Former Guantanamo detainee and "terror suspect" Ahmed Ghailani was found guilty of conspiracy for the role he played in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ghailani, who had been charged with 285 counts was acquitted on all counts except the count of conspiracy. 

Ghailani was the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in the federal justice system. His trial and, in many ways, the outcome of his trial was a victory for advocates who had been suggesting that civilian trials should be utilized instead of military commissions.

The Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) National Security Project released this statement on Ghailani's conviction:

"This case should put to rest any unfounded fears that our federal justice system cannot conduct fair, safe and effective trials in terrorism cases. The jury heard the evidence and delivered a verdict that – unlike military commissions trials – we can trust. We should be proud of a system that isn't set up to simply rubberstamp the government's case no matter how little reliable evidence there may be. Federal courts are not only the right place but the most effective place to prosecute terrorism suspects."

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has led many legal battles over Guantanamo throughout the past eight years, were less celebratory: 

"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."

Yet, their statement indicated a level of satisfaction: evidence obtained by torture was not allowed to be used against Ghailani during his trial. 

Juan Cole, who blogs at Informed Comment, briefly recapped how "Ghailani was waterboarded, i.e. tortured, into revealing his relationship with Hussein Abebe, who in turn provided the most damaging testimony against Ghailani.":

"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."

Republicans are up in arms that evidence obtained by torture was not allowed. They are renewing their attacks on using the rule of law to bring terror suspects to justice. 

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), whose opinion matters because he is the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, declared in response, "I am disgusted at the total miscarriage of justice today in Manhattan’s federal civilian court...This tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama Administration’s decision to try al-Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts."

King's use of reproductive terminology to describe the trial is a bit misplaced. Wasn't this really more like a forced birth? The trial wasn't a complete abortion. Ghailani was found guilty on one charge. 

Anyways, the idea that a military trial would have found Ghailani guilty is dubious. As Judge Kaplan himself pointed out (h/t FDL):

‘ It is very far from clear that Abebe’s testimony would be admissible if Ghailani were being tried by military commission, even without regard to the question whether the Fifth Amendment would invalidate any more forgiving provisions of the rules of evidence otherwise applicable in such a proceeding.

Military commissions are governed by the Military Commissions Act, 10 USC 948a et seq. (the “MCA”). Evidence in such proceedings is governed by the Military Commission Rules of Evidence (“MCRE”). U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, MANUAL FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS (2010 ed.).

MCA 948r(a) and MCRE 304 preclude or restrict the use of “statements obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,” and evidence derived threrefrom, and could require exclusion of Abebe’s testimony. Even if they did not, the Constitution might do so, even in a military commission proceeding.’

 

Jack Bauer-loving GOPers want to see what happened to "Gitmo Child" Omar Khadr during his trial happen to all terror suspects. In his trial, the judge allowed evidence his lawyers claimed was obtained through torture to be used against Khadr. 

Amnesty International took this opportunity to renew calls for more "fair trials for all Guantanamo detainees":

“We cannot talk about justice, for both detainees and the survivors of the attacks of which some are accused, without fair criminal trials. The Guantánamo shadow over the Obama administration can begin to be lifted only if all those detained there receive fair trials in civilian courts or are immediately released,” said Rob Freer of Amnesty International....

...“US politicians who are opposed to trials in federal courts for Guantánamo detainees have chosen to ignore the conviction and are arguing that Ahmed Ghailani’s acquittal on the other charges demonstrates that civilian criminal trials are inappropriate,” said Rob Freer.

“If the only procedure that critics of ordinary criminal trials would accept is one that guarantees convictions regardless of the evidence, then what has been demonstrated is a gross failure on their part to commit to the most basic principles of fairness...”

However, as Amnesty International noted, no one has yet to be held accountable for the "unlawful treatment" that was inflicted upon Ghailani, "including the crime under international law of enforced disappearance during his two years in secret CIA custody." 

The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Eric J. Holder have refused to open up investigations and prosecutions that would hold those responsible for torture or abuse of detainees accountable. Recently, the DOJ refused to prosecute anyone for the destruction of tapes that had evidence of CIA torture.

That along with former President George W. Bush's "Decision Points" book tour, which has involved him boasting about committing waterboarding, a war crime, demonstrates the situation at hand is as follows: 

The Obama Administration has effectively decriminalized waterboarding, torture, or war crimes by refusing to have the Department of Justice investigate or prosecute former Bush Administration officials who now boast openly about their involvement in committing war crimes. Advocacy groups have tried to have the lawyers involved in creating legal justification for torture disbarred but, given the lack of interest in following the country’s obligation under international law to investigate and prosecute torture or war crimes, the groups have been unsuccessful (perhaps, having their attempt to defend the rule of law labeled "left wing" by publications like the New York Times has something to do with their lack of success).

Guantanamo hasn't been closed and there is no evidence that it will be by the time President Obama begins his campaign for re-election. And, one can bet that when he is running there will be no movement on shutting down the prison, which is a blight on American democracy. He's "No Drama Obama," right?

Republicans will hoot and holler about how terrorists don't deserve to enjoy the rights and liberties that Americans get to enjoy. Oh, and Bush will get a Presidential Medal of Freedom. 

The country will continue to move forward without looking back. Justice is now an enigma. And those who show contempt for the rule of law, they will find themselves rewarded for having the balls to defy guidelines and violate human rights during a global and perpetual "war on terrorism."