Political grandstanding aside, the first civilian court trial of a Guantanamo Bay detainee proved that the U.S. criminal court system can mete out justice even in complicated terrorism cases.
While Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was not convicted of murder and numerous other charges, a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to destroy government buildings for his role in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ghailani could very well spend the rest of his life in a U.S. prison.
His trial in New York federal court also did not constitute a breach to national security, as critics had warned.
Critics have suggested the traditional court system is a poor substitute to the military tribunal method embraced by the Bush administration. “This is a tragic wake-up call to the Obama administration to immediately abandon its ill-advised plan to try Guantanamo terrorists” in civilian courts, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said of the verdict, which included acquittals on 284 counts.
It’s important to remember, however, that this country already has tried and convicted scores of suspects on terrorism-related charges in its federal court system, a practice that began during the tenure of President Bush.
We don’t oppose the idea of tribunals and think they could be the appropriate recourse in some cases. But the system as created under Bush has had trouble passing constitutional muster in the Supreme Court. Given that, we’re glad traditional courts are viable alternatives.
There’s no doubt that Ghailani’s acquittals were aided by the judge’s refusal to allow witness testimony that would have documented Ghailani’s purchase of the explosives used in the bombings that killed 224 people, including a dozen Americans.
Judge Lewis Kaplan disallowed that critical testimony because the identity of the witness (and possibly his testimony) was obtained by agents who used the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” that many have decried as torture.
Critics have seized on this fact to suggest that if the Obama administration tries 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in civilian courts — as the administration has said it plans to do — prosecutors will fail.
The contention is that testimony derived through coercive techniques could be used by a military tribunal. But Kaplan noted that coerced testimony wouldn’t be allowed in the military setting either.
Kaplan also rejected defense claims that the suspect was tortured through “outrageous government misconduct,” or that constitutional rights to speedy trial were violated.
Such rulings bode well for prosecutors seeking to try Mohammed and other long-held terrorist suspects.
Finally, for justice to be served, those charged with gathering prosecutorial evidence must follow our laws and traditions.
The trial of Ahmed Ghailani led to a significant conviction, even after ferreting out wrongly obtained information. Justice was served, and we trust that the U.S. criminal justice system will continue to work in these difficult cases.
