Federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan barred the testimony of Hussein Abebe in the trial of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani for the 1998, Al Qaeda sponsored bombing of the U. S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya.

The CIA discovered Abebe through a statement given by Ghailani while being kept in a “black site” maintained by the CIA to interrogate detainees. Ghailani’s lawyers say that he was tortured into giving up Abebe’s name. While Judge Kaplan has not made a finding on whether or not torture was involved he said it was clear that Ghailani was coerced into giving up the name. United States courts have long held that evidence received by torture or coercion is inadmissible as evidence. Not only is evidence received as coerced testimony inadmissible but the fruits of such evidence is inadmissible. In other words prosecutors cannot use evidence directly related to coercion or torture. Evidence indirectly received may be admissible. For example if they received evidence of Adebe involvement from two sources, one coerced and the other not it might be admissible. But the only source in this case is the coerced testimony of Ghailani. Thus since Ghailani gave up the name of Abebe as a result of coercion, Abebe’s testimony is a fruit of the illegal interrogation and is inadmissible.

Not only is coerced testimony unreliable but the government should not be rewarded for the use of coercion or torture.

Abebe allegedly gave the dynamite to Ghailani, used in the bombing and his testimony is considered crucial to the government’s case.There is some fear that if the government is unable to convict Ghailani they will no longer use civilian trials to try those like Ghailani who are charged with terrorist crimes and housed at Guantanamo.

But Judge Kaplan said:

“But the Constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests. . . .We must follow it not only when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction. To do less would diminish us and undermine the foundation upon which we stand.”

However, he also said that even if Ghailani is found innocent he may be detained for the rest of his life as an enemy combatant. But the New York Times cites Ben Wizner, a senior lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, as saying that the conventional wisdom about the Ghailani case was that the justice system works if he is convicted and fails if he is acquitted.

“But that’s not how we measure the effectiveness of a criminal justice system,” Mr. Wizner said. “The question is whether the government can present its case and whether the defendant can get a fair trial.”

In fact the government may get a better win if Ghailani is found not guilty and released. This would show the world, and particularly the Muslim world, that this is a country of laws and that we only punish the guilty.

President Obama has authorized the capture or killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki is an American citizen, born in new Mexico of Yemeni parents. Allegedly he is a recruiter for al-Qaeda.

He may be the first American citizen placed on the targeted killing list. Although I’m not sure what difference it makes whether he is an American citizen or not. We are supposed to be a nation of law. The proper thing to do is to indict him, perhaps on treason charges, and ask the Yemeni government to arrest him and extradite him. This is the legal thing to do.

At this point he is in hiding in Yemen and neither the Yemeni government or the American government know exactly where he is. Though there are all sorts of rumors about his conduct and participation in al-Qaeda, I suspect the government wants to kill him because it does not have enough solid evidence to indict him.

The government will probably justify the killing of al-Awlaki by asserting that international law permits the killing of individuals who pose an imminent threat to a country and also it will point out that we are at war with al-Qaeda. But even if he poses an imminent threat and even if his killing would be permissible under international law it does not mean that we should kill him. We like to think of ourselves as a humane example to the rest of the world–as a nation that believes in the rule of law. Even if it is permissible under international law, it may not be permissible under out Constitution. Both the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require due process of law. The Fifth Amendment states in pertinent part:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger . . .

His killing may be justified under the Fifth Amendment as being in time of war. It would appear to me, however, that the Fifth Amendment allows for the killing of members of the military by court marshal without an indictment during war but not of US citizens who are not members of the military. But the sad fact is that the Courts will never get a chance to decide whether the killing is legal or not because he will not be indicted and charged.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani who is accused of participating in the 1998 bombing of the United States embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya in which 224 people were killed was transferred from Guantanamo to New York City where he will stand trial. He is the first person held in Guantanamo to be transported to the United States for trial. Immediately upon his arrival he was taken to the U. S. District Court where he entered a not guilty plea.

He was arrested five years ago in Pakistan and he has been held in Guantanamo for three years. Between the time of his arrest and his placement in Guantanamo Ghailani was kept in secret foreign CIA prisons.

He is accused of buying a truck used in the Dar Es Salaam bombing. It is also alleged that he bought and loaded explosives onto the vehicle. From 2001 to 2004 it is alleged that he worked as a forger, forging documents for Al Qaeda,

Wadih el-Hage, an American citizen was convicted in 1998 of conspiring with Al Qaeda to kill Americans. He is serving his sentence at a super secure prison in Florence, Alabama. In the same trial Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-’Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, and Mohammed Saddiq Odeh were convicted of murder in connection with the bombing of the embassies. they are also serving life terms.

Whatever happens Ghailani’s prosecution and trial must be carried out with the greatest transparency. In order to validate the trial in the eyes of the international community and in compliance with President Obama’s opening to the Muslim world the government should invite international observer including representatives from Muslim countries and representatives of Al Qaeda to observe the trial. The observers must be given the greatest latitude to view American jurisprudence. Furthermore Ghailani’s attorneys must be provided with all of the documents and discovery necessary for a vigorous and zealous defense. Not only will such efforts justify the trial in the eyes of the world community but it will prevent revengeful terrorist attacks on this nation if there is a conviction.

The government, according to The Daily Five indicted Al Saleh Kahlah al-Marri for allegedly giving material support to Al Qaeda. Al-Marri, a native of Qatar was arrested in the United States and imprisoned on a naval brig for 5 1/2 years. The Bush administration considered him an enemy combatant and refused to try him. His detention and imprisonment without being charged is currently set to be heard by the Supreme Court next month. Perhaps it is to avoid a Supreme Court decision that the Obama administration indicted him in Illinois.

Al-Marri first came to the United States to attend Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. He graduated in 1991 and returned to Qatar. He came back to the United State on September 10, 2001 with his family to get a graduate degree from Bradley. He was arrested by the government and held as a material witness in the 9/11 attack. He was indicted on credit card charges and for lying to the FBI. In 1993 President Bush declared him a enemy combatant and transferred him to military custody. Since then he has been held in a military brig off the coast of Charleston, South Carolina.

“This indictment is an important step toward restoring the rule of law and is exactly what should happen when the government suspects an individual of terrorist acts,” ACLU lawyer Jonathan Hafetz who represents him. Attorney General Eric Holder is quoted in thge New Yorker as saying: “This indictment is an important step toward restoring the rule of law and is exactly what should happen when the government suspects an individual of terrorist acts,”

In al-Marri’s habeas matter the government is trying to avoid a decision which may apply to other enemy combatant who may be arrested in the future while legally in this country by moving to dismiss the case in the Supreme Court as moot. Al-Merri is the only enemy combatant currently housed in the United States or who was in this county legally at the time of his arrest.