Our group of NGO Observers at “Camp Justice” on the Guantanamo Naval Station

Yesterday I attended a hearing held in the military commission case against Hadi al-Iraqi, who was referred to by both the military judge, Marine Colonel Paul Reuben, and defense lawyer Adam Thurschwell as Mr. Al Tamir, the name the defendant claims.  I and observers representing five other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and our Guantanamo escort entered the court complex through a security tent and a walkway lined with chain-link fencing covered with black cloth to provide shade and protection.  There was additional security at the entrance to Courtroom II itself, and we then received our seat assignments in the gallery.  The six of us sat in the second and third rows, and Miami Herald journalist Carol Rosenberg sat in the first row.  There was a retired serviceman observing, as was a woman in an area reserved for victim family members (VFMs).  There is a blue curtain which can be drawn to separate VFMs from other observers, but it was not drawn today.  A uniformed serviceman sat in the middle of the gallery.

The gallery has five large windows looking into the courtroom, each with a television monitor at the top.  The monitors display the person speaking, whether the judge, defense or government counsel, and they and the audio work on a 40 second delay.  We were informed that if classified information is mentioned, a police-type light to the left of the judge would turn on, the monitors and audio would stop, and white noise would begin.  This did not occur while we were at the court today.  Cameras in each corner of the gallery kept watch upon observers, who were warned that decorum would be maintained as if we were seated in the courtroom.  The proceedings were also broadcast by closed circuit television to sites at Fort Meade, Maryland and Fort Devens, Massachusetts.

The Courtroom

Inside the courtroom are six tables for each the defense and prosecution teams.  This was set up to accommodate the six original 9/11 Defendants.  Charges against one of the six has since been dropped.  A chair on the left side of each defense table is equipped with “shackle points” – a chain about a foot long secured to the floor to which Defendants may be shackled.  These shackle points have not been used on Al-Tamir since he became incapacitated, but are still used on other Defendants. About nine individuals were on each side of the aisle, including an interpreter for Al-Tamir, defense and government counsel, and their staff.

Nashwan al-Tamir, now in his 50s, was transported into the courtroom in a wheelchair by servicemen and wore an upper body brace extending to just below his chin to immobilize his neck.  He has undergone four surgeries in the past four months, and hearings set in October and December were postponed.  According to his lawyers, Al-Tamir suffered from degenerative disk disease before he was captured in Turkey in 2006, allegedly trying to reach Iraq on orders of Osama bin Laden.  He spent 170 days in secret CIA custody before being transferred to Guantanamo in 2007 and had for years complained of back pain.  In 2014 he was charged with being a high-ranking member of al Qaeda Iraq and liaison with the Taliban, and is accused of being responsible for deadly attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2003 and 2004.  If convicted, he faces a life sentence.

Tuesday’s hearing

This week’s hearings are to address defense motions requesting the government provide medical evidence requested in discovery, for a medical expert on Al-Tamir’s competence to participate in his own defense, for an order compelling access to the accused by his counsel, and an order to prohibit his forcible extraction from his quarters.  The arguments Tuesday covered only the first two of these motions.  Defense counsel Thurschwell, a Pentagon paid civilian, argued that Al-Tamir needs accommodation for his disabilities, including a hospital chair for use when consulting with his lawyers at camp 7, where he is held, a special toilet seat which reduces the pain he experiences without it, a bottle to urinate in without exacerbating his pain, and for shorter hearings with more breaks.  Thurschwell argued that Al-Tamir’s pain was exacerbated by his captors’ denial of necessary medical care until last fall, when he had become incontinent and was in danger of paralysis.

The government’s arguments were presented by Lieutenant Commander B. Vaughn Spencer, who recently became a civilian.  Vaughn did not have clear answers as to why Al-Tamir was not provided with the devices he had requested to accommodate his disabilities, or why the current senior medical officer (SMO) who was to testify about Al-Tamir’s condition did not appear.  He expressed confusion as to whether the defense was requesting abatement, or postponement of proceedings, or accommodation so that proceedings could continue, and noted that the government had no objection to Al-Tamir’s requests for accommodation.

Thurschwell pointed out that the Defendant was present and was willing to participate to the extent he could receive accommodations that could prevent him from experiencing debilitating pain.  The defense requested its own medical expert to assess Al-Tamir’s competence to participate in his own defense, considering a deposition to perpetuate the testimony of a government witness is set to take place next week, and for the court to order the Joint Task Force (JTF) in charge of Al-Tamir’s confinement to provide the requested devices. Each side presented arguments as to the applicable legal standards under the Military Commission Act of 2009 and precedent for assessing a defendant’s capacity to participate in his own defense at this pre-trial stage of proceedings, and the defense’s entitlement to an expert.

