A “Total Miscarriage of Justice”
That’s how incoming House homeland security chair Pete King described the Ghailani trial. Ghailani (pictured) was, of course, found guilty on only one of the 285 charges brought against him, and consequentially got off with a light slap on the wrist: twenty years to life imprisonment.
So why did the prosecution wind up with such a poor batting average? In part, because the evidence was contaminated by the Bush administration’s illegal torture policy:
Ghailani was waterboarded, i.e. tortured, into revealing his relationship with Hussein Abebe, who in turn provided the most damaging testimony against Ghailani.
As FDL perceptively wrote, it is possible that Abebe’s own testimony against Ghailani was itself coerced.
On Oct. 5, Judge Lewis Kaplan [pdf] excluded Abebe’s testimony, on the grounds that it was a a fruit of a poisonous tree, i.e. was only available to the prosecution because Bush had had Ghailani tortured (and maybe had had Abebe tortured, as well!)
That was why Ghailani could not be convicted of murder, as he from all accounts ought to have been. Had his connection to Abebe been discovered by ordinary questioning or by good police work, then the latter could have freely taken the witness stand. In fact, it seems to me very likely that Abebe would in fact have been discovered in other ways– from the record, e.g., of Ghailani’s cell phone calls, or even just from his own account of his activities.
So the court excluded evidence that was maintained illegally, but still condemned a guilty man to a very long stay in prison. Actually, it sounds like the criminal justice system acquitted itself fairly well in this case, no? If anything, the injustice here is that the people who ordered Ghailani’s torture — which, remember, made him harder to prosecute — won’t be brought up on charges themselves.
But that’s not how King sees it. The same Guardian article I linked to above says:
Congress must approve any transfer of Guantánamo Bay prisoners to US soil, something King said would never happen now his party held sway in the legislature after the midterm elections: “They couldn’t come close to getting that done when the Democrats were in charge. There’s no way they’re going to get it now that Republicans are in charge.”
This can’t be repeated often enough: King’s grievance isn’t regarding the legitimacy of the trial, but that a legitimate trial reached an outcome he doesn’t like. To him, torture is a lesser injustice than the inadmissibility of “evidence” that was extracted by torture.
And his solution is to compound injustice on top of injustice, and move to block any attempt to transfer detainees from Guantanamo to U.S. soil. That means that the Obama administration is left to either prosecute them through military tribunals (see here for why that’s a really bad idea) or let them molder in a cell without charges indefinitely, as they plan to do to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Sadly, I doubt they’ll even put up a fight.
Sure the Feds should try KSM in FEderal Court, after all didn’t Obama and Holder promise America that he would be convicted? If the DOJ knew that some of the evidence was tainted then why on earth did they go ahead with the criminal trial? I really thought they were smarter than that.Report
20 years to life is a ‘slap on the wrist’?Report
(Sarcasm.)Report
Also I forgot which part of the Constitution says the rule of law doesn’t apply if the court is calleda ‘military tribunal’?Report
Not sure where you got the idea I was making that argument, so I’ll just explain why I’m opposed to trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals: they’re not members of any military. They’re civilians who have been accused of a criminal act. We already have courts and an extensive legal architecture set up for dealing with criminals.Report
Is attacking the military in another country a criminal act?Report
Yes, unlawful enemy combatants are committing a criminal act. It seems to me that they can and should be tried in a civilian criminal court.Report