I'll have a post up on the verdict in the Ahmed Ghailani case over at Greg's place. Bottom line:
So here's the reality: Ghailani's trial took a mere month, at the fraction of the cost of flying translators, jurors, lawyers and reporters back and forth from Guantanamo. He will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. There were no opportunities to use the court as a "platform" to preach terrorism, and no security threats that disrupted the lives of New Yorkers. Opponents of the use of civilian trials often argue that civilian courts can't "handle" terrorists. They literally just did. They've done it hundreds of times before.
If the verdict does not ultimately reflect the level of responsibility Ghailani holds in the deaths of more than 224 people, the failure to secure justice on their behalf lies squarely on the shoulders of those in the Bush administration who sanctioned Ghailani's torture in the first place. That shame is fully theirs to bear.
There are a number of interesting reactions, from Marcy Wheeler, Glenn Greenwald, Spencer Ackerman, and the guys at Lawfare. But I really think this statement from the Center for Constitutional Rights goes too far:
CCR questions the ability of anyone who is Muslim to receive a truly fair trial in any American judicial forum post-9/11. Both the military commission system and federal criminal trials have serious flaws. However, on balance the Ghailani verdict shows that federal criminal trials are far superior to military commissions for the simple yet fundamental reason that they prohibit evidence obtained by torture. If anyone is unsatisfied with Ghailani's acquittal on 284 counts, they should blame the CIA agents who tortured him.
I don't understand the point of advocating for civilian trials if you think Americans can't be fair to Muslims. I think, if anything, the verdict in the Ghailani case shows American juries are not simply going to take the government's word for it, despite widespread pre-trial publicity that suggested guilt on Ghailani's behalf.
Furthermore, even if you think torture is the problem here, and I do, it seems odd to me to blame the CIA agents who were told by the Bush administration that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were legal rather than the political leadership that sanctioned their use. The CIA's job is to take risks, it was the leadership's job to make sure those risks didn't go beyond what's legally allowed. They're the ones who failed.
The winner for worst, most misleading, most hysterical reaction, though, goes to the propagandists at FOX News:
The reality is that even if Ghailani had been acquitted on all charges, he would have been subject to military detention as an "enemy combatant" indefinitely. You can decide for yourself what that says about American justice, but the above image is a complete lie.
