9-11 Case

Indiana Law Dean Travels to Ft. Meade for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Hearings

Klein & Edwards at Ft. Meade Commisary -- 18 July 2016

Dean Klein (right) and Professor Edwards at the Ft. Meade Commissary.

Andy Klein, dean of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law, traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland to observe war crimes hearings broadcast live from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Dean Klein was an official Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Observer, sponsored by IU McKinney’s Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP), that was founded by Professor George Edwards, who joined Dean Klein on this observation mission.

The Pentagon granted the IU McKinney project permission to send IU McKinney Affiliates — students, faculty, staff, and graduates — to Guantanamo Bay to view proceedings live and to Ft. Meade to view via secure video feed. Dean Klein is the most recent of the dozens of IU McKinney Affiliates selected for observation missions, during which they attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on these hearings.

Klein & Edwards at Ft. Meade Post Theater -- 18 July 2016

Dean Klein & Professor Edwards at Ft. Meade’s Post Theater, where war crimes hearings from Guantanamo Bay are viewed during the day, and “Central Intelligence” and other movies are viewed at night.

This week’s pre-trial hearings, scheduled for 18 – 22 July, are in the criminal case against five alleged masterminds of and participants in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. They include Khalid Shaik Mohammed, who is the alleged chief architect of the 9/11 attacks, along with four others including alleged would-be hijackers who were prevented from participating due to visa denials and other reasons, men who allegedly transferred money for the flight training for hijackers, and men who otherwise assisted in the plot that resulted in almost 3,000 dead. Their charges include murder in violation of the laws of war and hijacking.

Typically, first time NGO Observers, such as Dean Klein, stop at the Ft. Meade Visitor Center to gain clearance and then pick up a badge to enter the base.

Dean Klein noted that though they arrived early to pick up his badge they had “quite a wait, made longer because they didn’t have my original paperwork submitted weeks ago and I had to re-register on the spot. Also, there were dozens of other people also seeking to get badges. Fortunately Professor Edwards already had his permanent Ft. Meade badge, which made it easier for me to get processed in.”

Dean Klein & Professor Edwards in front of the McGill Training Center, the new site for Guantanamo video viewing.

After the badging process, NGO Observers then travel to the base’s secure viewing site, which has been the Post Theater (that also shows feature films on weekends), but is shifting to the McGill Training Center, also on the base.

When Dean Klein and Professor Edwards arrived at the viewing center, it was confirmed that the military judge presiding over the 9/11 case had decided that today’s hearings would be “closed”, meaning that NGOs Observers were not permitted to observe. Both Dean Klein and Professor Edwards noted that despite the absence of an open hearing, the pair had a productive morning at Ft. Meade.

Dean Klein said “I was disappointed that today’s hearings were closed. But, coming to Ft. Meade has offered great insights into our Military Commission Observation Project, and the contributions of IU McKinney on the topic of rights and interests of all Guantanamo Bay stakeholders. Our trip to Ft. Meade was very worthwhile.”

Professor Edwards said “If the hearings had been open, Dean Klein and I would not have been able to tour facilities that would have been unavailable during an open session, and we would not have been able to talk with people who would have been otherwise engaged during an open hearing. Our behind-the-scenes experience at Ft. Meade was enlightening, and would not have been possible had we been watching video feed from Guantanamo that day”.

All IU McKinney Observers contribute to the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, of which Professor Edwards is the main author, that provides significant information — general and basic, as well as highly specialized information — about the military commissions. The Manual also contains information about Guantanamo Bay Periodic Review Boards, special proceedings held at Guantanamo Bay and viewable on video at the Pentagon, during which Guantanamo detainees may request repatriation to their home country or resettlement in a third country.

Dean Klein reading a copy of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual — Volume I.

The Manual summarizes the applicable law, explains the charges, identifies the individuals and entities who have rights and interests associated with the tribunal, describes a plan that Observes might follow as they carry out their observation mission, and even provides a chart of a who’s who in the courtroom.

Dean Klein said: The Manual is a must read for anyone interested in Guantanamo Bay hearings, and a special must read for anyone doing an Observation mission to Ft. Meade or Guantanamo Bay.”

Dean Klein summarized his Ft. Meade experience, and his recognition of Professor Edwards and his Guantanamo Bay work:

Although I was disappointed that I could not observe a hearing today, I am glad that I made the trip, and I am proud that the McKinney School of Law and our Military Commission Observation Project provides this very special opportunity to members of our community.

Professor Edwards noted that “every IU McKinney Affiliate – faculty, staff, student, graduate — is invited to register for the possibility of undertaking an Observer mission to Ft. Meade, or to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, itself. Details about this process can be found on the IU McKinney website. We hope that our Affiliates may also be able to observe Periodic Review Boards at the Pentagon, and we will post notices if Pentagon observation opportunities become available to assist out Periodic Review Board Project”.

_______

Guantanamo 9/11 Defendant Tells United Nations that U.S. Tortured Him.

Mustafa al-Hasawi, defendant # 5 in the 9/11 case

A Guantanamo Bay defendant charged with planning the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon informed the United Nations Committee Against Torture that the U.S. tortured him.

In a 26 June 2016 filing, lawyers for Mr. Mustafa al-Hawsawi, alleged that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tortured him before sending him to Guantanamo Bay, where he has remained “for over a decade despite having yet to be tried by a regularly constituted court in compliance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions”.

The Al-Hawsawi team submitted documents to the UN Torture Committee, as part of the process through which the Committee seeks to ascertain whether the U.S. is complying with its obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“UN Torture Convention”), which is a treaty that the U.S. signed and ratified.

Walter Ruiz and Sean Gleason – Two lawyers for Mr. al-Hawsawi

The al-Hawsawi team materials submitted to the Committee have 3 parts:

First, the submission reads, “as background to the questions that we suggest to you, we want to contrast the indisputable facts of Mr. al-Hawsawi’s situation to the misleading rhetoric our Government continues to use to deflect your questions”.
Second, the submission attached “a recently obtained, not previously released CIA document that shows Mr. al-Hawsawi was more extensively tortured than our Government previously admitted (Central Intelligence Agency, Disposition Memorandum: Alleged Use of Unauthorized Interrogation Techniques (“CIA Disposition Memo”)(6 December 2006)). The submission contends that within days of his rendition, Mr. al-Hawsawi’s rendition his ordeal and torture began, and that soon after the CIA concluded that Mr. al-Hawsawi “was not an individual with significant knowledge of al-Qaeda, and therefore was not “high-value”, and thereafter “another round of torture was ordered” and the US “continued to torture him for over three years.” They argue that at Guantanamo Bay the U.S. “has woefully neglected Mr. al-Hawsawi’s medical treatment and has completely failed to take any rehabilitative measures. The injuries were sustained because of his torture, and these daily painful reminders of his torture have never been medically remedied.
Third, they submitted a “communication we have made to various UN Special Procedures, which includes more extensive additional up-to-date information on the particular circumstances of Mr. al-Hawsawi.”

Dr. Mitch Robinson (Center), International Law Specialist for Mr. al-Hawsawi. Dr. Robinson was Guest Researcher, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights. (Right — Professor Mads Andenaes. Left — Mr. Joey Barefield)

The submission commented on “some specific assertions our Government’s representatives made at the United States’ review before the Committee Against Torture in November 2014”, and on the document titled “One-year Follow-up Response of the United States of America to Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture on its Combined Third to Fifth Periodic Reports on Implementation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“One-Year Follow-Up Response”).

The al-Hawsawi team alleged that “the United States Government is in current violation of the Convention Against Torture at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba”.

Here is a copy of the al-Hawsawi United Nations Committee Against Torture Filing of 26 June 2016:

[office src=”https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=AA02978A4AC8C787&resid=AA02978A4AC8C787%21146&authkey=ADRmdOpoaNnvpDI&em=2″ width=”876″ height=”688″]

The Committee Against Torture may receive other documents from non-governmental groups seeking to shed light on the U.S. Government’s compliance or non-compliance with the Torture Convention. The Committee will formulate a “List of Questions” to ask the U.S. government, and will expect the US to answer those questions before the U.S. Government is requested to appear at a UN Torture Committee hearing and answer questions related to whether or not the U.S. is in compliance with the Torture Convention.

The next hearing that the Torture Convention holds at which the U.S. appears will likely be contentions, as have been previous Torture Committee hearings at which the U.S. appeared. The U.S. will likely remain firm in its believe that it does not engage in torture, while human rights groups, Guantanamo Bay defendants, and others will argue that the U.S. has breached, is breaching, and will likely continuing breaching the Torture Convention.

Today, 10 July 2016, the U.S. announced that it released an additional detainee – Fayiz Ahmad Yahia Suleiman of Yemen – who has been relocated to Italy. This brings the total detainee population at Guantanamo bay to 78.

The al-Hawsawi documents were submitted by the following:

Walter B. Ruiz, (Civilian Learned Counsel for Mr. al-Hawsawi)
Suzanne M. Lachelier, (Detailed Civilian Counsel for Mr. al-Hawsawi)
Lieutenant Colonel Sean M. Gleason,USMC, JAG (Detailed Military Counsel for Mr. al-Hawsawi)
Lieutenant Colonel Jennifer N. Williams, USA, JAG (Assistant Detailed Military Counsel for Mr. al-Hawsawi)
Mitch Robinson, Ph.D. (International Law Specialist for Mr. al-Hawsawi)

George Edwards

_______

@GTMOWatch

http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/2014/03/guantanamo-advokatar-sokte-rad-fra-uio-forskarar.html)

Somali Detainee Guleed Testifies at Guantanamo Bay in 9/11 Case

Hassan Guleed, a detainee since 2006, testified today about “vibrations” and “noises” purportedly used to harass detainees in Guantanamo Bay’s secret Camp VII that houses “high value detainees” (HVDs)

On Thursday, 2 June 2016, I was in the courtroom at Guantanamo when an unusual rare event occurred. I was there when a detainee, named Hassan Guleed, was called to testify in open court. Guleed, who is a Somali detained at Guantanamo since 2006, testified about “vibrations”, “noises” and “smells” that allegedly have been used to harass detainee Mr. Bin al Shibh, who is one of 5 men charged with masterminding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Below I provide some background on today’s hearings, details of the hearing, and some of my personal observations. I am writing this entry soon after court ended today, in the middle of other activities in store for me and the other observers that the Pentagon permitted to travel to Guantanamo for this week’s hearings. I will seek to fix any misspellings or other errors later.

