Author: lvkkorolev

Guantanamo Bay 9/11 Hearing Observed from Ft. Meade, MD

This week I traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland to observe the pre-trial hearings in the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba criminal case against 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The proceedings in the Cuban courtroom were broadcast via  “live stream”  into Ft. Meade’s Post Theater.  The proceedings took place Monday, 22 February 2016.

ksm - in court

9/11 lead defendant Khalid Shaik Mohammad, in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom. (Sketch by Janet Hamlin)

Rights of Guantanamo Bay Stakeholders

As an NGO Observer I am charged with ascertaining whether the right to a free trial is being afforded at Guantanamo Bay.

The right to a fair trial is a foundation of a just legal system.  Often, the defendant is presumed to be the most important and perhaps the only stakeholder.  However, the Fair Trial Manual stresses that there are other stakeholders whose rights also need to be considered.    The right to a fair trial is not only to be afforded to the defendant but also to the Prosecution, Victims and Victims’ Families, Witnesses, the Press, the Court, JTF-GTMO Detention Personnel, NGO Observes and Others.

During these hearings, which took place on Monday, 22 February 2016, lawyers argued points of law about pre-trial matters. These arguments, called “motions”, focused on three different topics:

  • the release of an un-redacted transcript of a public hearing held on 30 October 2016 (the AE400 Motion, filed by the media and joined by the defense);
  • to allow expert testimony to show that the touching of a defendant by female guards forces the defendant to relive the torture inflicted by female guards in the past (the AE254 Motion, filed by the defense)
  • to return to defendants laptops the government seized (the AE182 Motion, filed by the defense)

Please note that all public documents released by the Military Commission including the motions filed by the parties and unofficial/unauthorized transcripts can be found on the website of the military commission.

AE400 Motion to Unseal 30 October 2015 Transcript of Public Proceedings.

IU McKinney Observer Matt Kubal posted a bit about the background of this motion.  Carol Rosenberg, a reporter for the Miami Herald, who dedicates much effort to covering Guantanamo Bay developments, has also written about the motion.

In short, on 30 October 2015 a 9/11 case hearing was held at Guantanamo Bay. Present in the courtroom for the hearing were observers (including a representative of Indiana McKinney School of Law), media, and many other persons without security clearances, and all of these people were aware of all that was said during the hearings. Subsequent to the hearing, Military Commission published a redacted transcript of that public hearing, rather than publish the entire transcript.   The Press and Defense argue that the redactions are unconstitutional.  The Prosecution argues that there are no constitutional violations.

This motion is an example of an allegation that the right to a fair trial, which is a right afforded the Press, is being violated.  The motion dealt with the redaction of information from a transcript of a public hearing held 30 October 2015.  The motion was filed by various news outlets.  I don’t expect to see the New Yorker, The New York Times, The Associated Press, Fox News Network, and the Washington Post to be on the same side of an issue, but here these news outlets and a handful of others are collectively known as the “Press Movants”.  The rights implicated in this motion are found in the Manual on pages 81, 127, and 183.

This motion is not only a clear example of the rights of a non-party stakeholder, it also presents examples of some of the reasons for the delay that has plagued the progress of the Commission. To an extent, every issue brought to the Judge in these cases is an issue of first instance, as there are no prior decisions issued by this court regarding many issues.

              Arguments by Press Movants and Defense

The Press Movants, who were represented by non-party counsel Mr. David Schulz, argued that their 1st amendment right had been violated because they were denied access to public information when the Military Commission published a redacted transcript of a public hearing held on 30 October 2015. Mr. Schulz argued that “there can really be no serious doubt that the First Amendment, the constitutional right of the public to inspect that record applies to these transcripts.” Unofficial/Unauthenticated Transcript-The R.M.C. 803 session called to order at 0902, 22 February 2016. Lines 1-3, pg 10614.

Furthermore, Mr. Schulz argued that, among other things, the government has gone to great lengths to prevent the release of classified information both before the start of any hearings but also during, with the implementation of the 40 second audio delay and redlight system.  However, once the information is released to the public after passing the implemented filters, the removal of such information from the record after the fact is unconstitutional.

Another part of the argument put forward by the Press Movants was that the government actually released two versions of the transcript.  The first had entire pages redacted while the second had significantly less redacted information.  The defense discussed both versions to show that the redactions could not have been narrowly tailored and were unjustified in the first redaction.  Accordingly, the argument continued, it is likely that the redactions in the second version are also not justified.

As stated above, the motion was filed by Press organizations, however it was also joined by the defense.  The Press Movants based their argument on a violation of the first amendment, while the Defense based their argument on a violation of the sixth amendment.  According to the Defense, the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant’s right to a public and open trial. The government can impinge on this right but only if it has an overwhelming interest in keeping the information from the public.  The Defense argues that the government is not able to meet that standard.  (Mr. al Baluchi’s Motion to Join Press Movants’ Motion to Unseal 30 October 2015 Transcript of Public Proceedings, pg 2) The arguments by the Defense in this instance were made by Mr. Perry.  Mr. Perry mentioned that the Defendants’ rights as enumerated in the sixth amendment were violated not only because of the limitation on the right to a public and open trial but also because the Defense relies on the Commissions’ transcripts “every day.”  I do not believe this was explicitly stated, but in my mind, the government’s imposition of limitations to the Defense access to documents they require to provide effective assistance to their client, is a violation of the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel.

Arguments by Prosecution

The Prosecution provided four arguments against the release of the previously redacted information.

  1. Prosecution argued that the unofficial/unauthorized transcript is not a Judicial Document, so the redaction after the fact is fully authorized.
  2. Prosecution argued that the redacted information was redacted because it is classified. If someone determined that this information is classified, they did so in the interests of national security.  Furthermore, the person designating certain formation classified has a broader view of the effect of the information on national security.  Accordingly, the prosecution gave little weight to the argument that they may have waived their right to protecting any classified information by not raising the issue during the 30 October 2016 hearing.
  3. Prosecution also argued that because the second release contained less information designated as classified, the redactions were indeed narrowly tailored.

Judge

The Judge asked the prosecution what they think the best way forward is, which leads me to believe that he will not order the government to release the redacted information.

Logistical/Administrative Hurdles related to the redacted transcript motion

Before the start of the substantive evidentiary hearings, the parties presented arguments on whether Mr. Perry, one of the defendants’ attorneys, should be allowed to present arguments before the Judge.  Mr. Perry was a government worker for over 12 years and has a secret security clearance, but does not have the proper clearance to argue before the Judge in Guantanamo Bay on behalf of the defendants.  For one reason or another paper work was not processed and clearance was not obtained before the hearing.  Mr. Perry and his team applied for the proper clearance in June 2015.  The judge ultimately allowed Mr. Perry to argue but only on this particular motion.  Mr. Perry was only allowed into the court room to present his arguments and had to watch the rest of the proceedings from the viewing room which as a 40 second delay.  While Mr. Perry was able to argue before the court in this instance, obtaining required security clearance causes delays in the resolution of these trials.

Another example of a reason for delay in the resolution of these trials can be found in the substantive discussion of the AE400 Motion when the Judge asked if he even had the authority to question the decision by the executive branch to make certain information classified.  The Judge pointed out that there is a high standard to mark information classified, and he is not sure if he is in the best position or even has the authority to question that determination.  One reason for the ongoing pre trial hearings is to determine exactly what rights should be afforded to stakeholders’, including the rights/authorities of the Court and its Judge. I would like to note that I do not show this example to critique the court or the progress made, but merely to show that a judicial system without precedent does not function as efficiently or timely as one with decades of precedence and established procedures.

