Deposition of Ahmad al-Darbi in the Guantanamo Military Commission case against Hadi al Iraqi

I have been in Guantanamo Bay Cuba since Sunday as an NGO observer as a part of Indiana University McKinney School of Law’s Program on International Human Rights Law to view the hearing session for the Military Commission case against Abd al Hadi al Iraqi (or Nashwan al Tamir).

DSC02291

NGO observers in front of the Camp Justice sign before the first day of the Ahmad al-Darbi deposition.

The court session yesterday (Monday) involved several defense motions. Two were argued in the public setting, in which the NGOs and victim’s family members were allowed to be present. A third motion was not heard at all, and the fourth was heard (along with classified parts of the first) in closed session, in which all members of the public (NGOs, victims, and media) were not allowed to be present for.

 

Morning Deposition Session – Tuesday, 15 August 2017

3BD0D12700000578-4085516-Ahmed_Mohammed_al_Darbi_41_He_was_an_instructor_at_the_al_Farouq-a-179_1483646333475

Ahmad al-Darbi in an undated Red Cross photo obtained by the Miami Herald. 

The prosecution called Ahmed al-Darbi, a Saudi born admitted jihadist to the stand to be deposed. al-Darbi pleaded guilty and promised to testify against Hadi, but because al-Darbi hopes to be repatriated to his homeland of Saudi Arabia soon, and will not be available to testify against Hadi in person at Hadi’s trial, his deposition testimony today will be preserved to be possibly used against Hadi at his trial. Hadi al Iraqi  was present for the first day of testimony. al-Darbi, wearing a gray suit, white dress shirt, and tie, sat calmly speaking with a soft even tone. Unlike in the picture to the right, he was clean-shaven, wore nicer glasses, and had short slightly gray hair.

Hadi al-Iraqi was seated at the left end of the first defense table in the courtroom wearing a white robe, white turban, and black vest. From my vantage point, I did not see if the two men looked at each other before or at any point during the testimony.

Six of us NGO observers were present in the gallery, along with several military servicemembers, family members of some of the victims, news media, and numerous military police. Veteran Guantanamo Bay military commission reporter for the Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg published a piece a few hours after the conclusion of Tuesday’s session. That article can be viewed here.

The deposition was recorded for possible use by the prosecution at trial of Hadi al-Iraqi. al-Darbi, testifying in Arabic, but seemingly understanding some English through his interactions with the deposition officer, had the assistance of four interpreters that rotated throughout the testimony.

After several hours of foundation and background, al-Darbi identified Hadi as his former commander and stated that he recognized Had al Iraqi from a guesthouse in Afghanistan.

Presiding judge, P.S. Rubin, served as the deposition officer responsible for ruling on any raised objections. Throughout the five-hour deposition session, the defense raised many standard objections to the form of the questions the prosecutor asked and the answer elicited from al-Darbi. The defense objected to the prosecution asking leading questions, speculative answers from al-Darbi, being unclear about the time frame in which he was speaking about, and the non-relevance of large portions of his testimony.

ozama-bin-laden_400x400

Osama bin Laden, notorious leader of al-Qaeda.

The narrative the prosecution tried to convey, though disjointed and hard to follow at times throughout the entire morning session, painted a picture of al-Darbi as a committed (at least initially) jihadist who had numerous interactions with high-level al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, to include Osama bin Laden.

al-Darbi testified that as a young man from a troubled non-devout Muslim family, as a teenager he found reassurance, peace, and comfort at mosque. From there he became very much a believer in jihad, the highest rank of worship. He stated that to him jihad meant fighting infidels in self-defense, not giving into desires of soul, defense of home and property, and the defending of honor.

help-bosnia-nowIC__600x397

The Bosnian War (1992-1995) claimed the lives of over 62,000 Bosniaks, or Bosnian Muslims.

He testified that following his service in the Saudi army during 1992, with no other job in his hometown, he slowly began to find his calling as a jihadist. By 1994, he would find his first jihad fighting as part of a Bosnian Army unit against Serbian aggression towards his fellow Muslims. As a young jihadist, al-Darbi dreamt about becoming a martyr, and became depressed when he left Bosnia alive.

He stated that following his return from Bosnia, other jihadists recruited al-Darbi to go to
Afghanistan for training. By 1996, he received recommendations to finish his training at al-Qaeda camps, despite previously being unaware of al-Qaeda’s existence, but knew of Osama Bin Laden due to the prominent nature of his family. During this time he first met with Bin Laden. After several more months of training he was invited by al-Qaeda to fight with the Taliban.

Afternoon Session

 Up until this point, the deposition focused on al-Darbi’s background and activities, as well as the identification of other fighters he interacted with, but made no mention, to my recollection, of Hadi al Iraqi. Much of the testimony in the afternoon finally began to focus on the nature of his interactions with Hadi.

al-Darbi testified that after he completed his training, he went to Kabul, Afghanistan. It is here at a guesthouse that he first saw Hadi al Iraqi. Despite all the training he had in advanced tactics and weaponry and his interactions with high level members of al-Qaeda, al-Darbi still appeared to be a fairly low level fighter, when he testified that his commander, Hadi al Iraqi, assigned him to be on a three-man tank crew. Al-Darbi saw Hadi on a daily basis during this period. In addition to the commander-subordinate relationship, they ate meals together while at the front lines.

One of the major purposes for the prosecution having al-Darbi even testify was to be able to positively identify the accused, Hadi al Iraqi. With all the background covered, the prosecution finally asked al-Darbi if he recognized the accused sitting at the defense table, to which he answered yes, though he looked older with a grey beard. When asked who he recognized the accused to be, he responded it was apparent to him that the accused is Hadi al Iraqi.

One of the strategies for the defense is to essentially say their client is not Hadi al Iraqi, but instead is Nashwan al-Tamir. During the deposition of al-Darbi, the prosecution specifically asked him if he ever heard Hadi al Iraqi go by any other name, or if he was aware of anybody else who had used that name. al-Darbi answered no to each of those questions and sated that he had never heard Hadi al Iraqi called Nashwan al Tamir.

This line of questioning and the questions dealing with al-Darbi’s interactions with Hadi made up a relatively small portion of the approximately four hours of today’s testimony. The prosecution introduced over 20 exhibits, most of which were photos of people he identified, other than Hadi al Iraqi. The NGOs, myself included, kept waiting for the prosecution to get to the point where al-Darbi would identify Hadi.

Unlike during a normal type of deposition when the deponent (the witness being deposed) is cross-examined immediately after direct examination, the defense will not have the opportunity to cross-examine al-Darbi at least until October. I would be interested to hear how the defense characterizes the name issue, as well as the relatively small number of interactions al-Darbi allegedly had with Hadi.

A transcript of the deposition is not available on the website of the Office of Military Commissions, and by all accounts it does not seem likely that it will be posted.

That concludes the summary of the first day of deposition of al-Darbi. The deposition will likely continue all day tomorrow. The next post will contain a summary of the day’s testimony as well as my overall thoughts on the two days.

 

Tyler J. Smith, J.D., LL.M.

Member, Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Public Denied Guantanamo Bay Hearing Broadcast at Ft. Meade, Maryland

mcop_observer-group-pic-commissary

Observers from Indiana at Ft. Meade monitoring a Guantanamo Bay Military Commission hearing. Observers were permitted to see / hear the video / audio feed from the Guantanamo courtroom. (file photo)

Public observers at Ft. Meade, Maryland were banned today from watching satellite broadcasts of a hearing being conducted in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom, even though public observers physically at Guantanamo were permitted to view the same hearing.

Pentagon pledge of open and transparent hearings

For many years U.S. Military Commissions have been held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try individuals charged with war crimes. The Pentagon has stated that these criminal proceedings should be open and transparent, and that to facilitate transparency the Pentagon permits a small number of Observers to travel to Guantanamo to monitor hearings. Observers typically represent human rights or advocacy groups, or academic programs. Observers serve as eyes and ears for the general public, who do not have the opportunity to travel to Guantanamo Bay to witness hearings.

Guantanamo_courtroom_gallery - with guard

The Guantanamo Bay Military Commission Courtroom, viewed from the spectator gallery. (file photo)

Observers sit in an enclosed spectator gallery in the rear of the Guantanamo courtroom, separated from the lawyers, prosecutors and defendants by a double-paned glass. Observers can see what is going on in the courtroom, and hear what is said.

The Pentagon also permits Observers to view Guantanamo proceedings by close-circuit television (CCTV) in a secure facility at Ft. Meade, Maryland. Observers at Ft. Meade can see what the cameras are pointing at in the Guantanamo courtroom, and hear what he Observers at Guantanamo hear.

Today, in what appears to be the first time, Observers were permitted to be present in the Guantanamo courtroom spectator gallery and monitor proceedings live, but Observers were not permitted to view those same proceedings by CCTV at Ft. Meade.

Thus, NGOs in the U.S. were effectively banned from monitoring today’s proceeding.

Why the ban?

It is unclear why Observers in the U.S. were banned from monitoring the hearings by CCTV at Ft. Meade today, while Observers could view the hearings live at Guantanamo.

Lawyers for the prosecution and defense apparently argued yesterday and over the weekend about the Ft. Meade ban. But, at least some of those arguments were held behind closed doors, with no Observer being permitted to hear.  Though motion papers were filed related to the ban, those documents are subject to a security review and are not releasable to the public until after 14 days, and may not be released even then.

There are 5 Observers at Guantanamo this week, and they were able to hear some arguments about the Ft. Meade ban. Indeed, they were in the courtroom able to witness today’s hearings – the same hearings from which the Fort Meade Observers were banned.

Again, it is unclear what the convincing argument is that Observers can watch today’s proceedings live in the Guantanamo courtroom, but other Observers cannot watch today’s proceedings by CCTV at Ft. Meade.

My Ft. Meade experiences today

I arrived at Ft. Meade well before the scheduled start time of today’s hearing. The staff member who oversees the Ft. Meade viewing room was there, the lights were on in the room, and the miniature lockers were in place in the rear of the viewing room so Observers could store their cell phones which can’t be used during the CCTV broadcasts.

The minutes ticked away, and soon I learned that an official message had been received that the hearings would not be broadcast to Ft. Meade today, and that was by order.

Nevertheless, I waited to see if  the hearing would open, with an announcement of closure made, before the transmission stopped.

Also, was there still a chance that the hearing would be transmitted in full? Just as an order is made, an order can be reversed.

In today’s case, the initial order regarding this week’s hearings was that Observers could monitor at Guantanamo Bay and at Ft. Meade. A subsequent order reversed the portion of the former order that permitted transmission to Ft. Meade. That reversal prohibited the transmission to Ft. Meade. That reversal could very well have been, and could still be, reversed, and transmission could have occurred today. It appears that it would only take a flip of a switch to begin transmitting from Guantanamo to Ft. Meade, and that such transmissions could be started at any point.

I continued to wait. The large video screen in front of the viewing room stayed dark and blank.

The person at Ft. Meade who oversees the technical side of the transmission sits in a different room of the same building where the viewing room is. I checked with that person, and was informed that there was no sign that the transmission would commence.

I left about 90 minutes into the hearing, with the screen still dark and blank, witnessing none of today’s testimony.

Options?

Yesterday I discussed in a blog post what my options were for being able to observe today’s hearings, particularly since I (and other Observers) chose not to travel to Guantanamo Bay this week in part because we were initially permitted to observe at Ft. Meade. We were informed 4 days ago (Friday) that NGOs would be banned from viewing the hearings at Ft. Meade. By then it was too late to catch the Sunday flight to Guantanamo Bay to view the hearings in person, sitting in the spectator gallery, along with the 5 Observers who are there. There are 14 seats reserved for Observers in the Guantanamo courtroom, so they had room for 9 more Observers this week.

Had I known last week what I know today, I definitely would have requested travel to Guantanamo Bay for this week’s hearings.

I am scheduled to deliver in Australia early next week, and I could have delivered (and still could deliver) that lecture by video rather than in person, freeing me to be at Guantanamo Bay for this entire week. Indeed, if I could go to Guantanamo tonight or tomorrow for the remainder of this week’s hearings that are not being transmitted to Ft. Meade, I would do so and deliver the Australia lecture by video.

