9-11 Case

First Up: Motions on Severance & Conflict-of-Interest

gitmo picI am en route via Chicago and Washington D.C. to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for the first week of the 9/11 hearings.  The hearings are scheduled to start at 9:00 am on Monday, 9 February 2015. Judge Pohl has ordered that all five defendants must be present in court.

The first issue to be addressed during this session is reconsideration of Judge Pohl’s order of August 2014 (AE312) to sever Ramzi bin al Shibh’s case from the other four 9/11 defendants. Mr. in al Shibh’s case was severed as a result of the prosecution’s request for a competency hearing for him as well as the conflict-of-interest matter arising from FBI investigation into his defense team. If this sounds familiar, it should. These same motions were scheduled for hearing but not heard when the December 2014 hearings were cancelled over the female guard issue.

The resolution of the potential conflict-of-interest matter is a complex issue that has delayed the hearings for nearly a year. In 2014, the Military Commission concluded that there was no actual or potential conflict with respect to four of the five 9/11 defense teams. The Military Commission did conclude that there may be an actual or potential conflict with respect to the legal team representing Mr. bin al Shibh. In August, Judge Pohl ordered Independent Counsel for Mr. bin al Shibh to investigate and advise him. Lt Col Julie Pitvorek, USAF was assigned as Independent Counsel for Mr. bin al Shibh. LtCol Pitvorek will be present at the February hearings, as will Mr. Harrington and Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Bogucki, Mr. bin al Shibh’s present counsel.

In April 2014 a Special Review Team consisting of Department of Justice prosecutors was appointed to investigate the FBI’s undisclosed interviews and investigations of certain members of the 9/11 defense teams. The creation of the Special Review Team was required because General Martins’ prosecution team can not investigate the defense teams. The Special Review Team functions as the prosecution with respect to the investigation of the defense teams and whether the FBI activity created a conflict-of-interest for the defense team.  The Special Review Team was in court at the preliminary hearings in June, August, and October on behalf of the prosecution. These prosecutors will be in court for the February hearings to represent the government for the three pleadings that will be heard by Judge Pohl related to these matters.  Should these matters be resolved, the parties will move on to the many other matters scheduled for argument in the following weeks.

The matters before the Military Commission are legally and factually complex. It makes it challenging for NGO Observers tasked with observing, analyzing, and reporting on whether the military commissions are open, transparent, and providing fair trials to the defendants.  It is important that we focus on our specific role in the process. The Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual is a great tool to help us do so.

The matters scheduled on the docket include:

AE 312C Defense Response to Emergency Government Motion to Reconsider AE 302 Severance Order The order severing Mr. bin al Shibh is currently in abeyance (temporarily suspended). The judge may revoke the order, sever Mr. bin al Shibh, or continue to hold it in abeyance.)

AE 292RR Prosecution Special Review Team Motion for Reconsideration of AE 292QQ (Order) (Prosecution Special Review Team seeks to have Judge Pohl reconsider his decision that there may be a potential conflict within Mr. bin al Shibh’s defense counsel.)

AE 292VV Defense Motion to Compel Discovery Related to Interference with Defense Function by the United States.  (The defense asks Judge Pohl to compel the Prosecution’s Special Review Team to provide the evidence related to the FBI’s investigations of the defense teams. )

AE 292YY Defense Motion for Appropriate Relief-Disclosure by Military Judge Whether He has Acquired Information Relating to the Case from an Undisclosed Source and the Details of the Information (The defense asks Judge Pohl to disclose what information he has about the FBI investigation that has not been provided to the defense.)

AE152 Prosecution Motion for R.M.C. 909 Hearing (The prosecution asks the Commission to establish the competency of Ramzi bin al Shibh to stand trial.)

AE 254KK Prosecution Government Motion For an Expedited Litigation Schedule to Resolve AE 254Y (The prosecution requests oral argument relating to the issue of female guards in contact positions with defendants.)

AE 331 Military Commission Judge Trial Conduct Order (The military judge ordered the government to review the Protective Order regarding classified information and sealed pleadings in light of the release of the Torture Report.)

AE 008 Defense Motion to Dismiss for Defective Referral (The defense position is that the Convening Authority did not charge the defendants properly.)

AE 031 Defense Motion to Dismiss for Unlawful Influence (The defense position is that the President of the United States put pressure on the Convening Authority to bring the case against the defendants.)

AE 192 Defense Motion to Disqualify (The defense position is that the Legal Advisor to the Convening Authority unlawfully interfered with the professional judgment of the Chief Defense Counsel and Mr. al Hawsawi’s Learned  Counsel.)

AE 196 Defense Motion to Disqualify (The defense position is that the Chief of Operations for the Convening Authority unlawfully interfered with the professional judgment of the Chief Defense Counsel and Mr. al Hawsawi’s Learned Counsel.)

AE 254 Defense Emergency Defense Motion to Permit Attorney-Client Meetings (The defense position is that JTF-GTMO is interfering with attorney-client visits.)

