PrintNovember 18, 2010
The Folly of Civilian Trials for Terrorists Demonstrated
It's hard to resist the impulse to say to Eric Holder, "We told you so." Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, accused of complicity in the Al Qaeda embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, was acquitted on 284 of 285 counts in his civilian trial. Of course it was Obama's man Holder who insisted that the Bush policy of military tribunal trials had to change, and that giving terrorists access to all the rights of US citizens would showcase our system of justice, and somehow persuade Islamists to love us. Well, they do love being able to kill us and escape the consequences.
The key in this case appears to be the civilian court doctrine of the "fruit of a poison tree" -- meaning that evidence which came to light as the result of an activity forbidden in civilian court cannot be used. Thus, a witness whose name was uncovered as a result of coercive interrogation could not give testimony.
Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Contentions sums it up:
Once again, the Obama team has revealed itself to be entirely incompetent and has proved, maybe even to themselves, the obvious: the Bush administration had it right. And in fact, maybe we should do away with both civilian trials and military tribunals and just hold these killers until hostilities end. You know, like they do in wars.
It is time for Holder to resign, having staked his credibility on civilian trials, as failed strategy. If he persists in his madness by trying the 9/11 conspirators in New York, he should be impeached.