Mr. Nevin, counsel for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, brought up an incident he believes occurred in 2012.  Mr. Nevin recounted that in 2012, he was speaking before the Judge when the red light went off.  The red light is an indication that classified information is being released and if the light goes off the hearings are stopped.  Mr. Nevin stated that when the red light went off, he was not discussing classified information.  Neither the Judge nor courtroom staff activated the light, meaning that someone outside of the courtroom must have activated the red light.  It was discovered, according to Mr. Nevin, that the CIA, viewing the hearing from another location had the power to, and did, activate the light. The Military Commission then disabled the ability of out of courtroom CIA viewers to active the light and restrict the information that leaves the court.  Mr. Nevin reminded the Judge that the Judge was not happy about the possibility of someone outside the courtroom restricting the release of information, implying that the Judge does have the authority to determine what information is to remain public.

Other Motions 

AE254YYY Motion

This hearing was based on a motion to reconsider a previous Order denying a request by Mr. Nevin, learned counsel for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to bring in an expert witness to testify as to the religious and cultural norms behind the pain Mr. Mohammed experiences when touched by female guards..  While, the focus of the Defense was that the Judge used a wrong standard in making his earlier ruling, I was more intrigued by the discussion of the use of an expert witness.   The Defense would like to bring an expert witness to testify that female guards’ touching of the Defendants previously tortured, and specifically sexually abused by female guards in Guantanamo during torture, forces the Defendants to re-live the experience.

AE182 Motion-Government Return of Laptops to Defendants

Defendants had access to laptops between 2008 and 2010.  They did not have counsel during that period, and the government provided access to laptops because the use of laptops would provide a better opportunity for Defendants to defend themselves.  The government seized the laptops in 2010 after Defendants received legal representation.  The defense stated that the Judge has issued three previous Orders requiring the return of the laptops to the Defendants and again asked the Judge to enforce his Orders.   The Prosecution argued that they released the laptops to defense counsel, and defense counsel is allowed to give the laptops back to Defendants as long as they follow certain security protocol.  Defense counsel summarized the prosecution’s strategy in the following way:

“The judge intends for you to get back the computers you had in 2008-2010, but before we do that we are going to break them, and the reason — the way we’re going to break them is in compliance with security protocols that have just been miraculously developed by our good friends at Joint Task Force Guantanamo Joint Detention Facility.” Unofficial/Unauthenticated Transcript-The R.M.C. 803 session called to order at 1331, 22 February 2016. Lines 11-17, pg 10794.

This hearing was the only one where I sensed any hostility or aggression between counsel for both parties.  Counsel for Defense was combative and attacked the motive of the Prosecution.  The Judge expressed confusion with respect to some of the underlying facts and it was my impression that both sides were trying to hide the ball.  This motion shows that not only are there logistical and administrative obstacles to the progress of the hearings but that, like in any other court, strategy and the adversarial structure also play a role in the delay.

Personal Observation and Experience

                I drove through the inspection entrance at Ft. Meade around 7:15 am.  When asked why I was coming I told the inspectors I was here to observe the 9/11 hearings.  They seemed to have no idea what I was talking about and asked a few additional questions.  Full disclosure, I became a bit nervous after they started asking additional questions.  I started to think it was some sort of test/screening process.  I now think they genuinely did not know what I was talking about.  Ft. Meade is a huge base and Post Theater, where the live stream is shown, is a very small part of it.  While the 9/11 hearings are of extreme significance to some, it is perfectly reasonable that others would not be aware of the place, time, and substance of related pre-trial evidentiary hearings occurring in Cuba and being “live” streamed to a small theater in Maryland.  I notified Professor Edwards of my arrival and took some photos of the theater and a nearby park.

I was inclined to drive around the base but wanted to make sure I was able to get into the theater when it opened.  One of the day’s hearings dealt with a motion filed by the press.  I was concerned that the theater will be filled with media types.  Turns out my fears were not justified as no one arrived until right around 8:30 and at a maximum there were about 16 people at any given time. I talked to an employee of the theater after the hearing who mistook me for a law professor.  During the conversation I learned that there are usually no more than 20 people in the theater and that Post Theater is reserved for legal professionals and victims/victims’ families.  The media observes the hearings from a different location in part, I imagine, to avoid contact between members of the media and the victims/victims’ families.  I asked if I could take pictures of the theater when court was not in session; the answer was a resounding “no”.