AE 112 Defense Motion to Compel White House and DOJ policy on Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program (The defense seeks to compel discovery about the policies underlying the CIA rendition, detention, and interrogation program.)

AE 114 Defense Motion to Compel Information regarding Buildings in Which Defendants May Have Been Confined (The defense asks the prosecution to produce evidence about any facility where the defendants were held.)

AE 182 Defense Motion to Possess and Resume Use of a Microsoft-Enabled Laptop Computer (The defense asks that the defendants have access to standalone computers to work on their defenses.)

AE 183 Defense Motion for Telephonic Access for Effective Assistance of Counsel (The defense asks to be able to communicate by telephone with the defendants.)

AE 195 Defense Motion to Compel Production of Communications Between Government (The defense seeks information about government involvement with the movie Zero Dark and Filmmakers of Zero Dark Thirty.)

AE 206 Defense (Mohammed) Motion to Cease Daily Intrusive Searches of Living Quarters and Person (The defense wants the prison to use less intrusive means to search for physical contraband.)

AE 036E Prosecution Motion to Clarify Order AE036D (The prosecution asks the Judge to order that the prosecution has control over all witnesses, including remote testimony.)

AE 036G Defense Motion to Compel Discovery (The defense wants the Judge to compel discovery on government policy of producing witnesses.)

AE 036H Defense Motion to Compel Witnesses (The defense wants the Judge to compel witnesses on prosecution statements regarding costs of producing witnesses.)

AE 214 Defense Motion to Compel access to Government of Saudi Arabia. (The defense requests that the Military Commission compel the Secretary of Defense to facilitate communications between Mr. Hawsawi and Saudi Arabia.)

AE 119 Defense Motion to Dismiss and to Compel a Status Determination Pursuant to Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions (The defense asserts that there is a question as to the status of the defendants under Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions and charges should be dismissed.)

AE 164 Defense Motion to Stay all Review Under 10 U.S.C. § 949-4 and to Declare 10 U.S.C. §949p-4(c) and M.C.R.E. 505(f)(3) Unconstitutional and In Violation of UCMJ and Geneva Conventions (The defense argues that the Commission’s decision to permit trial counsel to substitute, summarize, withhold, or prevent access to classified information is unconstitutional.)

AE 018W Joint Defense Motion to Amend AE 018U Privileged Written Communications Order (The defense argues that interpretations of the provisions in the written communication order are restricting attorney-client communications and should be amended to protect the rights to effective assistance of counsel and to prepare and participate in own defense.)

AE 018BB Defense (WBA) Motion to Compel Paper Discovery in Accordance with Privileged Written Communications Order (The defense requests that the Commission order the government to provide a duplicate copy of all paper discovery materials releasable to Mr. bin ‘Attash.)

AE 018MM Defense Motion to Compel Reasonable Privilege Review Team Hours of Operation (The defense requests that the Commission order the Privilege Review Team (PRT) to maintain reasonable weekend hours at all times; or at a minimum, maintain weekend hours for processing materials immediately prior and to and following hearings, or when there are approved attorney-client visits.)

AE 161 Defense (AAA) Motion to Require the Government to Comply with MCRE 506 Regarding redaction of Unclassified Discovery (The defense argues the Commission should order the prosecution to produce the complete, unredacted copies of certain unclassified discovery documents under Military Commissions Rule of  Evidence 506.)

AE 190 Defense (AAA) Motion to Compel Production of Information Relating to Statements Made by Mr. al Baluchi or Potential Witnesses at a Detention Facility Classified Motion AE 191 Defense (AAA) Motion to Compel Production of Information  Classified Motion AE 194 Defense (AAA) Motion to Compel Discovery of Mr. al Baluchi’s Statements (The defense requests that the military judge compel production of all records of all statements made by Mr. al Baluchi in the government’s possession

(Catherine Lemmer, 9/11 Hearings, Guantanamo Bay February 9-13, 2015)

Stakeholder Rights – The Prosecution

I am scheduled to leave for Guantanamo Bay on February 7 to obusbaseserve the Guantanamo Bay military commission pre-trial proceedings in the case against the five 9/11 defendants. The flight is a little longer than necessary because the plane is prohibited from crossing Cuban air space. In addition to the NGO Observers, the plane to Guantanamo Bay will carry many of the other players, including the defense teams, prosecutors, media, and victim family members.

As an NGO Observer, it is my role to attend, observe, analyze, critique, and report back on the Guantanamo Bay proceedings to help ensure that the proceedings are fair and transparent for all of the stakeholders. The Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual sets out the rights and interests of the many stakeholders: the defendants, prosecution, victims and their families, press, witnesses, Joint-Task Force-GTMO, U.S. citizens, international community, and NGO observers.

general martins
Brigadier General Mark Martins (Harvard University)

Since my December 2014 Guantanamo Bay mission I have given a good deal of thought to the rights of one stakeholder group in particular: the prosecution. I met Brigadier General Martins, the chief prosecutor, and some members of his team in December during the NGO observer briefing. During the briefing he was asked the “How did you get here question?” In his response he described his past military service, conversations with family, and his legal education and training.

