Guantanamo man pleads not guilty

[larrymeyer]

I wonder if he gets bail where he'll stay anybody have an extra room


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/am...849289659.html

Guantanamo man pleads not guilty


The bombings in Kenya and Tanzania left
224 people dead [AFP]

The first Guantanamo Bay detainee to face trial in a US civilian court has pleaded not guilty to charges to involvement in the bombings of US embassies in Africa.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian held at the US prison camp since 2006, told a New York court he was not guilty over the bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, in which 224 people died.

He faces 224 charges of murder and 42 other counts including conspiracy to murder, bomb and maim, and conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction against US nationals, for which he could receive the death penalty, the US justice department said.

Ghailani was brought into the Manhattan federal courtroom wearing blue prison clothing.

Judge Loretta Preska asked him how he would plea and Ghailani replied, "Not guilty."

'Model case'

A total of 213 people were killed in Nairobi, Kenya, and 11 people died and at least 85 were wounded in the Tanzania bombing in the city of Dar-es-Salaam in attacks widely blamed on Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

"This should be a model for other cases as well - suspects should be brought to civilian courts, which are tried and tested and which get the job done"

Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve

Ghailani is accused of helping to buy a lorry and oxygen and acetylene tanks that were used in the Tanzania bombing, and of allegedly loading boxes of TNT, detonators and other equipment into the vehicle in the weeks running up to the bombing.

Ghailani had reportedly confessed at a 2007 hearing at Guantanamo Bay and apologised for supplying equipment used in the bombing, but said he did not know the supplies would be used to attack the embassy, according to military transcripts.

Zachary Katznelson, the legal director of Reprieve, a London-based group of human rights lawyers who work on Guantanamo cases, welcomed the move to try Ghailani in a US court.

He told the Reuters news agency: "This should be a model for other cases as well.

"Suspects should be brought to civilian courts, which are tried and tested and which get the job done, rather to military courts where they are essentially making it up as they go along."

Al Jazeera's Rob Reynolds says the issue of harsh treastment of detainees will no doubt be brought up as Ghailani was held for a period of time in some of the CIA's so-called "black site" prisons before being transferred to Guantanamo.

The question raised by his trial is whether the US court system can try someone held under such circumstances who may have been subjected to harsh interrogation techniques many describe as torture, he says.

Security concerns

The decision to bring Ghailani to trial in New York follows a review by the Guantanamo Review Task Force of 240 foreign "terror" suspects still held at Guantanamo, ordered by Barack Obama, the US president.

Obama has also ordered the Guantanamo Bay prison, set up by the administration of his predecessor George Bush following the September 11 attacks in New York in 2001, to be closed by the end of January next year.

The US president hopes other countries will take in some of the 50 detainees so far cleared for release. However, many have refused.

Members of the US Congress also objected to the inmates being transferred to US prisons, saying they were potential "security risks".

__________________________________________________ _______________


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090609/...anamo_ghailani


NEW YORK (Reuters) – The United States transferred the first detainee from Guantanamo Bay on Tuesday to stand trial in a U.S. civilian court in a test case for President Barack Obama's plans to close the controversial prison for foreign terrorism suspects.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba since 2006, pleaded not guilty in Manhattan court to charges of conspiring in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya that killed 224 people.

He had been escorted to New York by U.S. marshals, the Department of Justice said.

Ghailani faces 286 counts, including charges of conspiring with Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda to kill Americans anywhere in the world, and separate charges of murder for each of the 224 people killed in the bombings on August 7, 1998.

Ghailani was brought into the courtroom wearing a blue jail uniform. Judge Loretta Preska asked him how he would plea and he said, "Not guilty."

Bringing Ghailani to the United States and putting him on trial in a civilian court will test Obama's contention -- countering concern from some in the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress -- that some of the 240 detainees at the camp can be safely prosecuted and imprisoned in the United States.

Ghailani was transferred three weeks after Obama laid out his plans for closing the Guantanamo camp by January 2010. The prison, long condemned by human rights groups, was opened in 2002 under President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Ghailani is charged with helping to buy a truck and oxygen and acetylene tanks used in the Tanzania bombing, and of loading boxes of TNT, detonators, and other equipment into the back of the truck in the weeks immediately before the bombing.

At a 2007 hearing at Guantanamo Bay to determine that he was an "enemy combatant," Ghailani confessed and apologized for supplying equipment used in the Tanzania bombing but said he did not know the supplies would be used to attack the embassy, according to military transcripts.

[crlovel]

I am not a legal expert by any means, and if this guy is guilty then I hope he burns in whatever hell awaits murderers, but how can we, as a nation, take this guy out of his country and try him in our country in a civilian court for a crime that didn't happen on our soil? I would understand some sort of international court, but in a CIVILIAN court? I don't get it?

[FNG19]

(...)how can we, as a nation, take this guy out of his country and try him in our country in a civilian court for a crime that didn't happen on our soil?

An embassy is considered the sovereign soil of the nation which is housed within it (or, said another way, the nation whose flag flies above it). Therefore, a murder in an embassy is considered a murder on the soil of the resident (flag) nation, not the host (geographic) nation. This is why, for example, US Embassies are guarded by US Marines, not by the host nation's own military.

[crlovel]

An embassy is considered the sovereign soil of the nation which is housed within it (or, said another way, the nation whose flag flies above it). Therefore, a murder in an embassy is considered a murder on the soil of the resident (flag) nation, not the host (geographic) nation. This is why, for example, US Embassies are guarded by US Marines, not by the host nation's own military.

I understand that. But not all of these guys they're bringing over here to put on trial were involved in embassy bombings, either. What about them?

Also, our trial system relies on a "jury of our peers." There is no way an Islamic militant who is not an American, probably has never been in America, and has been probably taught to hate us from birth find a "jury of his peers" among our typical jury pools. He is as foreign to us as we are to him. To even submit such a person to our process would be a waste of our time, money, and resources.

[Philbert]

I understand that. But not all of these guys they're bringing over here to put on trial were involved in embassy bombings, either. What about them?

Also, our trial system relies on a "jury of our peers." There is no way an Islamic militant who is not an American, probably has never been in America, and has been probably taught to hate us from birth find a "jury of his peers" among our typical jury pools. He is as foreign to us as we are to him. To even submit such a person to our process would be a waste of our time, money, and resources.

The constitution speaks only of an impartial jury. A jury of peers comes from Magna Carta. In America we are all peers, though of course we are not all impartial.

[crlovel]

The constitution speaks only of an impartial jury. A jury of peers comes from Magna Carta. In America we are all peers, though of course we are not all impartial.

Fine, change "jury of peers" to "impartial jury." All well and good, but my point remains.

[riverpirate]

My question is Was he read his Miranda rights before he was tortured?

[crlovel]

My question is Was he read his Miranda rights before he was tortured?

You heard about that crap too? I saw the article this morning on either CNN or Fox, the FBI reading the Gitmo inmates their rights. Sickening.

[riverpirate]

You heard about that crap too? I saw the article this morning on either CNN or Fox, the FBI reading the Gitmo inmates their rights. Sickening.

I didnt see any artcle or anything im being serious. If these guys were not read their miranda rights when they were first captured and are now being put on civilan trial ( which im all for )then there is no trial to even be done.

[TXDMERC73]

that terrorist must have been watching too much american crime tv shows... he thinks if he uses the "American Way" he will get away with murder.... guess again -224 counts, i doubt it very much he be able to waive that guilty plea..