The Ghailani verdict
US President Barack Obama promised during his presidential campaign that he would close down the military prison facility at Guantanamo, a promise yet to be fulfilled.
However, he did try a detainee in a US civilian court. Thirty-six-year-old Tanzanian Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was found guilty of one out of 285 charges. Officials will now be considering how to proceed with other detainees, whether to give them fair trial or let them go. The detainees have spent almost nine years in their semi-permanent residence while being subjected to new techniques of torture.
During the trial, prosecutors suffered an early setback when federal judge Lewis Kaplan in NewYork barred a key government witness from testifying, saying he had been named by Ghailani while the latter was “under duress.” Despite losing its key witness, the government was given broad latitude to refer to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden throughout the trial. It was pointed out that unless the ground was established regarding the connection, this referencing was illegal; it was prejudicial. It gives grounds for appeal.
Defense lawyer Peter Quijano welcomed the acquittal of Ghailani on 284 charges. He said the one conviction would definitely be appealed. He said: “We still truly believe he is innocent of all these charges.” The charge against Ghailani was conspiring to attack the US Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania.
The question is, should the Guantanamo trials be held in civilian courts or military tribunals? If it is civilian court, then how should evidence gained during interrogation through torture be handled?
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments