Embassy Bombings Widow Gratified by Ghailani Trial Moving Forward
EmailSusan Hirsch, a college professor from Donora, Penn., and her husband, a Kenyan citizen named Abdurrahman Abdullah, were running an errand at the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on August 7, 1998.
Hirsch, a Fulbright scholar at the time, was inside the embassy cashing a check. Her husband was outside waiting in the car.
The truck bomb killed her husband, likely immediately. He was 38.
Last month, President Obama announced that the US government would be bringing to the US from Guantanamo one of the terrorists wanted in the embassy bombings, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian national held at Guantanamo Bay since September 2006. This morning, the Obama administration announced that Ghailani was coming to the US to be tried.
The news brought relief to Hirsch, who sat through the 2001 trial of four others in the 1998 bombings: Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, and Wadih el Hage.
She wrote a book about her experience, “In the Moment of Greatest Calamity: Terrorism, Grief and a Victim’s Quest for Justice.”
“I’m relieved that we’re finally moving forward,” she told ABC News, responding to today’s news.
“It’s really, really important to me that anyone we have in custody accused of acts related to the deaths of my husband and others be held accountable for what they have done,” Hirsch says. “Having sat through that original trial I know there was credible evidence against this individual.” She says she wants to see Ghailani tried, presented with evidence against him, able to provide a defense, and subjected to a jury’s decision.
“To me that would be justice,” she says.
Hirsch says she is “pained” by concerns that President Bush’s detainee policies might have compromised the case against Ghailani.
“Because of the things that have happened through the previous administration it does make it more difficult to have a trial that eventually holds him accountable,” Hirsch says. “There will be many challenges to the prosecution by the defense, because of the years of his detention, the conditions he was subjected to, and the likelihood that he’s been tortured.” (Hirsch acknowledges that she doesn’t know that Ghailani’s been tortured, but says she assumes that to be the case because of claims by other detainees.)
Still, she says, she’s “willing to go through with those concerns because it’s important to return to the rule of law.” She also says the trial proceeding brings the US “one step closer to closing Guantanamo,” which she says has damaged the reputation of the US and made Americans less safe.
And what if Ghailani is found not guilty? Would she be okay with him being released? With the Obama administration keeping him in custody regardless of the verdict?
Hirsch says she feels confident the Obama administration would not have brought this case to a criminal court so quickly if they weren’t confident they could win it.
But a not guilty verdict would be “very troubling” to her, she says. “I’m not fully aware of what alternative there is to this court.” She says she does not support the “indefinite detention of someone who’s not been convicted in a recognizable system of justice,” and would have to see what President Obama’s construct of a military commission is. She didn’t approve of President Bush’s version.
Still she says she’s confident Ghailani will be convicted because of eyewitness testimony from the 2001 trial identifying Ghailani from a photograph.
“It’s gratifying to me at the end to see people held accountable,” she said.
She rejects some of the rhetoric coming from Republicans expressing concern about the physical safety of Americans with Ghailani being brought to the US. “I have some trust in the NYPD” from the 2001 trial, she says. “They’re just raising fear and alarm. There’s a lot more to be afraid of when we have Guantanamo open.”
-jpt
Related Links
Gitmo Detainee Brought to NYC for Trial
EXCLUSIVE: Recently Released Gitmo Detainee Talks to ABC News
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
How soon until she’s attacked like the Jersey Girls were.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 9, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
How long until liberals say she will be “attacked” for her position?
Posted by: WWW | June 9, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
We feel for criminals who must wait for due process.. here is a story about a victim of a crime.. her wait has been every bit as grueling and she will never recoup the loss of her loved one..
Good story (I don’t say that very often).
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 9, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
How will she feel if the terrorist gets off on a technicality and goes free in NYC?
Posted by: Terry | June 9, 2009, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm
(Hirsch acknowledges that she doesn’t know that Ghailani’s been tortured, but says she assumes that to be the case because of claims by other detainees.)
Get used to it Ms. Hirsch, I hear its all the rage with detainee defense lawyers. No proof is necessary and anything goes. If they served potatoes, that could be torture, feeding them tons of carbs and sitting in a cell. Poor buggars. No crime should be considered after that.
Posted by: KR | June 9, 2009, 3:49 pm 3:49 pm
“I hear its all the rage with detainee defense lawyers. No proof is necessary and anything goes.”
And we can thank the lying Bush admin for destroying the credibility we should have enjoyed in these proceedings
Posted by: Ryan C | June 9, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
“And we can thank the lying Bush admin for destroying the credibility we should have enjoyed in these proceedings.”
