Statement by Dr. Susan F. Hirsch at the sentencing of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani

This proceeding has been a long time coming. As a survivor of the bombing in Tanzania, and a widow of one of its victims, I was grateful for the opportunity to write a letter to Judge Kaplan to convey my thoughts about the sentencing of the defendant. Today, in reading parts of my letter, I offer my thoughts on several of the issues that Judge Kaplan is no doubt considering as he determines the appropriate punishment.

The jury’s verdict. In my estimation, the jury found Ghailani guilty of a very serious crime. Much has been made about the many counts on which the jury acquitted him. This has also concerned me; however, I respect their deliberations and their verdict. Based on what I learned during the first Embassy bombings trial about Ghailani’s culpability and the actions of his associates who are now serving life prison terms, my sense is that Ghailani should have been found guilty of additional crimes. Even though the jurors’ perspectives, not mine, are relevant here, I cannot help but believe that the quality of the evidence against Ghailani deteriorated during the years in which the U.S. government detained him but failed to bring him to justice, and that affected the jury’s verdict. My greatest frustration with respect to this case is that justice may have been compromised by the long delay. All that said, I repeat, Ghailani was found guilty of a very serious crime, and the sentence should reflect that fact.

The impact of the crime. I offer my own story of the crime’s impact less as a means to convince you that a particular sentence is appropriate than to take the opportunity offered to victims by the sentencing process to make a public record of our experiences. Just ten days shy of moving with my husband to the United States to start a new life together, I was running an errand in the Embassy in Dar es Salaam when the bomb exploded. I was near a back exit. I went down stairs and escaped from the building. I suffered only minor physical injuries. Then, as I realized where the bomb had detonated, my nightmare started. My husband, Abdulrahman Abdallah, a Kenyan citizen, had been standing very close to the explosion and eventually, after hours of frantic searching through hospitals, I learned that he had been killed. My late husband was well known in Mombasa, Kenya, and in Malindi where he lived. His life was guided by the Islamic ideals of kindness, charity, faith, mercy, and respect for life. Jamal’s death has been a terrible tragedy for his family and community, especially his three sons from a previous marriage--Ali, Mohamed, and Iqbal. They miss their father terribly; the loss of his guidance is a severe blow. I can only speak for myself and my family, but hundreds of families in East Africa, America, and other nations have similar tragic stories of death, injury, and loss of livelihood as a result of the defendant’s actions. My heart goes out to them. As you determine the appropriate punishment, please know that the impact of this crime on me will be lessened if I am convinced that Ghailani will be prevented from injuring others and will lose his liberty for a significant amount of time as punishment for an appalling and devastating crime.

The treatment of the defendant. As far as I could tell, the defendant received a fair trial and was assisted by a competent and vigorous defense. The defense team has asked that you consider Ghailani’s harsh treatment while in CIA custody as a factor justifying leniency in his sentence. How Ghailani was treated while in custody strikes me as an issue separate from whether he deserves a lesser sentence. Ghailani’s crime was deplorable, and his punishment should not be minimized because of the actions taken by others. Let me be clear here: those responsible for his torture engaged in reprehensible crimes, and it frustrates me that their actions have had the potential to taint this case from the beginning. But were you to follow the defense urgings, and accept Ghailani’s harsh treatment as a mitigating factor, those who might criticize your decision should not blame the civilian trial process for producing an inadequate result. Rather, they should acknowledge that the decision to detain and torture made by the previous Administration undermined our justice system.

The lessons conveyed by this trial. Trials are public, in part, because members of society are invited and expected to draw lessons from them. The first Embassy Bombings trial had so many such lessons that I was moved to spend the next several years writing a book about that trial from my perspective as a legal anthropologist and a participant. This trial also has lessons. Through it the public learned about the horrors of political violence, including the devastation of property and the suffering of individuals. This trial also offered a lesson about our nation’s ability to succeed in using civilian courts to bring those accused of terror crimes to justice. And to do so in manner that is fair and safe. I am grateful that Ghailani was found guilty in a court whose jurisdiction and procedures are, in contrast to those of the Military Commissions, recognizable, accessible, and less vulnerable to legal challenges.

Finally, this trial will offer a lesson about American resilience. This trial symbolizes our commitment to justice for those who carry out grave crimes and attests that our legal system can survive terror attacks, and misuse, and that we should continue to have faith in it.

Judge Kaplan, I look to you to make a fair and just decision that will appropriately hold Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani accountable for his terrible crimes.

Thank you.