StupidiNews Focus: The Ghailani Trial Was A Success

Wingers are furious that 1988 African embassy bomber Ahmed Ghailani was tried as a civilian and was only convicted of one count out of 280 plus, including murder charges for every embassy bombing victim.  But the reality is that the Obama Administration just proved that civilian trials do work, and the 20 to life sentence Ghailani will get is a far tougher conviction that what we've gotten in military tribunals.

Meanwhile, the right is indulging in fantasy.  John Hindraker:

Having failed to convict Ghailani on more than a single count, the administration can only hope for a substantial sentence. Absent that, they presumably will continue to hold him indefinitely, much as they are holding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, thus demonstrating the essentially sham nature of the proceeding that has just concluded. The Obama administration is truly a ship of fools. Some are already speculating that this disaster will be the occasion for Eric Holder to step down as Attorney General. I have no idea whether he is on the way out or not, but if so, Republicans in the Senate should question his replacement closely about Holder's politicizing of the Department of Justice, and should extract whatever commitment they can from his successor not to pursue the same course.

Holder resigning over a successful 20 years to life conviction of a terrorist?  No doubt Hinderaker's mad because Ghailiani isn't being fed to the Sarlacc.  Hugh Hewitt is equally upset.

224 innocents were killed by this terrorist, including 12 Americans.  They will never receive justice because of the absurd legal theories of a small group of justices and the refusal of Barack Obama and Eric Holder to demand of their left-wing colleagues inthe Congress a continued insistence on military tribunals.

So when will an Adminstration official emerge to declare "they system worked" as Janet Napolitano did after the underway bomber got into American airspace?

20 to life, and I'm guessing he gets the life end of this, isn't justice.  Apparently he has to get a million billion life sentences and be forced to watch Ishtar on eternal loop.  But it's American Spectator's John Tabin who makes the strangest argument:

He's still going to prison for at least 20 years and maybe for life (sentencing comes in January), but the verdict -- which seems to suggest that Ghailani is guilty of conspiracy to blow up the buildings but somehow not guilty of killing the victims -- is an embarrassment for the Obama justice department, and opponents of trying Guantanamo detainees in civilian court are rightly seizing upon it. 

Yes, so very upset that we couldn't just arbitrarily declare him guilty and dispense with the trial altogether.  What a sham actually trying a man in court is!

I don't get conservatives.  They were going to attack this verdict no matter what happened, and now that Holder and Obama have proven a civilian trial works and can get far nastier penalties than military tribunals, they have to tell us "how the families of the victims must feel" and use them as props in order to justify their own lack of merit.

But then again to conservatives, the Ghailani trial was never about Ghailani, or his victims, or their families, or justice, but about convicting the President in the court of wingnut opinion.

[UPDATE]  The Double G weighs in with this insight:

Most news accounts are emphasizing that trying Ghailani in a civilian court was intended by the Obama DOJ to be a "showcase" for how effective trials can be in punishing Terrorists.  That's a commendable goal, and Holder's decision to try Ghailani in a real court should be defended by anyone who believes in the rule of law and the Constitution.  But given these realities, this was more "show trial" than "showcase" since the Government would simply have imprisoned him, likely forever, even if he had been acquitted on all counts.

Can't say he's wrong, either.