Perhaps the Military Commission will permit Observers who were banned from viewing this week’s proceeding at Ft. Meade to view the videotape? The videotape cannot be classified, because if it were, then the 5 Observers at Guantanamo this week would not have been permitted to be in the courtroom for the hearing.

If the reason for the Ft. Meade ban was security associated with transmitting it stateside – maybe the possibility of interception / hacking – then I and other interested Observers could watch the videotape in a secure room at the Pentagon, or in a secure facility when we are next at Guantanamo Bay – and even possibly watch the video in the courtroom itself.

Also, if any victims and family members of victims (VFMs) are interested in watching the video, maybe they will be permitted to do so as well. Several FVMs were present in the Guantanamo courtroom for today’s hearings, but VFMs were denied the opportunity to observe today’s hearing at Ft. Meade, just as Observers were denied the opportunity to observe. Indeed, any member of the general public, aside from Observers, were similarly denied the opportunity to observe at Ft. Meade, though members of the general public are entitled to observe at Ft. Meade, as are Observers, VFMs, and media.

George Edwards

 

Travel to Guantanamo Bay and First Full Day of Hadi al Iraqi Hearings

 

DSC02262.JPG

NGO observers at Andrews preparing before the flight to Guantanamo Bay.

I traveled to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to serve as an NGO Observer to view hearings for the military commission case against Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, or Nashwar al Tamir as the defense calls him. I am representing the IU McKinney School of Law’s Program on International Human Rights Law, and am joined by five other observers representing four organizations and one other law school.

The flight down here was on a chartered Miami Airlines plane lasting just over 3 hours. Once we debarked from the plane we got in a van and drove onto a ferry that crosses to the windward side of the bay.

First Day of Court

DSC02264.JPG

Welcome sign at the Passenger Terminal on the leeward side of Guantanamo Bay

Last time I came down here in September 2015, Hadi only had military counsel, unlike the other military commission defendants who had both private and military attorneys. At the hearing I viewed, he fired his chief defense attorney to make way for a private attorney. Today, I immediately noted that in addition to several different military counsel, he had a private attorney as well.

In addition to the 6 NGO observers in the courtroom gallery, a number of family members from two servicemen killed in Afghanistan in 2003 were also present.

Just before the start of the session, everyone in the gallery was made known about the approximate forty-second delay from the action in the actual courtroom to the audio and visual feed on the four monitors visible from the gallery. This delay is supposed to prevent those in the gallery from hearing potentially classified information. Practically speaking, the delay makes it almost useless to watch the actual happenings in the courtroom. This is especially prevalent when the hearing comes to a conclusion in the actual courtroom but is still going on the monitors that we can hear and see in the gallery. At the conclusion, everyone stands in the courtroom and we in the gallery are given the “all rise,” but the hearing hasn’t finished yet on the monitors. Despite this, watching and listening exclusively on the monitors causes little issue.

Morning Court Session

Four items were on the docket for the week, in addition to the deposition of al Darbi, a defendant in another military commission who agreed to testify against Hadi and al Nashari.

The session began with the judge giving a brief rundown of the meting (called an 802 conference) that occurred on Sunday evening between the judge, prosecution (trial counsel), and defense. The private attorney then spoke of several issues relating to the defense’s initial objection of the deposition, the camera angles for the deposition to be conducted this week, the defense team not receiving transcripts from al-Darbi’s deposition from a previous case, and the prosecution’s Friday afternoon delivery of thirty-five exhibits the defense claims to have had no knowledge of. Another issue the private counsel addressed was an issue of attorney-client confidentiality between al-Darbi and his counsel.

Unavailable file_MC website

The page that shows up when one attempts to access a file not currently available for viewing by the public from the Office of Military Commission’s official website.

After those initial concerns and responses by the prosecution, the judge heard arguments on the first motion, Appellate Exhibit (AE) 091. This motion, like many of the most recent filings, is not available to be viewed by the public on the Office of Military Commission’s official website. Therefore, we could only go off what was said about it during the session.

In this motion, the defense requested the court compel the prosecution to allow their client to use a laptop to be able to view the 31,000-33,000 pages of documentary evidence.

The defense argued their client’s ability to access these documents in an electronic format would allow him to have meaningful access to the courts and facilitate effective assistance of counsel. The defense also argued that because of the massive amounts of documents, he has limited ability to store documents in his cell.

One member of the prosecution, Navy Lieutenant Commander David Lincoln, argued that Hadi should not be given a laptop due to security concerns, that he has six defense counsel that can represent him effectively in court without a laptop, and that he does not have the constitutional right to a laptop.

The second motion, AE 70CCC was only partially argued, limited by the potential for classified materials. This motion seeks to compel discovery of unredacted statements of Ahmed al-Darbi, a detainee who has traded his release from Guantanamo in exchange for testimony in several cases.

AE 085 is a motion to dismiss the charges, in which the defense argues that Congress lacks the authority under the Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of the law of war military commissions to non-citizens. This motion was not heard as the defense requested to hold off on having it argued before the commission.

A Shortened Court Session

The two motions discussed above were argued before lunch break. Shortly after finishing arguments for the second motion, the all of the attorneys and judge had a meeting, presumably in his chambers. The judge then dismissed the court for lunch. After the court reconvened for the afternoon session, the judge announced that the court was going to close the hearing to the public. The remaining motion, AE 070FFF and portions of the second motion, AE 070CCC were to be argued in a closed session due to concerns about classified material.

Accordingly, all of the victims and NGOs had to leave the courtroom and were done in court for the day. Our NGO escort informed us afterwards that we would have a chance to talk with the Chief Prosecutor after the conclusion of the closed session.

 

DSC00605

Chief Prosecutor of Military Commissions, Brigadier General Mark S. Martins was kind enough to pose with me following his briefing with the NGO observers in September 2015.

Meeting with Chief Prosecutor, Brigadier General Martins

The last time I traveled to GTMO in 2015, I had the pleasure of meeting the Chief Prosecutor of Military Commissions, Brigadier General Mark Martins when he sat down with all the NGO observers for a Q&A session. This time, he remembered me at the terminal in Andrews on Sunday and we briefly exchanged pleasantries.

We met him again for a Q&A session after the closed session on Monday. He was as gracious as he was last time. His intellect, legal knowledge, and scholarly demeanor are most impressive. The NGOs asked insightful and tough questions. He answered each with candor showing his firm belief in the rule of law.

I come away with the impression that he is unlikely to say anything other than that his personnel are doing the best job they can do under limiting circumstances. He seems to recognize that there are issues with how the proceedings occur. However, he is the best position to know the effort his staff exerts in trying the cases within the framework of the system they are given.

The military commission system is deeply adversarial. So far we have only heard one side. We are greatly interested in hearing the perspective of the defense counsel when we are given the chance.

 

Tyler J. Smith, J.D., LL.M.

Member, Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Prohibited from observing Guantanamo Bay hearing at stateside CCTV viewing facility

ft-meadeI was scheduled to travel to Ft. Meade, Maryland, the week of Monday, 14 August 2017 to monitor pre-trial hearings in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Military Commission case against an alleged high-level al Qaeda member. The hearings were to be broadcast via-closed circuit television (CCTV) from Cuba to the Ft. Meade army base, where I have monitored hearings in all the active Guantanamo Bay cases. The U.S. government has stated that Guantanamo Bay (a/k/a Gitmo) proceedings should be open and transparent, and that CCTV broadcasts to Ft. Meade promote openness and transparency.

Now, unexpectedly, it is unclear whether the CCTV will operate this week, and whether I and others will be able to observe this week’s proceedings at Ft. Meade.

Camp JusticeI was informed that the military judge in charge of the case has reversed an earlier ruling, and has now prohibited this week’s proceedings from being broadcast to Ft. Meade. His new ruling apparently permits 5 monitors who traveled to Guantanamo this weekend to observe / monitor the hearings while sitting in the spectator section of the Guantanamo courtroom. However, monitors such as myself who planned to observe from Ft. Meade are effectively banned from observing this week’s proceedings.

In addition, presumably members of other stakeholder groups – such as victims and their families (VFMs), media, and the public at large — are likewise banned from observing this week’s proceedings at Ft. Meade. And, again, the only observers permitted to monitor are those who happened to be on the plane to Guantanamo Bay this weekend.

What are this week’s hearings about?

The defendant in this week’s case is Mr. Hadi al Iraqi (Mr. Nashwan al Tamir), who is an alleged high-level member of al Qaeda who allegedly perpetrated war crimes. This week’s hearings are out of the ordinary in that they would not consist primarily of prosecution and defense lawyers arguing about a range of issues that are typically resolved pre-trial. Instead, this week would consist of testimony by a different Guantanamo detainee, Mr. al Darbi, who pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the government as a witness against Hadi. Ordinarily, a government witness would testify at the actual trial, and not during the pre-trial hearing stage. However, al Darbi is set to be repatriated to his home country soon, and is not expected to be available to testify live during the trial. This week’s testimony is in part a stated attempt to “preserve” al Darbi’s testimony (in the form of a deposition), which could be introduced against Hadi at trial.

My interests in this week’s hearings

I am a professor of international law, and founded the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Military Commission Observation Project / Gitmo Observer at Indiana University McKinney School of Law. (www.GitmoObserver.com) The Pentagon granted our Project status that permits us, as a non-governmental organization (NGO), to send observers / monitors to Guantanamo Bay and Ft. Meade to observe / monitor hearings.

Our Indiana Project is a independent and objective. We are not aligned with any side or party associated with the military commissions.

Among other things, we have developed the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual,* which independently and objectively examines rights and interests of all categories of Gitmo stakeholders, not just the rights of the defendants. The Manual explores rights and interests, under international and U.S. law, of the following stakeholder groups: defendants (as mentioned), the prosecution, victims and their families, media, witnesses, the Court and its employees, the Guantanamo Bay guard force, other detainees, NGO observers, and others.

Many of our Indiana observers have traveled to Ft. Meade and Guantanamo Bay to monitor hearings. We publish, among other things, blog posts on http://www.GitmoObserver.com.

 The judge’s earlier ruling – Yes, NGOs can view at Ft. Meade this week.

The judge in the Hadi case initially ruled that the taking of al Darbi’s testimony, in the form of a deposition, would be open to the public. For purposes of this blog post, that meant at least two things:

  • NGO representatives would be permitted to fly to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be present in the courtroom’s spectator gallery so they can observe / monitor the deposition live; and
  • NGO representatives, and other members of the public, would be permitted to travel to Ft. Meade, Maryland where they could observe / monitor the deposition via close circuit television.

NGOs being permitted to observe at both Gitmo and Ft. Meade has been standard for hearings for years.

The Judge’s most recent ruling – NGOs are prohibited from observing at Ft. Meade this week

This past week, word circulated that the judge had issued an order prohibiting NGOs (and presumably prohibiting other stakeholders) from viewing the al Darbi deposition via CCTV at Ft. Meade. Apparently NGOs who traveled to Guantanamo this weekend could still observe the deposition live in the courtroom.

I have not actually seen the judge’s ruling, as his rulings, like all filed pre-trial hearing motion papers, are not ordinarily released to the public until the papers undergo a security check, a process that takes at least 14 days. However, word of the ban reached me and others.

Options for me to observe / monitor the hearings this coming week?

I had the opportunity to apply for an NGO observer slot to travel to Guantanamo Bay to monitor the hearings live this week from a seat in the courtroom’s spectator gallery. But, I decided not to apply in part because I believed I would be able to observe this week’s hearings at Ft. Meade.

Had I known that the judge would reverse his ruling and ban NGOs from observing the hearings at Ft. Meade this week, would I have applied for an observer slot to travel to Gitmo for the deposition? Most probably yes.

Though I had a law lecture scheduled in Australia for the week following the Hadi hearings, I would have sought harder to figure out a way to get to Gitmo for the deposition and still arrive in Australia for my lecture. I had figured out that I could do both – fly to Gitmo and fly to Australia, and that would have been my preferred course. But, again, I decided that I could observe at Ft. Meade this time and avoid scheduling issues.

