A federal Judge rejected the U.S. Justice Department’s argument that an open hearing would jeopardize national security.

Federal judge Gladys Kessler, in Washington D.C., denied the U.S. government’s request to bar the public from the courtroom for a hearing on the force-feeding of detainees on hunger strike in the U.S. military detention centre in Guantanamo, Cuba. 

U. S. District Judge Gladys Kessler stated on Thursday that closing the courtroom would be an "extraordinary step" that she called "deeply troubling."

She ruled that the public should be allowed to witness arguments in the case of Syrian detainee Abu Wa'el Dhiab, noting that Justice Department attorneys waited "less than two weeks prior to the start of the long-scheduled hearing" to file their petition.

Kessler stated that Dhiab’s case has "received a good deal of publicity in the press," and that there was a lot of interest in the topic of Guantanamo Bay in general.

"With such a long-standing and ongoing public interest at stake, it would be particularly egregious to bar the public from observing the credibility of live witnesses, the substance of their testimony, whether proper procedures are being followed, and whether the Court is treating all participants fairly."

The judge rejected the government’s argument that an open hearing would jeopardize national security by risking the disclosure of classified information, noting that much of the evidence to be submitted is already public and that any testimony could be crafted to reserve any such discussion for a closed session.

Dhiab, who has been cleared for release from Guantánamo since 2009, has filed suit against the U.S. military’s practice of feeding detainees on hunger strike through tubes inserted into the stomach through the nose.

He alleges that the feeding is torture, and requests an end to it. Moreover, he challenges the practice of Guantanamo guards forcibly removing interns from their cells for the treatment. Dhiab and other prisoners  are currently on hunger strike to protest their incarceration without charge.

Kessler quoted a pertinent 1984 Supreme Court decision: "The value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials [and other proceedings] can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that anyone is free to attend gives assurance that established procedures are being followed and that deviations will become known. Openness thus enhances both the basic fairness of the ... trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system."