Yeah, sure. Hey I hear Fidel Castro is still looking for that Hurricane machine that Bush built. He is asking Obama to hand it over or have it destroyed.
Posted by: KR | June 9, 2009, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
William Ayers admits to planting several bombs in his memior, Fugitive Days. He never served one day because his a rich white man.
Posted by: Colonel Rebel | June 9, 2009, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
“Because of the things that have happened through the previous administration it does make it more difficult to have a trial that eventually holds him accountable,” Hirsch says. “There will be many challenges to the prosecution by the defense, because of the years of his detention, the conditions he was subjected to, and the likelihood that he’s been tortured.” (Hirsch acknowledges that she doesn’t know that Ghailani’s been tortured, but says she assumes that to be the case because of claims by other detainees.)
=================
Why didn’t she just stop herself from saying this?
She may have her suspicions of the previous administration, but they are the ones that caught this guy.
Anyway, I hope the results of the trial are satisfactory for her. That isn’t the goal of our justice system (satisfaction of the victims), but I do hope she is satisfied and perhaps even comforted in the end.
Posted by: MayBee | June 9, 2009, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
KR:”No proof is necessary and anything goes. If they served potatoes, that could be torture, feeding them tons of carbs and sitting in a cell. Poor buggars. No crime should be considered after that. ”
This wasn’t a problem at all when terrorists were tried in US courts in the past (such as the first Trade Center bombing). There is no question that Bush’s penchant for short cuts and utter disdain for any long term planning has seriously hurt America’s ability to deal with these suspects in any respectable manner. The Founding Fathers did not set up protections of criminal suspects on a whim, there is a reason they exist.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 9, 2009, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
MayBee:”Why didn’t she just stop herself from saying this?
She may have her suspicions of the previous administration, but they are the ones that caught this guy.”
Her statement was entirely factual, why shouldn’t she express her dismay at governmental incompetence? Frankly, I am impressed at her restraint. I would probably be a seething irrational wreck in the equivalent situation.
“Because of the things that have happened through the previous administration it does make it more difficult to have a trial that eventually holds him accountable,” Hirsch says. “There will be many challenges to the prosecution by the defense, because of the years of his detention, the conditions he was subjected to, and the likelihood that he’s been tortured.”
Posted by: jhw539 | June 9, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
I think he will get off. Mr. Obama admitted himself that we have tortured. He also has basically admitted that abuse has taken place in Guantanamo, otherwise why would he close it after so much money has been invested. I’m sure there are any number of smart NY lawyers that can get this guy off. Will he be given a green card after he is released so he can sue Bushco and the US Govt for torture, false imprisonment, etc. Sounds crazy, but let’s see how it plays out.
Posted by: Terry | June 9, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
How will she feel if the terrorist gets off on a technicality and goes free in NYC?
Posted by: Terry | Jun 9, 2009 3:41:45 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even if he is found innocent, he will not be free to roam in NYC; he will be deported or held until he can be deported. Stop the fearmongering.
Posted by: swat68 | June 9, 2009, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
jhw: Frankly, I am impressed at her restraint. I would probably be a seething irrational wreck in the equivalent situation.
============
Ah, so you too would take the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
Posted by: MayBee | June 9, 2009, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
Hi swat68,
How are you so sure he will be deported? If he chooses to fight deportation, he will be given a trial for that. What would be the basis for deporting him? He was just found not guilty of any crime the Gov’t chose to prosecute. He did not sneak in illegally, he was kidnapped abroad and brought here against his will. He would have every expectation of remaining in the country to pursue indemnification under the tort system.
Posted by: Terry | June 9, 2009, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm
“William Ayers admits to planting several bombs in his memior, Fugitive Days. He never served one day because his a rich white man.”
He was never charged mostly because of illegal activities by the FBI via CONINTELPRO.
Apparently right wingers relive history as opposed to learning from it.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 9, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
Hi Ryan C
So then you support bringing here for trial?
Posted by: Terry | June 9, 2009, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm
“Hi Ryan C
So then you support bringing here for trial?”
Yes.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 9, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
Hi Ryan C
So then if he gets off, that’s a good thing because …
Posted by: Terry | June 9, 2009, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
“So then if he gets off, that’s a good thing because …”
Its not a good thing.
But if we abandon our principles when its hard why bother having them in the first place.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 9, 2009, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
“This wasn’t a problem at all when terrorists were tried in US courts in the past (such as the first Trade Center bombing). There is no question that Bush’s penchant for short cuts and utter disdain for any long term planning has seriously hurt America’s ability to deal with these suspects in any respectable manner.”