While Judge Reuben wanted to address several other issues yesterday, he granted the defense requested an end to the hearing due to Al-Tamir’s inability to relieve himself without the requested devices, while taking all other motions under advisement.  As Mr. Tamir was set to undergo an MRI last night at 10 p.m., today’s hearing will not begin until 1 p.m.

      NGO Representatives at work in the NGO Resource Center

 

Paul Logan, JD ‘94

Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

 

 

[By Paul Logan, posted by G. Edwards]

I have been cleared to travel to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to observe, analyze, critique, and report on the U.S. Military Commission hearings against Mr. Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi (also known as Mr. Nashwan al-Tamir). He has been held at Guantanamo since 2007, and in 2014 he was charged with being a high-ranking member of al Qaeda Iraq and liaison with the Taliban, and accused of being responsible for deadly attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2003 and 2004.

I graduated with a J.D. from Indiana University McKinney School of Law in 1994, and am an employment lawyer in Indianapolis. When I was in law school, there were few international law opportunities for students.  Several years after I graduated, the school founded its Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), which for over 20 years has offered students and graduates many international opportunities. One of its projects is the Military Commission Observation Project, which sends faculty, staff, students, graduates to Guantanamo, after the program received  special status from the Pentagon.  I am thankful and excited about this opportunity!

On Sunday, 28 January 2018, I am scheduled to travel on a military flight from Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C. to Guantanamo Bay.  Motion hearings in Hadi’s case are scheduled to last all week.  While a docket can be found on the military commission website at mc.mil, the website states that many of the documents are unavailable due to pending security review or confidentiality.

My preparation for the mission to Guantanamo has included reviewing several publications of the Program in International Human Rights Law. These include the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual: Excerpts, which has introduced to the relevant international and U.S. law, and introduced me to the Hadi case and the other pending Guantanamo Bay cases. I believe this publication will be very helpful as I seek to analyze, critique and report on my Guantanamo experiences.

The program also provided me with Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Bay: A Guide of Human Rights NGOs & Others Going to Gitmo To Attend U.S. Military Commission.  This has also been very helpful.

I look forward to this opportunity learn more about the commissions, and to help the McKinney project by contributing to its Guantanamo Bay mission.

My trip to Washington, DC

I flew from Indianapolis to Washington, DC this morning (Saturday), and had a chance to do some sight-seeing in the city, and had an opportunity for briefing by Professor George Edwards, who was at Guantanamo Bay last week. He informed me that he will be traveling to Ft. Meade, Maryland on Monday the 29th of January to view the same Guantanamo Bay hearings I will view.  I was told that the Guantanamo Bay courtroom where I will be on Monday has cameras that are broadcast live back to Ft. Meade.

 

I had a chance to have Eritrean food for the first time.

My plan for further blogging on the Guantanamo Bay trip.

I plan to draft another post related to my trip from Andrews to Guantanamo, and additional posts about the substance of the commission hearings this week.

Paul Logan, JD ‘94

Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

[Posted by G. Edwards on behalf of Mr. Paul Logan]

 

 

 

I am a law student at Indiana University and I recently returned from Guantanamo Bay where I monitored pretrial hearings in the case against five alleged 9/11 masterminds. This was my second trip to Guantanamo Bay and I have previously traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland to view the hearings via closed circuit video stream.

Detainees’ Right to Attend Hearings

The first day of pretrial hearings began on Monday 8 January 2018, all five detainees entered the courtroom as is required on the first day of hearings at the beginning of any hearing week. After an initial appearance on the first day of hearings detainees may voluntarily waive their right to be present at hearings for the remainder of that hearing week, without the need to be present in the courtroom. Two of the detainees wore camouflage clothing to court as they are entitled under Article 27 of the Third Geneva Convention.

Body Search and Defense Counsel Bag Search

The first two issues in court arose from events that occurred the same morning. The detainees were searched that morning, as is always the case before hearings, but this was the first time that the search involved patting of the inner leg, thigh, and possibly groin. Some detainees would later claim that they would not attend court on subsequent hearing days due to their unwillingness to submit to this procedure. A second issue of the morning was that defense teams’ bags were searched upon entering the courtroom, although not all defense teams abided. This was the first time that guards had asked to look through the defense counsel’s bags, some of which contained legal material. Specifically, defense counselor Nevin refused the search and returned to his vehicle where he left his legal materials. He entered the courtroom with just a single legal pad and argued that such a search violated attorney client privilege. He was eventually allowed to enter the courtroom without his bag being searched.