Background

On 21 June 2013, the U.S. Military Commission hearing the case against the 5 9/11 defendants ordered the Government not to disrupt Mr. Bin al Shibhs’s cell. On 2 November 2015 the Military Commission again issued a” Do Not Subject Mr. bin al Shibh to Disruptive and Harassing Noises and Vibrations Order”. Counsel for bin al Shibh filed a motion to hold the government in contempt because, according to bin al Shibh, the disruptions have not stopped.

Two witnesses were scheduled to testify today in support of bin al Shibh – Abu Zubaydah and Hassan Guleed. Both witnesses are high value detainees (HVDs) who are detained in Canp VII, where bin al Shibh is detained, and which is a secret, isolated detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The two witnesses were purportedly fact witnesses with knowledge of the alleged continuous vibrations and noises “which are an extension of the traumatization of the torture he has experienced at the hands of the United States Government, especially during the nights leading up to a schedule hearing.” (AE 152 LL (RBS), Emergency Motion for Show Cause why the Government, JTF Camp Commander And JTF Guard Force Members Should Not Be Held in Contempt filed 11 December 2015)

Witness Testimony

SPOILER ALERT: Abu Zubaydah did not testify. There was only one witness, which is still more than most observers have been able to experience in-person.

The witnesses were to testify about the conditions at Camp 7, again where the witnesses and bin al Shibh are housed. bin al Shibh has stated that he is being subjected to external sounds and vibrations while detained, even after Judge Pohl Ordered such activity, if occurring, to cease. Hassan testified beginning at approximately 10 am. Zubaydah was scheduled to testify at 2:15 pm.

Guleed:

Hassan Guleed was the first witness. The guards made a line, shoulder to shoulder, facing in opposite directions between the defendants and the witness as the witness walked in. I was told that the distance walked by Guleed from the entry to the witness stand is the longest he has walked without shackles since being detained in 2004. The defendants did not look around as the witness was walking in, however there appeared to be some “interaction” between the witness and the defendants when the witness was on the stand and the defendants were seated at their respective defense tables.

Mr. Harrington, Learned Counsel for bin al Shibh, conducted direct examination on Guleed.

Here is a link to a DOD Detainee Assessment on Guleed. The document, that was released in 2008, contains some background information on Hassan Guleed.

Guleed, who has never testified in court and has never been charged with any Guantanamo Bay crimes, does not have an attorney and did not have an attorney in court with him today. Guleed refused services of an interpreter, and wanted to speak only in English. In my opinion, language was a bit of a barrier in only a few specific instances, but overall Guleed appeared to have a good command of the English language. Guleed noted the defendants were his “brothers”, and he called them “brothers” during his testimony.

The transcript of the testimony has been released on the Military Commission’s website.

Mr. Guleed testified that he heard noises and felt vibrations like those purportedly heard / felt by bin al Shibh.

Mr. Edward Ryan, for the government, cross-examined Guleed. It was interesting to watch. Mr. Ryan started off on an aggressive tone which he carried throughout the cross examination. He tried to establish that the witness was biased by asking questions which explicitly or implicitly point to the idea that Mr. Guleed considers the United States his enemy. For example, Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Guleed’s Kunya is his Al-Qaeda or Jihadi name. He also specifically asked if America was Mr. Guleed’s enemy.

This “red light” in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom flashed twice when the witness Mr. Guleed purportedly referred to classified information about the secret Camp VII where he is housed.

During the testimonay, the court’s “Red Light” went off twice signaling that the court security officer was cutting the audio and video feed from the courtroom to the gallery where we observer were, with the cut presumably because classified information was being discussed during the testimony. The audio / video feed was turned back on after only a couple / few minutes.

A few quotes I jotted down during the hearing, copied here from the transcript on the Military Commission’s website:

Guleed: They didn’t charge nothing for me, I’m staying, only staying in the camp. They didn’t charge anything for me against. So I’m just waiting charge or whatever it is. … No charge. They don’t have nothing to charge me. I did nothing.
—
Guleed on why he is testifying: There’s two things: Helping brother, and same thing that I got a problem. So there’s nowhere else that I can tell them. So the people outside here…so that’s the chance for me to testify at the same time and tell my problem.
—-
Mr. Ryan: All right. I’m going to start with vibrations. What does that mean?

Guleen: What means vibration?

Mr. Ryan: Yeah.

Guleen: Vibration is vibration.

Mr. Ryan: Thank you. That helps me.
—-
Mr. Ryan: Mr. Gouled, I don’t want to cut you off. If I cut you off, please tell me so. Okay?

Guleed: You did already.

(I have seen the last name spelled differently on several government documents)
——
Mr. Ryan: Is America your enemy?

Mr. Guleed: I’m not in Guantanamo if it’s not my enemy.

Mr. Ryan: Thank you for that, but now my question is, is America your enemy? Do you believe America is your enemy?

Mr. Guleed: No, I’m not believing. I think they’re my friend.

Mr. Ryan: You think they’re your friends?

Mr. Guleed: Yeah.

Mr. Ryan: Are you kidding right now?

Mr. Guleed: No, they give me food in my Camp VII.
—–
Mr. Ryan: Is it true that under your version of Islamic law, it’s acceptable to lie to infidels?

Mr. Guleed: My Sharia tells me that I have to tell the truth.

Mr. Ryan: To whoever is asking the questions?

Mr. Guleed: Depends.

Mr. Ryan: Okay. Sir, in the course of your testimony today, am I correct to say that you’ve like to us many times.

Mr. Guleed: I’m not lying.

Mr. Ryan: That’s all I have, Judge.

Abu Zubaydah:

Abu Zubaydah, a high value detainee, who has not been charged and has not been seen by the “public” (press, observers) since his capture in 2002, was scheduled to testify at 2:15. Mr. Zubaydah was transported to Camp Justice from Camp 7 over lunch and was waiting outside the courtroom. He never entered the room, and no one in the gallery ever saw him.

Mr. Zubaydah is also being held at Camp 7 and was going to testify in support of allegations made by bin al Shibh regarding the continuous noise and vibrations at the facility.

Zubaydah was represented by counsel, Commander Patrick Flor. Commander Flor was present in the courtroom during the hearing. The afternoon session started with a conversation among the Military Judge, Commander Flor, Mr. Harrington, and Mr. Ryan. The conversation ended with a decision that Zubaydah would not testify today.

An issue concerns whether any testimony by Zubaydah might incriminate him, and whether immunity could be granted so that he could testify fully without his testimony being able to be used against him should charges be filed against him.

During the discussion among the Military Judge and the lawyers, the prosecution (Mr. Ryan) noted that he would ask questions attempting to show bias in favor of the bin al Shibh. Mr. Ryan planned on showing bias by asking questions about alleged illegal activities as well as asking about any bias against the United States, shared values with the accused, and relationships with the accused. Harrington and Flor suggested that the Judge provide immunity for the questions asked. The Military Judge did not believe he had the authority to provide immunity, and the parties were not sure at what point the immunity would kick in. There was also a question of what information would get struck if immunity was not given, but instead if objections were raised during cross examination. The parties could not determine if, in that situation, both the cross and direct examination would be struck from the record, or just the cross. It was decided that his testimony would be postponed until the next hearing. The parties were requested to file briefs with the court.

Personal Observations

All five of the 9/11 defendants were present for today’s hearing. Today KSM, bin ‘Attash, and bin al Shibh wore cameo jackets. All of the defendants had their heads covered. al Baluchi wore a Pashtun hat. KSM and al Baluchi had “scarves” draped over their shoulders with a golden dome and the word “Palestine”.

It seems the laweyrs involved in the Zubaydah fiasco could have worked out any issues before Zubaydah arrived at the court today. I have no experience with the substantive issues, but it does seem that bin al Shibh’s defense counsel or counsel for Zubaydah could have known the sort of questions that the prosecution was going to ask, and could have been prepared on the self-incrimination / immunity issues. If the witness is testifying in support of a motion made by the defense, wouldn’t it only make sense that the prosecution would attack the witness’s credibility by trying to show bias? Hindsight is 20/20 but it is possible that the parties were well aware that the immunity issue would come up and for whatever reason decided to not work out the issue prior to testimony.

There was disappointment in the gallery when the Military Judge stated Zubaydah would not testify today. I was disappointed. However, those in the courtroom seemed un-phased. Although I was disappointed to not have a chance to see Zubaydah in person, I am glad I was able to see and hear Guleed’s testimony live. It is very rare to be able to see an in-person testimony during these proceedings, let alone an in-person testimony from a high value detainee. His testimony was surprisingly entertaining, which feels odd to write given the context. Parts of the testimony caused laughter to break out in the gallery, while other parts led to tears.

There is a book which touches on Zubaydah called Black Banners, by Ali Soufan. I hope to listen to it on the drive to Indianapolis from Andrews Air Force Base on Saturday.

I have had some time to explore the Guantanamo Bay Naval base and will be posting about my down time experience here at Guantanamo Bay as time permits.

Many of the notes above are based on my memory and understanding of the 30 May 2016 hearing and related motions and transcripts. The foregoing is my opinion in my own personal capacity, and my blog posts and other comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law or anyone else, for that matter.

Leontiy Korolev, J.D., Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Participant, Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP), Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), Indiana University McKinney School of Law

31 May 2016 Hearing in 9/11 Case — Tuesday At Camp Justice, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

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

Today’s hearings in the 9/11 case started on time in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom.

Defendants KSM, Ramzi bin al Shibh, and Ali Abdul Axis Ali (aka Ammar al Baluchi or “Triple A” or “AAA”) were present when I walked into the Gallery. The other two defendants chose not to appear, which is not uncommon.

The Gallery is a small room with soundproof clear glass through which NGO Observers, Victim’s Family Members, Media, and other visitors are able to watch the hearings. The Gallery has several televisions that show the hearings, with audio on a 40 second delay. We can see what is happening live through the Gallery glass, and 40 seconds later see what we just saw on the TV. It is only through the TV that we can hear what happened in the courtroom, 40 seconds after it actually happened. The purpose of the delay is to prevent the release of classified/confidential information.

There is a curtain in the Gallery separating separating the media and Non Governmental Organization (“NGO”) observers from the victims and victims’ families. The curtain is usually not in use. I have already written about the selection and approval process which allowed me to attend these hearings as an NGO observer. Victims and Victims’ family are chosen based on a lottery system.

Today’s Motions

The day’s hearing touched on three sets of motions:

AE 018: The hearings on these motions deal with how certain information is treated and released to either the parties or nonparty actors. I believe there were a total of 13 AE 018 motions on the docket for the week’s hearings.

