Legal Commentary

NY Judge Refuses to Dismiss Ahmed Ghailani Case

By Jeralyn

A federal judge in New York has denied former Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani's motion to dismiss and ruled the case can proceed to trial in federal criminal court. The opinion is here.

Ghailani is charged with complicity in the 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings. He was captured in 2004, transferred to a CIA secret prison overseas, where he allegedly was tortured. He was then transferred to Guantanamo, where he stayed for almost three years. In 2009, he was charged in federal court in New York and transferred. He argued that the five years he was held in custody violated his right to a speedy trial. [More...]

The opinion has some good quotes, but ultimately, the Court applies the principles adversely to him:

The Court understands that there are those who object to alleged terrorists, especially non-citizens, being afforded rights that are enjoyed by U.S. citizens. Their anger at wanton terrorist attacks is understandable. Their conclusion, however, is unacceptable in a country that adheres to the rule of law. Our nation decided over 200 years ago that the Speedy Trial Clause, like many provisions of the Constitution, applies to all, regardless of their citizenship or the crimes of which they are accused. Fidelity to our basic compact requires adherence to that principle. (my emphasis)

So why the adverse ruling?

The Court understands also that Ghailani is charged with crimes that took place twelve years ago, that he came into federal custody six years ago, and that he was held without being presented to answer those charges for just short of five of those years.

....None of the entire five year delay of this prosecution subjected Ghailani to a single day of incarceration that he would not otherwise have suffered. He would have been detained for that entire period as an enemy combatant regardless of the pendency of this indictment. None of that delay prejudiced any interests protected by the Speedy Trial Clause in any significant degree. In these specific circumstances, Ghailani's right to a speedy trial has not been infringed.

The Government acknowledged the delay was intentional:

The government acknowledges that it intentionally delayed the defendant's prosecution because it concluded that he had valuable threat information that could be acquired only by placing him into the CIA Program and that it then delayed it further by the military commission prosecution and the other activities described above. It contends, however, that these decisions were justified in all the circumstances and that the delays did no! violate Ghailani's right to a speedy trial.

The opinion also says the abuse he suffered in CIA custody isn't material because it wasn't of sufficient duration.

First, Ghailani does not claim that he was mistreated throughout the entire two year period during which he was in CIA custody. While details of what transpired are in the Supplement, it is appropriate to say here that the duration ofthe specific treatment to which Ghailani refers, i.e., the period during which he was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques and other treatment that he has recounted in an affidavit that remains classified, was not of sufficient length to be material to this motion

Our prior coverage of Ghailani's case is here.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on July 13, 2010 (boomark / email).