At the conclusion of our meeting, I thanked him for taking on the role of chief prosecutor. Many might wonder why. The short answer is that the prosecutor represents the rights and interests of society as a whole. The guarantee of a fair and transparent trial is as dependent on the prosecution upholding its duty to all of the stakeholders as it is on the defense teams zealously working on behalf of their clients and the judges engaging in thoughtful and insightful legal analysis when rendering rulings.

Standard 1.1 of the National Prosecution Standards of the National District Attorney’s Association states that “the primary responsibility of a prosecutor is to seek justice, which can only be achieved by the representation and presentation of the truth.” Standard 3-1.2(c) of the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice further notes that it is the duty of the prosecutor to “seek justice, not merely to convict.”  10 USC §949(b) (2014) prohibits the coercion or influence of military commission prosecutors. As a stakeholder entitled to a fair trial the prosecution in fulfilling its duty to seek justice has the right to operate with sufficient resources, without judicial prejudice, and free from outside influence.

The duty to seek justice through the representation and presentation of the truth is not necessarily inconsistent with a military commission proceeding. General Martins has indicated that the prosecution is bringing only those charges it believes it can prove; and that no classified information will be used as evidence as it is important for all the stakeholders to be able to evaluate the merits of the evidence. In short, he has advocated for justice with an open and transparent proceeding. However, General Martins and his team are in the challenging position of bearing the burden of illegal and unethical actions by governmental units over which he has no authority (e.g., the FBI and CIA). It may not be possible to counter the taint of these actions on the military commission proceedings. It remains to be seen how he and his team will balance the consequences of these actions while upholding the duty to seek justice.

He is an equally delicate balance with respect to the families of the victims. General Martins often speaks of justice for the victims. The voice of the victims and their families is a strong and compelling voice and the jury (panel) when finally selected and sitting will undoubtedly empathize with it.  As the proceedings progress, those interested in a fair and open process will need to be attentive to ensure that the prosecution serves justice by remaining neutral to and independent of each individual stakeholder group.

(Catherine Lemmer, 9/11 Hearings, Guantanamo Bay, February 2015)

Three Indiana McKinney Law Professors Travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Professor Lemmer to return to Guantanamo Bay to monitor the 9/11 case against Khalid Shaik Mohammad and 4 co-defendants

IU McKinney Professor Lemmer to return to Guantanamo Bay to monitor the 9/11 case against Khalid Shaik Mohammad and 4 co-defendants

Indiana University McKinney School of Law will send three law professors to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor U.S. Military Commission hearings in February 2015. They represent the law school’s Military Commission Observation Project, also known as the Gitmo Observer, that was selected by the Pentagon to observe, analyze and report on war crimes trials at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.

Professors Edwards & Lemmer – The 9/11 case

Professors George Edwards and Professor Lemmer will monitor pre-trial hearings in the case against five alleged masterminds of the 9/11 airplane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The lead 9/11 case defendant is Khalid Shaik Mohammad (KSM).

Professor George Edwards on a US Military C-17 flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (June 2014)

Professor George Edwards on a US Military C-17 flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (June 2014)

Professors Edwards, who is founding director of Gitmo Observer, said “The IU McKinney School of Law is fortunate that we can help promote transparency at the Guantanamo Bay war crimes trials, and that we can observe, analyze and form conclusions about whether Guantanamo Bay stakeholders are being afforded all rights to which they are entitled. In the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual we are publishing, we examine rights of the defendants, as well as rights of victims and their families, rights of the prosecution, rights of witnesses, rights of the U.S. military personnel who provide Guantanamo Bay security, and rights and interests of all other stakeholders”.

 

Professor Edwards is scheduled to return to Guantanamo Bay from 14 – 21 February 2015. Professor Edwards’ first visit to Guantanamo Bay was in 2007, when he was an expert witness in the case against Australian David Hicks, who at Guantanamo Bay became the first person since World War II to be convicted by a U.S. Military Commission.

Professor Lemmer, who is a lawyer and international librarian, has played instrumental roles in the development of the Gitmo Observer. She is scheduled to travel to Guantanamo Bay for 9 -13 February hearings. She was at Guantanamo Bay in December 2014 for hearings in that same case. Professor Lemmer has been library liaison to the Gitmo Observer, and a key developer of the Gitmo Observer website, briefing materials, and project policies. She has also undertaken to help develop the NGO Observer Library, which will be a functioning resource center for NGO Observers to use while they are on missions to Guantanamo Bay to monitor hearings.

Professor Wilson — The USS Cole / al Nashiri case

Professor Wilson is scheduled for Guantanamo Bay travel to monitor the USS al Nashiri case.