When I learned that the judge prohibited CCTV feed at Guantanamo this week, I thought about how I could get to Gitmo this weekend. It turned out to be an unsurmountable challenge, because, for example, timing was short for the paperwork that needed to be completed before Gitmo travel.

My plans for the al Darbi hearing / deposition

At the moment, I plan to travel to Ft. Meade on Monday morning, 14 August 2017. Though I have been informed that the feed has been cut to Ft. Meade for Monday, the possibility exists that the judge will change his mind and re-open the hearings at Ft. Meade, making it possible for me, other NGO representatives, and other stakeholders to observe / monitor there – again, if the judge orders the CCTV to go forward for Ft. Meade and if any of us is able physically to be present at Ft. Meade this week.

George Edwards

 

* The full title of the Manual is “Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual for U.S. Military Commissions: An Independent & Objective Guide for Assessing Human Rights Protections and Interests of the Prosecution, the Defense, Victims & Victims’ Families, Witnesses, the Press, the Court, JTF-GTMO Detention Personnel, Other Detainees, NGO Observers and Other Military Commission Stakeholders

 

 

Travel to Andrews/Public Hearing for August Hadi al Iraqi Session?

I’m on my way to Guantanamo Bay Cuba as a member of the Program on International Human Rights Law at the IU McKinney School of Law. This will be the second time I’ve traveled to view a session of hearings for the Hadi al Iraqi military commission case. This week is scheduled to address several issues, including the deposition of Ahmed al-Darbi, a detainee who has traded his release from Guantanamo in exchange for testimony in several cases.

First Attempt – Arrived One Day Early For My Flight 

Andrews-Passenger-Terminal-e1455778259356

An empty Passenger (PAX) Terminal at Andrews.

After a very rainy drive to D.C. on Friday, I picked up copies of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual: Excerpts and the Know Before You Go guide to give to my fellow NGO observers. These materials have been developed by the Program on International Human Rights Law at the IU McKinney School of Law, and serve as valuable resources to NGO observers.

Saturday morning, I arrived at Andrews Joint Air Base and was able, unlike initially last time, to gain entry on to the base. When I arrived to the terminal, I was slightly alarmed to only find the only two people in the entire terminal to be two Airmen cleaning the floor. They were quickly able to inform me my flight was to leave the next day, Sunday.

The email I received stated the flight would be the 13 (Sat), giving the correct date but wrong day. Misinterpretation and misinformation is a fairly common occurrence in my experience working for and with federal, state, and local governmental entities. No harm, no foul this time though. It was a good dry run. I know exactly how to get to the Passenger Terminal (PAX Terminal) and have the day to brush up on the available case documents and potential issues.

Public hearing?

3BD0D12700000578-4085516-Ahmed_Mohammed_al_Darbi_41_He_was_an_instructor_at_the_al_Farouq-a-179_1483646333475

Ahmad al Darbi, set to be deposed this week in the Hadi case, pled guilty in 2014 to the 2002 attack on a French oil tanker. He has yet to be sentenced.

On Friday, the military judge issued an order that effectively will deny public access to the deposition of al Darbi this week.

Ordinarily, the military commission proceedings are available for viewing via a secure feed at Fort Meade, Maryland. However, that may not be the case this week. I will confirm this tomorrow at the terminal.

If this is true, then the five of us NGOs will bear the responsibility alone to report on the deposition. We are the “eyes and ears of the outside world as to what happens at Guantanamo Bay.” This responsibility will greatly be enhanced if others cannot view the proceedings at Ft. Meade.

In 2012, the defense counsel for the U.S. v. Al-Nashari case summited a motion to request that the proceedings be available to media outlets in addition to the CCTV locations. In response to the motion, the government cited U.S. v. Moussaoui, a case in which the Court found that an audio-visual feed and online publishing of the transcripts “fully satisfy the constitutional requirements for openness and accessibility.”

gtmo-courtroom-avril-rua-pitt

The courtroom in the Expeditionary Legal Complex at Guantanamo Bay, looking from the gallery. (Photo credit: CBS News).

The suspension of a live feed of a deposition is different than not allowing live cameras in a military proceeding at issue in Moussaoui, but the suspension of the audio-visual feed seems to implicate a potential conflict with the constitutional requirements for openness and accessibility.

More research would need to be done to determine the legal impact of the feed suspension and I look forward to investigating further, should it turn out to be the case.

Second attempt – The Correct Day of My Flight 

After my self-imposed delay, I successfully arrived at the Passenger (PAX) Terminal Sunday morning and met my fellow NGO observers. Five total NGO observers representing five different organizations are set to travel to GTMO. Those organizations include the New York City Bar Association, Georgetown University Law Center, National District Attorneys Association, and Judicial Watch. Each observer seems eager to get there and get to work.

The next blog post I make will be from Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

Tyler J. Smith, J.D., LL.M.

Member, Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Returning to Guantanamo for a 2nd Time; August 19-26 Hearings in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al.

KSM in Court

Artist Rendering of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during Military Commission proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

I have been involved with the Indiana University McKinney School of Law’s Military Commission Observation Project since 2014.  During my time with the project I have observed hearings at Ft. Meade, Maryland and also at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in both the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – 9/11 proceedings as well as the Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu Al-Nashiri – USS Cole case.  I look forward to returning to Guantanamo Bay after 3 years.

In New York City

Coincidentally, I am currently in New York City attending the American Bar Association meetings and plan to visit the National 9/11 Memorial site tomorrow.

September-Eleven-Memorial-Plaza-NY-01

National 9/11 Memorial, New York City

Guantanamo Hearings Resume After Judge Ordered Halt in Proceedings

IRAQ ABU GHRAIB TRIAL
An artists view of United States Army Chief Circuit Judge Col. James L. Pohl (AP Photo/HO/Cpl. Annette Kyriakides)

As I prepare to attend the hearings and review various materials in order to bring myself fully up to date on the current issues in this case, one issue has garnered a lot of attention in the press.  According to the Miami Herald, last month the judge in the case, Army Col. James L. Pohl, suspended all hearings due to a conflict with the base commander regarding sequestration of judges and judicial staff during transit to GTMO, specifically on the boat transportation across the bay at the base in Cuba.  The article stated that the judge was concerned when a separate boat for the judicial staff was recently discontinued by the base commander.  This change would have required the judge and his staff to be in close proximity to members of the prosecution, defense, media, family members and NGO’s during the trip across the bay from the airport to the portion of the base that houses the military commission facilities at Camp Justice.  As a result, according to the article, the judge felt that this could negatively affect the integrity of the proceedings and the independence of the trial judiciary or raise that perception.  Earlier this month an arrangement was reached to once again provide separate boat transportation to the judicial staff once they arrive at GITMO and the hearings are set to resume the week of the 19th.  This is another example of the unique circumstances and situations that are involved with the location of the Military Commissions.

Camp Justice

Camp Justice, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Charles R. Dunlap, J.D.

Member, Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Return trip to Guantanamo Bay- August Hearing for Abd al Hadi al Iraqi

I am a 2015 J.D. graduate of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and a 2017 LL.M. graduate of Notre Dame Law School.

hadi-sketch

This Pentagon approved sketch by court artist Janet Hamlin shows Hadi al Iraqi (aka Nashwan al-Tamir) during his arraignment in June 2014. 

The upcoming hearing scheduled for Abd al Hadi al Iraqi (aka Nashwan al-Tamir) marks the third time I have been selected to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to view military commission hearings.

After one cancellation in March 2015, I was fortunate enough to have traveled to GTMO in September 2015. It was a short, but fascinating experience. I am grateful for the opportunity to potentially make the trip again. My previous blog posts can be found here.

The hearings I am scheduled to observe so far are still set for August 14-18.

Where the Case Stands

Detained in GTMO since 2007 and accused of war crimes related to his alleged conduct as an alleged al-Qaida commander, the U.S. charged Hadi al Iraqi in 2014. During my first trip to GTMO, he fired his lead military appointed defense counsel in an effort to retain a private attorney.

As of October 2016, the case also has a new military judge. Marine Corps Colonel P.S.

colonelrubin

The current presiding judge Marine Corps Colonel P.S. Rubin

Rubin succeeded Navy Captain J.K. Waits without explanation.

August Hearing Session

According to the Docketing Order, dated July 21, 2017, the upcoming hearing session should consist of argument and the presentation of evidence related to four defense motions. The order can be found here.

Two of the motions deal with compelling discovery of statements made by a defendant in another military commission case, Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al-Darbi. Another motion is seeking to dismiss the charges against their client because the defense claims Congress lacks the Constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of military commissions to non-citizens. In the fourth motion, the defense seeks the commission’s permission to allow the defendant to use a personal computer.

The last time I traveled to GTMO, I made a preliminary blog post going off of the docketing order as well, but all of that went out the window when everyone received word that Hadi wanted to fire his counsel. Therefore, if all of these issues are actually heard, then it will be a fair amount of progress.

Preliminary Thoughts

1554401_694063777291658_1751326058_n

Logo of Joint Task Force-GTMO. This group of military personnel is responsible for the care and custody of the detainees.

I am driving to Joint Andrews Air Base tomorrow. I am looking forward to again experiencing the incredibly bureaucratic process of traveling to GTMO. Viewing the hearing last time had a significant impact on how I view certain institutions, such as the military and the justice system, that are built on notions of patriotism. I also may be able to see some of my fellow Indiana National Guardsmen who arrived in GTMO last summer, if they are still there.

 

 

Tyler J. Smith, J.D., LL.M.

Member, Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

 

 

Going Back to Guantanamo Bay Today

img_7098

Andrews Air Force Base at Dawn. I took this photo in front of the Visitors’ Center

Today is my 4th scheduled trip to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since January 2017, the month of the inauguration. The first three of these early 2017 war crimes pre-trial hearings were cancelled, the last one just hours before our military flight was scheduled to depart Andrews Air Force base.

I’m back at Andrews again pre-dawn, with dozens of other people – civilian and military – heading to Guantanamo for US military commission pre-trial hearings in the case against al Tamir (Hadi al Iraqi), an alleged high-level Al

laptop and boarding pass -- april -- Andrews

Laptop, passport & boarding passcaption

Qaeda member who allegedly committed war crimes. These hearings were originally scheduled for two weeks — five days this coming week and five days next week — but next week’s hearings were cancelled.

Boarding Pass -- alone - Andrews -- April 2017

Boarding pass. Note the price.

We were meant to arrive at Andrews at 6:00 AM for a 10:00 AM flight — four hours in advance is standard. While waiting, there is time for me to meet the other 4 non-governmental organization observers (described below), and to see who else is scheduled to fly with us. There has not been much air traffic at Andrews on any of my trips to and from Guantanamo.  On occasion, dignitaries on official planes will pass through the otherwise spartan Andrews Air Terminal.

hadi-al-iraqi

The defendant — al Tamir (a/k/a Hadi al Iraqi)

The defendant – al Tamir

al Tamir is a high-value detainee who is an alleged high-ranking member of al Qaeda who served as liaison between al Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban. He is charged under the U.S. Military Commissions Act with a series of war crimes, including attacking protected property, perfidy / treachery, denying quarter, and targeting noncombatants such as medical workers and civilians. Among other things, he is alleged to have helped the Taliban blow up the monument-sized Bamiyan Valley Buddha Statues, which were a UNESCO World Heritage site.

al Tamir was officially charged in the equivalent of an arraignment in a Guantanamo Bay courtroom in June 2014. I happened to be present at Guantanamo and in the courtroom for that proceeding.

Unlike most of the other detainees charged with international crimes, al Tamir is facing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, rather than a death sentence faced by, for example, the five men charged with masterminding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Our Pre-Trial Hearing Week at Gitmo 

It is unclear what will transpire during this week of pre-trial hearings. I downloaded an official docket of motions originally scheduled to be argued in court this week. However, the amended docket is hidden behind a pentagon security firewall, beyond the reach of the small handful of “observers”, like myself taking today’s 3-hour flight to this remote outpost tribunal. Rumor has it that we will only have 2 days in the courtroom this week, though the hearings are scheduled morning and evening, Monday – Friday. This means that we may have plenty of time to explore non-courtroom endeavors, including research and writing. Time permitting, I will be able to focus on research for my new book, The Guantanamo Bay Reader: Voices of Those Living and Shaping the Gitmo Experience.