The drive home was an experience in and of itself.  I finished listening to the Guantanamo Diary, a book written by a current GITMO detainee.  I took a break to listen to the Pentagon Press Briefing on the closure of Guantanamo Bay as I drove past the site the Flight 93 crash.

 

Leontiy Korolev, JD 2012, Observer

Many of the ideas above are based on my memory and understanding of the 22 February 2016 Hearings and related motions and transcripts. The foregoing is my opinion in my own personal capacity, and my blog posts and other comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law or anyone else, for that matter.

Travel to Ft. Meade for Guantanamo Bay 9/11 Hearings

ksm - in court

9/11 lead defendant Khalid Shaik Mohammad, in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom. (Sketch by Janet Hamlin)

A schedule conflict prevented me from traveling to Guantanamo Bay last week, but I will be in Ft. Meade on Monday to observe one day of hearings in the 9/11: Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al. case. These are truly historic proceedings from so many perspectives including legal, cultural, and political, and I am glad to have the opportunity to Observe.  Paul Schilling reported directly from Guantanamo last week, and Matt Kubal will be doing the same this week.  Their posts have contributed, and I have no doubt will contribute to the mission of the Military Commission Observation Project and I hope mine will do the same.

Travel:

I left Indianapolis around 2pm, it was sunny and in the 60s.  I saw people in shorts and t shirts as I drove through Fountain Square and onto 70 East, where I would spend the next 9 or so hours.  Professor Lemmer referenced the “Guantanamo Diary” in one of her posts. It is a book written by Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a current detainee at Guantanamo Bay. I was able to listen to a few hours of it on the drive out east.  I won’t turn this into a book review, but I highly recommend it.   The book certainly helped pass the time, and the perspective it provides, I imagine, is unlike any other.  The drive gave me a lot of time to reflect and the substance of the book certainly provided plenty of food for thought. I arrived at my parents’ house around 11:30 pm, it was pitch black and parts of the ground were still covered in snow.

 

I am staying at my parents’ house who live an hour and a half from Ft. Meade.  I plan on getting up in the morning in time to arrive at Ft. Meade by 8:00 am.  In the meantime I’ve been reviewing the manual, recent transcripts, and some of the ae400 Motion documents.  One of the hearings tomorrow is expected to deal with the ae400 Motion.  The ae400 Motion was filed by members of the media stating that certain information was improperly withheld from the public.  Mr. Kubal should be posting shortly with some background on the ae400 Motion, and I hope to provide a substantive overview of the hearing on the ae400 mid-week.

Leontiy Korolev, JD ’12, Indiana University McKinney School of Law Monitor, Military Commission Observation Project

My Scheduled Trip to Guantanamo Bay

My name is Leontiy Korolev and I am very excited by the possibility of traveling to Guantanamo Bay to observe hearings in the U.S. Military Commission case against Hadi al Iraqi on 26 and 27 January 2016.

I graduated from Indiana University McKinney School of Law a few years ago, and now work as an attorney for the State of Indiana.  In Law School, I was president of the International Human Rights Law Society and had the honor of receiving a scholarship to travel to Geneva, Switzerland as an extern for the Program in International Human Rights Law. For a while after Law School I was a research assistant for the Program in International Human Rights Law, and assisted with drafting and researching parts of GuanFT Manualtanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual.

Case Background

The Office of the Military Commission provides background information on the Guantanamo Bay Trials including any official documents that have been released to the public. The Charge Sheet is an interesting read and lays out the U.S. Government’s charges against Hadi al Iraqi.  The specific charges are found on pages 10-12 of the Charge Sheet dated 02/10/2014. The five charges allege that Hadi al Iraqi committed the following crimes: (1) denying quarter, (2) attacking protected property, (3) using treachery or perfidy, (4) attempted use of treachery or perfidy, and (5) conspiracy. It is important to note that there are numerous news sources available online and elsewhere about the allegations and Hadi al Iraqi; the Charge Sheet only provides the Governments allegations.

