Litigation

Debate Over Terror Trials is Polarized

By Peter Hardin

If you thought the trial of terror defendant Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was almost wrapped up by  a jury verdict in New York, then you’re not keeping track of the ensuing, and polarized, debate.

“Try Ahmed Ghailani at Gitmo” is the headline of a commentary by Mark Thiessen in the Washington Post. Regarding the mixed verdict for Ghailani, with one conviction plus acquittal on more than 280 counts, Thiessen writes:

“While he cannot be tried again for the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa, there are still plenty of charges the government can bring against Ghailani – if they send him back to Guantanamo to stand trial before a military commission.”

A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial, on the other hand, stands squarely with President Obama on trying terror suspects in civilian courtrooms:

“As the first federal criminal trial of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee, the prosecution of Ghailani proved that President Obama has adopted the right strategy in seeking to try terrorism suspects in civilian courts.

“Indeed, the terror verdict shows once more that the federal court system works, and that it remains the best and only fair way to prosecute terrorists.”

In a Huffington Post commentary, Gabor Rona of Human Rights First seeks to refute the arguments of first, those who say military tribunals offer a better outcome for terrorism suspects than civilian courts, and second, those who advocate no trial but indefinite detention of these suspects.

Either way, Rona writes, “the effect is to cement, rather than reverse, a growing global sentiment that the United States is retreating from the rule of law. It’s a recruitment tool for our enemies and an impediment to US advocacy for human rights in other countries.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, did not call for a change the Obama administration to shift gears.

According to a Politics Daily article, she said on CBS’ Face the Nation, “The terrorists who are serving time in our maximum security prisons are there because of civilian courts, what are called Article Three Courts. Our Article Three Courts have a much better record of trying and convicting terrorists than military commissions do, and in fact this defendant having been convicted will be sentenced somewhere between 20 years and life.”

To learn more about Ghailani’s trial, visit Gavel Grab. You can also check out  JAS?s web page, Civil Liberties and National Security.

Full post as published by The Gavel on November 23, 2010 (boomark / email).