British prosecutors this week got a good look at what happens when the War on Terror gets tangled up in the civilian criminal-justice system.
It’s not a pretty picture.
The British government won a decidedly mixed verdict Monday in the trial of eight terror suspects charged with plotting to blow up trans-Atlantic commercial airliners in summer 2006.
A jury convicted only three of the eight of conspiracy to commit murder – and prosecutors failed to win any convictions on the highest terror-conspiracy charge.
This, despite the fact that police had found ample quantities of explosive hydrogen peroxide at the group’s hideaway – along with details of numerous trans-Atlantic flights and so-called “martyrdom” videos from six of the suspects.
Unfortunately, prosecutors couldn’t present evidence culled from British and foreign intelligence services, the open introduction of which would’ve compromised agents and methods.
The investigation apparently also suffered from authorities’ haste to round up the cell before it either fled or attacked.
Such precautions, of course, are absolutely necessary in a time of continuing threats. But they don’t help in court.
Admittedly, it’s unclear exactly what else the Brits could have done. Their terror problem, ominously, is largely homegrown – meaning that the airline plotters have a reasonable claim to the rights attending British citizenship.
But their predicament certainly points up the wisdom of US anti-terror policies – like the much-decried secret military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.
Not to mention, the need to stay on the offensive against terrorist strongholds as much as possible. After all, Western jurisprudence isn’t giving al Qaeda much reason to worry at the moment.