not going to be allowed, right culley? i don t know whether they re going to be allowed or not. i suspect they re not going to be allowed, but remember jon, this guy was actually indicted, along with the other folks, back in 199 #, and the evidence they had at the time, the prosecutors deemed sufficient to go forward, so i think the government s argument is that we have more than enough circumstantial evidence, apart from anything after 9/11, to go forward with this trial. jon: yet the government lost its star witness, the guy who supposedly provided the explosives to ghalani, right? yeah, one of the opening questions in the previous trial that happened before 9/11 was who sold these guys the bomb making material and the truck and they got convictions, they have life sentences on the guys who committed these acted before but there was an open question and what they found out after they interrogated ghailani, the cia, was the name of that person and that was their star witness that
week. jon: let s step back sort of away from the facts of the case, though, and talk about what s at stake here. this is the obama administration carrying out what it promised to do, put those gitmo detainees on trial in u.s. civilian court, and yet this case is not a slam dunk. well, there s no such thing as a slam dunk. that s why it s called a trial, not a guarantee, but this test, the policy preference of this administration, to some degree, and what you see is people who favor only federal trials are saying this will show how federal trials are great and those who favored just commissions are saying this will show that the federal trial will fail and commissions are necessary. it s somewhere in the middle, the trial will show whether they can finish unfinished business from the 1998 case and what we know already is this particular judge in this particular trial did not like the tainted evidence that came from ghailani s confession. so i wouldn t draw too broad of a policy implic
americans. david lee miller is live outside of the federal courthouse in new york city. the setback was the key witness was barred from testifying because his identity was discovered through enhanced interrogation techniques. nonetheless, the government going forward with the case. reporter: that s right. ghailani is in the federal courthouse behind me. opening statements are being given after jury selection took place this morning. the prosecution must make its case without the testimony of its star witness. that star witness was supposed to be a man called hussein bibi. he was expected to tef knife he provided the defendant with the truck and explosives. the judge ruled he could not testify because of the manner in which his name was revealed by the cia.
and kenya which killed 224 people, including 12 americans. justice correspondent pete williams joins me now, i guess this trial is really about the guy that prosecutors think bought the truck that was load would the explosives, but that was 12 years ago. nine years now after the last trial in the case, how complicated is all this, pete? well, the government says it s very straight forward. they had a bit of a setback. they had a key witness they wanted to testify who would have said that he sold explosive components to ghailani and those were harsh interrogation methods and the judge says that can t be used. neither anything he said when he was interrogated or anything the government learned as a result of it. but the justice department insists it still has enough to go to trial. both sides had legal setbacks getting to this point but now we come to the trial and many people say this could be a test for how you could put 9/11
this case, at least so far. jon: but if this guy were to walk, and some observers say it s possible, he might not be convicted because the government can t use some of the evidence that it obtained from him through water boarding and that sort of thing. if he walks away, doesn t that throw out or call into question at least the wisdom of putting these guys on trial in civilian court? look, the standard for conviction at commissions at federal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard is the same. this administration has already said if ghailani is acquitted in this trial they can hole him as a belligerent in military detention. i m not jumping on the band baggon that many are, that are saying this is chicken little, the sky is falling. this is a trial of evidence mostly derived, pre9/11, already tested and put before a jury, they reached a verdict of guilty. i think what we ll see in the weeks as this trial