Inevitably, many of us on these trips find time to engage in recreational activities.

It’s good to see some familiar faces here in the terminal, weary as we all gear up for a solid week of Guantanamo work.

3 observers - Andrews -- april 2017

The other 3 male Observers. We have one female observer on this trip as well.

It is also great to meet the 4 other observers who will be with me on this trip. Most appear to be lawyers, with two being prosecutors.

With us are the military judge and his staff, prosecutors, defense counsel, interpreters and translators, security personnel, media, escorts for various groups, and us observers. I also noticed some families, with young children, returning to Guantanamo where they are stationed as part of the 3 to 4 thousand permanent U.S. military living at Guantanamo. Another approximately 1,600 are at Guantanamo to handle matters related to the 41 detainees remaining there.

IMG_0035Please stay tuned for more reports from Guantanamo Bay. Among other things, I plan to provide updates on the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, produced by the Guantanamo Bay Military Commission Observation Project of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law, and share information about the 4 other NGO representatives scheduled to observe this week’s proceedings with me. I also plan to discuss my new book, The Guantanamo Bay Reader.

Guantanamo Photo Exhibition at Indiana Law – The Unreported Side of Gitmo

 

Aline Fagundes and Andy Klein - Atrium - April 2017 -- Photo Exhibit

 Dean Andy Klein and Judge Aline Fagundes in front of the Guantanamo Photo Exhibition that was created by Judge Fagundes.

Indiana law students, faculty, staff and graduates have a long history with Guantanamo Bay. Much of their work relates to the U.S. Military Commissions – a military tribunal – created by Congress in 2006 to try detainees for alleged conduct associated with war.

 

The students, from Indiana University McKinney School of Law, are holding a photo Exhibition that highlights aspects of Guantanamo that do not focus on their legal work on important cases like that of alleged masterminds of the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

The Exhibition focuses on Guantanamo as a tropical island outpost that “holds a rare natural beauty in the Caribbean Sea”.

Guantanamo is a “place globally associated with stories of terrorism, torture and lengthy detention without charge”, but it has another side to it that is rarely reported, the students note.

The Exhibition comprises photos of nature at the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (also called “Gitmo”).

Brilliant sunrises and sunsets, sand covered beaches with lapping waves, iguanas, and vultures appear in vividly vibrant, large-scale photographs, clear and sharp.

Indiana McKinney’s Guantanamo involvement.

Indiana McKinney law students, faculty, staff and graduates have been associated with Gitmo for most of the 15 years since the first detainees arrived there in January 2002.  Their Gitmo roles have included law student researcher, expert witness, media representative, chief defense counsel, prosecutor, detention camp legal advisor, detention center guard, Defense Department public affairs representative, and fair trial observer.

Today’s Exhibition explores Gitmo through the eyes of McKinney students who traveled to GTMO as fair trial observers.

The Department of Defense grants “NGO observer status” to Non-Governmental Organizations such as McKinney’s Program in International Human Rights Law, for the stated purpose of promoting transparency at the Commissions. The McKinney human rights program then formed the MCOP – Military Commissions Observation Project. The MCOP sends McKinney faculty, staff, students and graduates to Gitmo Bay to attend, observe, analyze, critique, and publish materials on the hearings. They are fair trial observers.

Exhibition details

edwards and fagundes -- ft meade - helicopter -- 11 March 2017

Judge Fagundes and Professor Edwards at Ft. Meade, Maryland

The Exhibition, sponsored by the law school’s Program in International Human Rights Law  (PIHRL) & Master of Laws Association (MLA), is titled “Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Through the Eyes of Indiana University McKinney School of Law Observers”.

edwards and fagundes -- Pentagon -- 21 March 2017

Judge Fagundes & Professor Edwards at the Pentagon.

The Exhibition is in the Law School Atrium, 530 West New York St., Indianapolis, IN  46208. It runs from 20 April to 15 May 2017, from the end of classes, through the exam period, until the graduation ceremonies.

The Exhibition was created and organized by Judge Aline Doral Stefani Fagundes, LL.M. candidate, MLA President. Judge Fagundes traveled to Gitmo twice, and traveled to the Pentagon and to Ft. Meade, Maryland for other Guantanamo Bay – related hearings.

 

The students noted that the Exhibition would not have been possible without the help of the McKinney Graduate Programs, the Office of External Affairs, and the Office of Students Affairs.

Learn more at www.GitmoObserver.com

Some photos from the Exhibition appear below.

 

 

U.S.-Educated Detainee Asks U.S. Board To Release Him From Guantanamo

 

GTMO -- sarifulla paracha -- at age 67 -- with smile

Mr. Parahca two years ago at age 67

This morning, in a dark, locked, secure Pentagon conference room, I attended a hearing in which Guantanamo’s oldest detainee, 69-year-old Mr. Saifullah Paracha, asked the U.S. government to set him free. I was joined by Judge Aline Fagundes, who is a Master of Laws (LL.M.) student at Indiana University McKinney School of Law, and several other carefully screened civilian monitors.

 

The hearing was held pursuant to a 2011 Executive Order issued by President Barack Obama that provides detainees periodic reviews to determine if the detainees are a threat to U.S. national security. If the Periodic Review Board (PRB) finds that the detainee is a threat, he remains detained. If he is found not to be a threat, he may be repatriated to his home country or resettled in a third country.

Mr. Paracha argued for his release. The government alleged that Mr. Paracha was a “businessman and facilitator on behalf of al-Qa’ida senior leaders and operational planners”.

The PRB is expected to render a decision in Mr. Paracha’s case in about a month.

Today’s hearing – Who? Where?

Today at the Pentagon we had 6 observers from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media. Two of us were from the Guantanamo Bay project I founded at Indiana University McKinney School of Law (GitmoObserver.com). Our project sponsors Indiana Affiliates to travel to hearings at Guantanamo, the Pentagon, and Ft. Meade, Maryland.

We were met by 2 military and one civilian escort in the Pentagon’s Visitor Center, and escorted to a conference room where we talked amongst ourselves and listened to the Military History Channel, waiting for the hearing to commence.

Others present for the hearing included members of the “Board” itself that conducts the PRBs, and that consisted of one representative each from the Departments of Defense, State and Homeland Security; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. These individuals were not with us at the Pentagon, but were at a separate, undisclosed location in the DC area. It is believed that also present for the hearing, also at one or more undisclosed locations, were the Legal Advisor to the Board, the Case Administrator, a Hearing Clerk, and a Security Officer.

The detainee – Mr. Paracha – was present, by close circuit TV.

Mr. Paracha was joined by a “personal representative”, who is a military official dressed in uniform, who has been spending time with the Mr. Paracha and helping him present his case. The personal representative is not a lawyer or other sort of legal professional, and communications between Mr. Paracha and his personal representative are not protected by attorney client or similar privilege.

 The hearing begins

 The hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m., but what appears to have been a technical glitch resulted in a delay. Some of us were concerned, since at the last PRB we attended the audio feed was great from Guantanamo Bay but there was no visual feed so the screen was blank. Today’s visual feed was blurry, but at least we could see the Guantanamo hearing room and its occupants, unlike at the last PRB.

GTMO -- sarifulla paracha -- at age 62

Mr. Paracha

At 9:14 a.m., a picture appeared on the almost ceiling-height screen.

 

In our dimly lit conference room, we saw on the screen the dimly lit Guantanamo room where the detainee sat at the end of a rectangular table, facing the camera, with a stack of papers in front of him. They were in one of Guantanamo’s trailer-like, austere, rooms that had plain walls, floor, and table.

In contrast to the bland surroundings, the hearing room had high back office chairs, that looked like high-quality leather chairs one might see in a law associate’s office.  Aside from air conditioner units, seemingly from the 80s, hanging window-height on the wall behind Mr. Paracha’s head, there was nothing else on the walls.

On the table in front of Mr. Paracha’s seat was a table-top name plate that said in large, bold, all capital letters “DETAINEE”.

Mr. Paracha wore a white top, with somewhat short sleeves that appeared bunched at the elbows. His attire was clearly not a detainee “uniform”. Through the blur it appeared as though he had a white beard and a bald head.

The personal representative sat at the table on Mr. Paracha’s right, perpendicular to him, and not directly next to him.

The hearing began with a male, off-camera voice announcing that the hearing was commencing, mentioning some hearing rules, identifying who was present – boiler point.

Next came a female voice, again off camera. This voice read the Government’s Unclassified Statement, as follows:

Saifullah Paracha (PK-1094) was a Pakistan-based businessman and facilitator on behalf of al-Qa’ida senior leaders and operational planners. He met Usama Bin Ladin in 1999 or 2000 and later worked with external operations chief Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KU-10024) to facilitate financial transactions and propaganda. Since his arrival at Guantanamo, Paracha has been very compliant with the detention staff and has espoused moderate views and acceptance of Western norms. Although there is no indication that he is in communication with extremists outside Guantanamo, Paracha’s extensive extremist business contacts that he established before his detention could provide him opportunities to reengage upon release should he choose to use them. 

Mr. Paracha appeared to be paying close attention to whichever person happened to be speaking at the time – one of the off-camera narrators or his personal representative. The hearing was conducted in English, as a voice in the background stated that Mr. Paracha had waived his right to an interpretation of the hearing in another language of his choice.

While the personal representative spoke, Mr. Paracha would from time to time glance at her. At other times he appeared focused on the papers in front of him, appearing to follow along in English, flipping pages as the script was being read. At times he would place his left open palm firmly on the stack of papers, as though holding them down from a breeze.

The hearing ended at 9:19 — just 5 minutes after it began. This was the shortest PRB I have attended. They typically begin at 9:00 and run no longer than 30 minutes.

No private counsel of Mr. Parach attended today’s PRB, and no statement was read by any private counsel for Mr. Paracha’s today. That was one reason that the PRB was shorter than usual. It is unclear why private counsel did not appear today.  A statement by the private counsel Mr. David H. Remes had been posted on the Perriodic Review Board website here. But, that statement was the same statement submitted under Mr. Remes for Mr. Paracha’s file review PRB in 2016. That statement ended with this sentence:

For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the Board to convene a full review and hope that it will conclude that Mr. Paracha’s continued detention is unwarranted.

David H. Remes

Approved for Public Release
UNCLASSIFIED

That statement asked the Board to convene a “full review”, and today’s hearing was the “full review” requested. If Mr. Remes submitted a private counsel statement for today’s hearing, that statement was not posted on the PRB website (as of tonight — 8:55 p.m., Tuesday, 21 March 2017), and was not read at today’s hearing. What was posted online under Mr. Remese name was from last year.

Mr. Paracha’s background

Mr. Paracha, who is 69 years of age, is a former Pakistan-based businessman. He lived in the U.S. for about 15 years until the mid-1980s and went to college in the U.S.

Uzair Paracha

Uzair Paracha, Mr. Paraha’s son, is serving a 30 year sentence in a U.S. federal prison on terrorism-related convitions.

The U.S. alleges that Mr. Paracha worked with high level members of al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden. Mr. Paracha denies this. Mr. Paracha’s eldest son, Uzair Paracha, who was convicted in a U.S. federal court on charges related to terrorism, is serving a 30-year sentence.

 

Mr. Paracha was arrested in 2003 after arriving on a flight in Bangkok, Thailand, where he said he was going for business. He was sent to a prison camp in Europe for about 10 months, then sent to Guantanamo.

Mr. Paracha’s health has not been great, both before he arrived at Guantanamo in 2004 and while there. He has heart problems (including at least 2 heart attacks) and diabetes.

The hearing – a Periodic Review Board – PRB

Today’s hearing is called a Periodic Review Board (PRB),  and was pursuant to a 7 March 2011 Executive Order (number 13567) which has required most detainees to have a “periodic review” of their detention status.

The PRB process is a “discretionary administrative interagency process to review whether continued detention of particular individuals held at Guantanamo remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.”   Per the Executive Order, PRBs are not intended to ascertain the legality of a prisoner’s detention. To the contrary, it has been stated, it decides whether continued detention is warranted given “important” interests.

