Author: sheilawillard

3L law student at IU McKinney Law School.

My second observation of war court proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

This was my fourth scheduled trip as part of Indiana’s project, and my second trip to Guantanamo. I was originally scheduled to observe at the beginning of October in the case against Hadi al Iraqi, an alleged high-ranking member of al Qaeda, but as reported by Carol Rosenberg in the Miami Herald, the hearings were canceled due to a medical issue experienced by Hadi.

Breaking news concerning the case U.S. v. al Nashiri

A couple of days before we arrived at Guantanamo, we heard news that 3 members of the defense counsel for Mr. al Nashiri, who is charged in a separate death penalty case, were released from their defense roles by Brigadier General Baker, chief defense counsel. Mr. al Nashiri is accused of orchestrating the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in late 2000, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

The three members of the defense, including learned counsel Mr. Rick Kammen, quit earlier this month over a “secret ethical issue” that the defense claimed compromised attorney-client privacy. A learned counsel is an attorney with experience in capital cases, and whose representation and presence is a requirement for these proceedings. Today, judge Air Force Col. Vance Spath scheduled a contempt hearing to be held tomorrow Wednesday after the three members of the defense refused to appear at war court. Read more at the Miami Herald.

Arrival at Guantanamo

We arrived at Guantanamo on Saturday, 14 October and were immediately escorted to our lodgings where we quickly unpacked and began to settle in. That afternoon, our

Standing at the Camp Justice sign a few hours after arriving at Gitmo.

escort drove us to the Navy Exchange where we were able to stock up on snacks for the week, since our dining options are limited mostly to the galley (cafeteria food) or fast food (Subway, McDonald’s, Starbucks). We obtained our security badges and were instructed to wear any time we were home at Camp Justice.

Monday, 16 October

We entered the courtroom and were assigned seats in the gallery, which is separated from the courtroom by thick glass. There is a 40-second sound delay for the purposes of national security, where the judge is able to cut the feed to the gallery and the CCTV in case of accidental or otherwise classified discussion.

The hearings began promptly today with the defense counsel advising Judge Pohl that there were motions in the works to address the issue of possibly compromised meeting spaces after the developments concerning Mr. Kammen and the al Nashiri case came to light prior to the week’s hearings. Judge Pohl said he wasn’t certain that Brigadier General Baker has the authority to disband the trial team.

The defense also raised the issue of claims of lack of resources by the Joint Task Force (JTF) that directly affect the meetings between counsel and defendant. The Joint Task Force is in charge of the operations at Guantanamo, including detainee operation logistics and detainee transfer/supervision. Since the typical meeting spaces will likely be investigated after the developments in the al Nashiri case, the question concerned where the next most adequate space to meet with the defendants will be.

The defense raised a discovery issue — their ongoing request for Brady material. Brady refers to the case Brady v. Maryland, where the court held that the prosecution must turn over any evidence favorable to the defendant, or, exculpatory evidence (also known as “Brady material”). The Government responded that the defense has been provided with any material they (the Government) deemed relevant, and that the defense can request more discovery. The defense argued that the purpose of discovery is not to have to hunt for evidence. The Government referred to a “voluminous discovery” request by the defense, and said that the Government has no obligation to “spoon-feed” discovery to the defense.

The unofficial transcripts for Monday’s hearings may be found here.

Court recessed for lunch at around 1:00PM and the rest of the session was closed to observers.

Tuesday, 17 October

There was no court today, so the NGOs took the day to sightsee, relax, and catch up on work.

Wednesday, 18 October

The day began with news of government-seized attorney-client privileged material

The hearings resumed Wednesday morning, and started with the news that the JTF had seized the defendants’ laptops which the defense counsel argued contained attorney-client privileged material. Judge Pohl asked the Government to explain why the JTF seized the material. The Government stated that they were working on filing a response to what had occurred that morning and why.

The first motion was picked up from Monday at the end of the session concerning an issue of metadata that was brought by the defense. The defense argued that the prosecution turned over photographic evidence with all metadata stripped off. Metadata is the information that attaches to a digital photograph, including location, date, and time of the photograph, and depending on the sophistication of the equipment used, could even reveal the name of the person who took the photograph. The defense argued that such information is important to their case. The Government responded that the metadata was not relevant, and that the Government will seek to classify the information if the Judge orders that the government turn over metadata to the defense.

The defense also raised a motion to compel the Government to release information regarding certain torture sites, including information on the confinement buildings. The defense sought any architectural drawings, contracts, agreements, etc. pertaining to the buildings. The defense argued that prison architecture can typically reveal a lot about the conditions under which the detainees were held. The actual sites were destroyed or decommissioned, and the defense argued this information may help draw the picture of the conditions under which the defendants were held while at black sites around the world.

The Government responded that the defense could obtain this information from the defendants themselves, and that any information remaining on the black sites is classified “across the board”. The Government argued that while the information may be material to the defenses’ preparation, it is inapplicable to the case because the Government is not using building logistics in their case against the defendants.

The unofficial transcripts for Wednesday’s hearings may be found here.

The session ended late in the afternoon, at around 5PM. The gallery emptied at the close of session, but the NGO observers stayed behind to discuss the day’s events. During this time, we observed one of the four alleged war criminals rise and begin the Islamic Call to Prayer as the four other men stayed seated and continued discussion with their defense

Photo by Janet Hamlin of the five defendants in the KSM case in 2012. Source.

teams. Even though we had the thick glass separating us from where he was standing in the courtroom, we could still lightly hear the sound of the call. It was a surreal moment for the observers, and one I will never forget.

Thursday, 19 October

Today’s hearing was delayed by over an hour because of yesterday’s JTF seizure of the defendants’ laptops that contained attorney-client privileged material. The facts were somewhat unclear, but I believe that the laptops of four of the five defendants were seized as the defendants were on their way to court either the hearing or meeting with their counsel, and one of their materials was seized from the defendant’s cell. The Government noted that they will file notice with an explanation of why the seizure happened, and that the facts will justify the seizure.