AE 422: The 422 motion was filed by the Government. The Government seeks the deposition of family members of the victims of September 11, 2001 during public pre-trial hearings scheduled for 4-14 October 2016.

AE 133: This motion was filed by the Defense. It is an Emergency Motion to Remove Sustained Barrier to Attorney-Client Communication and Prohibit any Electronic Monitoring and Recording of Attorney-Client Communication in any Location, including Commission Proceedings, Holding Cells, and Meeting Facilities and to Abate Proceedings.

All the filings related to each motion can be found on the military commission website. Howeve,r not all will be public. http://www.mc.mil/CASES/MilitaryCommissions.aspx

AE 018

I will not discuss each motion that falls under AE 018, but generally they deal with how communications and information can be released, how those communications are reviewed by the various security processes, and the format and timeliness of prosecution’s discovery responses. There are processes in place for the how various communications are to be reviewed and delivered, however the processes continue to evolve as the litigation continues. The discussions on these motions appear to be good examples of the types of issues that have delayed the 9/11 trial. A few of the specific AE 018 motions are:

AE 018 BB: Government Emergency Motion for Interim Order and Clarification that the Commission’s Order in AE 018U Does Not Create a Means for Non-Privileged Communications to Circumvent the Joint Task Force Mail System.
AE 018EE: Defense Motion to Compel Discovery Responsive to Mr. Mohammad’s Request for Discovery Dated 14 March 2014. (emphasis added)
AE 018 KK: Defense Motion to Invalidate Non-Legal Mai Restrictions Unrelated to Legitimate Penological Interests.
AE 018MM: Defense Motion to Compel Reasonable Privilege Review Team Hours of Operation.

AE 422

This motion was filed by the prosecution to conduct depositions of certain witnesses. Specifically, the prosecution seeks to depose 10 victims’ family members during the October 2016 hearing. The prosecution wants the depositions conducted in open session at Guantanamo Bay, during the October 2016 hearing. The prosecution cited ages and health concerns, the uncertain posture of the case, and the logistical difficulties for potential witnesses to travel during the actual trial.

The defense generally agreed with the need for depositions but expressed expected concerns about holding the depositions in open court and the proposed dates. The defense teams were not all on the same page with respect to the deposition issue, but some of the arguments expressed by the defense were:

public hearing will taint potential panel members (jury)
there is no need to preserve the testimony because there are so many witnesses
the age and health of potential witnesses is not a factor
there is no need to have the depositions in open court if the evidence may never be admitted
if the prosecution wants to preserve evidence for the elderly and those in poor health, bringing them to Guantanamo Bay would be counterproductive
it does not make sense to have public depositions so close to the election
there is a difference between having the victims’ voice heard and presented vs. creating a public spectacle

I tend to side with the defense, and if I were to bet, I would bet that depositions will take place, but not in open session and not during the proposed dates. A very recent article by Carol Rosenberg on this issue.

AE 133

This is an ongoing motion dealing with allegations that the government has been trying to pierce the attorney – client privilege. The defense is concerned that they are subject to monitoring which prevents frank exchanges between the attorney and the client. The motion stems from the finding of microphones in fire detectors in rooms that were used for attorney/client meetings.

I suggest reading the AE 133 motions on the military commission website. The discovery of these microphones is documented.

The prosecution stated that while the recording capabilities were present, they were not used during attorney/client meetings. The prosecution stated that while the microphones were used for other law enforcement purposes in the past, they have not been used to monitor attorney/client meetings related to these trials.

My Personal Observations

One issue that stood out for me was the AE 018MM Motion. This motion was filed by the defense to compel the Privilege Review Team (“PRT”) to have reasonable hours of operation. The Privilege Review Team, among other duties, reviews all documents that are taken to a detainee, including any notes attorneys may bring to an attorney client meeting. If the PRT is not operating, then the team of attorneys cannot take any notes into the meeting. Counsel for Hawsawi told the Judge that the PRT was not “open” on the Saturday and Sunday before Monday’s (Memorial Day) hearing, so they had to meet with their client without being able to bring any notes. To me, this sounds outrageous. How is it possible that a team of attorneys who are only able to see their client during very limited hours, after chartering a military flight that flies infrequently, are not able to bring in notes to a client a day before the hearing just because staff of the Period Review Team did not want to work?

I was initially “convinced” by the defense arguments. However, the prosecution presented a different side to the story.

The prosecution argued that PRT staff are like any other employees and it is not unreasonable for them to have the weekend off, especially a holiday weekend. Additionally, the prosecution stated that the PRT is available as long as appointments are made in advance. Prosecution also stated that it is not uncommon for the defense team to not show up to scheduled appointments. After the prosecution presented their argument I was less outraged, and more confused.

I noticed this sway in many of the arguments I have seen in my limited experience with the Military Commission: the movant pulls on emotional strings and presents facts that help their case, the opposing party presents facts in a way that appear to be unemotional and paint a fuller picture. In the end, I am happy I don’t have the burden of having to make a decision. Having only been at Guantanamo Bay for a few days, and only being able to see what I am allowed to see, I find it very difficult to have a strong opinion one way or the other. It is difficult to gather unbiased information because of the emotions and passions tied to the subject matter. Information I receive could be driven by agendas that I do or do not understand. I have made an effort to keep a neutral point of view in order to allow me to gather as much information as possible before I start to lose impartiality.

AE 422

The hearing on AE 422 was understandably emotional. The curtain separating the media and NGOs from the victims’ family members was drawn shut. The parties argued about the prosecution’s motion to depose, in public court, family members of the 9/11 victims. One particular testimony would revolve around a telephone conversation occurring as a plane hijacking was taking place, just before United 175 flew into the South Tower. The arguments went into additional details, which I will not do here, but the hearing’s transcript is available on the website of the Military Commission.

KSM was also emotional. He, without the Judge’s permission, expressed his feelings regarding the proceedings. I could not make out everything that was said but part of it dealt with the fact that his attorney is an American person and is representing American interest, which is not neutral. Judge Pohl responded with, “one more word and you’re leaving”. Later, Mr. Nevin (Lead Counsel for KSM) explained that his client was upset because an objection was overruled and that a lack of an interpreter prevented the defendant from understanding the meaning of “deposition”.

Wednesday

On Wednesday the Commission held hearings open to NGOs, Media, and Victims’ of Family Members in the morning session; the Commission held closed session in the afternoon. I will write about these later, but I need to get some rest before the hearings tomorrow. The hearings tomorrow are scheduled to include two witnesses. Both of the witnesses are high value detainees who have not been charged with a crime. They will testify during the hearing on AE 152 which is the Emergency Motion for Show Cause Why the Government, JTF Camp Commander and JTF Guard Force Members Should Not Be Held in Contempt. The motion’s allegation is that Mr. Bin al Shibh continues to be subjected to external sounds and vibrations while detained. Hassan Guleed is expected to testify at 10 in the morning and Abu Zubaydah is expected to testify at the start of the afternoon session.

Leontiy Korolev, J.D., Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Participant, Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP), Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), Indiana University McKinney School of Law

30 May 2016 Hearing in 9/11 case — Monday at Camp Justice, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Leontiy Korolev at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on Memorial Day, 30 May 2016

On Monday, 30 May 2016, the U.S. Military Commission held the first day of this week’s pre-trial hearings in the case against the 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. I was sitting in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom during today’s hearings, which were fascinating.

This post will share about the substance of today’s hearings. Near the end of this post I will share some of my personal observations and opinions about the proceedings and process.

May 30 2016 9/11 Hearing

Yes, it is Memorial Day, but the Judge made it a while ago clear that today’s hearings would take place.

The hearings started with a discussion of the schedule of motions to be argued this week. The following is a list of some of the motions that will be argued, in the order they will be argued, at least as of the end of Monday’s public hearing. Each motion is assigned an “AE number”.

AE 380: Whether or not Walid bin ‘Attash can remove his counsel.

AE 161: Defendants motion for release of unredacted copies of unclassified information.

AE 400: Defense motion for the release of full transcript of the open hearing which government redacted after the fact.

AE 018W: Defense motion to correct problems with the legal mail regime.

AE 018Y: Prosecution motion to block communications between defendants and other except through JTF-GTMO Protocol.

AE 152: bin al Shibh motion for Contempt of the Government for not stopping the “harassing noises and vibrations”.

AE 422: Prosecution motion to depose victim’s family members during October 2016 hearing.

Witnesses

As of now both the defense and prosecution will present witnesses for the 152 motion. The defense will present two current detainees, one on Thursday morning, and one on Thursday evening.

I have no doubt that both detainees will present captivating testimony, but the potential presence of one of the detainees is is particularly noteworthy.

Abu Zubaydah

Abu Zubaydah has not been seen since his 2002 capture by the CIA. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article80052562.html

The Prosecution will present a former Camp commander on Friday morning.

Late start to hearings

There was a bit of a late start to the hearings today, in part because there were new guards assigned to secure the proceedings. This fact was brought up several times during the hearings today, most notably after the lunch break when counsel for Khalid Shaik Mohammad (“KSM”) stated that the guards would turn down the A/C in KSM’s holding cell. [Side note, I was able to go into one of the holding cells as part of the tour of Camp Justice on Sunday (he was not there).] Bin ‘Attash actually jumped into the conversation twice expressing his displeasure with the situation. This lead to a “that’s enough Mr. bin ‘Attash”, from Judge Pohl.

A Brief Overview of Some of the Hearings on the Motions

AE 380: bin ‘Attash audibly confirmed that he would like to remove his counsel and later followed up by saying that in 2013 he was able to remove an assistant D.A.G. from his team. He argued that he should be able to remove the current assistant attorney, Mr. Schwartz as well. The issue is whether or not the defendant can remove non-statutorily required counsel. The Judge gave defense 2 weeks to file a brief showing why such counsel cannot be removed from the defense team up request from bin ‘Attash.

AE 161: There are laws that allow the government to redact certain information from disclosure. The defense argues that the prosecution is overstepping its bounds because information is being withheld improperly and the redacted information makes it impossible for the defense to use some of the documents they receive. For example, in one discovery response the prosecution redacted administrative information from the provided documents, which made difficult to match up the documents with their respective attachments.

AE 400: This was a continuation of oral arguments on a motion that I heard argued when I travelled to Ft. Meade in February, 2016. The controversy revolves around an open hearing held on 30 October 2015. After the 30 October 2016 hearing, a redacted transcript was released. The Defense and media companies filed a motion to release the entire unredacted transcript. I published an earlier blog on the motion on 22 February 2016. I found it interesting that this motion may be one of the few times when news outlets such as Fox, MSNBC, and New York Times are all on the same side of an issue. In today’s hearing the parties argued weather or not the discussion of the redacted information can be had in an open session. The defense argued that it could, the prosecution argued the opposite. The Judge stated they will meet in a closed session (505 hearing) to determine if the substantive hearing (806 hearing) can be held in open session.

