Sept. 11 Trial

Now that the 32-year-old Moroccan Mounir el Motassadeq was handed for the second time a sentence of 15 years in prison, the German judiciary could pride itself about passing a legally valid verdict on an accomplice of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

The case itself, however, does not offer much cause for complacency. The proceedings went through various twists and turns over a period of four years: The first 15-year sentence was suspended due to procedural errors, whereas the second sentence -- 7 years in prison -- was eventually deemed too lenient. Now, a 15-year-sentence was passed again.

Motassadeq's lawyer has spoken of arbitrariness. At first glance, these sentences may, indeed, appear arbitrary. It is more to the point, however, what the German Supreme Court said during the process: The fight against terrorism should not be a "wild and unregulated war." That is why Germany's judiciary had such difficulties with Motassadeq's sentencing and why this verdict so blatantly contradicts the acquittal of another Moroccan, Abdelghani Mzoudi.

Both defendants belonged to the inner circle of the Hamburg students who were behind the attacks of Sept. 11. Both were accused of collaborating or, at least knowing about the planned terrorist attacks and doing nothing to prevent them. A third Moroccan from the perpetrators' circle -- Ramzi Binalshibh -- could have shed light on what roles the two had actually played. But he is in custody in the United States and not available to the German judiciary.

Washington was anything but cooperative, supposedly for security reasons. For all intents and purposes, however, the US position on this matter is baffling in view of its proclaimed cooperation in the war on terror. It is also surprising because the US actually contributed to Mzoudi's acquittal in 2004: They faxed an exculpatory transcript of Binalshibh's interrogation to the German authorities. Motassadeq did not get this kind of help.

The value of such statements is dubious: no representative of the German judiciary was present when they were made and nothing is known about the circumstances under which they originated. Interrogation methods at Guantanamo are in any case incompatible with German laws and statements attained using such methods would not be accepted by German courts.

At the same time and despite the recognizable weaknesses of the Motassadeq case, the burden of evidence was overwhelming and it made the verdict compelling: the young man belonged to the terrorists' innermost circle; he helped them with money transactions and other things. That's why it can be justly assumed that he knew at least in general terms that a terrorist attack was being prepared. The line between tacit assent and complicity is crossed all too easily.

Peter Philipp is Deutsche Welle's chief correspondent and an expert on the Middle East (tt).