Professor Wilson is scheduled for Guantanamo Bay travel to monitor the USS al Nashiri case.

Professor Wilson, is scheduled to travel to Guantanamo Bay during the week of 23 – 27 February 2015 to monitor the case against al Nashiri, who is alleged to have masterminded the 2000 suicide attack against the USS Cole, a U.S. Naval ship that was docked off the coast of Yemen, and that killed and wounded numerous U.S. sailors.

Professor Wilson, in preparing for his first mission, will be posting his preliminary observations on the Gitmo Observer blog very soon!

Are you interested in travel to Ft. Meade or Guantanamo Bay?

Indian McKinney School of Law students, faculty, staff and graduates are eligible to be considered for travel to Ft. Meade and Guantanamo Bay through the Gitmo Observer. Registration forms are available on our website.

Dean Andy Klein - in front of building

In 2014, Dean Andy Klein was scheduled to travel to Ft. Meade, Maryland to observe Guantanamo Bay courtroom proceedings simultaneously video-cast by secure link. The hearings were cancelled, and Dean Klein is expected to reschedule in the near future.

IU McKinney Law School Dean Andy Klein is expected to travel to Ft. Meade, Maryland to monitor military commission trials during the Spring 2015. 

(Post by by George Edwards)

By the Numbers: An Observation on 9/11 Transparency

Saturday, February 7, will find me again in the departure lounge at Andrews Air Force Base awaiting my departure to Guantanamo Bay to observe the 9/11 hearings scheduled to take place the week of February 9.  The military commission made the 6-page amended docket available on January 26, 2015.  The docket lists over 30 motions; and notes that counsel should be prepared to argue any other motion for which the briefing schedule has concluded.

KSM II Docket February 2015

 

In an effort to prepare for the upcoming hearings, I went to the military commission website to review the relevant documents. Whenever I go to the case site I am reminded of the overwhelming complexity of these hearings. Here are just a few numbers I noted:

  • 2959 documents listed on the docket (269 webpages)
  • 55 documents filed in January 2015
    • 32 documents filed by the defense teams
    • 4 documents files by the prosecution
    • 19 documents filed by the commission

Of the 55 documents filed in January 2015, three are available for public review. One of these three is the amended docket.

Transparency is one key to making sure there are fair and open trials afforded to the defendants held at Guantanamo Bay. The inability to review court filings casts an interesting shadow on the goal of transparency.  Other key elements of fair and open trials are detailed in the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual that I will be taking and distributing to NGO Observers and other interested persons next week.

(Catherine Lemmer, 9/11 Hearings GTMO, February 2015)

From the Guantanamo defense: “This is Not What America is About”

Not What America is About – Meeting with Defense Teams

“This is Not What America is About” was the consistent theme of the nearly two-hour session NGO Observers had with defense teams for three of the 9/11 defendants: Mr. Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi, Mr. Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, and Mr. Ramzi Bin Al Shibh. Held in the NGO Lounge, a one-window room carved out of metal hangar and filled with mis-matched 1980’s college dorm and office furniture, we listened as the legal teams told of FBI spying on privileged attorney-client meetings with the use of listening devices designed to look like smoke detectors, FBI attempts to use members of the legal teams as informants, Joint-Task Force seizure and review of attorney-client correspondence, CIA control of the courtroom that lead to monitoring of conversation at the defense tables (ironically the $12 million courtroom was designed to prevent this kind of activity), and trial delay tactics. In short, as James Harrington, Learned Counsel for Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, said,  “this is not what America is about.”

Judge Pohl

Judge Pohl

Questions and answers were traded with the defense teams about the Military Commission and the process itself. Unlike the established U.S. federal court system, the Military Commission is a new process and every issue is subject to briefing and arguments; and a ruling by Colonel Judge James L. Pohl. James Harrington described the situation as such, it is a “process set up for a particular goal, when rules don’t achieve [that] goal, the rules are changed.” Despite evidence that terrorists can successfully be tried in Federal courts (e.g.,  Sulieman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law) the Military Commission process appears at this point in time to be what we stuck with.

Defense Counsel Wearing Hijab

Learned Counsel Cheryl Bormann, who represents Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, also noted the disparate resources made available to the defense teams. For example, her team has not been assigned an investigator. Ms. Bormann wears a hijab during meetings with her client and court proceedings. She explained that she wears hijab to establish rapport with her client. There was a definite undercurrent of a difference of opinion among the defense teams as to whether the wearing of the hijab will create an unfavorable impact with the judge and jury (panel) when and if the 9/11 case ever gets to trial. (more…)

Last Hearing Option Cancelled – Listening to Both Sides: First Up the Prosecution

The NGO observers had a sliver of hope that we would see actual court proceedings when we learned on Sunday that Walter Ruiz, attorney for Mustafa al Hawsawi one of  9-11 detainees, had filed a motion for a hearing to obtain medical care for his client. The motion alleged that Mr. al Hawsawi was thrown to the ground and shackled on December 7 due to a misunderstanding as to whether he was to return to his cell or to the recreation area. However the Judge (Army Col. James L. Pohl) denied the request. The next hearings for the 9-11 detainees are docketed for February 9.