Laptop Issue

Late last year the guard force at Joint Task Force Guantanamo, where the detainees are housed, found that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed possessed a prayer schedule with instructions concerning modifying the laptops provided to the detainees by the U.S. government. The prayer schedule was marked with Ali Abdul Aziz Ali’s document identification number and it is unclear how it was transferred to Mohammed. Similar instructions were found in Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin ‘Attash’s cell. The prosecution claims that the instructions showed significant technical knowledge and they are suspected to have originated from Ali, who was at one time a certified Microsoft engineer. For this reason, the prosecution motioned for a forensic search of the laptops. We heard a lot of argument concerning bios, encryption, software, and internet access. The prosecution claimed that providing the detainees with laptops is an inherent threat to national security, while the defense rejected this claim and asked that the laptops be returned. Judge Pohl did not rule on the issue but did ponder a compromise where a forensic search might be completed and the laptops potentially be returned to the detainees.

Mr. al Hawsawi was not implicated in the contraband laptop instruction issue but his laptop was seized, and Ramzi Bin al Shibh was in a unique position because he was the only detainee to have a 2016 laptop, while the other four had 2008 models. Nevertheless, all laptops were confiscated. The instructions also allegedly specify which detainees were privy to the information, with al Hawsawi and al Shibh being kept out of the loop so to speak. Still the government argued that the mere knowledge of how to modify the laptops would make it too dangerous for them to be returned. When pressed on the nature of the risk prosecution said it was impossible to determine without a forensic search, a notion that the defense argued against.

Jurisdiction Issue

We also heard about a defense motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. This motion is based on the disputed premise that the U.S. was not at war with al Qaeda at the time the alleged crimes were committed, and so the Military Commission lacks jurisdiction over the case. The defense cited a lack of hostilities as evidence that the U.S. was not at war when the alleged crimes occurred. To counter this argument, the prosecution argued that the U.S. was at war and gave explanations for lack of hostilities. Specifically claiming that there was a lack of actionable intelligence and that the potential for collateral damage was too high. They also cited problems with arming Predator drones with missiles as an issue preventing conflict.

Threatened Prosecution of Defense

Another issue came to the surface late in the week due to the fact that the prosecution sent a letter to defense teams and indicated that they might be prosecuted under the Identity Protection Act for attempting to interview current and former CIA employees and contractors. Specifically, the letter laid out a process by which defense’s desired witnesses would be contacted, which would involve a CIA employee and FBI special agent visiting desired witnesses and informing them of their absolute right not to testify. The defense opposed this approach and claimed that they were being prevented from doing effective discovery, an element essential to due process. This issue is compounded by the fact that the prosecution refuses to provide a timeline showing where the detainees were, what was done to them, and who was there to witness it during their time in CIA custody. The government cited national security as the reason for withholding this information. Judge Pohl seemed to think that if the government would be forthcoming with a timeline and other desired information, then this might alleviate some discovery issues. No such compromise appears to be viable option, at least as far as the government is concerned.

The Issue Not Argued

There has been mounting pressure for Judge Pohl to set a target date to begin the trial. He appears unwilling to hear argument on this topic, and probably with good reason. One concern is that if he does set a trial date that delays and pretrial hearings might cause the date to be pushed back. After all, it was once said in court that the trial could begin as early as December of 2013. General Baker expressed uncertainty with regard to trial date and stated that the issues from the week made him feel like a trial was further away than ever. He cited a lack of cooperation, between defense teams and the prosecution, on the discovery process as justification for this position. Although we thought we might hear some argument on this issue, Judge Pohl did not allow this, apparently fearing that such argument would be premature.

Exploring the Bay

On Tuesday the court convened for a classified 502 hearing, which gave us an opportunity to explore the bay since we did not have the required clearance to attend. We rented a boat and journeyed out to Hospital Cay, an island in the Bay once used to quarantine those with Yellow Fever and Influenza. After visiting the island, we stopped for a short swim. The boat driver also took us to the north end of U.S. controlled Guantanamo Bay where we could see the water bridge that separates the Naval Station and Cuba, from a distance.

That afternoon we headed over to Marine Hill and departed on a tour of the North East Gate, which is the only gate still in use between the U.S. and Cuba. This afforded us the opportunity to take pictures and hear the history of Guantanamo Bay from the time Christopher Columbus landed there through present day.

