Let me add my two cents. The New York Times reported earlier this week that there was one juror -- just one juror -- who apparently saw things differently from the rest of the jury
. Given the relatively clear cut nature of the evidence against Ghailani, it's hard to believe that 11 Americans were insisting on finding him innocent, and this lone hold-out was in favor of a guilty verdict (if that had been the case, she probably would have felt strongly enough about her position to want to stay on the jury to force a mistrial, if nothing else -- who could sleep if they felt they had wrongly allowed a terrorist to walk?).
It's just another reason to oppose the foolhardy Obama approach of trying terrorists in civilian courts. All the defense needs is one juror of the kind that featured prominently on the OJ jury, and you've got a terrorist walking free -- or, rather, the hypocritical picture of a US Justice Department that tries accused terrorists to prove the efficacy of the "rule of law," and then locks them up anyway after an acquittal because it's obvious to anyone with a brain that they present a danger to America.
As Guy has repeatedly noted over the course of the morning, there are numerous reasons why it is wrong -- and dangerously naive -- to try terrorists like Ahmed Ghailani in civilian court.