Given the lack of court proceedings, the NGO observers pushed for meetings with the defense and prosecution teams. The meeting were scheduled around the various 802 conferences and client meetings.

BG_Mark_Martins

Brigadier General Mark S. Martins

We met first with Brigadier General Mark S. Martins, the chief prosecutor, and three members of his team. Prior to the meeting we were provided with his 13 December 2014 prepared remarks. The prepared remarks addressed the release of the Torture Report. It was Brigadier General Martins’ opinion that the Torture Report will not disrupt or derail the Military Commission process. Rather, the release of previously classified information will speed discovery for the defense. He reiterated in his prepared remarks that the prosecution will not introduce as evidence statements obtained through torture.

Brigadier General Martins began the session by introducing his staff and referring us to his prepared comments. He noted that he would not discuss the female guard issue nor the FBI conflict-of-interest issue; the latter because he had walled himself off from this issue. He then went on to answer our questions and provide information.

As in his prepared remarks, Brigadier General Martins discussed the prosecutions’s intent not to use evidence obtained through torture. He noted that it is imperative that the people see the government’s case. This is not possible if the prosecution uses classified information. Ironically, his intent doesn’t seem to be shared by some other powers in the government — for example, those entities fighting the release of the remaining torture materials. (more…)

An illusion of transparency

 Camp X-Ray Experience

The cancellation of today’s hearings left the NGO observers at loose ends.  A few of us asked if we were permitted to visit Camp X-Ray. A van and driver were arranged and we headed out late morning for the 15-minute drive to the no-longer used facility.

There is a strange juxtaposition of life here on the base. On our way to Camp X-ray we drove through military family housing–many of the houses are decorated with festive Christmas decorations–and just as we made the last turn out of the neighborhood there was a woman walking her dog and another woman jogging while pushing children in a double stroller. We could have been in any middle class suburb in America!

Within minutes of the neighborhood we pulled over & viewed Camp X-Ray. 

GBay X ray

Camp X-Ray (detainees were held here from January to April 2002)

Camp X-Ray was the temporary detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The first detainees arrived in January 2002. In April 2002 Camp X-Ray was closed and the detainees transferred to the permanent prison camp–Camp Delta.  It is estimated that Camp X-Ray housed 800 men and teens during its use. Carol Rosenberg (Miami Herald) reported that in 2009 the FBI photographed and documented the camp.  U.S. courts have ordered the preservation of Camp X-Ray facilities where detainees were held at the request of defense lawyers who want it kept intact as a crime scene.

Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay

Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay

Although media representatives and others have toured Camp X-Ray, we were only permitted to view it from the road. Similarly NGO observers are not given access to the detainee facilities and other facilities used by the military commission process. The government challenges the credibility of the NGO observers by limiting our access while demanding that we report that all is well here with the Military Commissions in Guantanamo Bay.

 

9-11 Hearings Halted Due to Female Guard Issue
DSC_0212-001 - Copy

9-11  Parties Court Seating Chart

I won’t be using this seating chart this morning.

Despite closed-door sessions with Judge Pohl on Sunday (14 December 2014), the prosecution and defense did not reach agreement on the female guard issue. A detainee is physically touched by the guards when moved from his cell; for example, for court appearances and attorney meetings. Woman constitute nearly 25% of the guard population at Camp 7 where the high level detainees are imprisoned and are integrated into the details. The detainees object on religious grounds to physical contact with women. If women are in the transfer detail, the detainees refuse to leave their cells; even if it means foregoing attorney meetings. If a detainee refuses to leave his cell, a forced cell extraction occurs (“FCE”). The FCE has been described as a tackle-and-shackle procedure.

All detainees were ordered to appear in court this morning which could have prompted FCEs. In order to avoid FCEs, Judge Pohl cancelled today’s hearings.

The NGO observers are awaiting a briefing from Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins later this afternoon. There is also the possibility of a briefing from the defense teams. I will post updates as soon as I have any news.

Addendum: The continued use of female guards despite the religious concerns of the detainees is perplexing. Other accommodations have been made for the detainees. For example, they are allowed to bring their prayer rugs into the courtroom; action in the courtroom stops to allow the detainees to pray; the direction of Mecca is marked on a wall in the courtroom; and dietary restrictions are taken into account when preparing their meals. Explanations as to why all male guard transfer teams are being used include the following (paraphrased): (i) the armed forces are an equal opportunity employer and women are being integrated; (ii) the judge does not manage or wish to manage the detainee facilities; (iii) 25% of the guard force here is women and it is not possible to take them out of the rotation.  More to come on this.

(Posted by Catherine Lemmer)

Guantanamo Bay – Arrival and Defense Counsel

Flight to Guantanamo

“What’s the movie on this flight?” One hardly expects that to be the first question one hears on a chartered Miami International Air flight bound for the Guantanamo Bay 9-11 hearings. One also doesn’t expect to engage in a humorous movie selection process with members of the defense teams, NGO observers, and a flight attendant – in the end, the “chick flick” was vetoed and “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” went into the play slot.

G Bay 044

Tent 9A – My Home Sweet Home for the next few days.

The Saturday flight from Andrews Air Force Base and the ferry ride to the island were uneventful. I sat in the back of the plane with the media and other NGO observers.

Arrival

Upon arrival, the NGO observers were directed to our tents in Camp Justice, taken to get our base badges, and given a brief NGO orientation about the Guantanamo Naval Base.  What is easy to forget is that the Guantanamo Naval Base has been in existence and operating since 1898; it is only since 2002 that it has served as detention camp for alleged enemy combatants.

Defense Bar-B-Q — Meeting lawyers, press, and others. The week’s agenda.

On Saturday evening the NGO observers were invited to a BBQ by the defense team for Ammar al Baluchi.  Carol Rosenberg and members from the other defense teams attended as well.

James Connell, Learned Counsel for Mr. al Baluchi, gave a lengthy briefing on motions set to be heard Monday and Tuesday. In addition to the conflict of interest matters (see my earlier post), the issue of the use of female guards is occupying a fair amount of time. At issue is whether female guards should be able to physically touch the prisoners as they are being prepared for transfer from their cells. The prisoners object on religious grounds to being touched by the female guards. They have forgone meetings with their attorneys if female guards were part of the rotation that would move them from their cells to the meeting. (more…)

Andrews Air Force Base – Ready to Depart
Boarding Pass - Andrews to GTMO - Catherine Lemmer - 12 December 2014

My Boarding Pass for the Andrews to Guantanamo Bay flight.

Sunrise at Andrews Air Force Base

Arrived at 5:30 am and waited in the very dark parking lot at Andrews Air Force Base until our escort arrived and took us to the terminal. Stood in line, checked my bag, and got my ticket. It is a little surreal – there are a few military personnel and families awaiting transfers but most everyone in the departure lounge is headed to Guantanamo Bay – yet there are periodic announcements about what to do if there is unattended baggage and actions to take in the event of an active shooter situation.

Now just hanging out in the departures lounge and talking with a wide variety of people. I’ve chatted with a reporter from The Daily Beast, a local independent D.C. newspaper, and two reporters from Germany. I asked the two reporters from Germany what impact, if any, the release of the Torture Report had in Germany. It is safe to say that the reputation of the United States has suffered immensely, especially in Germany where the Torture Report follows closely on the NSA “listening” scandal.

Coffee & Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual Distribution

I’ve met a few of the other NGO observers and now am off to find a coffee and introduce myself to others. We have got a few hours before departure!

High on my priority list is to distribute copies of our Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual to the other NGO representatives. I hope to get good feedback from them as to how to improve the Manual for future Observers and others interested in exploring the issue of fair trials at Guantanamo Bay.

(Posted by Catherine Lemmer)

Preparing for Guantanamo Bay 9-11 Hearings
Our plane to Guantanamo Bay is scheduled to depart from Andrews Air Force Base on Saturday morning, 13 December 2014.

Our plane to Guantanamo Bay is scheduled to depart from Andrews Air Force Base on Saturday morning, 13 December 2014.

Panic like a 1st year law student or new law firm associate!

It is easy for an Guantanamo Bay fair trial NGO observer to experience the same sort of panic that a first year law firm associate experiences when thrown into a complex litigation matter. I’ve spent a fair bit of time over the last few days reading and re-reading the motions to be heard next week when I am in Guantanamo Bay. Despite my homework, I am not sure I fully comprehend the significance of many of the details.

 

Blog posts – to a fair trial – Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual.

Generally, my blog posts during my Guantanamo Bay mission will not focus so much on the substance of the legal arguments related to the case. Instead, they will focus on right to a fair trial issues, as discussed in the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual. However, on the eve of my departure, I wanted to post on the defendants in the hearings next week, the pre-trial motions scheduled, and on the odd assortment of categories of lawyers expected to be present to represent the defendants and to represent the U.S.

The hearings for 15 – 16 December 2014

Five motions are scheduled to be heard during two days of hearings at Guantanamo Bay in the case against 5 alleged masterminds of the World Trade Center / Pentagon attacks on 9-11. All five defendants, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin ‘Atash, Ramzi bin al Shibh, Ammar al Baluchi (aka Ali Abdul Aziz Ali), Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, and their legal defense teams are expected to be present for the hearings. Also expected to be present is Independent Counsel appointed for Mr. bin al Shibh.

