Last year, the Obama administration changed the way suspected terrorists will be judiciously tried. Instead of evidence being brought in front of a military tribunal, the suspects would be faced in federal court with a civilian jury.
According to an Associated Press article on usatoday.com, military tribunals are much more lax with rules on evidence admission than federal courts. Because of this, Ahmed Ghailani was acquitted of more than 280 charges Wednesday.
In the first federal case of a Guantanamo detainee, Ghailani was charged in a case dealing with al-Qaida bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. An article by AP said the twin attacks in 1998 killed 224 people, including a dozen Americans.
How is it that someone who the military is so convinced is guilty is acquitted of any actual wrongdoing? Simple: an article on rttnews.com said Federal Judge Lewis prevented a witness from testifying on the grounds the confession had been made under duress.
This witness’ statement would have been permissible under the military tribunal rules and regulations. And in most cases, the surest way to solidify an argument is with witness accounts, not forensics or other circumstantial evidence. And the surest way to break it up is take those witnesses away.
The press release from the Justice Department admits Ghailani was the mastermind behind it. The press release read:
“The evidence at trial showed, among other things, that each of the embassies was attacked by suicide bombers driving large truck bombs packed with approximately 1,000 pounds of TNT.
Ghailani purchased the truck as well as tanks of oxygen and actylene gas that were used in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania. He also stored explosive detonators that were used in the bomb at his residence.”
So he is just as guilty as the suicide bombers (and, in my mind, more dangerous because they’re dead and cannot do anything else), and he could potentially get out in a few years.
But no, he doesn’t get a guilty verdict for any of the charges except conspiracy. This carries a minimum of 20 years in prison and a maximum of life.
Well, the difference in 20 years and life is a huge gap, especially when the time he has already spent in jail is subtracted. Surely no judge in his or her right mind could let his sentencing be only 20 years, but it’s a very real possiblity.
What if he had been acquitted of all charges? Would the government still keep him locked up to protect Americans, or would it release him and wait until he blew up another building?
I understand the reasoning behind a civilian trial, and in theory, it makes sense.
The problem is the War on Terror is a much bigger issue than the rights of nonsensical extremists, especially when they are doing everything they can to tear us as a people down, and they’re playing dirty.
America still needs protecting today, and that’s the military’s job, not the federal court system.
Julia Pendley is the news editor of The Reflector. She can be contacted at
[email protected].