Bad call

From the start, the Obama administration made a weak case for trying terror suspects in civilian courts. Last week's acquittal of Ahmed Ghailani on 284 of 285 counts in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania only confirms the folly of that approach.

The mystery is not why a jury reached that verdict. The mystery is why Attorney General Eric Holder thought it was worth the trouble to find out what a jury would do.

In practical terms, it wouldn't necessarily have mattered if the defendant had been found guilty on all counts. ...

The administration assumed it had a slam-dunk case. It was surprised when the judge barred testimony from the key witness because the government had found out about him only by its harsh interrogation of Ghailani. Deprived of that evidence, prosecutors faced a much tougher fight.

Some of Holder's critics accuse him of dangerous recklessness in refusing to try Ghailani before a military tribunal. But there is no guarantee that a tribunal would have allowed the evidence either. ...

At any rate, Holder's decision didn't put national security at risk because the defendant was assured of remaining behind bars no matter what the outcome. His conviction entitles him to a long stay in prison. An acquittal would have sent him back to Gitmo indefinitely.

The essence of a trial, in civilian or military court, is that it requires the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt or let the defendant go free. If the latter option is off the table - as it was and should have been for Ghailani - putting on a trial is a pointless waste of time and money. Even Holder should be able to see that now.

- Chicago Tribune