David Nevin and KSM

David Nevin, Learned Counsel for KSM, requested that KSM be present at both, the hearing to determine if there should be a closed hearing, and at the closed hearing if one is held. The Judge ruled that KSM cannot be present at the 505 hearing, but withheld a ruling regarding the 806. He later denied the request for KSM to be present at the 806 hearing as well.

AE 428: The defense filed a motion for a continuance because various members of the different defense teams have not received proper clearance from the government to view certain evidence. The prosecution argued that a continuance is not necessary because some of the necessary clearance forms were not filed properly. The Judge did not grant a continuance but did bring up a point worth discussing – judicial economy. If clearance is given after many issues have been litigated to conclusion, motions to reconsider will be filed for each such issue since the granted clearance would create new evidence. New evidence bolsters the case for reconsideration of a previously litigated issue.

Backs of tents where NGOs live at Camp Justice.

Tents in Camp Justice where NGOs live at Guantanamo Bay. The Defense had ordered that its lawyers and staff not live at Camp Justice due to concerns about possible carcinogens. The order was lifted prior to this week’s hearings.

AE 426: This motion dealt with the habitability of facilities at Guantanamo Bay. Specifically, this motion dealt with the presence of toxins at Camp Justice, which happens to be the place where I will be living for for the next week. Here is a Link to an article discussing various carcinogens found in the soil at Camp Justice as well as an Order forbidding defense staff from sleeping at Camp Justice.

AE 018W and AE 018Y: The hearings on these motions dealt with the transmission of communications by defendants to third parties through the defendants’ counsel. Defense argued that it should be able to transmit any unclassified documents to third parties, or alternatively there should be a specific process they can follow to determine what communications can be cleared for release.

Mustafa al-Hasawi, defendant # 5 in the 9/11 case

However, Counsel for Hawsawi (defendant # 5 in the 9/11 case) made it clear Hawsawi would not agree to any such process, they would especially not agree to any such process unless the process was transparent and those involved in any review were identified. Counsel for Hawsawi argued that the government is not releasing certain communications because it does not like the message, not because the communications are a threat to national security. The AE 018 motions dealt with a handful of communications that were provided to third parties including a defendant’s family and the White House.

AE 183: Defense argued that defendants should be able to call their attorney from Camp Justice whenever necessary, and vice versa. Currently there is no efficient way for the defense counsel to communicate with their client without being in the same location. Prosecution argued that there is no way to establish a secure connection between the detainees and their counsel. Some research into the current logistics, including any security hurdles, of the communication between defendant and counsel both in person and from the U.S. would likely lead to interesting findings.

My Personal Observations

There just is not enough time to process and report in a meaningful way my experience so soon after the end of the first day’s hearings. I feel very grateful to finally be here and have the opportunity to observe these hearings and interact with the other people here.

All five defendants were present on the first day of hearings. KSM wore his cameo jacket as a statement to show that he is a combatant. There does not seem to be a simple explanation here for anything, while KSM’s attire at first seems to be just a statement in support of the actions he has allegedly committed, there are deeper issues at play. For example, since KSM is a combatant, he, based on precedent, should be able to wear his uniform in a military trial. Denying his request to do so, may impinge on his right to a fair trial. This article briefly touches on the KSM’s attire choice. I also noticed that Hawsawi sat on his pillow, presumably to minimize discomfort caused by events occurring during his detention.

Our NGO group was able to return from lunch in time to catch the end of the defendants’ and one defense counsel’s prayer session. During the prayer, each defendant had two guards standing back to back. One in the direction of the defendant, and another facing the opposite way. My first thought was that the guards were there to protect everyone from the defendants. I quickly realized how insane that thought was. Given the circumstances, the detainees are very powerless. The main reason for the guards, in my mind, is to protect the detainees.

Unrelated Personal Observation

We have had some issues with connectivity which partly explains the reason for not posting more about my travel and arrival. There are 8 ethernet jacks in the NGO lounge for NGO observers to use to hook up to the internet. Only two of them worked over the weekend, and even those two are still very slow. There are many rights and interests that come into play with what may seem like an “inconvenience”. For example, NGOs have an interest to report the ongoings at Guantanamo Bay to the outside world. The public has an interest to know the ongoings at Guantanamo Bay. The defendants have a right to a public trial. Both the Government and the prosecution have an interest in allowing the public to be aware of the ongoings at Guantanamo Bay. All of these rights and interests are effected by a slow and inconsistent internet connection. Additional unrelated point — there is an active bee hive a few feet away from the entry to the NGO Lounge. The NGO Lounge is the only place where internet connection is available to NGO Observers at Camp Justice. Other than the internet, the experience here has been excellent. Everyone we have encountered has been pleasant including our escort, drivers, members of the media, and the attorneys for both sides.

Many of the ideas above are based on my memory and understanding of the 30 May 2016 hearing and related motions and transcripts. The foregoing is my opinion in my own personal capacity, and my blog posts and other comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law or anyone else, for that matter.

Leontiy Korolev, J.D., Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Participant, Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP), Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Memorial Day at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — 9/11 Hearings

Leontiy Korolev at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on Memorial Day, 30 May 2016

Leontiy Korolev, a graduate of Indiana University McKinney School of Law, traveled to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on Memorial Day weekend to observe hearings in the U.S. Military Commission case against 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He is representing the Indiana McKinney Military Commission Observation Project, which is part of the school’s Program in International Human Rights Law.

Mr. Korolev will be posting blogs on what he observes at Guantanamo Bay.

Pictured here is a photo taken of Mr. Korolev at Camp Justice, which is where Observers such as Mr. Korolev live while at the U.S. Naval base.

9/11 Judge Cancels April Hearings

Just received notice that Judge Pohl cancelled the two weeks of hearings that were scheduled to start on Monday, April 4. No announcement has been made as to the reasons why at this point.

Sunset Over Guantanamo Bay

by Catherine A. Lemmer

Preparing for the April 9/11 Hearings

This morning I sat down to begin reading the transcripts from the two-week February 2016 session of the 9/11 hearings in preparation for my work as an NGO Observer at the upcoming April session of the 9/11 hearings. I will be attending week one of the hearings (April 4-9), and a recent alum of IU McKinney Law School will be attending week two (April 11-15).

Assuming I did the math right, the two week February 2016 session generated 1453 pages.

The transcripts are made available to the public on the Office of Military Commissions website. Simply select the “Cases” tab and open the case you are interested in following. The left navigation panel lists all the available documents for the case, including transcripts.

Documents Page for 9/11 Hearings

I often refer interested individuals to the Office of Military Commissions page. Reading the transcripts gives the reader a good understanding of why the 9/11 proceedings are an estimated 5 to 8 years from going to trial. For example, on February 17 David Nevin, Learned Counsel (death penalty counsel) for the KSM team, describes the inability to get an interpreter processed through the system so he can join the team. The KSM team has been waiting nearly a year for a replacement after the team’s interpreter was removed without explanation after 2.5 years of service to the team.

If you are going as an NGO Observer, reading the transcripts gets you up to speed, both on the issues that may be on the docket during your observation and for understanding how the courtroom works. For example, in the February 2016 session Jay Connell, Learned Counsel, details the classified information process (pages 10332-10376). Perhaps most importantly, reading the transcripts prepares you with questions to ask the Prosecution and Defense teams. For example, does the manner in which the Prosecution approaches classifying information unreasonably delay the process or harm the defense team’s ability to represent the defendant?

For the general public the transcripts are an easy way to stay informed about the process. Granted there are gaps when the sessions move to classified hearings, but reading the transcripts works for the most part. There are typically two responses when I tell people that I am going to Guantanamo Bay to observe the 9/11 hearings. The first is, “why is it not moving faster?” The second is, “why are we not trying the defendants in federal court in the U.S.?” Reading the transcripts answers both these questions.

Judge Pohl

As Judge Pohl said in the February hearings (page 10270):

“I want to make something very clear here. I am just a judge. I didn’t pass the MCA; two Congresses did, and two Presidents signed it. I didn’t promulgate the rules, the Secretary of Defense did. Okay? So I want to make this very clear. I take the rules they have and my job as a judge is to do the best that I can. I am not vouching for the system or criticizing the system.The system is, from my perspective, as the system is.”

The Military Commission website hosts 195 transcripts for the 9/11 hearings all labeled as “unofficial/unauthenticated.” Usually I read the transcripts as soon as they are posted at the end of the day; but teaching two classes got in the way of this goal in February. At a minimum I like to download the transcripts as soon as possible. Why? — because sometimes the transcripts change–that is, content is redacted even though it occurred in open court. As Judge Pohl stated, the participants, be they defendants, judiciary, defense, prosecution, victims, or observers, didn’t make the military commission system, it is simply the system we have to work with and we all find our way to work best in it. Downloading and reading the transcripts is one of the ways I work with the system.

Posted by Catherine A. Lemmer, IU McKinney Law School

Meetings with the Defense Teams in Guantanamo’s 9/11 Case

IMG_20160225_134115944 The other NGO Observers and I met with several members of the defense team for Mr. Hawasawi, defendant in Guantanamo’s 9/11 case, at around 5:30 pm Thursday, 25 February 2016. This was shortly after the court hearings let out for the day. Observers are not permitted to attend closed hearings.

Rather than summarize solely what we were told from Team Hawasawi, I will take this opportunity to provide a brief summary of several points we heard again and again when we spoke with defense counsel at the barbecue earlier this week, at the meeting this evening with Team Hawasawi and in court over the past week. Following is a collection of my impressions and is not a direct quotation of any single member of the defense counsel.