Each detainee receives an “initial PRB” at which they have the option of appearing in their own behalf. If they are not released, every 6 months they have a “file review,” at which they are not entitled to appear, with decisions made based on their file. Per the Executive Order, every 3 years after that they have a “full review”, at which the detainee may again appear on his own behalf.

Paracha’s 3 PRB hearings — summary

Mr. Paracha had an “initial PRB” on 8 March 2016 and a “file PRB review” on 27 September 2016. The hearing on Tuesday will be his “full PRB”.

The Periodic Review Board, by consensus, determined that continued law of war detention of the detainee remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States. In making this determination, the Board considered the detainee’s past involvement in terrorist activities, including contacts and activities with Usama Bin Laden, Kahlid Shaykh Muhammad and other senior al-Qaeda members, facilitating financial transactions and travel, and developing media for al-Qaeda. The Board further noted the detainee’s refusal to take responsibility for his involvement with al-Qaeda, his inability and refusal to distinguish between legitimate and nefarious business contacts, his indifference toward the impact of his prior actions, and his lack of a plan to prevent exposure to avenues of reengagement.

  • File Review. Paracha had a PRB file review on 27 September 2016, and on 12 October 2016 the Board concluded:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Periodic Review Board File Review – Saifullah Abdullah Paracha (PK-I 094)

On 28 September 2016, the PRB conducted a file review for Saifullah Abdullah Paracha (PK- l 094) in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13567, “Periodic Review of Individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”  The PRB previously conducted a full review of the detainee and on 7 April 2016 determined that continued detention was necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.  After reviewing relevant new information related to the detainee as well as information considered during the full review, the Board, by consensus, determined that a significant question is raised as to Whether the detainee’s continued detention is warranted and therefore an additional full review should be conducted in accordance with section 3(c) of E.O. 13567.

  • Full Review. It was Mr. Paracha’s full review that was held today. It should be noted that PRBs do not assess the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and are not criminal proceedings. A determination will be made as to whether the detainee is a threat to the U.S. He is hoping that the U.S. will repatriate him to Pakistan or send him to a 3rd country – outside the U.S.

 The Board will likely publish a decision on this full review in a month or so.

More on this hearing?

The initial part of the PRB was unclassified, and that is the portion of the PRB that Judge Fagundes, the other monitors and I observed. During that portion of the PRB, we were sitting in a secure Pentagon viewing room watching Mr. Paracha and his personal representative live from Guantanamo Bay.

PRBs v. Military Commissions

Military commission are criminal proceedings that are geared towards determining whether defendants are guilty of offenses that are charged. Generally, the outcome of a military commission would be that the defendant is found guilty of the charges or the defendant is acquitted of the charges. Military commissions operate pursuant to the Military Commission Act of 2009, a federal statute.

PRBs are administrative proceedings that seek to determine whether a detainee is a threat to the national security of the U.S. The outcome of a PRB is that a detainee is considered a threat and will thus remain at Guantanamo Bay, or is not considered a threat and can be placed on a list for possible repatriation to his home country or resettlement in a third country. PRBs operate pursuant to an Executive Order issued in 2011.

Military commissions examine what the detainee alleged did in the past – his prior conduct – and assess the legality of that conduct. PRBs can be said to focus more on the detainee’s future conduct – whether the detainee is likely to engage in unlawful or otherwise threatening or harmful behavior if he is released.

 

edwards and fagundes -- Pentagon -- 21 March 2017

Professor George Edwards & Judge Aline Fagundes at the Pentagon before the Periodic Review Board (PRB) held on 21 Marh 2017

Judge Fagundes’ observations

 

Judge Fagundes is the first student from Indiana University McKinney School of Law to participate in all three types of hearings our Indiana Guantanamo Bay Military Commission Observation Project / Gitmo Observer may send affiliates to observe:

  • She traveled to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor U.S. Military Commissions live, in the courtroom.
  • She traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland, to monitor U.S. Military Commissions via a secure videolink from Guantanamo.
  • She traveled to the Pentagon to monitor Guantanamo Bay Periodic Review Board (PRB).

Judge Fagundes is researching and writing a paper that focuses on international law requirements for transparency in the U.S. Military Commission system. She has described some of her experiences on this blog – www.GitmoObserver.com.

George Edwards

Founder, Periodic Review Board (PRB) Project

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)

Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL)

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

_______

Traveling to the Pentagon to hear Guantanamo’s Oldest Detainee Seek Release

 

GTMO -- sarifulla paracha -- at age 67 -- with smile

Mr. Saifullah Paracha

On Tuesday Guantanamo’s oldest detainee, Mr. Saifullah Paracha, will likely plead at a hearing that he is not a threat to U.S. national security. He will ask to be repatriated to his homeland of Pakistan or resettled in a 3rd country.

 

During the parole-like hearing, Mr. Paracha will be located in a small, bare trailer at Guantanamo. The proceeding will be videocast live to a small Pentagon room where I plan to watch it with a handful of other carefully screened observers, including two of my Indiana law students (Judge Aline Fagundes and another Master of Laws student).

Mr. Paracha, who is 69 years of age, is a former Pakistan-based businessman. He lived in the U.S. for about 15 years until the mid-1980s and went to college in the U.S.

Uzair Paracha

Mr. Uzair Paracha, Mr. Paracha’s son, who is serving a 40 year U.S. terrorism sentence

The U.S. alleges that Mr. Paracha worked with high level members of al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden. Mr. Paracha denies this. Mr. Paracha’s eldest son, Uzair Paracha, who was convicted in a U.S. federal court on charges related to terrorism, is serving a 30-year sentence.

 

Mr. Paracha was arrested in 2003 after arriving on a flight in Bangkok, Thailand, where he said he was going for business. He was sent to a prison camp in Europe for about 10 months, then sent to Guantanamo.

Mr. Paracha’s health has not been great, both before he arrived at Guantanamo in 2004 and while there. He has heart problems (including at least 2 heart attacks) and diabetes.

The hearing – a Periodic Review Board – PRB

This hearing at which Mr. Paracha  will argue is called a Periodic Review Board (PRB),  and will be conducted pursuant to a 7 March 2011 Executive Order (number 13567) which has required most detainees to have a “periodic review” of their detention status.

The PRB process is a “discretionary administrative interagency process to review whether continued detention of particular individuals held at Guantanamo remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.”   Per the Executive Order, PRBs are not intended to ascertain the legality of a prisoner’s detention. To the contrary, it has been stated, it decides whether continued detention is warranted given “important” interests.

Each detainee receives an “initial PRB” at which they have the option of appearing in their own behalf. If they are not released, every 6 months they have a “file review,” at which they are not entitled to appear, with decisions made based on their file. Per the Executive Order, every 3 years after that they have a “full review”, at which the detainee may again appear on his own behalf.

Paracha’s 3 PRB hearings

Mr. Paracha had an “initial PRB” on 8 March 2016 and a “file PRB review” on 27 September 2016. The hearing on Tuesday will be his “full PRB”.

The Periodic Review Board, by consensus, determined that continued law of war detention of the detainee remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States. In making this determination, the Board considered the detainee’s past involvement in terrorist activities, including contacts and activities with Usama Bin Laden, Kahlid Shaykh Muhammad and other senior al-Qaeda members, facilitating financial transactions and travel, and developing media for al-Qaeda. The Board further noted the detainee’s refusal to take responsibility for his involvement with al-Qaeda, his inability and refusal to distinguish between legitimate and nefarious business contacts, his indifference toward the impact of his prior actions, and his lack of a plan to prevent exposure to avenues of reengagement.

  • File Review. Paracha had a PRB file review on 27 September 2016, and on 12 October 2016 the Board concluded:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Periodic Review Board File Review – Saifullah Abdullah Paracha (PK-I 094)

On 28 September 2016, the PRB conducted a file review for Saifullah Abdullah Paracha (PK- l 094) in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13567, “Periodic Review of Individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”  The PRB previously conducted a full review of the detainee and on 7 April 2016 determined that continued detention was necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.  After reviewing relevant new information related to the detainee as well as information considered during the full review, the Board, by consensus, determined that a significant question is raised as to Whether the detainee’s continued detention is warranted and therefore an additional full review should be conducted in accordance with section 3(c) of E.O. 13567.

  • Full Review. It is Paracha’s full review that is scheduled for this Tuesday. It should be noted that PRBs do not assess the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and are not criminal proceedings. A determination will be made as to whether the detainee is a threat to the U.S. He is hoping that the U.S. will repatriate him to Pakistan or send him to a 3rd country – outside the U.S.

 The Board will likely publish a decision on this full review in a month or so.

Below is more information about what Tuesday’s full PRB may be like.

 

podium

Judge Aline Fagundes, a Master of Laws (LL.M. student at Indiana) is expected to attend Mr. Paracha’s PRB at the Pentagon. She was at the Pentagon earlier this month for a different PRB.

What will Paracha’s PRB be like on Tuesday?

 

  • Who will be present?

 I suspect that other representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) (including 2 students from Indiana University McKinney School of Law) will be present with me at the Pentagon on Tuesday, and possibly some media. This is the third PRB to be held under the Trump Administration.

Others present for the hearing will include members of the “Board” itself that conducts the PRBs, and that consisted of one representative each from the Departments of Defense, State and Homeland Security; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Presumably each of those representatives will watch remotely in his or her office in the DC area. Also likely to be present for the hearing are the Legal Advisor to the Board; the Case Administrator; a Hearing Clerk; and a Security Officer, though it is not clear where these individuals would be located at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere.

Who will make statements made at the PRB?

1.  First, U.S. military official will read an “Unclassified Statement”. The statement for Tuesday is already posted online, and is as follows:

Saifullah Paracha (PK-1094) was a Pakistan-based businessman and facilitator on behalf of al-Qa’ida senior leaders and operational planners. He met Usama Bin Ladin in 1999 or 2000 and later worked with external operations chief Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KU-10024) to facilitate financial transactions and propaganda. Since his arrival at Guantanamo, Paracha has been very compliant with the detention staff and has espoused moderate views and acceptance of Western norms. Although there is no indication that he is in communication with extremists outside Guantanamo, Paracha’s extensive extremist business contacts that he established before his detention could provide him opportunities to reengage upon release should he choose to use them. 

2.  Mr. Paracha’s Pentagon-appointed personal representative may make a statement. The text of this statement has not yet been posted online.

3.  Mr. Paracha’s private counsel may make a statement. The text of this statement has not yet been posted online.

 More on this hearing?

The initial part of the PRB will be unclassified, and that is the portion of the PRB my students and I will observe. During that portion of the PRB, I will be sitting in a secure Pentagon viewing room watching the hearing live, which will be happening at Guantanamo Bay.

It is possible that the Pentagon will post a statement by Mr. Paracha and the other statements mentioned above (statement by his Pentagon-appointed personal representative and by his private counsel). If these are posted on the PRB website, I will plan to post them on this blog later.

PRBs v. Military Commissions

Military commission are criminal proceedings that are geared towards determining whether defendants are guilty of offenses that are charged. Generally, the outcome of a military commission would be that the defendant is found guilty of the charges or the defendant is acquitted of the charges. Military commissions operate pursuant to the Military Commission Act of 2009, a federal statute.

PRBs are administrative proceedings that seek to determine whether a detainee is a threat to the national security of the U.S. The outcome of a PRB is that a detainee is considered a threat and will thus remain at Guantanamo Bay, or is not considered a threat and can be placed on a list for possible repatriation to his home country or resettlement in a third country. PRBs operate pursuant to an Executive Order issued in 2011.

Military commissions examine what the detainee alleged did in the past – his prior conduct – and assess the legality of that conduct. PRBs can be said to focus more on the detainee’s future conduct – whether the detainee is likely to engage in unlawful or otherwise threatening or harmful behavior if he is released.

Conclusion

So far as we can tell, Paracha’s PRB is still scheduled to go forward on Tuesday. That is, the Pentagon has not notified us that it will not go forward. If it does go forward, it seems likely that Mr. Paracha will attend, as there has been no suggestion that he will miss his first full review.

Please watch this space for an update post-PRB.