We returned to court on Wednesday morning which is when the court took up three main aforementioned issues spanning the remainder of the week. Those issues were: the seizure of detainees’ laptops, a jurisdictional issue turning on when the conflict began between the U.S. and al Qaeda, and threatened prosecution should the defense teams attempt to contact any current or former CIA employee or contractor.

Ben Hicks

3^rd Year Student

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

I’m at Andrews Air Force Base waiting for a plane to take me to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to monitor hearings in the US Military case against Mr. al Nashiri, who allegedly masterminded the bombing of the 2000 USS Cole off the coast of Yemen. That bombing killed 17 US sailors and wounded many more.

The hearings this week are scheduled to focus on many issues, including the status of lawyers who were detailed to represent Mr. al Nashiri, who were ordered to appear at the hearings, but who do not appear to be here at Andrews for the flight. Our flight will carry many dozens of others related to the case, including the prosecutors, the judge and his staff, media, court reporters, interpreters and translators, security personnel, and guides and escorts.

I will plan to report back in from Cuba.

George Edwards

Director (Founding), Military Commission Observation Project

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

I was recently selected to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on my second mission to monitor the U.S. Military Commission hearings at the remote U.S. Naval Station.

I am representing the Military Commission Observation Project, which is part of the Program in International Human Rights Law at Indiana University McKinney School of Law, where I am a 3^rd year student.

Once again, my remit is to attend, observe and be observed, analyze, critique and report on hearings against 5 men who are alleged to have plotted the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Preparation for My Mission

I traveled to Guantanamo Bay once before to monitor hearings. I also traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland, where a different set of Guantanamo hearings were broadcast live from the Guantanamo courtroom via CCTV to a secure room at the Maryland army base. My past trips have helped shape my preparation for this trip.

I found court papers in this case on the Military Commission website – www.mc.mil. The filings are not complete, or at least I do not have access to all of the filings since some of the filings are behind a security shield and will not be posted on that website until about two weeks, enough time for the documents to undergo a security review. I can see the names of some of the unavailable documents, and that gives me an idea of what substantive motions to expect.

A central and important question in December seemed to be; what constitutes “Part of Al Qaeda”? Throughout unofficial and unauthenticated transcripts on the mc.mil website this issue is discussed during the December hearings and an FBI agent and behavioral analyst’s testimony is available in a second transcript. The second transcript includes testimony about 2007 interrogation of Mr. al Hawsawi as well as a variety FBI activity throughout the world.

Another important issue that was litigated in December is “when did the armed conflict with al Qaeda begin”, since if there was no armed conflict at the time the alleged crimes were committee, they cannot be tried at Guantanamo, since the military commissions only try war crimes and you have to have an armed conflict in order to have a war crime.

Staying up-to-date

It can be difficult to stay up-to-date on the hearings due to the limited access to court documents and the fact that hearings can only be viewed from specific secured locations, such as Ft. Meade. A good way to stay up-to-date on the proceedings is read the websites of journalists who cover Guantanamo, and websites of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that focus on Guantanamo. Another way to stay up-to-date is to speak with previous observers who have traveled to monitor the hearings. This can help provide a context to understand some issues that might otherwise not be clear because they continue from previous hearing dates.

Of course, it is also very helpful to review materials prepared by the Indiana McKinney School of Law’s Military Commission Observation Project, also known as Gitmo Observer – http://www.GitmoObserver.com. We have the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, and the Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Bay.

My travel.

I was originally scheduled to be in Guantanamo Bay for a week, however the Pentagon stated that they needed to consolidate NGO flights during the month of January, and they asked observers to extend our stay a few extra few days. This means that we will be in Cuba for eleven days, instead of 7. The Pentagon informed us of this schedule change only a few days before our scheduled departure, and it has prevented a few NGO observers from attending the hearings.

Courtroom Time

During my last mission to Guantanamo Bay Judge Pohl granted a motion to continue the hearings, and we had far less time in court than would have otherwise been the case. I hope that during this trip we are able to proceed with full hearings, as that will permit me to report on substantive court proceedings.

Because of the motion to continue the hearings during my last trip I had the opportunity to see parts of Guantanamo Bay Naval Station and Joint Task Force Guantanamo that I might not have otherwise had time to see. I was fortunate enough to see the Northeast Gate and also ride back to see some of the detention facilities of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and eat lunch at the seaside galley restaurant with other observers and chat with defense teams.

Ben Hicks

3^rd Year Student

Indiana University McKinney School of Law