Classification and National Security Issues Concerning the Dissemination of Classified Information vs. The Government’s Desire For and Constitutional Requirements For Transparency, a Full, Fair and Transparent Discovery Process :
- Security clearance issues and access to information has been a recurring theme
  throughout this week. The prosecution alleges that they are seeking to protect classified information which if released could damage national security, while the defense claims that the prosecution is hiding the ball by unnecessarily redacting documents, not doing all they can to assist the defense in obtaining security clearances (and actively standing in their way in some cases) and the defense alleges that the prosecutions claims of protecting national security are a impenetrable blanket excuse to not provide near the items requested in discovery that the defense claims they are entitled to. The prosecution argued generally against the judge being involved as the arbiter of disputes regarding the decision to or to not release classified documents to the defense and asserted they are turning over documents as fast as they can.
- Each defense team has between 15-16 persons on that team at any given time. However, we learned via oral argument in court that each team is limited to 10 person with the clearance required to view many classified documents at any given time. During the hearings this week all of the teams had a clearance issue with one or more of their team members access classified evidence and there were several members of the defense teams that were not allowed in the courtroom (they sat in the gallery with the observers, victim’s family members and others without clearance). The defense argues that delays in processing classification reviews of current and future team members are preventing them from providing adequate representation and that the prosecutions effectively has veto power on what evidence they believe the defense should be entitled to. Furthermore, the defense argues that the prosecution has shown that when it serves their interests, they are able to obtain security clearances for defense team members in a very short amount of time (a clearance was obtained Thursday in 29 minutes with help of a phone call from Chief Prosecutor General Martins after a defense team member’s lack of clearance would have delayed the hearing).
- According to the defense, the prosecution’s redactions and refusal to provide documents based on national security concerns are an impenetrable blanket excuse to not provide discovery. The prosecution has argued that the judge is not equipped to make classification decisions and would, in some cases, cut the judge out of objections to over-classification in the discovery process (this would potentially allow the prosecution to be the final arbiter in some discovery issues and provide a fraction of the documents requested).
  Chief Prosecutor Brig. General Mark Martins
- For the prosecutions part on nearly all of these issues, they argued that they are satisfying their duties under the discovery rules while taking the steps they are required to take to protect classified information that, if released inappropriately to the wrong people, could damage national security.
- Issues of security and transparency arose several times this week regarding transcripts of public hearings that were redacted after the fact to remove some of the statements that were publicly made, but were later decided to contain classified information. Members of the Press and the defense moved in AE 900 on Monday for the court to release the full unredacted transcript on grounds that not doing so violated the 1st Amendment and 6th amendment. Tuesday, the day after the defense and members of the press made this argument, the Military Commission’s website failed to post the unofficial, unauthenticated transcript that is normally posted the same day of the hearings here. The next day the prosecution moved to seal several exhibits discussed and the defense pre-preemptively objected to an after the fact redaction. Mr. Connell, learned counsel for al Baluchi objected immediately. I have not heard yet whether members of the press or the defense has filed any motions regarding this issue, but unless it was worked out in the closed session on Thursday, I expect another motion along the same lines of AE 900 will be filed in the upcoming weeks regarding this new after the expected retroactive redaction.
  Chief Judge Pohl originally presided over both the al Nashiri case and the 9/11 case.
A New Judicial System: Several defense members mentioned that there are inherent challenges in the military commissions system because it is such a new judicial system and because it was created after the crimes took place and after the accused were captured. They also mentioned that, from the defendant’s perspective, the Military Commission system appears to be a judicial system created and designed specifically to lead to their conviction and eventual execution (rather than an independent arbiter to reach a determination of guilt or innocence and, if guilt is found, to mete out an appropriate punishment).
Ideal Choice of Law/Forum? When asked, in a perfect world, what forum and/or choice of law would the members of the defense choose for their defendants, none of them suggested the military commissions or in Guantanamo Bay. Their answers were generally that they would choose a U.S. Federal Court on the east coast in the USA (New York and the Washington D C. area were both brought up, but a couple of the attorneys chose a military court in the USA (at Quantico and in New York). One of the attorneys added that, in that ideal world, they would want a separate trial for their defendant divorced from the other four current defendants.
Ramzi Bin al Shibh, a defendant in the 9/11 case, testified Wednesday about conditions of his detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Conditions of Confinement: Defendants have asked their attorneys to seek relief that will address their current condition of detainment and health. In some cases, the attorneys suggested these were their primary concerns. For example, defendants sought the return of their laptop computers, none of the defendants want to have female guards touch them, the defendants and defense attorneys would like to have more freedom to transmit legal and non-legal mail to and from their client and to third parties, Mr. Hawasawi is in need of surgery & medical care, Mr. Bin al Shibh wishes the judge to stop alleged vibrations and noises in his cell and Mr. al Baluchi would like to have post-torture/PTSD counseling.
Ethical Obligations: The attorneys each have different ethical obligations depending on the agency that is licensing them. For example, learned counsel for Attash, Cheryl Bormann, is licensed by the Illinois State Bar Association and so her ethical rules are different than her co-counsel Army Maj. Matthew Seeger who is bound by the the Army’s Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers.
When Will it End?: Estimates of when this case would go to trial varied from 5 years to not in this decade to not anytime soon. No one seemed to think this case would be moving to trial in a speedy fashion (though the right to a speedy trial is expressly not awarded to these defendants via the Military Commissions Act of 2009).

Conclusion

On a personal note, I fly from Guantanamo Bay to Andrews Air Force Base tomorrow morning early and I will drive back to Indianapolis soon thereafter. I hope to post a few more times in the next week or so.

Allow me to take this opportunity to thank the Program in International Human Rights Law’s Military Commission Observation Project at Robert H. Kinney School of Law and Professor George Edwards for allowing me to spend the last week viewing the 9/11 hearings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Over the past week I was able to explore many of the issues surrounding the Military Commissions, the Guantanamo Bay facility from the perspective of an observer and to report to you my findings. I found the experience engaging and though-provoking. I am quite happy that I was selected and that I agreed to participate.

By Matt Kubal, JD, Indiana University McKinney School of Law

A Day Exploring Guantanamo Bay

The view of the bay in front of the Jerk House, coffee shop and the Tiki Bar.

Today the court in the 9/11 case was in closed session all day to discuss confidential information. We were not allowed to attend the hearing and instead were left spend the day at our own leisure (with our awesome coast guard escorts to take us around the island). I took advantage of the opportunity to sleep in until a little past 8am and then joined several of my fellow observers to grab a coffee at the shop known as the “Starbucks” (the shop has another name, but everyone seems to call it Starbucks) right by the Jerk House. A few nights ago I had the best jerk chicken I have ever had outside of Jamaica at the Jerk House.

Relaxing on Windmill Beach near the now closed Camp Iguana

It was time for my first visit to the beach for the week and so off we went to Windmill Beach, what I was told was the most popular beach on the base. It’s a rocky shore and there’s a bit of coral to dodge when entering the ocean, but the swimming was refreshing with small waves breaking near the shore and lounge chairs for free use. We also saw a few groups of scuba divers coming in and we were told the base offers scuba certification. I relaxed by the water below the former detention camp and read a bit (my book club is reading Jared Diamond’s “Collapse”; his theories seem a bit speculative to me).

Nearby Windmill Beach was Camp Iguana. The camp’s small size was made up by it’s prominent location overlooking the Caribbean and Windmill Beach. If it wasn’t a detainment facility, it would be a lovely spot for a hotel or spa. The camp formerly held three child soldiers and later some detainees who were classified as no longer enemy combatants. It felt a little odd swimming and relaxing below a detainment facility (even a closed one), but such is the way of Guantanamo Bay: one night you pick up a Big Mac at McDonald’s and listen for a minute to the school’s band playing marches in the McDonald’s playground before you go to see “The Big Short” at the huge outdoor theater. While a few hours earlier you heard testimony from a detainee who alleges he is regularly and professionally tortured by some of the same men and women who are likely eating next to you at that same McDonald’s and sitting next to you at the movie. I’m not making any judgement as to the veracity of Bin al Shibh’s claims, but the contrast between the very friendly, pleasant and safe feeling that one has on the base perhaps belies the great seriousness in that there are numerous claims in the media and from NGOs that torture did take place here not terribly long ago and also that America’s most vilified and allegedly most dangerous enemies are detained here.

On a lighter note, I apparently did a poor job of applying sun screen as my splotchy sun burns are so bad, my roommates asked me if I have a skin disease. We made our way from the beach to three spots for souvenirs on the island: Radio GTMO, the post office and “Personalized Services,” a little gift shop by the Navy Exchange store.

Holding a copy of “The Doors: Setting the Record Straight” from Radio GTMO’s vinyl collection with part of the collection visible in the background

We made our way to Radio GTMO first. A friendly radio engineer service member took us on a tour of the small station. There is a green room, broadcasting room, CD room, server/broadcasting room and a storage room where, tucked away in a corner, is the third largest vinyl collection at any US military base in the world. The vinyls are hidden away for a reason; the radio station employees, who recognize their value and play them regularly (including for throwback Thursdays), try to keep the vinyl’s in a place that is less prominent in the station so they don’t get picked for disposal to free up space. Carol Rosenburg wrote an interesting story about the attempted destruction of the 20,000 or so records. I picked up a few souvenirs including a Fidel Castro Bobblehead with the Radio GTMO logo on the base: “Rockin’ in Fidel’s Backyard.” The visit to the small post office and the Personalized Services store were less exciting, but I was able to pick up a couple souvenirs for friends and family. We had lunch at Subway and

I am very happy with my Fidel bobblehead.

I spent the rest of the afternoon in the NGO lounge catching up with the outside world, preparing posts for this blog and killing time until our meeting with the Hawasawi defense team after the closed hearing in the 9/11 case let out.

By Matt Kubal, JD, Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Correction, Clarification, Missing Transcript, and Expectations for Guantanamo’s 9/11 Case

Camp Justice where we live in tents next to the Guantanamo Bay courtroom complex

This evening (23 February) I have for you a correction from my last post, a few notes about the hearing in the 9/11 case today, some thoughts regarding a missing transcript from today (perhaps temporarily), a clarification of a comment I made in my last post and a preview of what we have to look forward to tomorrow and the rest of the week.

A Correction

I mentioned in my last post that I believed that Mr. David Schulz’s oral argument on behalf of members of the press was the first time a third party movant (the Press in this case) had filed a motion and presented oral argument before the court. I was advised this evening that this was not the first time that Mr. Schulz has argued on behalf of he press. You can read about one of the previous times in 2012 when Mr. Schulz argued before the judge in the Nashiri case here.

A Missing Transcript?