George Edwards

Founder, Periodic Review Board (PRB) Project

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)

Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL)

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

_______

 

Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Bay Guide – Updated

Today we posted the newest version of our Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Bay GuideIt contains 90 pages of information to help you prepare for a trip to this remote Cuban military outpost, including information about the U.S. war crimes trials being held there.

Want to learn intricacies on gaining permission to travel to Guantanamo? What about information about Guantanamo Bay accommodations, restaurants, recreation, sites?

The Guide contains up-to-date information, including about the U.S. Naval Base’s newest restaurant, called Tropical Cabana, that is “Inspired by Cuba, Jamaica & the Philippines in a Relaxed Island Atmosphere”.

It also now contains information / photos of artwork done by one of the courtroom guards – animal figures made of glass collected from Glass Beach.

Safe travels!

For a copy of the Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Bay Guide click this link. Or access the Guide below:

Indiana Law School Affiliates Travel to Monitor Guantanamo Bay War Crimes Hearings

img_7049

Mr. al Nashiri

For two weeks this month, Guantanamo Bay war crimes hearings have been held in the case against Mr. Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, who is alleged to have masterminded the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding dozens more.

Representatives of Indiana University McKinney School of Law have monitored these hearings, live in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom, and remotely by CCTV at a secure facility in Ft. Meade, Maryland.

In addition to monitoring military commissions, Indiana affiliates also monitor Guantanamo Bay Periodic Review Board hearings (PRBs), that occur live at Guantanamo Bay but are broadcast live by CCTV into a secure room at the Pentagon. The PRBs are separate and distinct from the military commissions.

All Indiana monitors carry out the 5-part mission of Indiana McKinney’s Military Commission Observation Project, to: (a) attend; (c) observer; (c) analyze; (d) critique; and (e) report on the substance and the form of the legal proceedings.

All Indiana monitors contribute to research and writing of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, which is an independent and objective guide on rights and interests of all Guantanamo Bay stakeholders, and not just the rights and interests of the defendants. The Manual examines rights and interests of the prosecution, the victims and victims’ families, the media, the public, detainees who are not charged, witnesses, the military detention center guards, and others.

Indiana monitors also contribute to the Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Bay Guide guide, which offers travelers to Guantanamo insights into what to expect there. Also, Indiana monitors contribute to the blog, resource database, and other components of our Gitmo Observer website – www.GitmoObserver.com (and our twitter feed — @GitmoObserver).

Indiana monitors who travel to Ft. Meade, the Pentagon and Guantanamo Bay carry out their responsibilities independently and objectively.

Indiana Observers at Guantanamo

img_9159

Judge Fagundes at Andrews Air Force Base in 2016 on her first of 2 trips to Guantanamo Bay.

On Saturday, 4 March 2017, Judge Aline Fagundes, who is a Master of Laws (LL.M.) student at Indiana, flew on a U.S. military flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor a week of al Nashiri hearings. At Guantanamo Bay, she witnessed the proceedings while seated in Guantanamo’s courtroom, in a gallery behind a double-paned glass wall that separated her and other observers from the lawyers, the judge, and the defendant. This was the second trip to Guantanamo Bay for Judge Fagundes, who traveled there in 2016 to monitor hearings in the 9/11 case against the 5 alleged masterminds of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

 

DSC05378

Mr. Tex Boonjue, 2nd from left, with other human rights monitors at Andrews on Saturday, 11 March 2017, waiting for their flight to Guantanamo.

A week after she arrived, another military flight from Andrews touched down at Guantanamo, carrying Mr. Tex Boonjue, a 3rd year Indiana J.D. student. Mr. Boonjue and Judge Fagundes met briefly at the Guantanamo Air Terminal, where the baton was passed for the second week this month of on-site monitoring.  This interchange at Guantanamo marked the first time since 2003 – when Indiana McKinney affiliates fist became involved with Guantanamo – that Indiana has had 2 representatives on the ground at Guantanamo at the same time. On of the dozens of trips, Indiana has only had one representative on the island at a time.

The plane that carried Mr. Boonjue to Guantanamo picked up Judge Fagundes and brought her back to Andrews. Judge Fagundes spent the weekend in the DC area, then traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland to witness, via CCTV, continued hearings in the al Nashiri case.

 

tex and aline at gtmo -- 11 March 2017

Mr. Tex Boonjue & Judge Aline Fagundes meet at the Guantanamo Bay Air Terminal, 11 March 2017. Fagundes was boarding the plane that had just brought Boonjue from Andrews Air Force Base

Both Mr. Boonjue and Judge Fagundes have published multiple blog entries on www.GitmoObserver.com. You can read about some of Judge Fagundes’ experiences here and about some of Mr. Boonjue’s experiences here.

Indiana Observers at Ft. Meade

Early Monday morning, 13 March 2017, Judge Fagundes arrived at the Ft. Meade Army Base in Maryland, where the Guantanamo Bay hearings are broadcast via satellite to a secure viewing room.

Upon her pre-dawn arrival, she stopped at the Ft. Meade Visitors Center, where she was able to collect a badge that granted her access to the base. She traveled about a mile onto the base to the McGill Training Center, where the Office of Military Commissions has organized a live feed from the Guantanamo Bay courtroom.

At Ft. Meade’s McGill facility, Judge Fagundes saw the Guantanamo Bay courtroom from a different perspective. While at Guantanamo, she witnessed the proceedings from the gallery, which is at the back of the courtroom, offering a view of the entire courtroom at all times. She was able to see the judge, the prosecution, the defense counsel, the defendant, the security officers in military uniform, and court staff. She could also see occupants of the viewing gallery, including other observers, media, Guantanamo Base residents who are able to sit in when seats are available, and victims and victims’ families (VFMs) (except when VFMs choose to close a curtain that separates the VFM section of the gallery from others in the gallery).

At Ft. Meade, she could only see what was broadcast from Cuba, through a courtroom camera that would point at the person currently speaking. When the judge spoke, a camera pointed at him and that was broadcast live. When the prosecutor spoke, a different camera pointed at him, and that was broadcast live. Cameras pointed at the defense counsel, the defendant, and the witnesses would come alive and broadcast when those people spoke.

When viewing proceedings at Ft. Meade, it is impossible get a clear sense of the scope of the proceedings, or the courtroom / gallery dynamics, as one can do when in they are observing live at Guantanamo.

At Ft. Meade, observers cannot witness any visual or oral reactions by VFMs, the defendant, or anyone else, unless a camera pointing towards them is activated. These cameras are only activated when an actual participant in the courtroom is speaking officially. The cameras would not necessarily point towards a defendant who was speaking out of turn, a VFM who might be reacting, or others on site who could clearly be heard / seen by any observer physically in the courtroom gallery.

edwards and fagundes -- ft meade - helicopter -- 11 March 2017

Fagundes & Edwards at the Ft. Meade Museum

At Ft. Meade, Judge Fagundes was met by Professor George Edwards, who is the founding faculty director of Indiana’s Guantanamo project.

 

Judge Fagundes and Professor Edwards viewed the hearings at Ft. Meade, while Mr. Boonjue viewed the hearings while in gallery in the back of the Guantanamo Bay Courtroom.

 Upcoming Indiana participants at Guantanamo Bay and Ft. Meade

bp-pic

Mr. Brent Pierce

On Saturday, 18 March, Mr. Brent Pierce, an Indiana McKinney J.D. graduate, is scheduled to travel to Guantanamo Bay. He is likely to be on the ground there for a few minutes with Mr. Boonjue, who is due to return to Andrews on the plane that carries Mr. Pierce from Andrews.

 

Mr. Pierce is scheduled to monitor the case against the five alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.  That case has five defendants, including Khalid Shaik Mohammad. These five defendants, like Mr. al Nashiri in the U.S.S. Cole case, face the death penalty.

On Monday the 20th, when Mr. Pierce is in the Guantanamo gallery for the 9/11 hearings, Professor Edwards is scheduled to be back at Ft. Meade with another Indiana McKinney LL.M. student, who will join in monitoring the 9/11 case via CCTV.

You can read Mr. Pierce’s initial blog post here.

Substance of the al Nashiri Hearings

USS Cole Map of Ship & Devastation

A Cole bombing news article schematic. This schematic was not proffered as evidence. Photos of the ship were proffered.

The testimony on the Monday morning that Professor Edwards and Judge Fagundes were at Ft. Meade (and Mr. Boonjue was in the Guantanamo courtroom gallery) focused on pre-admitting into evidence items that the FBI recovered from the U.S.S. Cole in the days after the ship was attacked. These items included photographs of the ship, harbor where the ship was attacked, the road leading to the harbor, and the beach front where debris from the attack was washed ashore. Among the debris on the shore depicted in the photographic evidence was an uninflated Cole lifeboat and a Cole baseball cap. Also

 

A baseball cap like the one in the photograph the prosecution entered as evidence in the case against al Nashiri. A similar cap was found on the beach near the USS Cole bomb site.

admitted into evidence were fiberglass fragments that are alleged to be part of the suicide boat that attacked the Cole, debris found on Cole’s deck following the bombing, photographs of the gaping hole in the side of the Cole where the attack boat hit, and photographs of devastation inside the attacked ship.

At Ft. Meade and in the Guantanamo Gallery, observers could see some of the exhibits, including those that were projected onto the screen by a device like an overhead projector.  When exhibits were presented, at Guantanamo, observers could see and hear reactions / non-reactions by the defendant, VFMs, media, other observers, and others in the courtroom. At Ft. Meade, observers could see and hear only what came through the television monitor / speakers.

khalid-shaik-mohammad

Khalid Shaik Mohammed

Substance of the upcoming 9/11 hearings

It is unclear what will be on the agenda for the 9/11 hearings. The military judge in that case has released a docketing order, and participants know the list of pre-trial motions scheduled. But experience has demonstrated that not all motions on the order are necessarily heard during a hearing week, and at times matters not listed on the order are raised.

Periodic Review Hearings (PRB)

On Tuesday, 21 March 2017, Professor Edwards, Judge Fagundes, and another LL.M. student are scheduled to travel to the Pentagon to monitor the PRB hearing of Saifullah Paracha, from Pakistan, who at 69 years of age is the oldest detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. He is alleged to have associated with members of al Qaida.

GTMO -- sarifulla paracha -- at age 67 -- with smile

Mr. Saifullah Paracha

PRBs and military commissions differ.

 

Military commission are criminal proceedings that are geared towards determining whether defendants are guilty of offenses that are charged. Generally, the outcome of a military commission would be that the defendant is found guilty of the charges or the defendant is acquitted of the charges. Military commissions operate pursuant to the Military Commission Act of 2009, a federal statute.

PRBs are administrative proceedings that seek to determine whether a detainee is a threat to the national security of the U.S. The outcome of a PRB is that a detainee is considered a threat and will thus remain at Guantanamo Bay, or is not considered a threat and can be placed on a list for possible repatriation to his home country or resettlement in a third country. PRBs operate pursuant to an Executive Order issued in 2011.

 

aldarbi

Mr. al Darbi

9/11 Hearings for the last week of March 2017; al Darbi hearings for the first week of April.

 

During the final week of March, Professor Edwards is scheduled to travel to Guantanamo Bay for the 2nd week of hearings in the 9/11 case. Mr. Brent Pierce and Professor Edwards will likely meet briefly at the Guantanamo Bay airport, to pass the baton for the final week of March hearings.

Currently, hearings are scheduled at Guantanamo Bay for the first week of April in the case of Mr. al Darbi, who is alleged to have conspired with Mr. al Nashiri in planning a failed attack on the U.S.S. Sullivan the year before the U.S.S. Cole bombing. Professor Edwards is scheduled to return to Guantanamo Bay for this hearings. Rumor has it that the April al Darbi hearings will be cancelled. Another round of al Darbi hearings is scheduled for May 2017.

joanna-leblanc-graduation-photo

Ms. Johanna Leblanc

Military commission hearings in the case against Mr. Hadi al Iraqi (a/k/a/ Nashwan al Tamir), an alleged high level member of al Qaida Iraq and liaison with the Taliban, scheduled for earlier in March 2017, were cancelled. The Indiana McKinney monitor who was scheduled to travel to Guantanamo Bay for the Hadi hearings — Ms. Johanna Leblanc — will be scheduled for a subsequent monitoring mission. Ms. Leblanc’s initial blog post on her cancelled Hadi al iraqi hearing mission can be found on www.GitmoObserver.com  here.