Unlawful combatants and military tribunals was the answer, not police action in our courts. It’s funny how the left screamed that we wouldnt go back to where we were, treating terror like a police activity, yet here we lay. They aren’t terrorists, they are man-created-disasters. Its not a war, its overseas contingency operations. We are on our way right back where we started, wait for the fecies to hit the fan and before you can do anything. Isn’t that how crime works in the US? Just because a man threatens to kill his wife doesn’t mean anything until he takes actions do so?
“The Founding Fathers did not set up protections of criminal suspects on a whim, there is a reason they exist.”
The founding fathers did not set up our constitution for foreign combatants. I’m glad you call them criminals and thus, a police and court matter because thats exactly how Clinton had things set up, and that worked out well. At least we know where the left want to go with terrorism. And people have the audacity to question this tactic as making the US safer?
Posted by: KR | June 9, 2009, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
“Unlawful combatants and military tribunals was the answer,”
No, they weren’t since the Bush admin made no distinction between guys grabbed from actual battlefields to guys snatched up for their terrorism activities.
So the Supremes ruled against them.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 9, 2009, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
“No, they weren’t since the Bush admin made no distinction between guys grabbed from actual battlefields to guys snatched up for their terrorism activities.”
Whats the distinction?
Posted by: KR | June 9, 2009, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm
Whats the distinction?
Posted by: KR
a non-combatant could be caught in a city, or running from an area where there is fighting and easily be assumed to be part of the ‘enemy’.. many ended up in Abu Ghraib that way….
re: ‘a police and court matter because thats exactly how Clinton had things set up, and that worked out well. ‘
and exactly how many Bush ‘detainees’ and prisoners were successfully brought to trial and
convicted?
Posted by: ^-||-^ | June 9, 2009, 6:39 pm 6:39 pm
I’m sure there are any number of smart NY lawyers that can get this guy off. Will he be given a green card after he is released so he can sue Bushco and the US Govt for torture, false imprisonment, etc. Sounds crazy
Posted by: Terry
‘sounds crazy?’ …. nahhhhhh
remember,…. that not only will the terrorists be set free, to be given homes from displaced American families, they will also get welfare and a medical plan with food stamps,, but they will also be given the address of all those who have firearms,.. so they can come get your guns before you are taken to the FEMA re-education camps
Posted by: ^-||-^ | June 9, 2009, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm
So, if he is not guilty and released, can he be immediately deported?
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 9, 2009, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
“a non-combatant could be caught in a city, or running from an area where there is fighting and easily be assumed to be part of the ‘enemy’.. many ended up in Abu Ghraib that way…”
How is this a distinction from terrorism and combatants captured on the battlefield? What is this pre-occupation about the military randomly snatching people up? You think our military has the time to just walk around going “hey, you there, get in the HMV, you could be a bad guy”?? You folks really have no concept of war and military operations.
“and exactly how many Bush ‘detainees’ and prisoners were successfully brought to trial and
convicted?”
Again, your treating foriegn, unlawful combatants like they should be on peoples court. Yes, they have a right a trial, but there is no international law outlining what that trial is and should be. The very LAST thing it should be, is a trial in our courts under our constitution. Why do people not understand how rediculous this is? Our courts, our laws, are not set up to handle foriegn combatants, who commit their crime in foreign lands. Our military doesn’t have a forensics team in tow, or an FBI team running around behing to investigate and collect evidence. This is such lunacy. Our country has gone over the edge.
Posted by: KR | June 10, 2009, 8:59 am 8:59 am
KR
“What is this pre-occupation about the military randomly snatching people up? ”
you sure you didn’t work for the former Soviet Union, arrest and keep folks forever with no legal option, don’t even bother to determine whether they are guilty for years…
obviously, you must be one of the many special forces, CIA, FBI, State Dept., military legal team, secret govt contacts, that post here regularly because you know all about combat in Iraq & Afghanistan.
re: “This is such lunacy. Our country has gone over the edge. ”
why, because Republicans now want to boycott GM and put thousands more out of work to make a political point…
Posted by: ^-||-^ | June 10, 2009, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm
“you sure you didn’t work for the former Soviet Union, arrest and keep folks forever with no legal option, don’t even bother to determine whether they are guilty for years…”
Did you even read the sentence directly after the one you quoted? Its below, read it again please.
“obviously, you must be one of the many special forces, CIA, FBI, State Dept., military legal team, secret govt contacts, that post here regularly because you know all about combat in Iraq & Afghanistan.”
13 years Navy pilot, flew F/A-18′s, had a medical issue with my spine and have done strategic work for the last 5 years. Spent a tour overseas for GWOT. How bout you?
Posted by: KR | June 10, 2009, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm