted by JamPony on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:31pm.
The writer of this NONSENSE has all the evidence the Government did not have. Why wasn't he on prosecutions staff?
I wonder what the JURY thinks about the fact that the Right is upset with them for not railroading this guy?
I wonder what the Jury feels
Submitted by BD on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:06pm.
I wonder what the Jury feels about being given such crappy instructions by the judge?
Railroaded? Hardly.
A military panel would have sorted this out splendidly. I know, I have watched them in action. Far superior to a civil court. They put up with no legalistic/religiousity games.
Please tell me
Submitted by JamPony on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:32pm.
How did you develop the skill of knowing outcomes of events that never even happened? And what useful purpose does such a skill provide?
So you're saying that torture is allowed in military tribunals?
Reading you is torture silkypony
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:07pm.
SilkyPony, this individual WAS NOT tortured at all.
The person who gave information that would have convicted him on multiple other charges was not tortured according to how a military court would work or deal with this.
This NEVER should have been tried in this manner and Oblunder and Steadmen F'D up.
The issue here skippy is this was a loss for your hero and you being the fraudulent progressive "american" you are more concerned for the fairness to someone that killed americans.
People........ like you are more concerned with a little water POSSIBLY used on an enemy combatants head than the slaughter of innocent babies.
That makes sense only if you are a progressive.
What events? I can speak of
Submitted by BD on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:54pm.
What events?
I can speak of things I have witnessed regarding military panels during courts martial:
Best example is from 20+ years ago as a young lieutenant. We had a rather useless PV2 with little to recommend him who stole a rather decent SPC stereo and pawned it in his own name about 60 miles away. When caught he did the moronic thing of attempting to assert his innocence.
During the trial the officer acting for his defense tried to make the case that it really wasn't the PFC who did it and that the kid had a good character.
The officer prosecuting put the senior enlisted men in the company on the stand and asked each of them effectively the same question.
"What do you think about PV2 _________."
The response was invariably "He's a dirtbag."
Which elicited an "I Object" from the defense
and just as quickly a "Sustained." from the military judge overseeing the event.
Virtually everything said by the senior enlisted members was objected to and sustained by the judge. Almost nothing was on the record having all been expunged.
But I kept my eyes on the panel. They knew. I watched one say to another "Top thinks he's a dirtbag."
PV2 got twenty years in Leavenworth.
You might notice something if you live in a military town. Defense attourneys almost never allow military officers in a jury pool, usually having peremptorily challenged them immediately upon finding out who they are. Why is that?
It is because military officers believe we CAN judge our fellow man. And civilian lawyers, particularly defense attourneys can't allow that. It is bad for business.
Take it from me, I TRY to get on juries. They won't take me.
This is why these trials should be held in military courts.
You apparently haven't been
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 4:59am.
You apparently haven't been watching the miltary tribunals in action in recent years, BD. At least not the ones in Gitmo trying Al-Qaeda terrorists. Charges have been dropped, deals struck and, in most cases, relatively light sentences imposed on the defendants. The tribunals haven't been as tough as you seem to think.
Jer
Those cases were the lighter
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 5:45am.
Those cases were the lighter ones and it would have been better before you whining lib lawyers got into the action. Strengthens my case against lawyers.
Straight skippy, that.
Submitted by BD on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:56pm.
Straight skippy, that.
Yeah, international politics
Submitted by BD on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:06pm.
Yeah, international politics being what it normally is.
But you would have to be on Peyote to think the civilian courts will be stricter.
What a shame we did not make the first O-6 in command the convening authority and authorize them to conduct the trials. Just like the good old days, no JAG officers anywhere near the case.
Oh, and by the way. Since you brought up the nature of military justice and its harshness. Why is Dwight Loving still breathing? He has been on death row for 20+ years after being caught red handed murdering two cab drivers at Fort Hood. I was there.
If I can plan the invasion of Iraq in less than a week, all appeals should take just that long. But that does not keep laywers in front of judges now DOES IT?
Any defense of him is ABUSIVE at this point.
