|
Much of the evidence against the defendant was obtained with the understanding that the man would have been tried as an enemy combatant. When it was moved to the civil courts essential evidence was deemed inadmissible. Had this been declared a civil issue from the start the methods of interrogation would have, no doubt, been different. Perhaps the same incriminating information would have been gleaned from that. As it stands it's the lack of admissible evidence that saw the dropping of the charges.
The tragedy is that changing the rules of the game only served to negate bodies of evidence that had been gathered and prevent key witnesses from testimony. It's not on the weight of evidence but by the explicit lack of admissible evidence that the verdict was reached.
The tragedy is that Obama didn't understand this would happen when a previously military tribunal is suddenly transferred to a civil court.
The tragedy is that Obama wanted to use this case to prove to the world that such a case can be tried in a civilian court with clear convictions in, what his administration deemed to be a clearly guilty individual i.e. a "show trial." The administration's embarrassment over the verdict makes it all the more poignant.
The tragedy is that a case like this sets a precedent for other cases to follow - and that, should further civilian trials of terrorist suspects from Guantanamo continue, similar outcomes and even outright acquittals can be expected.
Regardless of what you might think of how suspects were treated at Guantanamo this particular case would have been better served in military tribunal.
In the long run you can argue that this outcome will improve the treatment of suspected terrorists in the future. I grant you that. But here and today we run the risk exonerating many people who remain a potential threat to the US and the world. And that is clearly a tragedy.
__________________
"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence." - Mahatma Ghandi
|