[scottw]

this case was supposed to be a "test case" for future trials....

The first detainee from Guanatamo Bay to be tried in U.S. civilian court has been acquitted on all but one of the more than 280 charges he faced for his alleged role in the coordinated terror bombings of two U.S. embassies overseas.
A jury convicted Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani Wednesday on just one count of conspiracy for the 1998 al Qaeda car bomb attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania — attacks that killed 224. Prosecutors had alleged that Ghailani helped an al-Qaeda cell purchase a truck and components for explosives used in the suicide attack.
“This is Ahmed Ghailani. This is Al Qaeda. This is a terrorist. This is a killer,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Chernoff said in closing arguments.On Wednesday, Ghailani was acquitted on all 276 murder and attempted murder accounts, as well as five other conspiracy charges.
After deliberating for five days, the jury returned with a guilty verdict on just one conspiracy count, a minor charge for “conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property with explosives.”



Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee under questioning from Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat:

Kohl: Mr. Holder, last week you announced that the department will bring to Guantanamo [sic in transcript] detainees accused of planning the 9/11 attacks to trial in federal court in New York, as we've talked about this morning. On Friday you said that you'd not have authorized prosecution if you were not confident that the outcome would be successful. However, many critics have offered their own predictions about how such a trial might well play out.
One concern we have heard from critics of your decision is that the defendants could get off on legal technicalities, in which case these terrorists would walk free. Does this scenario have any merit? If not, why? And in the worst case scenario that the trial does not result in a conviction, what would be your next steps?

Holder: Many of those who have criticized the decision--and not all--but many of those who have criticized the decision have done so, I think, from a position of ignorance. They have not had access to the materials that I have had access to.
They've not had a chance to look at the facts, look at the applicable laws and make the determination as to what our chances of success are. I would not have put these cases in Article III courts if I did not think our chances of success were not good--in fact, if I didn't think our chances of success were enhanced by bringing the cases there. My expectation is that these capable prosecutors from the Justice Department will be successful in the prosecution of these cases.

Kohl: But taking into account that you never know what happens when you walk into a court of law, in the event that for whatever reason they do not get convicted, what would be your next step? I'm sure you must have talked about it.

Holder: What I told the prosecutors and what I will tell you and what I spoke to them about is that failure is not an option. Failure is not an option. This--these are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result.