Skip to footer

Where do things stand at Guantánamo? Six basic questions answered.

President Obama this week pledged to “reengage” with Congress to find a way to close the terror detention camp at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, naval base. The renewed focus comes as 100 of the 166 detainees are reported to be engaged in a hunger strike. Here is a brief look at where things stand now.

4. How many Guantánamo detainees were actually transferred to the US under the Obama administration’s plan?

Elizabeth Williams/AP
In this courtroom sketch, Ahmed Ghailani listens as he is sentenced to life in prison in 2011 for his role in the 1998 African embassy attacks.

A. One.  

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, accused of involvement in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, was transferred from Guantánamo to a pretrial detention cell in New York City in June 2009.

He was tried in federal court, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. During the trial, the judge barred testimony from a key witness because investigators learned of the witness as a result of information obtained during coercive CIA interrogations. Mr. Ghailani faced 285 charges, including more than 200 murder counts. The jury acquitted him of all charges, except one conspiracy count.

Supporters of Guantánamo and military commissions pointed to his acquittal on 284 charges as evidence that special commissions with different rules of evidence were necessary to try terror suspects.

Those favoring use of the criminal justice system emphasized the fact that Ghailani was convicted and received a life sentence. They said it was proof that US civilian courts are up to the task of bringing accused terrorists to justice.

The next step was to bring alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York City to stand trial for the attacks on the World Trade Center. Members of Congress pushed back, saying he didn’t deserve a trial in federal court and that the case would paint a fresh bull’s eye on Manhattan for would-be terrorists. In the face of mounting opposition, the Obama administration reversed its plan for a New York City trial and put its plans to close Guantánamo on hold.

4 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.