The conviction of terrorist Ahmed Ghailani in New York this week is a resounding reaffirmation of the principle of trial by jury in the criminal justice system and the capability of juries to weigh the evidence put before them and arrive at a fair verdict.
Unlike the military commission trials held at Guantánamo, this trial was run by the books. Ghailani was convicted on the basis of untainted evidence, under time-tested rules of cross-examination and in an open court where everyone, including the news media, could witness the proceedings in an unfettered manner.
Compare that to Guantánamo, where the rules are constantly changing and capriciously applied. Where ``evidence'' is often censored. Where the press and public have no standing.
The Ghailani case is significant because he is the first former Guantánamo detainee tried in civilian court. The 36-year-old Tanzanian was convicted of conspiracy to destroy government buildings in al Qaeda's 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed 224 people and maimed thousands.
After his capture in 2004, he was held at a CIA ``black site'' until a move to Guantánamo in 2006. That secret detention delayed his being brought to justice by up to five years and complicated the case by forcing prosecutors to decide which evidence was untainted by that detour.
Even so, a conviction is a conviction. Ghailani faces 20 years to life in prison, most likely the latter. As Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., outgoing chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, put it: ``I don't care how bad you are, we can still put you on trial and if the evidence warrants a conviction you'll get it.''
Sadly, many Republicans disagree, pointing to the jury's decision to acquit on most other charges as reason to question the traditional system of jurisprudence. ``We put our nation at risk by criminalizing the war,'' said Sen. Lindsey Graham.
To read the complete editorial, visit www.miamiherald.com.