This has been the third major seizure of attorney-client privileged material since this case started. The defense asked the judge for transparency in this process and the Government responded that they were filing a response as to what happened. Judge Pohl asked the Government to tell the courtroom what had happened, but the Government insisted that the judge would be interested in seeing the notice first.

The defense presented a list of over 100 potential witness. The defense mentioned the logistical issues that might arise with that high number of witnesses potentially coming to Guantanamo. This includes the issue of sufficient lodging, the threat to judicial independence if hearings are canceled and rescheduled, the fact that there is only one courtroom for all the current cases, scheduling conflicts for all parties involved, etc. The defense mentioned that resources are already an issue and affecting the military commission process.

Government invoked national security privilege during defense oral argument

Around half way through the defenses’ presentation on the proposed witness list, the Government quickly rose to address Judge Pohl and invoked the privilege of national security in regards to the presentation. From the observer standpoint, it seemed that the Government was invoking national security because of information found on the slides, which the judge confirmed with the defense had been sent through the appropriate review and declassification procedure prior to the hearing.

Judge Pohl issued a 10-minute recess so that the Government could figure out what the issue was. During the confusion, the obviously frustrated judge addressed the Government, “Now what do I do?”

The NGOs were allowed to remain in the gallery and we were able to observe the confusion in the courtroom.

Once court was reconvened, the Government requested more time. Judge Pohl inquired into what he deemed an arbitrary interruption to the proceedings and told the Government that there was no classified information in the presentation and therefore no reason to assert national security privilege. There was confusion because the Government did not continue to object to the defenses’ presentation, and the hearing was suddenly free to continue. Judge Pohl asked the Government if the defense was allowed to proceed, to which the Government replied that the defense may continue argument as planned.

The afternoon continued with oral argument on motions to compel the identities of witnesses who were only identified with pseudonyms, and also a motion to compel the location of black sites.

Towards the end of the day’s hearing, defense counsel brought up the seizure of the defendants’ laptops, seeking resolution. The defense claimed that there was no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion for the laptops to be seized. The Government’s position was that the laptops would not be returned and the Government would file more pleadings on the issue “in light of the circumstances described”.

Over 24 hours after the attorney-client privileged material was first seized by the JTF, Judge Pohl issued an order that the materials be secured with tamper-proof tape, and placed in a receptacle secured with the same.

The unofficial transcripts for Thursday’s hearings are not available.

Final thoughts

A lot of questions came up during our NGO discussions throughout the week, mostly surrounding the seizure of attorney-client privileged material, the Government invoking national security privilege on declassified material, and also about the judge’s role in the

A look at the NGO Resource tent where the NGOs retreat to socialize and work after each hearing.

whole process. The defense seems to be strongly advocating for the interest of their clients, and going above and beyond in their duty to the rule of law and the constitutionally-bound process.

While I heard less from the government this week, it seems that they are ultimately interested in achieving justice, but hold a lot of control over the court (such as having the immediate ability to stop all discussion as happened at the hearing on Thursday, even though there was no classified material being discussed.)

My hope for these proceedings is that more Americans become interested and involved in something that a lot of people don’t even know is currently ongoing. Observation is difficult considering that the methods to watch these pre-trial hearings are severely limited, but there are great resources online from both media and NGO observers that members of the public may follow.

Even then, I noticed that the daily transcripts that the military commissions posts on the webpage at www.mc.mil are not complete, with some days missing hours’ worth of transcripts, and some days, such as Thursday, 19 October, missing completely from the website. Without observer and media reporting, the public would likely not know what happens are Guantanamo war court.

Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, ’18)

NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

My second trip from Andrews Air Force Base to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

The Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law nominated me, and the Pentagon confirmed me, to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor U.S. Military Commission hearings in the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks. Our Indiana project was granted non-governmental organization (NGO) status, which permits the project to send monitors (or “observers”). I am scheduled to be at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from 14 to 21 October 2017.

My role as an NGO observer is to attend, observe and be observed, analyze, critique and report on the military commissions. My goal is to provide an independent and impartial account and analysis of what I observe, inside and outside the Guantanamo courtroom.

This is my fourth scheduled trip as part of Indiana’s project, and my second trip to Guantanamo. I was originally scheduled to observe at the beginning of October in the case against Hadi al Iraqi, an alleged high-ranking member of al Qaeda, but as reported by Carol Rosenberg in the Miami Herald, the hearings were canceled due to a medical issue experienced by Hadi.

Arrival at Andrews

4 of 5 NGOs posing with the Manual Excerpts and guidebook.

I arrived at Andrews Air Force Base Visitor Center where I met up with the other NGO observers at around 6:00AM. We were escorted onto the base by authorized personnel and directed where to go next to check in to our flight to Guantanamo. We checked in at
6:15AM and departed Andrews at 9:30AM.

This morning the NGOs discussed the latest news out of Guantanamo, including the sentencing of Mr. al Darbi yesterday (Friday, 13 October 2017) to 13 years in prison. In 2014, al Darbi pleaded guilty to war crimes charges, and agreed to cooperate with the government. He has already testified against two defendants in other Guantanamo cases.

We also learned on Friday that all the civilian defense lawyers for al Nashiri, who is charged with orchestrating the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, quit the representation. Here is a link to the press release by capital defense attorney, and key member of the defense Rick Kammen, from Indianapolis.

Arrival at GTMO

We arrived at Guantanamo after an uneventful flight. We were processed into Guantanamo Bay and permitted to enter the Air Terminal waiting room, where I spotted Professor George Edwards, who had been at Guantanamo for the al Darbi sentencing and who was flying back to Andrews on the plane that brought me to Guantanamo. Professor Edwards and I had a rushed moment to take photos in front of the Guantanamo Bay Air Terminal.

Took advantage of a brief encounter with Professor Edwards to snap a picture at the Passenger Terminal.

