Terrorists in court: What did the Ghailani verdict prove?
Al Qaida operative Ahmed Ghailani was convicted of one charge—out of a total of 285 charges—for his part in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa.
It was “a very bad day for Ahmed Ghailani,” said Anne Kornblut in The Washington Post, but also “a pretty bad day for the Obama administration.” Ghailani, 36, an al Qaida operative, was convicted on one count of conspiracy last week in a New York court for his part in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa; he faces a minimum sentence of 20 years to life, and will likely never see freedom again. On 284 other charges, however, said Andrew McCarthy in National Review Online, Ghailani was acquitted, dealing a “body blow” to President Obama’s notion that “the civilian criminal-justice system is up to the task of trying terrorists.” Clearly, it isn’t. The trial judge ruled that prosecutors could not call a key witness, who had sold explosives to Ghailani, and refused to let the jury know that Ghailani had confessed during his interrogations. Despite overwhelming evidence, one juror even held out for complete acquittal. “If the civilian justice system couldn’t get this case right, how can we responsibly trust it” to prosecute even more dangerous terrorists, such as 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
The bottom line is that the system worked, said The Philadelphia Inquirer in an editorial. Yes, the guilty verdict may have been less resounding than prosecutors wanted. But Ghailani is now safely behind bars. In a real trial, as opposed to a “show trial,” the outcome’s supposed to be unpredictable. That’s what makes it fair. The president’s Republican critics say Ghailani should have been tried by a secret military tribunal at Guantánamo, said Morris Davis in The New York Times. But it’s not clear why this would be preferable. Ghailani’s minimum sentence of 20 years will be longer than many of those handed out by the Gitmo tribunals, and more important, it was achieved “while upholding the values that have defined America.”
“This is war,” said the New York Daily News, and even here in America “war is not waged in court.” Terrorists like Ghailani are apprehended by soldiers or CIA operatives, not by cops on the beat. They are necessarily “squeezed for intelligence” that could disrupt other plots and save thousands of lives. Trying to force these “square pegs” into “the round holes of the civilian justice system” is a terrible mistake. Ghailani got a “sham trial” anyway, said Thomas Joscelyn in The Weekly Standard. The Obama administration made it clear from the outset that it “was never going to set Ghailani free—even if he was acquitted on all the charges.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
“Savor that irony,” said The Wall Street Journal. In order to appease the Left and “showcase American justice,’’ Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama have insisted terrorists be tried in civilian courts. But even this administration is not so foolish as to release a committed enemy of the U.S. after an acquittal. So why engage in this pantomime of due process? A pantomime it is, said Andrew Sullivan in TheAtlantic.com. After the near disaster of the Ghailani case, the U.S. may simply wind up imprisoning most of the detainees “for the rest of their lives,” because torture, black-box prisons, and other illegal practices clearly make it impossible to try al Qaida operatives in any court of law—even military tribunals. That’s one more grim legacy of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s “incoherent, shortsighted, and barbaric choices in the first years of the war.”
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
-
Magazine solutions - October 11, 2024
Puzzles and Quizzes Issue - October 11, 2024
By The Week US Published
-
Magazine printables - October 11, 2024
Puzzles and Quizzes Issue - October 11, 2024
By The Week US Published
-
When does early voting start in swing states?
The explainer Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
By David Faris Published
-
Obama: Did he damage his credibility over Syria?
feature With a “slip of the tongue” Secretary of State John Kerry may have not only averted war, but also saved the Obama presidency.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Syria: Is a ‘shot across the bow’ enough?
feature The U.S. response to Bashar al-Assad's use of sarin gas must be painful enough to serve as a true deterrent.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Rand Paul: What did he achieve with his filibuster?
feature The GOP senator's 13-hour talking filibuster pushed the administration to clarify its drone policy.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
The military: Do women belong in combat?
feature Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced his decision to end the long-standing ban on female troops serving in combat roles.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Iraq: What was gained, what was lost
feature President Obama declared an end to the war in Iraq and welcomed home soldiers at Fort Bragg.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Iraq: Is it a mistake to bring home U.S. troops?
feature Iraq's stability is extremely fragile, and the possibility of renewed conflict among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is all too real.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
The Catholic Church: A crisis of confidence
feature Was the pope complicit in covering up sexual abuse scandals when he served as a cardinal and an archbishop?
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Iraq: Is Obama really ending the war?
feature Obama unveiled a timetable under which all “combat units” would leave Iraq by August 2010; the plan also allows for the continued presence of up to 50,000 “support troops” until December 2011.
By The Week Staff Last updated