 

Conclusion

Though each Indiana monitor has his / her personal perspective and opinions, Indiana monitors act independently and objectively in researching and drafting our Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual and other materials that examine rights and interests of Guantanamo Bay stakeholders. The materials that Indiana has prepared are being used by many who have an interest in what happens (or what does not happen) at Guantanamo Bay. Though persons traveling to Guantanamo may have a particular interest in our Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Bay Guide, there is strong interest in our substantive publications as well.

Indiana monitors contribute to the transparency that the Pentagon has stated that it seeks with the military commissions. Indiana monitors also benefit, whether they travel to Ft. Meade, to Guantanamo Bay, or both.

If you are an Indiana McKinney affiliate – student, faculty, staff or graduate – please check our law school web page here for information on how you might participation in our Guantanamo project.

Anyone interested in our work can check our blog / website / resource database at www.GitmoObserver.com.

George Edwards

Founding Faculty Member, Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

I’m Scheduled To Fly To Guantanamo Bay Today

Showtime – Andrews Air Force Base to Guantanamo Bay

I am scheduled to travel to Guantanamo Bay today to monitor hearings in the case of al Nashiri, who is the alleged mastermind of the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing off the coast of Yemen that killed and wounded dozens of U.S. sailors. I am representing the Military Commission Observation Project of Indiana University McKinney School of Law, where I am a student. I am looking forward to carrying out my observer / monitor responsibilities, which include to attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on the military commissions that have charged several men with perpetrating war crimes.

DSC05378.JPG

Arrival at Andrews Air Force Base

Most of the military commission flights to Guantanamo Bay depart from Andrews Air Force Base (AAFB).

Last night I stayed at a nearby Holiday Inn, and took a (taxi?) to the Andrews Visitor Center at 7:00 AM, where I met two other NGO representatives — Carol and Michelle – who were scheduled to join me on the trip to Guantanamo.

A government representative (Tony) picked us up around 7:30 AM and drove us to the Andrews terminal, where we met the rest of the NGO reps.

After we passed through security and I obtained my boarding pass, I handed all the NGO reps who were present a copy of the Know Before You Go To Guantanamo guide and the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual excerpts. These documents were produced by the Indiana McKinney Military Commission Observation Project (Gitmo Observer). I received many thanks for providing such helpful documents.

While waiting to board, we saw Vice President Mike Pence board what looked like Air Force One, but was actually Air Force Two. There were several security personnel around him, including secret service agents and military. An hour after Pence departed, we boarded a bus that took us to the commercial plane (Atlas Air) bound for Guantanamo.

DSC05375.JPG

I am now on the plane about an hour away from arrival. I am looking forward for what’s in store to come.

 

Tex Boonjue, J.D. Candidate

Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

I’m Flying to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba tomorrow for U.S. Military Commission Hearings

I’m Flying to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba tomorrow for U.S. Military Commission Hearings

When I enrolled at Indiana University McKinney School of Law almost 3 years ago, I learned that the school had a program that focused on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After my first year, I participated in that program – the Military Commissions Observation Project (MCOP) — and I observed a pre-trial hearing in the case against Hadi al Iraqi, who is an alleged high level al Qaeda member who and liaison with the Taliban. I viewed the Hadi hearing at the Ft. Meade, Maryland army base via secure satellite transmission live from Guantanamo Bay. This was my first time observing a military commission, not to mention a Guantanamo Bay hearing of such a magnitude. Also I did legal research for the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, which observers and others are using to help them determine whether rights are afforded to individuals and groups related to Guantanamo.

Tomorrow (Saturday, 11 March 2017) I am scheduled to fly from Andrews Air Force Base to Guantanamo Bay, where I will be monitoring the military commission case against al Nashiri, who is alleged to have masterminded the 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding dozens more. Rather than view the hearings via CCTV at a military base in Maryland, I am expecting to view the hearings while sitting in the galley of the actual courtroom at Guantanamo Bay. I am representing the Indiana McKinney School of Law’s MCOP (also known as the Gitmo Observer). Hearings are set to begin Monday, 13 March 2017.

Travel to DC – Friday, 10 March 2017

10:00 – 11:30:  I woke up today feeling slightly better than I felt yesterday. I had hoped to fully recover from whatever it is that I have before departing for DC and beginning my mission to Guantanamo Bay. Nonetheless, I am still fully functional and very excited for what’s set to come these next 8 days.

DSC05362.JPG

12:00 – 16:00: The hour and a half flight from Indianapolis to DC was as smooth as ever. Passing through security was a breeze. I won the armrest war. My bags were one of the first few down the conveyor belt.

16:00 – 18:30: After learning that my Verizon phone would not work in Guantanamo Bay and that I would need my own SIM card to communicate with the MCOP director while there, I searched for the nearest T-Mobile store on my phone and hopped onto the DC metro green line headed towards Gallery Place Station (in an area known as Chinatown). I ran into some slight issues at the T-Mobile store when trying to obtain a pre-paid SIM card. The employee must have been new because he said that the $50, 2GB talk/text, pre-paid SIM card that I had sought use in Guantanamo Bay did not exist. However, after some back and forth, a few calls to customer service, and a brief chat with his coworkers, we discovered that there was indeed a $50 pre-paid SIM card available for purchase ($66 total, $10 for the SIM + Tax). Our Project Director, Professor George Edwards, published in Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Bay that T-Mobile began operating at Guantanamo last summer. In one of my blog posts from Guantanamo I will report on how well the T-Mobile sim card works.

19:30 – 22:00: After obtaining the SIM card, I hopped back onto the green line and headed towards Branch Avenue. I am comfortably familiar with this line as I had taken it practically every day during my 2015 summer law internship with the Navy JAG Corp, when I worked at the Washington Navy Yard.

I got to my hotel – the Holiday Inn near Andrews Air Force Base – checked into my room, and unloaded my luggage. I then read additional parts of the Know Before You Go To Guantanamo guide while I had dinner (which I had brought with me from Indianapolis). Afterwards, I introduced myself via email to the 9 other NGO representatives who will be observing the hearings, and attached a copy of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, and the Know Before You Go To Guantanamo guide so that they could reference these materials before, during and after the hearings.

I learned that one of the observers scheduled to attend will not join us on the flight from Andrews tomorrow, which means that there will be at most 8 other NGO representatives will join me at the hearings.

DSC05360.JPG

Reading the “Know Before You Go” Guide in my hotel room the night before departure

22:00 – 22:30.  I believe this trip to Guantanamo Bay will be a unique, informative and rewarding experience. I anticipate having much more to write about once set foot on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.

Tex Boonjue, J.D. Candidate

Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

I’m heading back to Guantanamo Bay to Observe hearings

I am at Andrews Air Force Base now waiting to board a military flight to take me to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor U.S. Military Commissions in the case against al Nashiri, who is alleged to have masterminded the 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding dozens more.

For the second time, I was nominated to represent the MCOP – the Military Commission Observation Project of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law’s Program in International Human Rights Law.

My first trip to Guantanamo Bay was in October of 2016 and my experience can be found in this www.GitmoObserver.com blog post, clicking here.  There was also a 4-page article by Larissa Roso published in the Brazilian newspaper Zero Hora (see photo in this blog).

fullsizerender-jpg

The defendants

As mentioned, this time I will attend a pre-trial hearing in the case against al Nashiri, who faces the death penalty for his alleged participation in the suicide attack against the USS Cole .

640px-uss_cole_ddg-67_departs

USS Cole being towed

From public sources I have gathered the following information about al Nashiri:

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. He was arrested in Dubai in 2002, was held for 4 years in CIA black sites and was taken to Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. He was first charged at Guantanamo in 2008. The charges were dropped in February 2009 and reinstated in 2011, and now, six years later, the proceeding remains at the pre-trial stage.

al Nashiri

On my first visit, I attended the pre-trial hearings in the case against Khalid Shaik Mohammad and 4 other allged masterminds of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It will be interesting to compare the 9/11 hearings to what I expect to witness at the al Nashiri hearings.

Why go to Guantanamo again?

I am a Master of Laws (LL.M.) student at Indiana University McKinney School of Law, and my second trip to Guantanamo Bay is part of my in-field research about transparency under the Military Commissions. My research is being supervised by , Professor George Edwards, who is Founding Director of  Indiana’s Military  Commission Observation Project.

I remember, as a first-islander (this is how people in Guantanamo Bay call those who are on the island for the first time), I felt like not even blinking my eyes, afraid of missing any detail from which I could learn something.

This time, of course, it will not be different. My eyes will be wide open. My initial focus was to fulfill goals of our MCOP project – to attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on the Military Commissions. I did that on my first visit, and I will do that on this visit as well.

But this time  my attention will be focused specifically on transparency.

The whole process of my involvement, since I was nominated to be an observer, represents a rich source for research on Military Commission transparency for NGOs. The several steps to comply with the requirements presented by the Pentagon, the limited information NGOs can access, the location of the hearings, the restrictions and overwhelming rules while in the island, the fact that rules seem constantly to change for NGOs (with some rules being different now than they were when I went to Guantanamo in October), the limited areas at Guantanamo where NGOs can circulate, visit or take pictures – those are just a few examples of things that I am thinking about in the context of transparency. Of course, the cases before the Military Commissions are related to national security, and deserve special care. This research will try to understand what international and U.S. domestic law require regarding transparency of the U.S. Military Commissions for NGOs, recognizing that a balance must take into account national security as well as NGO exposure and access to information. Do the Military Commissions comply with international and U.S. law regarding transparency when it comes to NGO observers?

At Andrews Air Force Base

I am now at the Joint Base Andrews, and the sun is about to rise on this chilly Sunday. Our chartered flight – a Delta Airlines – is scheduled to depart at 8am. The NGOs were scheduled to arrive arrive at Andrews at 5 a.m., 3 hours in advance, to check-in for the flight.

img_3178

At this time there are 10 NGOs representatives from different organizations scheduled to travel with us. On my first trip, we had 12 NGOs observers. Each authorized organization can indicate and send only one representative at the time, even if there are places available. So, if we in fact only have 10, then there are 3 or 4 empty seats that could have been filled by NGO representatives. I know that there are many observers from Indiana and other organizations available to fill those seats, and I wonder why those spots are empty.

Facetune.jpg

NGOs waiting at the AMC’s Children Area, also called Family Lounge.

The flight time is about 3 hours 15 minutes, and we are expected to arrive at Guantanamo Bay around lunch time.

I am looking forward to gathering as much information as possible on this trip, and I hope to learn from as many participants as possible, including other NGOs observers, media, the defense team, the prosecution, escorts, etc.

Soon I will be sharing more information here on this blog. Also I will be tweeting @alinedoral.

Stay tuned.

Aline Fagundes, Master of Laws (LL.M.) student

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

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law 

Updated Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual & “Know Before You Go to Guantanamo” Guide

The Gitmo Observer has updated 4 draft documents useful for anyone interested in the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba U.S. Military Commissions, and for anyone traveling to Guantanamo Bay for hearings or other purposes.

Each document is in a preliminary draft stage, with further research, writing and editing underway. Nevertheless, the Gitmo Observer hopes that these materials are helpful.

The documents, which are available for free download below, are:

guantanamo-bay-fair-trial-manual-vol-i-26-february-2017-first-page-pink(1)    Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual (Volume I) – (pink cover – 344 pages) (27 February 2017)

Lists the international and domestic law applied at the Guantanamo military commissions, explains the law, and identifies how the law affects Guantanamo stakeholders, such as the defense, prosecution, victims and victims’ families, witnesses, U.S. military who guard the detainees, the media, and other stakeholders. Explores rights and interests of all stakeholders, not just rights of the defense. 

Contains a useful Glossary for military and legal terms, and for items associated with Guantanamo Bay.