The 5 monitors boarded a van that took us to a ferry that would take us across the bay to the area of Guantanamo where we will live for the next week – Camp Justice – and where the courtroom is located. We were taken to a secure trailer inside the court complex to obtain our security badges, then were driven to the Navy Exchange so we could pick up food and other supplies. After, upon arriving back at the tents where we will live, we were given a chance to quickly unpack and prepare our beds.

The 5 monitors attended a BBQ hosted by the defense team of Ammar al Baluchi, who is one of the five defendants in 9/11 case. In attendance were Brigadier General John Baker, who is Chief Defense Counsel of the Military Commissions Defense Organization, Mr. James Connell, a civilian death penalty defense attorney, and various other members of the defense team, including lawyers, paralegals, and other staff.

At the BBQ, Mr. Connell gave us a rundown of the motions on the docket for this week’s hearings, which will help us prepare for our observation when the commission hearings pick back up on Monday, 16 October. We also had the opportunity to speak with BG Baker, Mr. Connell, and the rest of the defense team.

4 of the 5 NGOs on the ferry after landing in GTMO.

It is quite apparent to me that this defense team is invested in transparency and takes a very open, very relaxed approach when interacting with NGOs. The team stresses the importance of having NGOs at the hearings, since we are basically “the eyes and ears” of the world, apart from the media and any channels the defense team may have of sharing with the public what goes on in one of the most high-profile, otherwise inaccessible proceedings in American history.

Preparing for Monday (more…)

Second Observation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et al.

I have been nominated by the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law and confirmed by the Pentagon to attend the military commission hearings in the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks. I will be observing from the military commission court at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from 14 October until 21 October 2017.

Previous observations and nomination

This will be my third observation in the 9/11 proceedings. My first observation was at Ft. Meade, Maryland, where I observed hearings in the same case as this observation, against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et al., via CCTV in October 2016. My second observation was in January 2017 at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where I had the chance to observe the hearings in the case against Hadi al Iraqi, an alleged high-ranking member of al Qaeda.

Speaking with Professor George Edwards at Ft. Meade, Maryland before leaving back to Indiana after observing a pre-trial hearing via CCTV.

I was initially nominated to observe earlier this month at Guantanamo in the case against Hadi al Iraqi, but the hearings were canceled due to Hadi’s health and an urgent medical issue. The Miami Herald reported that Hadi had been referred for neck surgery after a period of time of known health issues. Hadi also had lower back surgery in early September 2017 that he is recovering from.

Paperwork

In order to observe through the MCOP, there are various levels of forms to be submitted to both the Program Director, and the Pentagon.

Pentagon Requirements The documents required by the Pentagon are 1) Hold Harmless Agreement, 2) Invitational Travel Worksheet, 3) Navy Base Access Pass Registration, and 4) NGO Ground Rules, along with a biography and picture. As an observer going through an Indiana University program, the forms must go through the appropriate channels in order to be approved by the university prior to sending to the Pentagon. Note to future observers: this will take time. Be sure you submit your paperwork immediately to avoid potential delays.

Once I received the stamped approved documents from IU, I forwarded these requirements to my Pentagon contact. The Pentagon contact will complete their formal review process, and will email confirmation if everything is in order. This may take a few days.

MCOP Requirements The MCOP document procedure is more simple than the Pentagon procedure. In order to participate through the MCOP, the observer must timely submit any and all Pentagon-related communication to the Program Director. He will facilitate the initial document review, IU review, and final review prior to submitting anything to the Pentagon. This will help in avoiding potential delay if any information is missing from the forms.

The MCOP requires for the participant to submit blog posts to this blog as a program requirements, an MCOP checklist to be completed by the observer, and proof of health insurance for the observer going abroad or even observing domestically.

The female NGO tent that will be “home” for the next week at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Preparation: The Gameplan

To prepare for my observation, I am re-reading the Know Before You Go to Guantanamo guidebook, since it has been a few months since my last observation. I need to prepare appropriate clothing to take with me on the weeklong trip, which includes professional clothing for events and hearings, and casual clothing for downtime. The observer is also What to Expect responsible for booking her own travel to and from Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, D.C., and any overnight accommodations that are necessary on the night before arrival into D.C. and the day of return from Guantanamo. My university-sponsored foreign health insurance is in place and my itinerary is scheduled.

This week is fall break for my law school, but I still have assignments and a mid-term exam to prepare for and complete in the next couple of days prior to leaving for D.C. on Friday morning.

Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, ’18)

NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Indiana University Students Travel to Guantanamo Bay Despite Trump Administration Cuba Travel Warning

U.S. Department of State travel warning for Cuba

On 29 September 2017, the United States Department of State issued an advisory that “warns U.S. citizens not to travel to Cuba”. Indiana University prohibits its students from traveling to countries for which the State Department has issued such travel warnings, unless IU grants an exemption. Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 11.19.36 PM

On Tuesday, 4 October 2017, the IU Office of (OSAC) granted an exemption thus permitting IU students to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to continue to participate in the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the IU McKinney School of Law’s Program in International Human Rights Law.

Why the Cuba Travel Warning?

The State Department warning stated that in recent months, “numerous U.S. Embassy Havana employees have been targeted in specific attacks. These employees have suffered significant injuries as a consequence of these attacks. Affected individuals have exhibited a range of physical symptoms including ear complaints and hearing loss, dizziness, headache, fatigue, cognitive issues, and difficulty sleeping.”

The warning noted that neither the U.S. nor Cuban government has “identified the responsible party, but the Government of Cuba is responsible for taking all appropriate steps to prevent attacks on our diplomatic personnel and U.S. citizens in Cuba. Because our personnel’s safety is at risk, and we are unable to identify the source of the attacks, we believe U.S. citizens may also be at risk and warn them not to travel to Cuba.”

The warning noted that “[a]ttacks have occurred in U.S. diplomatic residences and hotels frequented by U.S. citizens.”

The warning further noted that on September 29, the U.S. “ordered the departure of nonemergency U.S. government employees and their family members to protect the safety of our personnel.”

