The U.S. justice system fared better than the U.S. Justice Department Thursday.

The acquittal of University of Idaho student Sami Omar al-Hussayen on three terrorism charges came in spite of the advantages federal prosecutors enjoyed. They had kept the defendant in jail for 16 months and withheld thousands of pieces of evidence from defense attorneys until shortly before the trial, clearly hampering the ability to prepare a case.

Since his arrest in Moscow on Feb. 26, 2003, al-Hussayen has been painted as a scheming Islamic extremist, using his computer skills to run an online operation that recruited terrorists and funneled money to terrorist organizations. He was said to be linked directly to close associates of Osama bin Laden.

None of that was proved, or disproved. The seven-week trial didn’t establish whether al-Hussayen loves or hates America. Whether he applauds al Qaeda’s atrocities on Sept. 11 or deplores them.

It did establish that al-Hussayen ran a Web site for a Michigan-based organization that, though suspected of terrorist involvement, has been charged with nothing and is a recognized charity.

The trial also raised questions as to whether the Justice Department was as overzealous in this case as the Army was in that of Capt. James Yee, the Muslim chaplain who was painted as a spy, adulterer and pornographer before the case finally proved empty.

Wartime emotions produce hasty, sometimes irrational, responses, and government agencies can be as impulsive as anyone. The World War II internment of thousands of Japanese Americans proved that.

In the al-Hussayen trial, the verdicts were not about the defendant’s attitudes or his character – although such considerations may have influenced the decision to prosecute him.

Shortly after al Hussayen’s arrest, a friend observed: “Many of us left our own countries because of a lack of freedom to express our views.”

If the United States hopes to build a new democracy in Iraq, it needs to honor the old one at home.