Today’s New York Daily News editorial, Error by trial: Very first Guantanamo case in civilian court is an instant disaster, details the problems of trying military prisoners, foreign terrorists that have committed foreign acts of terror, in U.S. civilian courts and granting the rights of U.S. citizens in the process. On trial was one Ahmed Khalfan Ghallani an admitted participant in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania killing 224 including 12 Americans. Caught in Pakistan after training with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan he was interrogated and confessed.

“These facts come courtesy of Ghailani’s own mouth. He revealed them under interrogation while in clandestine CIA custody before transfer to Guantanamo. Therein lies the legal absurdity.

The CIA grilled Ghailani in the interest of national security – to prevent further terrorist attacks – and not as a run-of-the-mill criminal suspect with full U.S. constitutional rights.

Thus, Ghailani had no lawyer. Thus, in the words of Manhattan Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan, Ghailani was subjected to a “combination of social influence approaches and extremely harsh interrogation methods to obtain evidence” – techniques that were used “to obtain intelligence from a handful of detainees believed to possess particularly high-value information.”

So, years later, come time for opening statements in Kaplan’s courtroom, prosecutors chose not even to try entering a word of Ghailani’s testimony into evidence. Instead, they hung their case largely on one Hussein Abebe, a Tanzanian who was prepared to testify that he had sold five crates of explosives to Ghailani.

Bad move. Kaplan yesterday barred Abebe from taking the stand because the FBI tracked him down based solely on information provided by Ghailani under “coerced” questioning.

This ruling was distressingly inevitable.”

Now Obama and Holder are educated attorneys well versed in criminal and constitutional law. It is safe to say that they know that the rights of the accused in the U.S. are much more protective than the rights of: (a) terrorists in Kenya, (b) criminals in Pakistan, and (c) enemy combatants detained in war time. In short, Obama and Holder knew that this instant ruling was “distressingly inevitable.”

Why then, would the Commander in Chief charged with the defense of this nation and his chief law enforcement officer Attorney General Holder choose to take this wartime prosecution out of military hands and place it in New York, the site of the World Trade Center attacks on September 11th?

I have previously highlighted Dinesh D’Souza Obama analysis on these pages, but Kathryn Lopez’s NRO interview with D’Souza goes into greater depth and convinces me that his analysis is correct. In that analysis, Obama is an anti-colonists down to his core, socialists yes, but more important an anti-colonists. He favors the suppressed, exploited natives in Kenya, Pakistan perhaps those in the war regions. His father from which his dreams come, Dreams from My Father, was Kenyan. The interview is a must read.

D’Souza denies that Obama is merely a conventional liberal: “But conventional liberals don’t come out for the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Conventional liberals don’t return the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Conventional liberals don’t block oil drilling in America while subsidizing oil drilling in Brazil.Conventional liberals don’t try to turn the space agency NASA into a Muslim-outreach program. My anti-colonial theory beautifully explains all these facts.” There is indeed predictive value in this theory.

So I think it reasonable to believe that, despite protestations to the contrary, Obama wants acquittals in these civilian terrorists trials.