Justice was served in Ghailani case

Those who never thought terrorists should be put on trial in civilian courts are now claiming vindication in the partial acquittal of a Tanzanian man accused in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. It’s nothing of the sort. The exoneration of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani on 276 counts of murder and attempted murder, and his conviction on a single conspiracy count that could lead to life imprisonment, instead demonstrate the deliberateness and fairness of civilian justice.

The danger is that President Obama will overlook that fact amid the din from critics such as Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who said the verdict “demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama administration’s decision to try Al Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.” Even before the Ghailani verdict, the administration had been equivocating about its announced intention to hold civilian trials for Al Qaeda suspects, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the professed architect of the 9/11 attacks.

The president needs to remind himself of the arguments for civilian trials. First, they show the world that even those accused of the most heinous crimes will receive the full protections of American law. Second, civilian courts have proved that they are fully capable of handling terrorism trials, whereas military commissions — the alternative preferred by the president’s critics — remain largely untested.

Critics believe that a trial before a military commission would have led to Ghailani’s conviction on additional counts. That’s possible, but far from a sure thing. For example, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan excluded the testimony of a government witness who would have testified that he sold explosives to Ghailani that were used in the embassy bombings. The judge said the testimony couldn’t be used because prosecutors learned of the existence of the witness only as a result of coerced statements taken from Ghailani in a CIA prison. That certainly made it more difficult to convict Ghailani, but if the coercion amounted to “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,” a military commission also would have had to exclude the testimony.

Some people argue that civilian trials for detainees such as Mohammed might prove pointless because, even after acquittal, they could continue to be held in military detention. But the same would be true after an acquittal by a military commission. If accused terrorists are to be tried — and they should be — the case against them should be put before ordinary citizens in a fair and transparent process. We’re confident that acquittals in that setting would cast doubt on the need for continued detention.

After the decision was made last year to try Mohammed in a civilian court, Obama said that the defendant would be “subject to the most exacting demands of justice.” So should the government when it puts accused terrorists on trial.