Also of note is that, as of 11:30 pm on February 23rd, the daily unofficial/unauthenticated transcript from the hearings today have not been posted. This is interesting as the transcript is usually posted very soon after the hearings are completed for the day. The AE 400 motion filed by the press and argued on Monday was in response to a similar scenario on October 30, 2015, where the government failed to immediately provide the unofficial/unauthenticated transcript and, when they did provide it, redacted a significant portion of the transcript from the hearing that, on the day of the hearing, had been heard by observers, members of the press, victims family members, others in the gallery at the court room and by those watching via the video feed at Ft. Meade. This very well may be a technical error of some kind, but if the transcript for the hearing today (February 23rd) is posted in a redacted form at a later date, I suspect the press would file another motion objecting to the redactions making the similar argument as they made for AE 400. The judge has not yet ruled on AE 400. You can read the arguments made in support of AE 400 made Monday morning by Mr. Schulz on behalf of the press (February 22nd) here

A Clarification and al Shibh’s Expected to Testify

Ramzi Bin al Shibh, a 9/11 case defendant, is scheduled to testify about the his detention conditions at Guantanamo

My clarification from my last post is that, if Ramzi Bin al Shibh (al Shibh) testifies tomorrow (and i suggest that is still an if), it will be the first time a defendant has taken the stand to testify in this case. At the end of the hearing today the judge advised the court that al Shibh would not be shackled or physically restrained while testifying and his testimony would be limited to the issue of external sounds and vibrations while detained pertaining to AE 152LL only. The reason why I say if he testifies is because at the end of the hearing al Shibh’s attorney requested that he be able to testify from the chair where he normally sits, next to his counsel, during the proceedings. Judge Pohl denied the request and said he will be required to take the stand like any witness. If the request to speak at his usual seat in the courtroom is based on any hesitance by al Shibh to testify, then it is possible that he will have cold feet and will not take the stand.

You can read AE 152 here.

Here is the summary for AE 152LL from the public Motions Hearing Summary:

AE 152LL; Filed by the Defense
Title: Emergency Motion for Show Cause Why The Government, JTF Camp Commander and JTF Guard Force Members Should Not Be Held In Contempt

Brief Summary: Mr. Bin al Shibh continues to be subject to external sounds and vibrations while detained, despite order from the Military Judge prohibiting such actions by Joint Detention Group and Joint Task Force staff. As a result, Mr. Bin al Shibh requests the Military Judge order the relevant staff to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.

After Bin al Shibh’s Testimony Tomorrow (Wednesday, February 24th)

The remainder of the day tomorrow, February 24th, will likely be spent continuing the AE 018 series of motions which we started at the end of today with arguments on AE 018Y. The judge indicated that after Mr. Bin al Shibh’s testimony tomorrow, the court would continue with AE 018Y and then move to AE 018W.

Towards the end of the hearing today Chief Prosecutor General Martins, Mr. Connell (attorney for Mr. Ali Abd Al-Aziz) and Mr. Nevin (attorney for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) presented oral argument on AE 018Y, Government Emergency Motion for Interim Order and Clarification that the Commission’s Order in AE018U Does Not Create a Means for Non-Privileged Communications to Circumvent the Joint Task Force Mail System. Here is the brief summary from the Motions Hearing Summary document we were provided:

The Government seeks an Emergency Motion for an Interim Order following accusations of unauthorized distribution of materials that did not receive sanctioned review by JTF-GTMO.

On AE 018Y today, the Government claimed the defense facilitated unauthorized distribution of materials that did not receive sanctioned review by prison officials (Joint Task Force – Guantanamo). The defense argued that the Government’s characterization is incorrect, that the mail was reviewed and determined not classified prior to being sent, that they were not restricted from sending it.

Up third tomorrow will be AE 018W. Here’s the summary from the Motions Hearing Summary document we were provided:

AE 018W
Filed by: Defense
Brief Summary: Joint Defense Motion to Amend AE 18U, Privileged Written Communications Order
The Defense seeks an order from the Military Commission amending the Privileged Written Communications Order (AE018U), which governs how defense counsel and the accused can communicate in writing.

There are several other motions outstanding in the AE018 series (11 total in the Motions Hearing Summary document we were provided). Per Judge Pohl at the end of the day on Monday, next up in open session after the AE 018 series of motions is AE 391:

Here’s the summary from the Motions Hearing Summary document were provided

AE 391
Filed by: Government
Brief Sumary: Government Motion For the Admission of Death Certificates Into Evidence
The Government requests the admission in evidence now, in advance of the as yet unscheduled trial, of the death certificates of the victims listed in the charge sheet.

Thursday, February 25th, remains scheduled as a closed hearing, so if the court either doesn’t finish AE 018 and/or get to AE 391 tomorrow, I expect those motions will be addressed on Friday.

Options Other Than The Military Commission?

Finally, I have had a few people e-mail me asking what judicial forum might be preferable to the Military Commissions. I would preface my opinion with a caveat that the it is clear from watching the attorneys, judge and court staff operating in the Military Commission in this case are incredibly talented and dedicated professionals. I and my fellow observers have been nothing but impressed with their ability to excel in a very difficult situation.

I touched on some of the theories for what causes delays and challenges in the Military Commission hearings in a previous post. To answer the question, my personal opinion would be to move the hearings to a federal criminal court or a military court in the USA. Another alternative would be for the USA set up a military or special US District court down here. Capital cases take a long time in the USA as well, but trying this case in a judicial system with more established rules, legal precedents and procedures without the need to transplant all of the members of the court to Cuba for each hearing should be significantly faster and more efficient than trying the case in the Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay. This is also the suggestion that several of the attorneys practicing in the Military Commissions attorneys offered when asked a similar question.

I briefly summarized some of the sources of delays in one of my previous blog posts.

Personal notes

On a personal note, I enjoyed some tasty jerk jerk chicken from a little outdoor restaurant by the water. It was ~75 degrees this evening with a nice breeze. Before I returned to the NGO lounge to write this post, several of my fellow observers and I spent the rest of the evening enjoying the lovely weather at a picnic bench in front of our tents in Camp Justice.

By Matt Kubal, JD, Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Posted by G. Edwards on behalf of Mr. Kubal

Guantanamo Bay Arrival, Base Tour, Counsel Meetings

2/20/2016 Day 1: Arrival at Guantanamo Bay

Matt Kubal in front of the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Station sign by the Naval Exchange

It was a hot 87 degrees and humid when I arrived at Guantanamo Bay. I exited the plane, removed my sweater and immediately wished I could change into shorts. I made it to Guantanamo Bay and it felt good. I had little time to relish the feeling as our escort Mark corralled the observers and told us we would need to rush as the plane had arrived late. We were in danger of missing our ferry across the bay from the airport to Camp Justice. The tents we are sleeping in and the Expeditionary Legal Complex, where the Military Commissions are held, are at Camp Justice.

Our passports were checked prior to leaving the airport (yes, a passport is required to travel to Guantanamo Bay) and we were hurried to a van to drive us to the ferry. Our bags were loaded directly from the plane to a box truck and followed us onto the same ferry. The breeze on the second level of the ferry from the airport to Camp Justice felt great and we had a nice view of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as we approached from across the bay. About 10 vehicles and a dump truck accompanied us on the same ferry.

We were told on the way to the ferry to be very careful what pictures we take as many areas are off-limits for photography and the military police on the base are very serious about enforcing rules against photography. Mark suggested we ask him or our assigned driver prior to taking any pictures if we weren’t sure whether or not it is allowed in that area. Given that I need to provide several photos for each of these posts, that made me a little nervous, but Mark continued by giving us a short-list of places and things to not take pictures of. Over the next 24 hours we were reminded several times of various places we should not take pictures of.

Day 1: Arrival at our Tents

The tent I share with three other NGO Observers at Camp Justice

After exiting the ferry we made our way to our tents. The area that was formerly McCalla Airfield is now the part of Camp Justice that houses visiting media and observers in tents. Before arriving I knew that the tents had some amenities, but I was pleasantly surprised by all they did have. I share my tent with three other fellow observers. The tent has seven beds with twin size mattresses and wood frames, wooden floors, dressers and side tables, couches for lounging, a table and chairs, electricity, a refrigerator and air conditioning (set very cold to keep out unwanted critters).

We were given some time to unpack and settle in before we all went to obtain our badges. The badges are government property and we were told we should not take photos of them. We were also advised regarding the specific procedures of when and where we should and should not wear them. This was my first time visiting a secure facility of this nature and I I actually expected more security hoops to jump through. Given the potential risks inherent in conducting a trial of persons who are allegedly members of al Qaeda, I understand the need for strict rules and restrictions. We were told that previously observers were far more restricted and could not leave Camp Justice at all. I feel fortunate that I will be able to see much of the base and travel relatively freely to most areas without an escort.

Day 1: Venturing out from Camp Justice

The Navy Exchange and Commissary

After a brief visit to the Navy Exchange (like a supermarket and department story rolled into one) we returned to our tents for a brief rest before attending a barbecue hosted by the defense counsel for the 9/11 hearings. Meeting the defense counsel for each of the defendants at the barbecue was exciting and a little overwhelming at first. These attorneys are the defense counsel in what one of the attorneys present described as the most significant capital case in United States History. After a year of reading the transcripts of their arguments and their quotes in news stories, it felt surreal to meet them in person. I was very grateful that they were willing to take the time to host an events such as this on our behalf. We were told that the weekly barbecue for observers started as a way to get observers out of the Camp Justice complex in the past when the rules prevented observers from leaving. At the end of the evening, the defense team answered questions and I learned much about the Military Commissions, the hearings in the 9/11 case from last week and regarding expectations for the hearings we will view this week.

AE 400 Tomorrow and Expected Motions this Week

Supplies and resources available to all observers in the NGO lounge at Gitmo provided by IU McKinney’s Program in International Human Rights Law’s U.S. Military Commissions Observation Project

We expect that the hearing tomorrow, February 22nd, the hearing will begin at 9:00 am with motion AE400. Motion AE400 is unusual as it was filed by a group of members of the press (17 news groups) rather than the defense or prosecution. The press is seeking to unseal the transcript of the public hearing of the Military Commission hearing that took place on October 30, 2015. That hearing and the later redacted testimony was heard by observers, the members of the press and victims families in the observation area, but the transcript was later heavily redacted. The movant argues that the redaction after the public hearing is contrary to the Office of the Military Commissions claims of providing transparency. The prosecution is expected to argue that redacting the transcript after the information was made publicly available is currently and has historically been within the government’s authority to protect sensitive information.

We were informed that other motions that may be heard this week may include:

AE254Y and AE254YYY concerning the use of female guards during confinement,

AE396 regarding the classification of documents requested in discovery, and

AE397 regarding the consolidation of the defense’s discovery motions.

Both AE397 and AE 396 were discussed last week as well.

