Civilian Bombing Trial a Failure for Obama

Ahmed Ghailani was found not guilty on 284 of the 285 charges against him in the US embassy bombing case in Africa. I don't blame the prosecutors - I'm no expert in this trial, but from everything I've read, it's just extremely difficult to prosecute terrorists in a civilian court. He was still sentenced for 20 years. Interestingly, I saw on Fox that the prosecution called 46 witnesses to trial and took over a month to make their case. The defense? 1 witness and 20 minutes.

I don't know. Maybe this guy was really innocent. But if that's the case, why is he sentenced to 20 years? Maybe he's guilty. But if that's the case, why was he found not guilty on 99.7% of the charges against him. The bigger issue is what to do with the rest of them.

And here Obama is stuck. He jumped up and down in saying that terrorists should not and must not be tried in a military tribunal. Now it appears that his civil solution looks severely flawed. What will be his next move? My guess is he does nothing. Look at Khalid Shaik Mohammed. He's the mastermind of 9/11, and first Obama's administration wanted to try him in New York City. Then, after all sorts of pushback, they decided to bury the issue for the timebeing. These trials make Obama look bad, horrible in fact. If Obama decides to resort to "Bush's" military tribunals he looks like a hypocrit. But then again, if he continues his civilian trials, he looks incompetent. So what will he do?

My belief is that he will stall and ultimately do nothing, and this will force the next US President to decide. If this is the case, it will be one of his best decisions he has made as President. I fully support leaving more decisions to the next Commander in Chief.