But learning about Hadi is only part of my preparation. I also have to learn about what my responsibilities are as an “observer” or “monitor”.

The Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual contains a chapter about the Role of the Observer / Monitor. I understand that I am to attend, observer, analyze, critique and report on U.S. Military Commission hearings.  I am looking forward to digging into the Manual and learning more about the role of the Observer/Monitor. Professor Edwards provided the following summary of the role of the Observer/Monitor: “We are observers, and have an opportunity to see, hear and learn things that other stakeholders are not privy to. We are the eyes and ears into the Commissions for the outside world. If we do not post information, outsiders will not know. We have undertaken to send people to Ft. Meade & GTMO in great part to provide insights for those who cannot go. So, if we do not post, stakeholders and others of interest do not find out.”

Approval Process

There are a handful of blogs below that provide some background on the Hadi al Iraqi trials, however I do think that think there may be at least a few people interested in reading about how one is able to travel to Guantanamo Bay and the steps that were taken to apply as well as the steps that needed to be taken to “finalize” travel.  Finalize is in quotes because I write this, unfortunately knowing that the hearing could be continued at any moment, perhaps even during my drive to Andrews Airforce Base.  Of course it could also be continued as I fly on a military jet to Cuba, but I think that alone would be an experience, so it wouldn’t be the end of the world.  The trial could also be continued after I land, which would then leave me with a few days in Cuba, which is not the worst thing in the world either! UPDATE: the hearing was actually cancelled the day before I was set to travel, but I will cover the cancellation in a future post.

I have scoured my inbox to see the exact date of my application and it looks like my first application to participate as an observer in the Military Commission Observation Project of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law’s Program in International Human Rights Law was in March 2015.  I remember waiting and hoping for the opportunity but as time went by, I was convinced the opportunity would escape me.  It had been months since I thought I may yet have the chance to observe the Guantanamo Bay Trials in person, at Camp Justice.

The process has been a practice in managing expectation and curbing my enthusiasm.  I waited to hear back after applying the second time, but did not hold my breath.  Shortly after submitting the application I was informed that I had been nominated to travel to Guantanamo Bay for the Hadi hearings. There was a caveat, the nomination did not mean anything unless I was approved to go by the Pentagon.  I don’t know about most of the readers, but I have never had to obtain approval from the Pentagon to do anything before.  Perhaps Pentagon approval should have been a given, but in my mind it certainly was not.

It seems like time stood still for the next 12 days.  The approval email finally arrived and I was given two weeks to submit a handful of additional documents to the Pentagon.  This may seem like plenty of time, but the approval came on December 23.  Not only were the holidays here but there was a very specific submission process.  The documents followed a complicated path.  The Pentagon sent them to me, I had to fill them out, scan them and send them to Indiana University McKinney School of Law’s Program in International Human Rights Law (“PIHRL”).  Those documents were then reviewed by PIHRL and sent to IU Counsel on the IUPUI campus who reviewed and sent them to lawyers in Bloomington.  The lawyers in Bloomington reviewed the documents and sent them to the Indiana University Treasurer.  The Treasurer has the authority to execute the documents.  Once executed they were sent back to Bloomington Lawyers, the IUPUI lawyers, PIHRL, back to me and finally to the Pentagon.  I received the documents back from PIHRL on January 4th, one day before the submission deadline given to me by the Pentagon. A few more email exchanges followed and I was able to submit the documents to the Pentagon before the deadline.  I’m sure this all seems more dramatic to me than to the reader (hopefully readers), but given my excitement to attend the hearings, I think it is understandable.

Conclusion

Although the hearings were cancelled the day I was set to begin travel, this has been a learning experience and I hope to receive another opportunity to observe and report in the future.