Indiana University travel ban and exemption

The Indiana University Overseas Study Advisory Council (OSAC) must approve international activity, such as the law student Guantanamo travel, and monitors such programs. OSAC “supports the Standards of Good Practice of the Forum on Education Abroad” and “endeavors to use” those standards “as a guideline when creating, monitoring and evaluating IU programs”.

When a travel advisory is issued for a country, OSAC requires IU student travel to cease to that country, unless OSAC grants an exemption.

The Cuba travel warning was issued on the 29^th of September. On 3 and 4 October the Guantanamo project submitted to OSAC a 4-page document explaining the Guantanamo program, mentioning the distance between Havana (where the referred to medical issues were said to have happened) and Guantanamo Bay, that fact that IU students traveling to Guantanamo are confined to the U.S. military base there and have no access to the rest of Cuba, and that the U.S. Embassy in Kingston, Jamaica handles consular matters for Guantanamo Bay, and not the U.S. Embassy in Havana, followed by an 86-page supporting document. OSAC granted the exemption on Tuesday, 3 October 2017, clearing the way for IU McKinney School of Law students to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba later this month.

Upcoming IU McKinney law student travel to Guantanamo Bay

The next student scheduled to travel to Guantanamo Bay in the IU McKinney program is Ms. Sheila Willard, a third-year law student, who is scheduled for a Guantanamo mission from 14 October 2017 to 21 October 2017 to monitor pre-trial hearings in the case against the 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The five defendants face the death penalty for a series of war crimes associated with the attack that killed almost 3,000 people on 9/11.

At Guantanamo bay, Ms. Willard will be seated in the rear of the courtroom in the observation gallery, along with other monitors, media, and victims and family members of victims of the 9/11 attacks. She will be joined by representatives from various other NGOs from around the country to observe the hearings.

Ms. Willard traveled to Guantanamo Bay once before, to monitor the case against Hadi al Iraqi, an alleged high-ranking member of Al Qaeda. She also traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland, where she monitored the case of the 5 alleged masterminds, in the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et al., viewing the proceedings via CCTV from the Guantanamo Bay courtroom.

OSAC Requirements for travel to Guantanamo Bay

Any IU McKinney Affiliate (student, faculty, staff member, graduate) wishing to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as a representative the Military Commission Observation Project is required to sign an exemption document that among other things contains a liability waiver. All MCOP monitors are also required to have insurance (e.g., covering health / accidents), which his offered to students through the Office of International Affairs, is already provided for faculty and staff, and is easily obtainable for graduates who may not have such insurance already.

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 11.18.29 PM

Military Commission Observation Project at IU McKinney

On 28 February 2014, the Pentagon granted NGO observer status to the Indiana University Program in International Human Rights (PIHRL). Since then, PIHRL created the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP), which nominates potential observers from an interested pool of students, faculty/staff, alumni, and affiliates to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or Ft. Meade, Maryland to observe in the high-profile cases against detainees that are charged with terrorism-related offenses.

MCOP representatives may travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to attend, observe, analyze, critique, and publish materials on the hearings. Travel may also be to the Ft. Meade, Maryland military base where the same Guantanamo Bay hearings may be viewed via secure video-link.

Interested in traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or to Ft. Meade, Maryland?

As mentioned, travel through the Guantanamo project is available to faculty, staff, students and graduates of the IU McKinney School of Law. Information about registration for possible travel can be found here [though dates for the last quarter of 2017 and the first half of 2018 may not yet be posted on the website].

More information about the project can be found at www.GitmoObserver.com.

Read the Gitmo Observer blog to prepare for your observation

IU affiliates who are nominated for and travel to Guantanamo or Ft. Meade to observe the hearings contribute to the Gitmo Observer blog. Affiliates post at the time of nomination and Pentagon confirmation, preparation, once the affiliate begins the process of traveling to Guantanamo, once at Guantanamo and throughout the hearings, and finally upon return to the U.S. after observation. The blog posts contain varied information that may be valuable to any person preparing to travel to Guantanamo or Ft. Meade to observe the hearings.

Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual and the Know Before You Go guide for future observers

The MCOP project has made available to observers our Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, a series of manuals that will help you in better preparing for your observation. Here are some insights into what you will find in the manuals:

what the right to a fair trial is and how a fair trial should look
how to assess whether a fair trial is being afforded to all Guantanamo stakeholders
roles & responsibilities of independent Observers sent to monitor Guantanamo hearings
background info on Guantanamo the military commissions
a schematic of the courtroom (so you can know who is who)
and a 76 page “Know Before You Go To Guantanamo” insert that will tell you what to expect on your flight to Cuba, the ferry ride across Guantanamo Bay from the landing strip to your Quonset Hut accommodations, base security, food (which can be quite good!), beach, boating, and of course the courtroom, the hearings, and briefings by the prosecution and defense.

The McKinney affiliate scheduled for each the hearing will be responsible to email to all of the Pentagon-approved observers a PDF version of the Know Before You Go To Guantanamo guide prior to departure from the U.S. All observers are encouraged to read the guide as the authors are experienced in Guantanamo and Ft. Meade observation and everything that is involved in making it a fully beneficial experience to all parties involved.

Please let us know if you have any suggestions for improving our Excerpts, our full Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual (over 500 pages in 2 volumes) and our Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Guide (76 pages). Please send inquiries or thoughts to GitmoObserver@yahoo.com.

For more information, please write to gtmo@indiana.edu or gitmo@indiana.edu.

Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, ’18)

NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Possible Return Trip to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from 30 September to 7 October 2017

I was nominated by the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law and confirmed by the Pentagon to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor military commission hearings in the case against Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, who has requested to be called Nashwan al Tamir, from 30 September – 7 October 2017. Hadi is an alleged senior member of al-Qaeda responsible for war crimes.

My earlier monitoring at Ft. Meade and Guantanamo

This will be my third time to observe in the war crimes pre-trial hearings. I traveled toFt. Meade, Maryland in October 2016 to observe the hearing in the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks, and to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in January 2017 to observe hearings in the case against Hadi, the same defendant in the upcoming hearings.