The regular prosecutors in the case will likely not be in the courtroom during at least some of the hearings, but the U.S. will be represented by a “Special Review Team” that was called in to represent the U.S. next week because of conflict of interest issues related to due to allegations related to the FBI allegedly infiltrating defense teams on the case.  (more…)

Senate Torture Report on CIA’s Detention & Interrogation Program – Impact on Next Week’s 9-11 Hearings

The moment I saw the CNN feed with respect to the release of the 525-page Executive Summary of the Committee Study of the CIA’s Detention & Interrogation Program by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence come across my monitor this morning I have been considering the impact of its contents on the upcoming December 15th and 16th 9-11 hearings at Guantanamo Bay I am scheduled to attend. Throughout the day I listened to reports and interviews of commentators and others. If there is any good news in this matter, it perhaps comes in the words of Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, when in response to a question by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer she said: “I want the facts to be there so this never happens again.”

The Committee made 20 findings and conclusions; which are listed in the first 19 pages of the report:

  1. The CIA’s use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.
  2. The CIA’s justification for the use of  its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.
  3. The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.
  4. The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.
  5. The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program.
  6. The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program. Front Cover - CIA Detention & Interrogation - Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - Executive Summary - Released 9 December 2014 - Redacted
  7. The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.
  8. The CIA’s operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.
  9. The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA’s Office of Inspector General.
  10. The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques.
  11. The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.
  12. The CIA’s management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the program’s duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003.
  13. Two contract psychologists devised the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.
  14. CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.
  15. The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA’s claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate.
  16. The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques.
  17. The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management failures.
  18. The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program.
  19. The CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to its unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.
  20. The CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States’ standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.

In the Forward to the Committee Study, Senator Dianne Feinstein writes that it is her personal opinion that “CIA detainees were tortured . . . and that the conditions of confinement and the use of authorized and unauthorized interrogation and conditioning techniques were cruel, inhuman, and degrading.” She urges Americans to remember the context (those days following September 11th)  in which the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program was created; not as an excuse or rationale for the actions of the CIA, “but rather as a warning for the future.”  Senator Feinstein’s advice seems particularly appropriate with the growing threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIL or ISIS) and its ongoing horrific and public treatment of those it deems to be its enemies.

I suspect that people at Guantanamo Bay will be discussing the Report when I am there next week. I will post on what I learn from the discussions. The full report is below:

[office src=”https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=4496F33CBC0BA017&resid=4496F33CBC0BA017%2123964&authkey=AKl5jI7aKcxD7Nk&em=2″ width=”576″ height=”388″]

 

(Posted by Catherine Lemmer)

CIA Detention & Interrogation Report Released – Details Torture of GTMO Prisoners

Today the Senate released the Executive Summary of its report that details torture of Guantanamo Bay prisoners, many of whom were held in secret prisons spread around the globe and subjected to treatment deemed “harsh” and “brutal” and that rises to the level of torture.

The report is titled the “Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program,” and resulted from a 5-year study conducted by the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence.

The 525-page Executive Summary, which is heavily redacted, can be found here: CIA Detention & Interrogation Senate Report – 9 December 2014

[office src=”https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=4496F33CBC0BA017&resid=4496F33CBC0BA017%2123964&authkey=AKl5jI7aKcxD7Nk&em=2″ width=”576″ height=”388″]

Minutes after the Executive Summary was released, defense counsel in the 9-11 case, that is pending at Guantanamo Bay, circulated an e-mail that stated “The government has excluded from the report the identities of the torturers, the locations of the torture, and many other facts no doubt contained in the remaining 6,125 pages of the report.”

Indiana Law Affiliate Traveling to GTMO this weekend

Ms. Catherine Lemmer, an international librarian at the Indiana University McKinney School of Law, is scheduled to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba this weekend for hearings in the 9-11 case. Ms. Lemmer, who has been instrumental in the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual and in building the The Gitmo Observer website and blog, will be posting her impressions of the “Torture Report” soon.

The Importance of Due Process – 9-11 Case – (Ft. Meade) (Frank Garrett)

My name is Frank Garrett and I am a third-year law student at Indiana University, Robert H. McKinney School of Law. I leave tomorrow morning for Fort Meade, Maryland to attend the 9-11 hearings next week. This will be my first act as a member of the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (“MCOP”).

I’m attending the hearings in order to help ensure that the 9-11 defendants get a fair trial. In my initial post, I’d like to explain why that’s important to me.

My interest in the MCOP stems from reading Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) in a Federal Courts class last spring. In Boumediene, the Supreme Court held a provision of the Military Commissions Act that stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus petitions of Gitmo detainees unconstitutional. The government argued that the Constitution did not apply at Gitmo, or at least not to non-citizens, because the United States technically did not have sovereignty over Gitmo. When Cuba and the United States entered into a lease agreement in 1903, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over Gitmo. However, the United States has had complete  control over Gitmo for over 100 years.  In other words, the government argued in Boumediene that because the United (more…)

Afternoon al Nashiri Hearing – 4 August 2014 – GITMO – Qifan Wang
Judge Spath is presiding over the al Nashiri USS Cole case.

Judge Spath presides over the al Nashiri USS Cole case.