Travel to Guantanamo Bay

My passport and boarding pass. The boarding pass destination originally said New Orleans, but the gate agent was able to change it to NBW (Guantanamo Bay)

This morning I traveled from Andrews Air Force Base (Andrews) to Camp Justice at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base to attend hearings in the 9/11 case. I arrived at the terminal at Andrews at 6 AM this morning. I was bleary eyed, but excited to finally get a chance to travel to Guantanamo. My last three trips were cancelled prior to departure and I told my wife when she dropped me off to make sure her cell phone was on in case we found out that the hearings were cancelled or delayed. I walked in and found five or six people in the waiting room. I was a little nervous that I was in the wrong place (the e-mail we received said to arrive at 6 and no later than 7) and the first thing I did is to confirm with at the check-in desk that this was the the passenger terminal (it was). About 30 minutes later, our escort, Mark, arrived with most of the observers. Everyone else had been dropped off at the visitor center and had been waiting there for Mark to bring them to the terminal.
After introducing myself to the other 10 observers, I distributed copies of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual and I has happy to see most of the observers reading through the Manual over the next hour or so until it was time to check-in. I am proud that the Gitmo Observer and Professor George Edwards created the Manual as I believe it is an excellent resource for anyone who wishes to better understand the Military Commissions and to ascertain whether a fair trial is being had, has been had or can possibly be had under the Military Commision judicial system. In the short-time prior to the flight, several observers mentioned that they skimmed the Manual and believe it will be useful throughout this upcoming week.

Prior to departure after being dropped off at Andrews Air Force Base. The brown bag is full of copies of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual

My fellow observers are roughly 60% law students and 40% practicing attorneys hailing from everywhere from California to Virginia and, based on our brief conversations thus far, seem an interesting mix of backgrounds including a deputy prosecutor, former members of the military and and a lawyer that works in poverty law. A few folks napped while we waited in the terminal for our 10am departure. My excitement was tempered only slightly by my drowsiness.

We checked our bags at around 8:15 AM and other than a prohibition against open-toed or open heeled shoes on the flight, the check-in process was similar to previous flights I have taken. We took a shuttle bus out to the tarmac and boarded our chartered Sun Country Airlines 737-800 plane at roughly 10am and left shortly thereafter. While boarding one of the observers asked whether the first class seats were available. We were told they are reserved for victim’s family members. I later found out that there were 10 victim’s family members that traveled with us to view the hearings.

The flight was pleasant, with a large meal and plenty of space as there were enough empty seats that everyone got their own row (and there were still empty rows left over). I estimate that there were roughly 60 people on flight. I had never heard of Sun Country Airlines, but according to their flight map in my seatback pocket, almost all of their flights depart from Minnesota. I spent most of the roughly three hour flight reviewing the fair trial manual and a summary of the motions for the upcoming week from an e-mail I received a few days ago.

My next post will cover my arrival at Guantanamo Bay, summarize my second day and provide a brief introduction to the AE400 motion scheduled for tomorrow.

Traveling to Guantanamo Bay to Monitor the Case Against the Alleged Masterminds of the 9/11 Attacks

Matthew Kubal as a Program in International Human Rights Law Intern at the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights in June of 2007

I am a graduate of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law, and have a long history of working with the school’s Program in International Human Rights Law both while I was a student and after I graduated. I am honored that now, as an attorney in Indianapolis, the Program nominated me to monitor the U.S. Military Commission hearings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The pentagon confirmed my nomination to travel to Guantanamo Bay from 22 – 26 February 2016 to monitor the case against 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (commonly known as the “9/11 case”).

Another graduate of the McKinney law school, Mr. Paul Schilling, is at Guantanamo Bay this week monitoring this same case. Professor George Edwards, who founded the Program in International Human Rights Law, is traveling to Ft. Meade, Maryland this week and next week to monitor the Guantanamo Bay hearings that are being streamed by secure video-link into the Ft. Meade military base. You can read their blog posts here at http://www.GitmoObserver.com.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the 5 defendents in the 9/11 case

Will the hearings go forward next week?

This is my fourth nomination to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor Military Commissions live. In 2015, I was nominated on three occasions: twice to observe hearings in the 9/11 case and once to observe hearings in the case against al-Nashiri, who is charged with masterminding the attack on the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000. All of these hearing sessions were cancelled prior to my departure. I am well aware of the possibility that this coming week’s 9/11 hearings might be delayed or cancelled as well.

Logistics and other challenges

The Military Commission Hearings are a massive logistical undertaking. Each hearing requires coordinating and transporting nearly all of the persons involved in running the court and the hearings (attorneys, court staff, press, victims and their families, security, NGO observers and so on) from Andrews Air Force Base just outside of Washington D.C. to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Everybody boards the plane at Andrews at the beginning of the hearing week, and at the end of the hearings, everybody gets back on the plane in Cuba and flies back to Andrews. Each government charter or military flight to Guantanamo for the Military Commission hearings reportedly costs $90,000 per flight.

Would it be less costly for the 5 defendants to be flown to the U.S.? Well, the defendants remain in Guantanamo as they are barred by federal law from being transported to any of the 50 states or the District of Columbia for any reason.

The challenges of creating a new justice system lead to delays that would otherwise not be necessary in a state, federal or military court. In Military Commission hearings some argue that certain rules and procedures of the court, rights of the defendants, evidentiary issues, etc. are more likely to be novel where no standard or precedent has been firmly established. Compared to their contemporaries in the United States military, state and federal court systems, attorneys, judges and court staff working in the Military Commission are blazing a trail through uncharted terrain and such a journey involves many uncertainties that serve to delay the judicial process.

An example is a story I was recently told where a defendant at the Military Commission hearings was requesting to dismiss his counsel and represent himself. In the US Federal or State Courts, the judge would attempt to ascertain whether the defendant understands what he is getting into, whether he was improperly influenced and whether he understands his rights. In the case of the Military Commission, the defendant’s attorney was unable to advise the client as to his rights because no one had previously defined what those rights would be. The hearings had to be delayed for a period of time while the interested parties decided what rights the defendant actually had (or at least what he needed to be advised of in order to be sufficiently informed regarding his decision to represent himself). In an Indiana state court, no such inordinate delay would be required as such a process is routine and has been well-established over the course of decades of jurisprudence.

Bureaucracy. Secrecy.

Bureaucracy and the desire for secrecy play a role in delaying the hearings. The Military Commissions and the operation of Camp Justice (where the hearings take place) involve a broad array of domestic government agencies from each branch of the armed forces, to the executive branch of government to the the United States Court of Appeals, etc. (a comprehensive list of stakeholders domestically and internationally would be quite long indeed).

Each agency involves itself for different, sometimes competing, reasons and each agency has its own bureaucratic rules and hierarchies that must be navigated. In addition, much of the evidence, the defendants themselves and many of the court filings require a security clearance to view or interact with. A good example of a bureaucratic delay is in the Hadi al Iraqi case which is currently delayed “until a time to be determined based on the detailing of counsel for this accused” after Hadi fired his attorney in late September, 2015. The replacement attorney must obtain a security clearance prior to speaking to Hadi. The process for approving the new attorney’s required security clearances may take 6 months or more. Even after receiving his or her clearance, the attorneys will then need to meet with Hadi (requiring some or all of the travel and other logistical challenges I mentioned earlier) and be given sufficient time to prepare before hearings may resume.

Matthew Kubal

As a monitor, I will attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on the Military Commission hearings. I will report my observations to this blog and will take part in the continued writing and editing of the draft Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual in hopes that it will serve as a guide for future Guantanamo Bay observers and anyone else interested in the hearings and trials.

Many of the ideas above are based on my memory and understanding of a recent briefing at the Indiana University McKinney School of Law provided by Indianapolis attorney Richard Kammen (who represents Mr. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri). The foregoing is my opinion in my own personal capacity, and my blog posts and other comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law or Mr. Kammen.

Guantanamo hearings begin in 9/11 case

Paul Schilling at Camp Justice. The U.S. flag is flying at 1/2 mast to honor the memory of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. (Photo taken 16 February 2016)

Our Guantanamo Bay tents are about 50 yards from the entrance to the war crimes courtroom complex that we walked to at 8:15 a.m. today, Tuesday, 16 February 2016. We had to pass through airport-like security to get into the courtroom. Today’s hearings are in the case against the 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

The Observers sit in the gallery, with a thick protective glass separating our seating area from the defendants, counsel, judge and others in the main part of the courtroom. We stare through the glass at the backs of most of those of the courtroom, facing the judge.

We can see all that happens in the courtroom, as we peer through the thick glass. But our room is soundproof, and we can only hear what’s happening in court when TV screens with speakers are turned on, hanging in front of the glass gallery wall, piping in the audio.

Different sections of the gallery are reserved for the media, NGO Observers, and victims and their families (whose section can be cordoned off by a curtain should they wish). Military personnel may also take some of the gallery seats.

After we were all seated, the 5 accused entered the courtroom.

Each of these 5 accused has a civilian legal counsel and military counsel (Judge Adjutant General (“JAG”) attorneys). Since this is a death penalty case, the Military Commission Act requires that the accused have an attorney that has previous death penalty case experience. Civilian counsel for these 5 defendants have death penalty experience, and they are referred to as “Learned counsel”.

Courtroom Layout

Facing the judge on the left hand side of the courtroom are 5 tables, one for each of the accused, their civilian and military counsel, an interpreter and others on the defense team. In the front and center of the courtroom is the military judge, Judge Pohl. Judge Pohl sits elevated on the bench with a court security officer to his right (the left front of the courtroom), the witness stand to his left (the right front of the courtroom) with the court reporters located below, in front of the judge. A speakers’ podium sits front and center of the judge and courtroom. The prosecution sits on the right side of the courtroom. General Mark Martins is the Chief Prosecutor for all the U.S. Military Commissions. We was present in court today and was seated with and assisted by attorneys from the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, interpreters and 3 JAG officers. To the far right of the courtroom is the jury box. Since these hearings are for pre-trial discovery motions, there is no panel present. Military Police (“MP”) personnel are located to the far left of the courtroom, along the left wall, and are seated there after escorting the defendants into the courtroom. The are approximately 2-3 MPs for each defendant. Paralegals, interpreters, MPs and other court personnel are located in the courtroom and may move about freely.

My general observations

As Observers, behind the glass, one of the ways we can best observe the proceedings is by closely observing the interactions of the players. Here are some of my observations.

