...[D]espite repeated questioning, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to answer whether the Obama administration will free Ahmed Ghailani if he's found not guilty in court. The Obama administration flew the accused terrorist from Guantanamo to New York yesterday [June 9] to try him for his alleged role in the 1998 embassy bombings.
“I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about how certain cases may or may not play out,” Gibbs said.
The question is important on several levels. If he will be freed, that prompts questions of national security and whether civilian courts are as appropriate as other venues for such trials. If he won't be freed despite being found not guilty that undermines the credibility of the trial,Again, what is the end game for those taking on these cases? How does that make the country more safe? Aren't there many other worthy causes these lawyers handle that don't involve individuals who have taken up arms against the U.S. or other countries? As Peter Collier and/or David Horowitz once observed, it appears that the freedom of America is being used to undermine America's freedom.