THE TRIAL FIASCO – THE MORNING AFTER – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:  As you know, the trial of the first Gitmo detainee to be tried in a civilian court ended yesterday in a humiliating defeat for the government, with the defendant, despite overwhelming evidence against him, convicted on only one of 280 charges.

Repercussions are being felt.  From Fox News:

The acquittal is seen as a major blow to the U.S. government, as Ghailani was the first former Gitmo detainee to be tried in a civilian courtroom. The case had been viewed as a possible test case for President Barack Obama administration's aim of putting other terror detainees -- including self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- on trial on U.S. soil.

Why do I think that plan might be put on hold?

The anonymous federal jury deliberated over seven days, with a juror writing a note to the judge saying she felt threatened by other jurors.

I want to know all about that.  I mean, all about that.  Who was doing the intimidating?  Why?  Were there ethnic factors involved?  This was a New York City jury, and, believe me, we know about that stuff here.  The fact that the jury was anonymous means that intimidation was easier.  The perpetrators can't be identified. 

Good lawyers can influence who is on the jury...and we saw what happened with the O.J. Simpson jury.

True, the defendant in the case decided yesterday still faces a stiff jail term on the one conspiracy charge for which he was found guilty.  But all those rejected charges, and the fact that the jury could not hear certain evidence because civilian rules were in place, should worry us to no end.  We are talking about a defendant who made war on the United States.

Military tribunals would be just fine, and the new GOP majority in the House should start pushing for them.

November 18, 2010