All 5 accused wore glasses entering the court and removed them as the proceeding went on
Kalid Sheikh Mohammad’s beard was partly black, partly white and partly orange. It looked like it was dyed.
All of the accused interacted with their attorneys. They shook hands, smiled and appeared to listen to their attorneys. In fact, the interaction was similar to what you would expect to see between a defendant and his attorney in a criminal trial in a regular U.S. courtroom.
Two of the accused, Ali Aziz Ali and Mustafa al Hawsawi, spent much of today’s short court session talking to one another.
I thought Judge Pohl did an excellent job maintaining courtroom order and decorum. He set out to explain things to the accused, and apparently sought to understand any concerns raised by the accused or counsel. He appeared to ask pertinent, difficult questions. It seemed clear to me that he was in control of the hearing and has respect of counsel on both sides.
The Observers are viewing the hearing in real-time, through the glass. However, the audio is delayed 40 seconds, for security reasons we were told. This can make for awkward viewing. For instance, we can see the personnel in the court stand up when the Judge enters. However, we do not hear the “all rise” command until almost a minute has passed. It can also make it difficult to determine when someone has finished speaking. We can see them depart the podium, but we are still hearing their final remarks on the audio feed.

Proceedings

Today’s hearing did not begin until 9:15, about 15 minutes behind schedule. Once the Judge was seated, he took the appearance of the parties and advised the accused of certain rights that they have. He explained that the accused had a right to be present and it was their personal choice to attend or leave. Most of the gallery was waiting in anticipation to hear the accused speak. Each of the accused affirmed orally that they understood their rights as explained by the judge. As Observers, we realized this is one of the few occasions that we may have to actually hear the accused speak, since during most hearings traditionally the lawyers and the judge do the talking. The Judge explained what motions were going to be heard and asked defense counsel if there were any issues.

One of the defendants, Walid bin-Attash, expressed his desire to dismiss his learned counsel and military counsel. From the testimony received and the judge’s statements, it appears that bin-Attash sent a letter (in arabic) to the Judge. When questioned about the letter, bin-Attash stated that he did not trust his attorney and wished for new counsel. It is my understanding that his lead attorney, Cheryl Bormann has been on the case since the beginning. bin-Attash also expressed his intent to dismiss his other counsel, Michael Schwartz. Schwartz was his previous military attorney. Based on the testimony of his new military attorney, US Army Major Michael Seeger and bin-Attash, Seeger has only been on the case a very short period of time. The Judge questioned counsel regarding an attorney’s duties to his/her client. The Judge also questioned the accused regarding his intentions and whether he wished to retain Seeger. bin-Attash also provided the court with a second hand-written letter at the hearings, expressing his desire for new counsel.

The court allowed for input from other defense counsel and the prosecution.

After about an hour and a half, the court went into recess until tomorrow. The Judge decided to have the letters translated and he would reconsider the request to dismiss counsel tomorrow.

For now, we are scheduled for a full day of hearings tomorrow, with the total hearing time today being only about 90 minutes.

Paul Schilling, JD graduate, Indiana University McKinney School of Law

(Published by Professor George Edwards on behalf of Mr. Shilling.)

Arrival at Guantanamo Bay Today

Camp Justice — Where we are staying during our week at GTMO. Photo by Catherine Lemmer, IU McKinney School of Law)

Our flight to Guantanamo Bay was delayed leaving Andrews Air Force Base. We arrived at Guantanamo after a 3 hour flight. We were processed through the arrival gates and loaded a ferry to the main post. I found it interesting that all of the victims’ families, defense counsel, prosecutors, media, court stenographers and NGOs traveled on the same flight.

Our group of NGO Observers is staying at Camp Justice. Camp Justice is essentially rows of Quanset hut type tents. Our tents are air conditioned, with a 6-8 small bunks. We have a refrigerator, lights and electricity in all of the tents. Bathroom (latrine) tents and shower tents are located nearby. We were given a short period of time to get settled in. We then headed to the security office to obtain our badges. Badges are required for all NGO Observers, media, and others when occupying Camp Justice. We were given a short briefing regarding some of the rules and conditions. Our cell phones will not work (phone calling cards are available). Wi-Fi is very limited and available on some hotspots on the main post. We can, however, buy internet access through an Ethernet connection. It is slow, but it works.

One of our Camp Justice tents.

We later took a tour of the main base. And, as the highlight of the evening, we were invited to a barbeque with some of the defense counsel. When asked about the volume of filings in the case, one attorney remarked that the 9/11 hearings have over 11,000 pages of transcript and over 20,000 pages of motions. We also learned that the public transcripts are usually available online within 24 hours. It was an opportunity for us to talk to the counsel, as attorneys, and get their input on some of the questions we had.

On a sad note, we learned of the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, when one of our NGO attorneys drew our attention to the CNN headline.

There are no hearings scheduled for tomorrow. Sunday is Valentine’s Day. The dining facility will host a Valentine’s Day brunch. We are scheduled to tour the lighthouse and receive a briefing from Brigadier General Martins, the Chief Prosecutor of the US Military Commissions.

I recognize that I am the eyes and ears into Guantanamo Bay and the Military Commissions for many people in Indiana and elsewhere who will not have the opportunity to visit this base. In upcoming blogs I will report more on the substance of our monitoring work, as well as my other experiences here in Cuba.

Paul Schilling

Indiana University McKinney School of Law, JD Graduate

Indiana Deputy Attorney Geberal (posting in personal capacity)

(Posted by G. Edwards on behalf of P. Schillng)

At Andrews Air Force Base Traveling to Guantanamo Bay

Paul Schilling reading the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, published by Indiana’s Military Commission Observation Project. The Manual, which comes in 2 Volumes, provides insights into rights and interests of all stakeholders in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Military Commission process.

Paul Schilling is traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, today (13 February 2016) to monitor U.S. Military Commission hearings in the case against the 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Schilling is representing the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law’s Program in International Human Rights Law. I am the founding faculty director of this program, and because Paul had technical issues in posting from Andrews, I am posting a few photos on his behalf.

Schilling was selected from Indiana McKinney Law School affiliates, which includes faculty, staff, current students and alumni. Our Program has sent dozens of Affiliates to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor Military Commissions live, and to Ft. Meade, Maryland, where Affiliates can monitor hearings broadcast via a secure videolink into a theater on the Ft. Meade base.

AAFB - Air Terminal - 13 Feb 2016 - Paul Schilling

View of Andrews Air Terminal from the tarmac.

Schilling currently serves as Deputy Attorney General of Indiana, and is a veteran of Afghanistan. You can read his posts on this page: GitmoObserver Blog. Schilling is blogging in his personal capacity and not on behalf of his employer or his law school, with his opinions being his own.

More information about the Military Commission Observations Project can be found at this link: MCOP Link

AAFB Barracks- 13 Feb 2016 - Paul Schilling

Bunkers at Andrews Air Force Base that house Air Force One.

To download a free copy of Volume I and Volume II of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, click here: Manual

George Edwards

Preparing to Travel to Guantanamo Bay

: U.S. Military Commissions charging defendants with war crimes are held at Camp Justice at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Photo by Catherine Lemmer, Indiana University McKinney School of Law)

I am a practicing attorney with the Office of the Indiana Attorney General and an alumnus of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law. I am also a veteran of Afghanistan. I was selected to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (“Gitmo”) to represent the Military Commission Observer Program (“MCOP”) which is part of the law school’s Program in International Human Rights Law (“PIHRL”). This program, which was founded by Professor George Edwards, sends law school affiliates to Guantanamo to monitor hearings in criminal cases related to a range of international crimes. My participation in this program is in my own personal capacity, and my blog posts and other comments are my own, and not of my employer or of my law school.

Updated — Here I am at Andrews Air Force Base on Saturday, 13 February 2016, waiting for my flight to Guantanamo Bay. I’m reading the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual that Professor George Edwards developed to help Observers understand rights and interests of stakeholders, and help them as they monitor the Military Commissions

I am scheduled to monitor the hearings scheduled for February 15-19, 2016, in the case against 5 alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon.

I was previously scheduled to attend hearings in the case against Hadi al Iraqi, who was allegedly a liaison between al Queda Iraq and the Taliban. Those hearings were postponed. Those hearings were in Gitmo, but I was going to monitor them from a remote viewing site – at Fort Meade, Maryland, where the Gitmo courtroom proceedings are simultaneously projected by secure video link.

The Role of the Observers

The MCOP sends observers to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor the commission hearings in person. Our role as observers is to attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on the proceedings. We seek to gather information that sheds light on whether the rights of all stakeholders have been afforded to them. A stakeholder is an individual (or organization) holding rights and/or interests in the Military Commissions. Military Commission stakeholders include, for example, the defendants, defense counsel, the prosecution, victims and their families, judges, witnesses, the press, the international community and countries with detained citizens at Gitmo.

The MCOP has been researching international and domestic U.S. Law that governs the Military Commissions, and analyzing it in the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual. The Manual, which is in draft form, is used by Observers and others interested in ascertaining whether a fair trial is being afforded to all stakeholders.

Background:
In preparation for my trip, I took some time to review the charges and some background research on the defendants. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked 4 planes in the US. Two planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, 1 plane crashed into the Pentagon and the fourth plane crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. In all 2,921 civilians were killed as a direct result of these attacks. Al Queda, a reported terrorist organization said to be run by Usama Bin Laden (“UBL”) claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Court documents charge that al Queda planned for the 9/11 attacks for years. It was charged that in August 1996, UBL proclaimed a holy war against the US, and that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (“KSM”) and UBL discussed hijacking commercial airliners and crashing them into buildings in the US. Preparations would have included identifying the “pilots”, obtaining visas, funding the terrorists, flight schools and simulators and casing airport security to determine the feasibility of an attack.

All 5 of the defendants in the case I am scheduled to observe were allegedly involved in the planning process and allegedly provided material support to the hijackers.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammad

KSM and and the other co-defendants, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hasawi are charged as having participated in various stages leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

The official charges against the defendants include the following, though it is not clear whether all the charges (e.g., the crime of conspiracy) will survive challenges by the defense:

Charges: All Defendants:
1. Conspiracy;
2. Attacking Civilians;
3. Attacking Civilian Objects;
4. Murder in Violation of the Law of War;
5. Destruction of Property in Violation of the Law of War;
6. Hijacking or Hazarding a Vessel or Aircraft;
7. Terrorism

The Military Commission Observation Program requires me to submit daily blog entries. My next blog post will be from Andrews Air Force Base, from where we are scheduled to fly to Gitmo on Saturday morning, February 13, 2016.

My next substantive blog post will likely summarize some of the motions that we are expected to hear this coming week. Also, I will report on my trip to Guantanamo Bay, noting my observations.

I recognize that I am serving as the eyes and ears of many people who will never be permitted to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I feel a special obligation to report comprehensively, thoroughly, and accurately on behalf of those who are not as fortunate as I am to have such an opportunity.

Paul Schilling — J.D. ’10, Indiana University McKinney School of Law; Indiana Deputy Attorney General (participating and commenting in my own personal capacity and not that of my law school or my employer).