Possible hearing delay

As of last Thursday, 14 September, Carol Rosenberg reported in the Miami Herald that Hadi has been referred for neck surgery after a period of time of known health issues. It was reported that he had lower back surgery earlier this month. There is no official word yet from the Pentagon as to the status of the hearings slated to begin 2 October and run through 6 October. The Miami Herald reported that Pentagon spokesman Air Force Maj. Ben said the hearings were still on (as of Friday, 15 October) and that any request for delay would only be considered in the event that the defense file the appropriate motion.

Current filings/where the case stands

Guantánamo prisoner Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, who says his true name is Nashwan al Tamir, poses for the International Committee of the Red Cross in a 2014 photo taken for his family, and provided by his attorneys.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article173566786.html#storylink=cpy

As of today, Monday 18 September, the defense filed a motion regarding Hadi’s current medical status to request an emergency motion to abate the proceedings until he is physically competent to stand trial, per the filing listing available on the Military Commissions website. The most recent motion regarding the emergency abatement was filed today and is still being processed under security review and not available to read by the public. Once it has gone through the security review, the document will become available here.

Another hurricane?

The National Oceanic and Atomspheric Administration (NOAA) has announced that a category 5 hurricane is heading towards the Caribbean. Hurricane Maria is a 160mph storm that recently made landfall on Dominica and is now headed towards Puerto Rico, which is officially on national alert after President Trump issued an emergency declaration for federal assistance for the territory. If it continues on its current trajectory, it may narrowly miss Cuba as it veers north towards the Atlantic.

Preliminary thoughts

I am grateful to have the opportunity to travel to Guantanamo again to observe the Hadi hearings, but am aware that the hearings may be canceled and rescheduled to allow for a lengthy recovery period of the defendant. I will continue to prepare for the hearings as if they were to go forward so that I am fully prepared in case I am able to travel next week to Guantanamo.

Observers representing various organizations posing in front of our sleeping quarters in January 2017 at Camp Justice in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Sheila Willard, J.D. Candidate

Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

My Overnight in D.C. On My Way to Guantanamo bay

I am a 2L at Indiana University McKinney School of Law and am traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on mission representing the Indiana University Program on International Human Rights Law (PIHRL) Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) at the hearings in the case against Abd al Hadi al Iraqi. My Ft. Meade experience and my Guantanamo Bay pre-departure post may be found here.

Flight and Hotel Information

I had an uneventful 1.5-hour flight from Indianapolis, Indiana to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Washington, D.C. and have checked into my hotel. The Uber ride from the airport to the Quality Inn took around 30 minutes and cost a little less than a dollar per minute. A shared van or Uber could have been cheaper, but I preferred to quickly settle in to the hotel for the night. I am staying at the Quality Inn in Camp Springs, MD, which is just across the street from Joint Base Andrews. The hotel is humble and unassuming, and the rooms are large and very clean. There are three stories in the hotel building, and a room may be rented for as little as $81 per night.

Quality Inn on Allentown Road in Camp Springs, MD

There are several restaurants advertised at the front desk that deliver lunch and dinner straight to your hotel room. I ordered dinner from Pizza Boli’s. They have a website you can order from, but I called their number to place the order. My combined lunch/dinner was here in less than half an hour and the food was hot and of good quality.

Arrival Requirement

I traveled to D.C. the night before my scheduled flight to Guantanamo Bay, because I am required to arrive at Andrews by 5:00AM tomorrow (Sunday) morning, and the Pentagon graciously arranged a pick-up for me from the hotel at 4:45AM. The flight to Guantanamo Bay is scheduled to depart from Andrews at 8:20AM.

Hotel room at Quality Inn in Camp Springs, MD.

Preparing for Tomorrow

Tonight, I am preparing for departure from Andrews by re-reading an informative email I received from the Pentagon, and going over my Orders (sheila-willard_orders_redacted) and APACS (Aircraft and Personnel Automated Clearance System) (sheila-willard_apacs_redacted). These documents were sent to me by my Pentagon contact.

I am excited to meet my fellow NGO observers tomorrow morning and pass out a copy of the Manual Excerpt, a comprehensive guide for preparing to observe Guantanamo Bay proceedings. Hopefully we will have time to introduce ourselves, our organizations, and share more about our missions and perhaps receive feedback for the MCOP’s Manual, a 500-page, 2-volume resource for all things Guantanamo drafted by Professor Edwards and the PIHRL at Indiana, the Manual Excerpts, a reduced version of the Manual with highlights, such as what a fair trial looks like, the roles and responsibilities of an NGO observer, and background info on Guantanamo military commissions, and Know Before You Go Guide, a 76-page guide that speaks directly to NGO observers and is helpful in preparing for a successful mission, and may also be found in both the Manual and Manual Excerpts.

Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, ’18)

NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Preparing for my mission to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

I was nominated by the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law and confirmed by the Pentagon to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor military commission hearings in the case against Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, who has requested to be called Nashwan al Tamir, from 9 – 14 January 2017. Hadi is an alleged senior member of al-Qaeda responsible for war crimes.

My earlier monitoring at Ft. Meade

Last month I traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland to monitor military commission hearings in the Guantanamo case against the 5 alleged masterminds of he 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The hearings were held at Guantanamo, but broadcast live into a secure facility at Ft. Meade.

Standing at the entrance to the Visitor Center at Ft. Meade, MD after a long day of observation.

Experiencing the hearings first-hand through live feed at Ft. Meade was intriguing in the sense that it seemed surreal. Watching the alleged 9/11 masterminds as one would any defendant on trial was incredibly interesting, considering that until then, the news was my only source of information regarding these men. Seeing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s red beard, and hearing the defendants speak in their native language, followed directly by broken English tinged with what appeared to be annoyance made these larger than life figures come to life.

My Guantanamo Bay travel nomination

When I monitored at Ft. Meade, I was excited, and had an enlightening experience.

