How can this be? A terrorist who admits to killing a couple hundred people is found not guilty on all those homicide charges, and is convicted only on a single conspiracy charge?
As I understand it, the judge ruled that some available witness testimony was inadmissible because the identity of the witness came from an interview of the accused terrrorist, and the judge thought that interview was coercive. So available evidence was suppressed. Kind of like fruit of the poison tree. So the jury had to deal only with what remaining evidence was presented -- which was evidently insufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yeah, civilian trials affording civil rights to fanatic terrorists will work just fine. (Sarcasm). And the AGs office screwed up a case pretty badly all the while thinking they'd hand the left fringe a victorious show trial.
We are at war. The object of our enemy is to replace our civilisation and history with sharia. They've been at it for over a thousand years, and they'll keep at it for a thousand more if necessary and if we let them. -- until they win. And we are somehow under the protection of an executive branch run by people who seem to want to fight a war for the survival of our way of life with strategies that got them a good grade in moot court and maybe almost got them laid by humourless, intense political chicks.
The hell of it is, these guys think they are being serious.