Gitmo Detainee Acquitted Of 284 Terror Charges, Guilty Of One

A 2009 courtroom sketch of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (Elizabeth Williams/AP)

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who was detained in Guatanamo Bay for his alleged bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa and then moved to NYC for a civilian trial, was found not guilty on 284 terror-related charges and guilty of just one. The New York Law Journal reports, "Clearing the Tanzanian native of four conspiracies and the murder of 224 people in the near-simultaneous bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on Aug. 7, 1998, the jury in Judge Lewis A. Kaplan's courtroom shocked prosecutors and defense lawyers alike with its verdict."

The one count that jurors did find the 36-year-old guilty of was "conspiracy to destroy buildings and property of the United States by means of an explosive," and the jury said that they did find Ghailani's conduct "directly or proximately caused death to a person other than a co-conspirator." The government's case lost its legs when Judge Kaplan ruled against the use of major prosecution witness, who claimed he sold Ghailani the TNT. The government found out about the witness during the CIA's interrogation of Ghailani; Ghailani's lawyers claimed that he was tortured at the time.

Ghailani's lawyers also argued their client was duped into the terrorist conspiracy, and after the verdict, Peter Quijano said, "This verdict is a reaffirmation that this nation’s judicial system is the greatest ever devised. It is truly a system of laws and not men, where, in the shadow of the World Trade Center, this jury acquitted Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani of 284 out of 285 counts." His lawyers (one of whom is named Steve Zissou) are also planning to appeal the lone guilty verdict.

The Justice Department said, "We respect the jury's verdict and are pleased that Ahmed Ghailani now faces a minimum of 20 years in prison and a potential life sentence." Still, as the NY Times reports, "The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists," and the Post calls this a "stunning setback" for the Obama Administration.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on November 18, 2010 9:00 AM

Comments [rss]

nik13

All he killed were a bunch of Kenyans. Still, one would think The Won's administration would feel more sympathetic to their boss' homeland. Holder is one cold SOB.

potsmoker

it was a BS case since the beginning, ameriKKKA at its finest

jpeditor

"ameriKKKA at its finest"

Wow, you must really be smoking shit non-stop- sound iike you are REALLY now ready for the PSYCHO WARD.

dgeee

When are they putting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice on trial?

jpeditor

When they put both the Clintons, Kerry, Albright and the rest of the Dems on trial WHO SAID IRAQ HAD WMD.
And then you and the rest of the stupid Left will go in the dock for AIDING ISLAMIC JIHAD.

Tuna Loaf

You provide the world with so much joy and insight, jpeditor. Please, don't go die...

jpeditor

Make sure you're wearing a brightly colored helmet when you bring on your "revolution" (Just so you won't be missed).

Homer2323

Its a sad day in America when citizens, with no reasonable suspicion, are molested by government employees. A week after 9/11 nobody had to put up with this, why now? Its security theater and a total joke. None of it makes anyone any safer, safer from a threat that almost doesnt exist. I mean really? This is what we have to do to get on an airplane? Really?

Can somebody please tell me when the last time a person walked down a jetway at a US airport and walked onto a plane with a gun or explosive device. Tell me when that was.

SonofTheSniper

Anybody remember how the 9-11 "hijackers" got the box cutters on the plane?

chuzzlewit

not guilty!

get him a red cap and a speedo.

capitalist

What was that Eddie Murphy movie? "Welcome to America!"

After his lawsuit & retribution money, you can thank yourselves for a job well done & pay for his welfare & that of his (future) baby-mama.

God (or in this case, Allah) Bless America.

Tuna Loaf

Hands Off My Medicare!!!Patriot!!!Welfare Queens!!!Racist Dog Whistle!!!Morans!!!Nazis!!!Socialists!!!TOSS IT TOWARD THE WALL, SEE WHAT STICKS!!!

SP's Ghost

what the hell are you talking about? You are making no sense.

Politburo

It's a sad day when the administration of justice pursuant to the Constitution is considered a political "setback".

As for whether civilian courts are appropriate, we know they are. The WTC bombers were convicted in a civilian court, as were Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and 4 other conspirators in the embassy bombings.

The courts aren't the problem here. The problem is the tactics that the Bush Administration used.

cmdrogogov

well, the rag that published the "setback" line isn't fit for wiping your bottom with, and so can be safely disregarded.

spnder

"the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists."

Well, if you want predictable results, i.e. guilty verdicts, then you know how to get them. But if you want justice and fairness, the fundamental guiding principals that are the supposed bedrock of this nation, then you're going to have to deal with people making decisions that aren't necessarily to your liking.

Listen, this country has had no problem suspending constitutional right and bending judicial processes when we see fit (See Japanese internment and Nuremberg trials), but you can't have it both ways. Not without a lot of spin, and we know that this administration is not so up on the spin part.

Mordicai

Right? It is only an unsatisfactory outcome if you presume the guy is guilty, rather than innocent-- & I think I remember reading something about that, somewhere...

Mike

How do you NOT presume this man is guilty on everything?

He transported supplies and conversed regularly with known terrorists.

He was convicted of one charge, conspiracy to destroy U.S. property...but not the human beings inside the U.S. property? Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand basic concepts.

I don't care what any "liberal" says...this case is a disgrace to our judicial system.

SonofTheSniper

of course, being guilty until proven innocent is *generally* a right we give to U.S. CITIZENS. This guy is not a US citizen, therefore following civilian trial rules make about as much sense trying to deposit monopoly money at Chase.

Mordicai

I hear you, actually-- I think the ethical underpinnings of "innocent until guilty" are something that SHOULD be extended, but I am way less touchy about stuff like this than I am about the infringement of citizen's rights. The problem is, one often leads to the next.