But when I was nominated to travel to Guantanamo Bay, I could not believe my eyes, or my fortune. The nomination email came from the program on the night before my first final exam of the fall semester, and I couldn’t wait to finish finals so that I could focus on preparing for my mission. Having had the experience at Ft. Meade and now gaining the experience of witnessing the hearings first-hand at Guantanamo Bay will enable me to contribute to Indiana’s project in a better, more informed way.

I was truly honored to represent Indiana at Ft. Meade, and am truly honored to represent Indiana at Guantanamo Bay.

My Background

My journey to this precise moment has been a long, eventful one.

My mother and father came to the United States in the late 1970’s to escape a military regime in Argentina. They ended up in Texas, where I would be born. When I was at the age of 3 months, my mother returned to Argentina with me in tow to finalize her Visa paperwork, and we were unable to return to the U.S. because the lawyer had not completed the paperwork properly. I was raised for 3 years in Argentina, while my mother and father tried desperately to reunite. Eventually, my mother and I were able to return to the U.S. and the family was reunited.

I moved from Texas to Indiana a couple of decades later to join my husband who is a native Hoosier. Indiana has given me so many incredible opportunities that I never imagined!

Indiana -> Andrews Air Force Base -> Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Paperwork

The nomination to travel to Guantanamo arrived in the middle of law school finals, but I was determined to see the requirements through.

The Pentagon sent me an e-mail containing 4 documents to complete and return in just a couple of days. The documents required by the Pentagon are 1) Hold Harmless Agreement, 2) Invitational Travel Worksheet, 3) Navy Base Access Pass Registration, and 4) NGO Ground Rules, along with a biography and picture.

I completed the paperwork using templates provided by Professor Edwards, since lawyers and Administrators at Indiana University have specific requirements as to how Indiana University affiliates must complete the paperwork.

I submitted my completed draft paperwork to Professor Edwards who sent it back to me once for revisions. I believe that he wanted to make certain that the completed paperwork met Indiana University requirements so that Indiana officials would endorse the paperwork, and he wanted to make certain that the paperwork met the Pentagon’s standards. The Pentagon has rejected paperwork that was not completed properly, so a second pair of eyes was necessary to make certain I was sending accurate, completed paperwork.

Professor Edwards tracked the documents through the appropriate IU channels for approval. Once I received the stamped endorsed documents from IU, I forwarded these to my Pentagon contact, who quickly approved them the same day.

Preparation: The Game Plan

As I prepare for the holidays with my family visiting from Argentina and Texas, I am also preparing for my mission to Guantanamo. I am paying careful attention to a 76-page document titled “What Human Rights Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Observers and Others May Want to Know Before Traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba”. The guide may be downloaded by visiting this link (includes 76 pages, 2 Appendices). This document, of which Professor George Edwards is the principal author, provides all of the information necessary to successfully prepare for and complete a mission to Guantanamo. Without this guide, preparing for my mission would be near impossible. I have communicated with previous IU McKinney observers Justin Jones and Aline Fagundes, but having a script to fill in the rest of the details that one may forget has been invaluable in my preparation.

[The Know Before You Go guide (76 pages, 2 Appendices) may be found as a standalone document, or, it is included in the Excerpts (158 pages, Know Before You Go starts on page 75 of the Excerpts), which is a digest of the full and complete Manual (over 500 pages).]

I have also been reading other people’s accounts of travel to Cuba on the Gitmo Observer blog (Justin Jones’ and Aline Fagundes’ account of their mission to Guantanamo), and will continue reading where I left off from my trip to Fort Meade, Maryland in October, where I observed the hearings in the case against Khalid Shaik Mohammed.

I will also begin to prepare my travel arrangements to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where I will depart to Guantanamo Bay.

Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, ’18)

NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

My Experience: Monitoring Guantanamo Bay War Crimes Hearings

I Monitored Guantanamo Bay War Crimes Hearings Broadcast Live at Ft. Meade, Maryland.

Guantanamo Bay war crimes hearings are broadcast via CCTV live from Cuba to Ft. Meade, an army base in Maryland. I traveled from Indiana to Ft. Meade, Maryland to monitor Guantanamo Bay pre-trial hearings in the case against Khalid Shaik Mohammed and the 4 other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

I arrived at Washington-Dulles International Airport on Sunday, 9 October 2016 for hearings scheduled to begin the next day. Monday, October 10, Columbus Day. We learned that the hearings would start a day later, on Tuesday, October 11, so I decided to use Monday to tour Washington D.C. Unfortunately, while at Ft. Meade I missed my husband’s bar admission ceremony on Tuesday morning in Indianapolis. Thankfully, he had encouraged me to attend the hearing, as he understood that it was a very special opportunity.

Local Transportation and Venturing into D.C.

I booked a Super Shuttle – a shared van cheaper than a taxi — to take me to Ft. Meade. Since I opted for the cheaper option, it took about 2 hours to reach the military base. The van dropped off 3 other passengers on the way. The Ft. Meade Visitor Center was closed when I arrived. I was thankful that fellow Indiana University McKinney School of Law students Katherine Forbes was waiting at the gate to escort me onto the base. Katherine is a member of the military, and has an ID card (Department of Defense CAC – Common Access Card) that permits her to enter the base and escort others onto the base. I was not going to be able to pick up my Ft. Meade access badge until Tuesday morning, just before the hearings began. We had dinner and went to our hotel for the evening.

The next morning, Columbus Day, Katherine dropped me off at Odenton train station (the MARC station), about an 8-minute drive from Ft. Meade. The train ride into D.C. was very reasonably priced, and only took about 40 minutes from Odenton Station to Union Station. Union Station is located half a mile from the Capitol building and the Supreme Court. From there, I used Uber to get around and spent the day wandering around the city and walking from landmark to landmark. I made it back to Ft. Meade by 7PM, and had dinner with Katherine before continuing to prepare for the next day’s hearing.

