E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Unsurprisingly, the verdict in the Ghailani case has provoked a good deal of discussion and, equally unsurprisingly, commentators on all sides of the long-running where-should-we-try-terrorists debate have found in it confirmation of policy positions they have previously espoused. Because this ground is being plowed so thoroughly, I don't want to revisit it here. I would, however, like to offer a very short take on an important aspect of the case that ought not to be overlooked. Recall that Judge Kaplan suppressed the testimony of Hussein Abebe, a government witness whose identity only came to light as a result of abusive interrogation of Mr. Ghailani. The government (1) perhaps unwisely, stressed how important Mr. Abebe's testimony was; (2) assumed for purposes of the defense's motion to suppress that Mr. Ghailani's statements were coerced; (3) did not exercise its right to appeal the suppression ruling; and (4) did not abandon any counts in the indictment in light of that ruling. As readers who have not already made up their mind ponder what the verdict means for where (if anywhere, as that too is an option to some) the so-called "high value detainees" such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried and who bears responsibility for what many view as an unsatisfying outcome despite the 20-years-to-life sentence Mr. Ghailani will receive, it is important not to lose sight of the root cause of the outcome: he was subjected to coercion during his interrogation. There's the problem.