 

guantanamo-bay-fair-trial-manual-vol-ii-26-february-2017-first-page-blue(2)    Appendices to Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual (Volume II) (blue cover – 268 pages) (27 February 2017)

Contains important law documents related to the proceedings, such as the charge sheets (indictments) of the 3 major pending cases, and excerpts from binding human rights and humanitarian law treaties (e.g., Geneva Conventions, Convention Against Torture, Civil & Political Rights Covenant, Race Convention),  the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court cases, the Military Commissions Act, Presidential Executive Orders,  and military commission jurisprudence.

 

 

 

(3)    Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual Excerpts (yellow cover — 102 pages) (27 February 2017)guantanamo-bay-manual-excerpts-27-february-2017-yellow-front-cover

A selection of important sections of the Full Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial ManualProvides background information on the military commissions, descriptions of the 3 active Guantanamo Bay hearings, list of previously convicted detainees, the status of current detainees, a schematic of the courtroom (identifying principal courtroom actors), and a Glossary of military and legal terms, and for items associated with Guantanamo Bay.

 

 

 

 

(4)    Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Bay — Tips & Suggestions (green cover — 76 know-before-u-go-to-gitmo-29-dec-2016-front-coverpages) (29 December 2016)

A guide for anyone traveling to Guantanamo Bay for military commission hearings, client visits, media trips, or other purposes. Contains substantial information geared towards non-governmental organization representatives traveling to observe Guantanamo hearings, but much of the information is useful for any traveler. Contains information about lodging, Guantanamo Bay restaurants, evening / weekend adult entertainment (bars), water activities (beaches, boating, swimming),  outdoor activities (hiking, golf, tennis, etc), other sports (bowling, pool), movie theaters, gyms, religious activities (services, fellowships), and more.

 

 

If you have any comments or suggestions for our four documents, please feel free to let us know at GitmoObserver@yahoo.com.

We have received very positive, constructive feedback in the past, and we look forward to further input from you!

Yemeni Guantanamo Detainee to Ask Pentagon to Release Him

 

prb-al-haji-sharqawi

al Sharqawi to ask Pentagon on Tuesday to release him from Guantanamo Bay after 15 years in custody 

On Tuesday, 28 February 2017, Abdu Ali al Haji Sharqawi, who is a Guantanamo Bay detainee from Yemen, will appear at a hearing at which he will likely tell U.S. officials that he is not a threat to U.S. national security and that he should be resettled in a 3rd country.

Sharqawi, who is 43 years of age, was picked up in Karachi, Pakistan in February 2002, one month after the first detainees were brought to Guantanamo Bay. He arrived in Guantanamo Bay in 2004, after 3 years in custody under the direction of the U.S., first in Jordan then Afghanistan. It is alleged that he was tortured in Jordan and Afghanistan.

On Tuesday he will argue for his freedom from the incarceration he has endured for almost a third of his life.

The hearing – a Periodic Review Board – PRB

This hearing at which Sharqawi will argue is called a Periodic Review Board (PRB),  and will be conducted pursuant to a 7 March 2011 Executive Order (number 13567) which has required most detainees to have a “periodic review” of their detention status.

The PRB process is a “discretionary administrative interagency process to review whether continued detention of particular individuals held at Guantanamo remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.”   Per the Executive Order, PRBs are not intended to ascertain the legality of a prisoner’s detention. To the contrary, it has been stated, it decides whether continued detention is warranted given “important” interests.

Each detainee receives an “initial PRB” at which they have the option of appearing in their own behalf. If they are not released, every 6 months they have a “file review,” at which they are not entitled to appear, with decisions made based on their file. Per the Executive Order, every 3 years after that they have a “full review”, at which the detainee may again appear on his own behalf.

The Board itself consists of one representative each from the Departments of Defense, State and Homeland Security; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

pentagonThe hearing will be held at Guantanamo Bay, but will be transmitted by CCTV to secure locations to permit review by participants and cleared persons who are not physically in the Guantanamo Bay hearing room. I plan to view from a secure room in the Pentagon.

Sharqawi’s PRB hearings

The Periodic Review Board, by consensus, determined that continued law of war detention of the detainee remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.

In making this determination, the Board considered that the detainee developed ties to senior al-Qaida leaders such as Usama Bin Laden and Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, associated with al-Qaida plotters and operatives including members of the USS Cole bombing and some of the 9111 hijackers, and probably provided logistical and financial support for al-Qaida operations to include facilitating the travel of fighters from Yemen. Further, the Board noted that the detainee’s statements and behavior while in detention indicate that he remains committed to engaging in violent acts against the United States, the difficulty in assessing his current mindset and credibility due to his decision to not participate in the hearing, and insufficient information presented to the Board regarding his plans if transferred and the support that he would have if transferred.

The Board appreciates that the detainee has engaged with his representatives to participate in the process. The Board looks forward to reviewing the detainee’s file in six months and encourages the detainee to fully participate in any future review.

Sharqawi was entitled to appear at his initial PRB last year and to speak on his own behalf. However, he did not appear, and the Board posted this notice on the PRB secretariat’s website:

“THE DETAINEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD. THEREFORE, THE DETAINEE SESSION WAS NOT REQUIRED.”

  • File Review. Sharqawi had a PRB file review on 15 November 2016, and on 14 April 2016 the Board concluded:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Periodic Review Board File Review  Sharqawi Abd u Ali al-Hajj (YM-1457)

On I November 2016, the PRB conducted a file review for Sharqawi Abd u Ali al-Hajj (YM- 1457) in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13567,” Periodic Review of Individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”  The PRB previously conducted a full review of the detainee and on 14 April 2016 determined that continued detention was necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States. After reviewing relevant new information related to the detainee as well as information considered during the full review, the Board, by consensus, determined that a significant question is raised as to whether the detainee’s continued detention is warranted and therefore an additional full review should be conducted i n accordance with section 3(c) of E.O. 13567. [emphasis added]

  • Full Review. It is Sharqawi’s full review that is scheduled for this Tuesday. It should be noted that PRBs do not assess the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and are not criminal proceedings. A determination will be made as to whether the detainee is a threat to the U.S. He is hoping that the U.S. will send him to a 3rd country – outside the U.S. but not Yemen – for resettlement. The U.S. is not now sending detainees back to Yemen for security reasons.

What will Sharqawi’s PRB be like?

I suspect that other representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) (including 2 students from Indiana University McKinney School of Law) will be present with me at the Pentagon on Tuesday, and possibly some media. This is the second PRB to be held under the Trump Administration, and the first of these, two weeks ago, attracted more NGOs and media than most earlier PRBs. The NGOs and media representatives will view from a secure room at the Pentagon.

Others present for the hearing will include members of the “Board” itself that conducts the PRBs. Presumably each of those representatives will watch remotely in his or her office in the DC area. Also likely to be present for the hearing are the Legal Advisor to the Board; the Case Administrator; a Hearing Clerk; and a Security Officer, though it is not clear where these individuals would be located at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere.

 Statements to be made at the PRB

The initial part of the PRB will be unclassified, and that is the portion of the PRB I will observe. During that portion of the PRB, I will be sitting in a secure Pentagon viewing room watching the hearing live, which will be happening at Guantanamo Bay.

The Pentagon posted 3 statements to be read at Tuesday’s PRB’s public session:

  1. an Unclassified Summary prepared by the Government;
  2. a Statement by Sharqawi’s private outside lawyer; and
  3. a Statement by Sharqawi’s U.S. government-appointed non-lawyer “personal representative. The bodies of these three short statements are reproduced below.

The Unclassified Summary prepared by the U.S. Government to present at the PRB states, in full:

Sharqawi Abdu Ali al-Hajj (YM-1457), a.k.a. Riyadh, is a career jihadist who acted as a prominent financial and travel facilitator for al -Qa’ida and was closely tied to several senior al -Qa’ida members, including Usama Bin Ladin and Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KU-10024), although he has repeatedly denied being an al-Qa’ida member. During his detention at Guantanamo, Riyadh has been semicompliant with the guard force and, until late 2004, provided his interrogators with a wealth of information on his extremist activities and associations. Riyadh remains a steadfast supporter of extremist causes and groups, most likely continues to view America as his enemy, and has praised recent acts of terrorism. There are no indications that Riyadh’s Yemen-based family members have engaged in extremist activities, although connections to extremist networks could offer Riyadh a potential path to reengagement in Yemen.

The private counsel for submitted a statement that provides, in full:

Members of the Periodic Review Board:

Good morning.  My name is Pardiss Kebriaei, and I am Private Counsel for Sharqawi Al Hajj.

Thank you for the opportunity for Mr. Al Haij’s subsequent full review. We are encouraged that the Periodic Review Board has been continuing its work.  The board’s purpose of whether continued detention is still necessary is vital for men like Mr. Al Hajj, who has been held in U.S. custody for over 15 years.

I am currently a Senior Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented Guantanamo detainees since 2002, including dozens of men whom the United States, under the Bush and Obama administrations, has successfully repatriated or resettled.  I have represented detainees for nearly ten years.  I have represented Mr. Al Hajj since last year.

I’ll make a few brief points about the past, present and future with respect to Mr. Al Hajj.

With respect to the past: In Mr. Al Hajj’s habeas proceedings, the government’s case-in-chief relied on statements Mr. Al Hajj made during several interrogations in Bagram and Guantanamo in 2004.  To the extent the board is considering any of this information as part of this review, it should know that then-Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the D.C. District Court struck all of these statements as unreliable; he found that they were tainted by prior physical and psychological coercion Mr. Al Hajj experienced in prisons in Jordan and Kabul after his capture.  Mr. Al Hajj is here to answer your questions about his present views and conduct, and his future intentions, but this point about the past bears noting.

With respect to the present: Mr. Al Hajj is 43 years old today.  The impulses and views that led to his detention were by a young man in his 20s.  The government’s unclassified profile of Mr. Al Hajj states that he ”most likely continues to view America as his enemy.” That description is outdated.  Mr. Al Hajj’s detention has necessarily entailed interactions with Americans of different stripes over the years that have complicated and changed his view. Blanket statements no longer apply.

Moreover, Mr. Al Hajj’s health may be seriously compromised.  He reports bouts of jaundice and weakness which, according to independent physicians with whom his counsel have consulted, may indicate a potentially grave liver condition that should be investigated.  A medical expert opinion is included in Mr. Al Hajj’s detainee submission.  Far from having the desire or energy for any involvement in conflict, the hardship of the past 15 years makes him want to tum away.

Finally, with respect to the future: Mr. Al Hajj would accept resettlement in any safe country the government believes appropriate.  His family stands ready and able to provide financial and moral support for his reintegration wherever that may be, as they have stated in the detainee submission.  My organization, which has worked closely with envoys from the Defense and State Departments on detainee transfers in prior years, also stands ready to assist.

Sharqawi’s “personal representative”, who is a non-lawyer appointed by the U.S. military, submitted a statement that provides, in full:

Members of the board, thank for allowing Mr. Sharqawi Abdu Ali Al-Hajj to have a second chance at hearing his case. I am his Personal Representative. He made the decision to not attend his first board because he did not feel confident sitting before the board without a Private Counsel. At that time, he still feared that the Board was a legal proceeding versus an administrative board and therefore, he did not want to attend without having his lawyer present.

But, since that time, he has attended every meeting with me and been very cordial. He is easy to get along with and is obviously a very intelligent person, who communicates well. He has worked well with both a female Personal Representative and Private Counsel.

Since Sharqawi has moved camps, he has worked to build his relationships with fellow detainees. During our conversations, he has indicated that since he has been here, he has learned to appreciate other people’s cultures which he had not before. He is actively participating in classes to prepare for life after Guantanamo and he speaks English quite well. His Private Counsel has been in contact with his family to confirm that they will support him after his departure from GTMO. He is open to repatriation anywhere and feels he is capable of working in other cultures since he has learned to work with other detainees in GTMO.

I appreciate your consideration of his case today as he answers your questions so you can decide if he still poses a threat to the U.S.

 Conclusion

So far as we can tell, Sharqawi’s PRB is still scheduled to go forward on Tuesday, 28 February 2017. That is, the Pentagon has not notified us that it will not go forward. If it does go forward, it seems likely that Sharqawi will attend, which he did not do for his initial PRB last year.

Please watch this space for an update post-PRB.

George Edwards

Founder, Periodic Review Board (PRB) Project

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)

Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL)

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

_______