The Hotel

Katherine is in the Indiana National Guard, so we were able to stay at the Candlewood Hotel located inside Ft. Meade. The hotel was built only 3 years ago, and was very clean and well-appointed. Our room had a kitchen, including a dishwasher, full size refrigerator, microwave, and coffeemaker. The cabinets were stocked with silverware, dishes, and glasses. Every morning, the hotel offers a complimentary continental breakfast.

Entrance to the Candlewood Hotel located inside the base at Ft. Meade.

Visitor Center

On Tuesday morning, Katherine and I drove to the Visitor Center and met up with Faisel Sadat, an Egyptian international LL.M. student at IU McKinney. He needed to be escorted onto the base, and Katherine was able to do that. Faisel and I were each issued a day pass onto the base.

After successfully picking up my day pass to access the base.

Badge Issue

Originally, we were under the impression that our Ft. Meade badges would be valid for one year from the day of pick-up. Unfortunately, there must have been a misunderstanding, because we were only issued a one-day pass. We were able to get back onto the base with no problem, and made our way to the hearing located at the McGill Training Center.

driving%20up%20to%20ft%20meade%20entrance

Driving up to the Ft. Meade control station after picking up our badges from the Visitor Center.

The Courtroom – Viewing from McGill Training Center

The room in which the hearing was broadcast was a large training/educational room in the McGill Training Center. There were several rows of desks with 2-3 chairs per long desk. In the back of the classroom, there was a cubby box of around 20 individual cubbies to place your phone in, which could be locked with a key. Personal communication devices are not allowed during the transmission of the court proceedings. Apart from the IU McKinney attendees, there was one gentleman present who works for a federal law enforcement agency, another gentleman I did not meet, and a lady whom I also did not meet.

The section of the courtroom at Guantanamo Bay that was visible at any given moment depended on who was speaking and which camera was panning at that moment. There was a camera that showed most of the courtroom, with the defendants, their counsel, and the prosecution visible at once, a view of the judge when he spoke, a view of the witnesses who testified seated next to the judge, and live feed from witnesses who transmitted their testimony from a location just outside of Washington, DC.

From the perspective of the judge looking into the courtroom, the 5 defendants were seated on the right, each at a separate table.

Each defense team was split according to the defendant, and divided into 5 small groups, seated in the 5 rows. Seated at the 6^th and final table on the defense side were lawyers for one of the defendants who did not want his lawyers to sit next to him at his table. Each defendant was wearing a headdress, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the most recognizable in his

The prosecution sat at a series of tables to the left of the judge.

The Hearing

The hearing started at 9:00 AM with Military Commission Judge Army Colonel James L. Pohl addressing each defendant, inquiring whether they understood their rights to waive attendance at the hearing. Each of the five defendants was required to be present to hear their rights, but, Ramzi bin al Shibh was not present when court opened.

The judge addressed al Shibh’s counsel, requesting that he convince al Shibh to voluntarily be present at the hearing, otherwise, he would be involuntarily brought in. He called for a 15 minute recess for bin al Shibh’s counsel to speak with him. When the court reconvened, al Shibh had joined his defense at the table.

bin al Shibh stated on the record that he boycotted the legal proceedings, and in an act of protest, refused to acknowledge his right to waive attendance. The judge asked him several times to acknowledge his rights, but al Shibh refused. Eventually, the judge asked for al Shibh to be escorted away, and we found out through Aline Fagundes, a McKinney LL.M. student who was present in the observer gallery of the courtroom, that al Shibh was removed, while

The four other defendants — Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ammar al Baluchi, and Mustafa al Hawsawi — acknowledged their rights in Arabic. Each defendant had an interpreter seated next to him to who helped facilitate conversations between the defendants and their defense team members. There was an off camera interpreter who interpreted on-the-record communications in the courtroom.

Motions

The hearing proceeded with the following motions/issues addressed:

Defense raised al Baluchi’s motion to compel declassification of classified documents.
Regarding the seizure of a certain document containing defense notes from the defendant, four witnesses were put on the stand to testify:
- “Captain L”
- “Captain B”
- “Assistant Watch Commander 1482”
- “Major (?)”

Regarding the modification of a protective order, Learned Counsel James Connell III asked the judge to require the modification of the order in question, and not allow the creation of a new order as a matter of simplification.

Lunch

The courtroom recessed at 12:45 PM for lunch, and the group of observers made our way to lunch on the base, to discuss what he had experienced so far, and ask for clarification from Professor Edwards on procedural questions.

The 6 IU McKinney Observers went to the Food Court. We chose different restaurants, got our food, then all sat together to talk about what transpired that morning in court. We talked about the proceedings up to that point, and discussed why the hearings were taking as long as they are, in general.

I learned from that defense’s counsel appear to work as hard for their clients as any defense counsel would, notwithstanding what criminal actions the client may have allegedly been involved in or how much evidence may exist of the client’s involvement.

We then took group photographs before returning for post-lunch proceedings.

Afternoon Hearing

The court reconvened at 2:00 PM.

The first motion presented after lunch concerned classified material. The defense argued that documents received from the prosecution were highly redacted and in some cases, unable to be read other than a few words. It was a concern to the defense that the redactions were causing discovery issues, and that redactions were being applied arbitrarily and in a disingenuous manner, to intentionally interfere with defense’s preparation. The hearing continued until 4:00 PM on the topic of redaction, until Judge Pohl called for the hearing to be continued the following day.

Post-Hearing

After the courtroom was dismissed for the day, I had a chance to speak with one of the other Observers who seemed to work for the government and who has been to Guantanamo Bay on many occasions. It was interesting to speak with someone who appears to have sound knowledge about the Military Commissions.

A little later, I was dropped off at the Visitor Center where Super Shuttle was picking me up to take me back to the airport. While at the Visitor Center, I ran into Professor Edwards, and we discussed the hearing, and my background and interests. He was at the Visitor Center to discuss the issue of several observers being given one-day passes instead of a year-long access card. The person in charge told Professor Edwards that they would look into the problem. After discussing the issue, Professor Edwards and I took several pictures outside of the Visitor Center that may be helpful to a future observer in finding where to go upon arrival at Ft. Meade.

