New York’s First Guantanamo Trial – Defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Seeks Dismissal of Charges on Constitutional Grounds

Ghailani Invokes Constitution once on U.S. Soil - image Time Online

Ahmed Kalfan Ghailani, the first defendant from Guantanamo to be tried in New York is seeking a dismissal of all charges based on the U.S. Constitution. Ghailani, held in Guantanamo for his help in plotting attacks on U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, which resulted 224 deaths, believes all 308 charges against him should be dismissed because his Constitutional rights were violated. Indicted in 1998, Ghaliani’s lawyers argue: ( Source AFP)

“Our government made the conscious and deliberate decision to sequester him in solitary confinement in secret prisons for over two years, subjecting him to what are euphemistically referred to as 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' even though he had a pending indictment," the filing said.
His lawyers add that the US government sought to turn Ghailani "into an intelligence asset which our government could rely upon in the defense of our nation."
The government's decision to risk violating Ghailani's right to speedy trial in order to gain intelligence from him must have "consequences," the lawyers added.
"Those consequences must be severe when the means and methods used by the government to reach their goal included the systematic physical and psychological abuse of the defendant, abuse so abhorrent that the government must rely upon a claim of national security as a justification for the interrogation techniques that were employed," the lawsuit said.

Stunning.

A non-U.S. citizen, a terrorists, who successfully plotted to murder U.S. citizens, caught and imprisoned outside of the United States, is now claiming rights under the U.S. Constitution, based solely on his transfer to U.S. soil. In 2007 Ghailani faced a military tribunal in which he acknowledged his guilt The military tribunals which took place on Guantanamo should have been sufficient; the fact that his defense team is citing the U.S. government’s attempts to turn Mr. Ghailani into an “intelligence asset” in order to prevent further attacks on U.S. Citizens as a “violation” of his “rights” is, in a word, insane.

Let the Insanity Begin

The decision by the Obama Administration to try these confirmed and admitted terrorists on U.S. soil, as Ghailani’s legal team so smartly quipped, will have consequences. This particular trial is under scrutiny as the transfer and subsequent trial of the five September 11th conspirators, including Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, who admitted guilt before the tribunals, will, in all likelihood, use the same defense.

Although the administration remains confident that a conviction is likely, there are no guarantees. The defense is using the 6th and 14th Amendments as a basis for their filings:

The 6th Amendment (Cornell)

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

and the 14th Amendment, (FindLaw)

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution, in general, clearly refers to those born or naturalized within the United States - not enemy combatants. Therefore, due process, applies only to those born or naturalized within the boundaries of the United States. (Applied as a strict constructionist)

Will it matter when these transferred terrorists face a jury of their “peers”?

Hardly.

The Constitution, is a document that is often seen by those more liberal in thought as a fluid document, open to interpretation (see current administration), to use, or to toss to the wayside, as it best suits any given situation. However, those who view the document as the very foundation upon which our nation was founded, and guidelines included therein, are timeless, and as appropriate today as they were when first penned.

These detainees were given due process through the use of Military Tribunals and their cases all pertained to war and acts of war. It is therefore, not guaranteed that those cases moved to New York City, will have a “favorable” outcome for those the United States and specifically for those who were victimized directly (both in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, as well as embassies around the world).

Note: Only one source has reported on this particular piece since the AFP broke the story last evening – see Breitbart.com