Wrong, BD...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 11:39pm.
...you were the one who brought up military panels (which I'm not necessarily opposed to, btw) and noted how they wouldn't put up with any of those legalistic/religiousity games--which I think can properly be construed as "bringing up the nature of military justice".
Jer
Jer, he never said he did not
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 7:24am.
Jer, he never said he did not bring teh panels up and in fact touted them as being the right thing to do. Waht he does assert is they will be no nonsense unlike the crap in civilian courts. The military understands the situation more than civilians who will not be as qualified to make judgments in a war. In fact we are setting bad precedent trying these people in a civilian court affording them the protections of USA citizens.
One needs only to look at this trial to prove my point.
Dan: It is interesting to
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 1:12pm.
Dan:
It is interesting to note that Ghailani's was convicted in civilian court for an offense that could be meted out for writing grafiti on the sides of one of the myriad of porta potties that we have here in Fort Huachuca.
I guarantee a panel of military officers would have seen through the crap put out by the administration and the defense attourneys and would have found him guilty of murder.
Now whether the legal system would let us execute him in a speedy manner is up in the air. I am still awaiting Dwight Lovings execution, 20+ years after his conviction.
And?
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 1:08pm.
And?
And...what is your answer?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 8:26pm.
Do you now concede it was you who brought up the topic of military panels?
Jer
Yeah, AND?????
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 9:34am.
Yeah, AND?????
AND...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 3:59pm.
...as I've said before, I'm not necessarily opposed to trials by military tribunal. But, with respect to the proposition that trial by tribunal is clearly a more desirable approach and solution to the issue, well, let's just say the jury is still out.
Jer
Over the past few days I have
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 7:52pm.
Over the past few days I have heard endless gnashings by those on the left saying that a verdict by a military panel would replicate those by the Jury In NYC and that evidence would not be brought in to either based on questionable means of gaining it. And it is all bull____.
Logic (Something WE study, apparently not so much in NYC) says that if the person is guilty of plotting to destroy a government facility, then one must by necessity be guilty of plotting to muder those who were present in the building at the time of its destruction.
Thus by extension they are guilty of the 285 counts of murder, unless we must accept the fact that Ghailani did not desire death, but rather sought just destruction in his jihadist ideals?
A panel of military officers could see this in the worst HC & WP Smokes-screened of rooms. WHy a civilian jury could not is something that stumps me.
BD, civilian juries are
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 11:08am.
BD, civilian juries are pulled from pools of voters or drivers and some have no common sense. In addition it was in NYC and surrounds; complicating the matter is the myth of a clean cut clear case perpetrated by the plethora of cop shows that get the right verdict in an hours time.
People are just that people, humans who want to see the crime committed before them to say someone deserves to be put to death. I would think that the military has a greater understanding of how the real world works and the jury would be better informed.
Yeah, you might be right.
Submitted by BD on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 9:10am.
Yeah, you might be right. Somehow that idiotic jury found that he was culpable for participating in the lead up to the bombing in some manner. But somehow not culpable in the attendant deaths?
What....?
I am sorry, but NYC needs to find those jurors and parade them though the streets with signs hanginf from necks saying "My brain does not function...."
Right you are, little piss-ant
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:14pm.
I agree with you; let them all off scot-free. It's just a witch hunt.
...until one of your classmates or your mommy gets blown up.
FU.
The government
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 4:26am.
did have the evidence to convict this waste of oxygen, slick. The judge, after listening to the heart-rending tales of mistreatment from his defense lawyers, decide that, to keep the Supremes from looking over his shoulder, he'd just go the safe route and suppress everything. That way, no worries about appeals for murder convictions. Mustn't have a reversal on one's record, might preclude the O'ster from appointing him to an appeals court, somewhere. And, if you've never been to a criminal trial, the defense doesn't have to prove anything, they only have to create a doubt. And most of that comes from theater in front of the judge and jury. Not facts, just theater. And, if you can get the prosecution's evidence and witnesses barred, so much the better, after all, it's all for the client. Not for justice, certainly.