Enjoying a nice chat with Professor Edwards at the Visitor Center while waiting for my shuttle back to Dulles airport.

From Ft. Meade to Dulles, and Home Again, Reflection

This time, I was the only person picked up by the shuttle, so the drive to Dulles only took about an hour, even in evening rush hour traffic. The plane ride back home was quick and uneventful. I look forward to observing again in the future.

This opportunity afforded me a valuable glimpse into the proceedings that are ongoing in Guantanamo Bay. The fact that I am one of not many people to actually be able to witness the proceedings feels very special, and something I will remember for the rest of my life.

I knew that the hearings would have the normal U.S. court proceeding structure, but the realization did not occur to me until that morning that I would have the rare opportunity to hear the “9/11 Five” speak live. Seeing the defendants and hearing them speak both Arabic and English really brought a very human moment to an occurrence in history that seemed surreal to me, having happened when I was a young girl.

I urge anyone with an interest to apply as an observer. The opportunity is very unique, and not something many people can say they have ever experienced from the vantage of the IU McKinney Military Commission Observation Project.

Sheila Willard, J.D. Candidate 2018

NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Arriving at Ft. Meade to Monitor Guantanamo Bay Hearings

I completed the first leg of my journey from Indiana to Ft. Meade, Maryland to monitor the U.S. Guantanamo Bay Military Commission case against the 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The hearings are being broadcast from Guantanamo to Ft. Meade this week. I am monitoring as a representative of the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Program in International Human Rights Law of Indiana University McKinney School of Law.

My arrival in the DC area

I arrived at Washington-Dulles Airport late last night (Sunday) and proceeded to Ft. Meade, where my fellow Indiana McKinney student Katherine Forbes was waiting to escort me onto the base. Katherine was able to escort me on to base since she is also a member of the Indiana National Guard. She and I are staying at a hotel inside of Ft. Meade, which makes picking up our badges and attending the hearings very convenient.

Katherine Forbes (left) and I in our hotel room inside Ft. Meade.

My DC tour after hearing opening delay

Originally the hearings this week were scheduled to begin on Monday, 10 October 2016. Since the hearings were pushed back to start a day later on Tuesday the 11th, I decided to use Monday to visit Washington D.C., since I have never had the chance to visit before. I took a train from Odenton MARC station near Ft. Meade, and was dropped off at Union Station in D.C. about 40 minutes later. From there, I took a taxi to the Lincoln Memorial. As I walked up to the monument, I was struck with a surreal moment of finally seeing the statue of Lincoln in person, only every having seen it in media. I sat on the steps of the memorial, looking towards the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and the Washington Monument, and thought of how Dr. King must have felt, standing in the same location, giving the “I Have A Dream” speech to thousands of supporters.

Spending time at the Lincoln Memorial.

From there, I walked down the National Mall, stopping at the Vietnam Memorial, as I made my way to the White House. There it was, as I’d always seen it in videos and pictures. I was surrounded by people speaking in foreign languages, French, Spanish, Vietnamese, German – other languages I couldn’t distinguish. It was an honor to me, at that moment, realizing that these people had traveled thousands of miles to visit our center of government, and the heart of our great nation.

After the White House, I walked over to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, before making my way to the United States Supreme Court. There were less tourists at the Supreme Court than anywhere else I had visited, so I took my time and enjoyed the near-deserted symbol of American jurisprudence.

Enjoying a beautiful, sunny day on Capitol Hill.

Unfortunately, since today is a federally recognized holiday, the court was closed, so I enjoyed the view of the Capitol building from the steps of the Supreme Court, before making my way over. The Capitol building was my last stop for the day, having walked several miles, and needing to prepare to observe the hearing tomorrow morning. I made my way to the Union Station, and caught a train back to Ft. Meade.

Conclusion

So far, this trip is, to me, what law school is all about. To be exposed with a wide variety of experiences makes for a well-rounded individual. Today prepared me for tomorrow in a way I couldn’t imagine before.

Speaking of tomorrow, I have been spending time preparing for the hearings, trying to learn as much as I can about the case. I am looking forward to it.

Observing at Ft. Meade and Hurricane Matthew

My name is Sheila Willard and I am a 2L student at IU McKinney Law. Born and raised in Texas, I moved to Indiana a year and a half ago with my Hoosier husband to escape the humidity and to start a new life in the Midwest. My parents hail from Argentina, South America, and I am a first generation American.

I first became acquainted with the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) after receiving an email from Professor Edwards soliciting applications from those interested in participating in the observation of 9/11 hearings. My entire adult life I have been concerned with human rights and, having grown up with the tragedy of 9/11, the email naturally piqued my curiosity. I submitted my application, and hoped for the opportunity to be involved in an observation. A few weeks later, I received clearance to observe the hearings at Ft. Meade, Maryland, during the week of October 10, and immediately began planning my trip there.

Travel from Indianapolis, IN to Ft. Meade, MD with a stop in D.C. on the way.

Due to Hurricane Matthew wreaking havoc in the Caribbean and off the southeast coast of the U.S., the hearings originally scheduled to begin on Monday, October 10, will likely be pushed back a day and begin instead on Tuesday, October 11. As of this afternoon, there is no update stating otherwise, so I may change my flight to arrive on Monday instead of Sunday, as originally planned. Regardless, I am happy for the opportunity Professor Edwards has given us and am looking forward to making the trip next week.

Until then, I am preparing by reading the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual and keeping a watchful eye out for further instructions. I am excited to make the trip, but am emotionally torn for the thousands of people affected by Hurricane Matthew. As of this afternoon, the casualties have soared to over 800 people in Haiti, and Florida is next to be hit. Having lived in Houston through Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I know from experience how much stress is involved in evacuation and how much heartbreak is felt in the aftermath. I pray for the people who have lost everything overnight and hope for the strength they will require to rebuild their lives.