Jury hears opening statements in 1st civilian trial for Guantanamo Bay detainee
Opening statements have begun in the first civilian trial for a Guantanamo Bay detainee.
A Manhattan jury began hearing Tuesday from federal prosecutors in the case against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (AH’-mehd KAL’-fahn guh-LAHN’-ee).
Ghailani is charged in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The attacks killed 224 people, including a dozen Americans.
Ghailani has been accused of helping build bombs. He has pleaded not guilty and denied knowing that explosives he delivered would be used in the attacks.
Prosecutors decided to proceed without their top witness. A judge ruled last week that the man’s testimony that he sold explosives to Ghailani must be excluded. The government learned about him at a secret overseas CIA camp where harsh interrogations occurred.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.
NEW YORK (AP) — Complaints about security and its high costs forced the Obama administration to reconsider a decision to try the professed Sept. 11 mastermind in Manhattan, but the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo Bay detainee is moving ahead there anyway.
Opening statements are likely to begin Tuesday with experts divided over whether the terrorism trial of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani should open the door to a civilian trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others held at Guantanamo Bay or slam it shut. Attorney General Eric Holder announced last November that Mohammed would be tried in Manhattan, only to later withdraw the plans after critics said trying him there would tax the city emotionally and come at great security cost.
Ghailani, 36, is charged with conspiring with others including Osama bin Laden to blow up two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998. The attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. If convicted, Ghailani could face life in prison.
Prosecutors will proceed without their top witness after U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled last week that the man’s testimony that he sold explosives to Ghailani must be excluded because the government only learned about him after Ghailani was interrogated at a secret overseas CIA camp after his 2004 arrest where harsh interrogations occurred.
Ghailani, a Tanzanian, was arrested in Pakistan. The government has chosen not to use statements he made after his arrest at trial, unless Ghailani testifies. Ghailani has been accused by the government of being a bomb maker, document forger and aide to bin Laden. He has denied knowing that TNT and oxygen tanks he delivered would be used to make a bomb.
Losing some evidence against Guantanamo detainees is a hazard the government must weigh in its quest to try them in civilian courts, experts say.
Fordham Law professor Annemarie McAvoy, a former federal prosecutor with expertise in terrorist financing, said Ghailani’s trial could cause Congress to review how civilian trial rules are applied.
“Nobody really knows what the right thing to do is. We’ve never been in this situation before,” she said, noting she supports military tribunals over trials. “This is an evolving process that hasn’t reached a point yet that is perfect. That’s for sure. There’ll be some false starts, changes in legislation. It all takes time.”
She added: “If anybody walks away without a conviction, we will, as a country, look horribly inept.”
Barry Mawn, who retired after leading New York’s FBI office at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said he thinks where detainees are tried should be decided on a case-by-case basis. He said it makes sense to try Ghailani in court because the evidence was gathered with an eye toward prosecuting the case.
Aitan Goelman, a former federal terrorism prosecutor now in private practice in Washington, predicted the Ghailani case will impact where other Guantanamo detainees will be tried.
“If something goes dramatically wrong, that could be relatively devastating,” Goelman said. He said the government needs to establish clear rules about the circumstances under which detainees will be tried in civilian courts.
Laura Pitter, a counterterrorism adviser for Human Rights Watch, said she and others from the organization will be monitoring the trial, which she called a test case to see if detainees arrested after the Sept. 11 attacks should be tried in civilian courts.
“We think Guantanamo should be closed and U.S. courts can and should handle these cases,” she said. “We can’t create a new system to try these people because we can’t get a conviction in a correct system. … The United States needs to show that it can and will try even people accused of the worst crimes in a fair system.”
The Ghailani trial is the second trial in Manhattan to stem from the embassy bombings. Four men convicted at a 2001 trial are serving life sentences.
Federal court in Manhattan has hosted more than a half-dozen major terrorism trials since the Feb. 26, 1993, World Trade Center bombing that killed six people. The trials have resulted in convictions for those charged in plots including that bombing, a 1993 plot to blow up five New York landmarks and a 1995 plot to blow up 12 U.S. airliners over the Far East, among others.
Just last week, Faisal Shahzad was sentenced to life in prison for trying to blow up a homemade car bomb in Times Square on May 1. This week, a jury continues deliberations in the trial of four men accused of plotting to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Bronx and to shoot Stinger surface-to-air guided missiles at military planes.
William Barr made it clear this week that he’d sign off on a sham investigation into the Dems’ 2020 nominee
Welcome to another edition of What Fresh Hell?, Raw Story’s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime, but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls, unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House.
A perfect storm propelled New York's sleaziest real estate developer to an Electoral College victory in 2016 despite winning three million fewer votes than his opponent, but Nate Silver made a compelling argument that the letter James Comey sent to Congress just 11 days before Election Day announcing that the FBI was re-opening its probe into Hillary Clinton's emails was decisive.
Bill Barr is serving notice to DOJ officials that he’ll ruin them if they investigate Trump: MSNBC host
An MSNBC discussion about Bill Barr running interference within the Justice Department for Donald Trump ended with "AM Joy" host Joy Reid suggesting that the attorney general's very public "media blitz" over the so-called "Horowitz Report" is a warning shot to anyone in the DOJ who thinks about investigating the president.
As Reid explained it, "He did a whole TV blitz to basically say that his own agency, the FBI, was spying on the Trump campaign, something that the inspector general said did not happen."
Reid took that to its logical conclusion.
"Now he’s saying, ‘Well, I’ve got a different report that’s going to find the motivations’ that he’s basically saying are bad motivations by people in the FBI. And if you’re that FBI agent and then you hear that Donald Trump may be again looking for foreign help and maybe again getting help from Russia or forcing help from Ukraine, what do you do?" she asked. "Would you then not be concerned that, should you go ahead and investigate foreign interference in our election, that William Barr may come after you?"
Stefanik voters turning on GOP lawmaker after she threw away her credibility to defend Trump
Over the course of the impeachment hearings, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) has gone from a relative backbencher who sells herself as a moderate to voters in Upstate New York, to a theatrical partisan grandstanding for President Donald Trump and a top target of ire from Democrats.
But according to Politico, at least some of her voters appear turned off by her new stance.
"While Stefanik once able to strike a delicate balance between her Republican identity and her positions on issues like climate change, some think those earlier convictions are gone, like Phillip Paige, a former Stefanik backer and a member of SUNY Potsdam’s College Republicans," wrote Politico's Anna Gronewald. "A native of the 21st district’s Madrid, New York, Paige said he started to lose faith in Stefanik when she began supporting Trump as the party’s nominee in 2016. Paige supported John Kasich’s candidacy in that election. 'A lot of her boots-on-the-ground young Republican crowd has really become quite disillusioned,' he said. 'We saw her as what we thought the future of the Republican Party was and that really has been disproven. Unless, maybe the future of the Republican party is Donald Trump.'"