And the longer the defense---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 6:26am.
can hold off on a criminal trial, the better the odds that witnesses for the prosecution will disappear.
Death, moving out of state, falling through the cracks; none of which are of any benefit to the prosecutorial side.
MD
Our justice system will work when Cenk Uygur has been arrested
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:04pm.
...and if not tried outright for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, at least deported to the worst sh*thole of a place that can be found.
I want this America-hating, enemy-coddling pr*ck the Hell out of my America.
Pronto.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:12pm.
Would that be Cenk Uygur or JamPony? :^)
MD
LOL MD,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:51pm.
I'd settle for both at the same time.
I just love efficiency. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:53pm.
Maybe BEGRUNT has room for two more on one a them there C-47's.
I'm with you on the efficiency angle.
MD
MD,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:06am.
LOL - I'm starting to think that C-47 is going to be exceeding it's FAA approved gross takeoff weight by a wide margin.
With any luck, that is. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
AGREED Dave.R!
Submitted by TCinAZ on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 6:19pm.
AGREED Dave.R! Because Ugyur Claims to be an Atheist, But by His Standards,"So What!?" He should either be Made to Prove that He's not a Muslim Radical, or the Taqqiya-Talking **CK Should Be Deported The Hell Out Of Our Country, Now! After all, That's Only "Fair"!!
Sink Auger puts himself
Submitted by HockeyKid on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 6:57am.
in the same bin with Janet "the system worked" Napolitano. What a pair.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
That's Janet Incompetano. She
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:11am.
That's Janet Incompetano. She worked hard to earn that nickname.
Cenk Uygur lives in an
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:10am.
Cenk Uygur lives in an alternate universe.
There was no fair trial since the judge threw out most everything which would prove his guilt. This should have been held as a military tribunal. Just like with the O.J. Simpson trial this shows just how easy it can be for defense attorneys to bamboozle jurors. Ahmed Ghailani was convicted on one count but his defense attorney has already announced an appeal of which many experts in the field of law say may be successful.
In war
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:00am.
You know, it's real interesting when we are in a time of war, you find out who the enemies are and they are much closer to home than most people would suspect.
-Jon
So true, Jon.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:52pm.
The Turk said we do dumb shiite "because we're better than them?" Then he has his little lecture about the trials of Nazis after WWII. The operative word there is AFTER, you Jackwagon Turk!
Keep every last one of the POW's locked away until this war is over. If they choose to fight on for 50 years or more, as they have in the past, so what. We seem to be content as a country to just let it go on and on instead of ending it with a victory, so tough.
At least the military has caught on to the mood in Washington. You notice that we don't take many prisoners lately, and if we do they end up in the hand of the locals. Good plan.
Not to belabor the point, but war doesn't determine who is right. It determines who is left.
Does anyone know which of the Imams Ka-Cenk worships, and is his middle name really Suleiman?
Yes, indeed, Jon,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 1:29pm.
we are at war. To quote a poster over at Blackfive, "For God's sake. This is war. There should be no trial. There should be no pronouncements. We should never have known that he had been captured. We should never have known he was interrogated. We should never have known where he was buried". That would cover it, as far as I'm concerned.
Right on Jon, from within...
Submitted by Tomorama on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:47am.
O'Reilly had on a former lawyer for this murdering POS and if you can find it on the Internet look it up, if you DON'T hate lawyers NOW, listen to this a-hat and YOU WILL.
EVERYONE FROM GITMO SHOULD BE RELEASED.
The one charge he was
Submitted by goldbar on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 3:39pm.
The one charge he was convicted on was conspiracy for which he can be sentenced to life in prison.
Just to clarify: the charge
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 4:32pm.
Just to clarify: the charge of which he was convicted was conspiring to destroy buildings and property of the U.S. and the federal judge has the authority to sentence him to life in prison which seems to be what most experts believe will happen. However his defense attorney is appealing so it's not quite over yet even with the sentencing. Since it also took place in federal court, what options are their for places of confinement? Is that super-max prison in Colorado on that list?