- Khi Ali Gul
Infobox WoT detainees
subject_name = Khi Ali Gul
image_size =
image_caption =
date_of_birth = Birth year and age|1963
place_of_birth =Khowst ,Afghanistan
date_of_arrest =
place_of_arrest=
arresting_authority=
date_of_release =
place_of_release=
date_of_death =
place_of_death =
citizenship =Afghanistan
detained_at = Guantanamo
id_number = 928
group =
alias =
charge = No charge, held inextrajudicial detention
penalty =
status =
csrt_summary =
csrt_transcript=
occupation =
spouse =
parents =
children =Khi Ali Gul is a citizen of
Afghanistan , held inextrajudicial detention in theUnited States Guantanamo Bay Naval Base , inCuba . [http://www.dod.mil/news/May2006/d20060515%20List.pdf list of prisoners (.pdf)] , "US Department of Defense ",May 15 2006 ] His GuantanamoInternee Security Number is 928.Guantanamocounter-terrorism analysts estimate that he was born in 1963, inKhowst , Afghanistan.Combatant Status Review Tribunal
] Three chairs were reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed.cite web
url=http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3902
title=Annual Administrative Review Boards for Enemy Combatants Held at Guantanamo Attributable to Senior Defense Officials
publisher=United States Department of Defense
date=March 6 2007
accessdate=2007-09-22] ]Initially the Bush administration asserted that they could withhold all the protections of the
Geneva Conventions to captives fromthe war on terror . This policy was challenged before the Judicial branch. Critics argued that the USA could not evade its obligation to conductcompetent tribunal s to determine whether captives are, or are not, entitled to the protections ofprisoner of war status.Subsequently the Department of Defense instituted the
Combatant Status Review Tribunal s. The Tribunals, however, were not authorized to determine whether the captives were "lawful combatants" -- rather they were merely empowered to make a recommendation as to whether the captive had previously been correctly determined to match the Bush administration's definition of anenemy combatant .ummary of Evidence memo
A Summary of Evidence memo was prepared for Khi Ali Gul's Combatant Status Review Tribunal on
1 October 2004 .cite web
url=http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/000600-000699.pdf#64
title=Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal -- Gul, Khi Ali
publisher=United States Department of Defense
author=OARDEC
date=2004-10-01
accessdate=2008-09-28
page=page 64
quote=] The memo listed the following allegations::Transcripts
Gul chose to participate in his Combatant Status Review Tribunal. [http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/Set_52_3643-3869.pdf#47 Summarized transcripts (.pdf)] , from
Khi Ali Gul 's "Combatant Status Review Tribunal " - pages 47-58]Witness requests
Gul requested the testimony of his father and brother. His Tribunal’s President ruled that their testimony was relevant. On
October 27 2004 theUS State Department was requested to ask the Afghanistan embassy in Washington to ask the Afghan civil service to locate Gul’s witnesses - - byNovember 17 2004 . When no response had been received byNovember 9 2004 a second request was sent through the State Department. No response was received byNovember 27 2004 , the date of the Tribunal. So the Tribunal’s President ruled Gul’s witnesses “not reasonably available”.The study entitled,
No-hearing hearings , cited Khi Ali Gul as an example of a captive who was unreasonably denied the testimony of exculpatory witnesses.cite web
url=http://law.shu.edu/news/final_no_hearing_hearings_report.pdf
title=No-hearing hearings
page=17
author=Mark Denbeaux ,Joshua Denbeaux , David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards, Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann, Megan Sassaman and Helen Skinner
publisher=Seton Hall University School of Law
accessdate=April 2
accessyear=2007] The study quoted his Tribunal's President:quotation|" [W] e will keep this matter open for a reasonable period of time;that is, if we receive back from Afghanistan this witness request,even if we close the proceedings today, with new evidence, wewould be open to introducing or re-introducing any witnessstatements we might receive."The study reported that Khi Ali Gul's Tribunal was never reconvened.The study commented: quotation|"Khi Ali Gul's requested that his brother be produced as a witness and provided theTribunal with his brother’s telephone number and address. Instead of calling the phonenumber provided, which might have produced an immediate result, the Governmentinstead sent a request to the Afghan embassy."
Exculpatory evidence dismissed
Khi Ali Gul was told he could not call for the testimony of any witnesses. He was told he could present letters.Khi Ali Gul then told his Board:quotation|"I have a letter from my family saying that I am not a
mullah , a Talib, or anything and it [ask] what is my crime."Khi Ali Gul's Presiding Officer then asked his Assisting Military Officer whether he had explained what kinds of documents Khi Ali Gul could bring in his defense. The Assisting Military Officer claimed he had explained the rules, so the Presiding Officer informed him that his letter would not be considered at that day's session. He was told that it would be considered if he was able to get a copy to the Board in the next day or so.Response to the Tribunal officer's questions
Orange uniform
Khi Ali Gul's Tribunal officers asked him to explain why he was wearing an orange uniform -- the uniform issued to Guantanamo captives regarded as "non-compliant".
Administrative Review Board hearings
Detainees who were determined to have been properly classified as "enemy combatants" were scheduled to have their dossier reviewed at annual
Administrative Review Board hearings. The Administrative Review Boards weren't authorized to review whether a detainee qualified for POW status, and they weren't authorized to review whether a detainee should have been classified as an "enemy combatant".They were authorized to consider whether a detainee should continue to be detained by the United States, because they continued to pose a threat -- or whether they could safely be repatriated to the custody of their home country, or whether they could be set free.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.