Lunch 

After the NGO Observers had a quick lunch in the NGO Lounge, we returned to the courtroom for the continuation of the case against al Nashiri, an alleged mastermind of the USS Cole attack off the coast of Yemen that killed 17 U.S. Sailors and injured dozens more.

Judge fails to recuse himself.

Unsurprisingly, the first thing in the afternoon is Judge Spath’s denying the motion of recusal.

How many judges are on the case? Who is in charge?

The court move to motion AE305 dealing with another very strange situation.

Chief Judge Pohl presided over the al Nashiri case from its beginning, until last month when he detailed a successor, Judge Spath, to handle the case.

But Judge Pohl reserved his authority regarding some al Nashiri motions. The result is at this specific time, there are two military judges in charge.

The defense makes a textual interpretation of the Military Commission Act, which consistently use the singular form (‘a military judge’ and then ‘the military judge’). The defense wants Judge Spath to reconsider some prior motions Judge Pohl had ruled upon.

On the other side, the government does not have much trouble with that. The government is arguing that there is no actual overlap between the authority of Judge Pohl and Judge Spath.

Chief Judge Pohl originally presided over al Nashiri case.

Chief Judge Pohl originally presided over al Nashiri case.

Judge Spath asked whether he can issue order in contradiction with Judge Pohl’s former rulings. The answer would be yes. Then it just becomes more confusing since what would be the actual point for Judge Pohl to preserve this authority? The defense labels the potential impact on the court as ‘unlawful influence’, while the government rebuts as there is no prejudice shown.

It is somehow difficult for me to comment on this motion and these arguments. Just like lots of other motions or procedures, this is a unique situation and it’s foreseeably hard to find any reference or precedents. I agree that if any new fact or law occurred, a motion for reconsideration  (more…)

al Nashiri Hearings begin – August 4th Morning – GITMO – Qifan Wang

al Nashiri, the alleged USS Cole attack mastermind, in the GTMO courtroom

My First GTMO Hearing

This is the very first hearing I’m participating in as an NGO Observer at GTMO. It is for the al Nashiri case against the person charged with being mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

Moving to the GTMO Courtroom; Prosecutor Statement

We walked from our tents to the court. After strict security checks, the NGO team entered the gallery. The seats are assigned and we all sit on the left end of the room. It is said the families of the victims are on the left side. While we are waiting for the hearing, we learn that the Chief Prosecutor Brigadier General Mark Martins gave a statement yesterday afternoon. He made some brief remarks about the recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, al Bahlul v. United States, upholding the conspiracy conviction and vacating the material support for terrorism and solicitation convictions. Also, he mentioned about the upcoming discussions about motions and orders around AE120AA. This is also among the main issues for this week’s hearings.

Inside the Court — The Hearings Begin

Before the hearing starts, the staff in the courtroom check with the interpreters whether the system works. The interpreters are obviously in another room, rather than being present in the courtroom. At about 9 a.m., the hearing starts on time. This is the first time that the Air Force Col. Judge Vance Spath appears for the week. The defendant, Mr. Al Nashiri is sitting in the courtroom, physically close to his learned counsel, Mr. Kammen. There is only one person sitting between them. I’m not sure who this person in the middle is, and suspect that he is the interpreter on the defense team. Mr. al Nashiri is wearing a white T shirt and looks in an (more…)

Pre-Hearing Thoughts Fort Meade 9/11 Case – Matt Kubacki

I write this after a few days of recovery from the July 2014 Bar Exam, so not only is there excitement to attend the hearings, but also much relief to have finished the Bar.  That being said, please excuse any errors, my brain still has not recovered (those who have taken the Bar will know, those who will can consider this something to look forward to).  The timing is perfect as it comes after a week of post-bar recovery and a few days before I return to the Marion County Prosecutors Office.

My thoughts leading up are to do as much background research on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as possible, reviewing prior posts here, and making sure to thoroughly review all the documents provided to us.  After telling family and friends of this opportunity, I realize more just how unique this opportunity is. The ability to watch, hear and report on these proceedings will truly be once in a lifetime.

I will be driving from Indiana to Fort Meade Sunday 8/10 and returning Tuesday 8/12, so my time will be short, but as detailed as possible.  We have been provided with a checklist of sorts that we are to be referring to during the hearings, so I will be basing most of my general descriptions from that.  From a personal standpoint, I will be interested to see how the hearings proceed and whether they incorporate the “fairness” aspect of the Judicial system that we are taught in law school.  I know many in the press and public are skeptical, but I’ll refrain from voicing my opinion until I am able to witness the proceedings.  My thoughts/observations will also draw from my experience with the Prosecutors Office, but fear not, I am not one to think everyone is guilty by their appearance in the courtroom.

I see that comments are available here, so if any interested readers are curious or would like something answered, please do not hesitate to post.  Until the next post!

 

-Matt Kubacki, 2014 IU McKinney Law Graduate-