I was approved and have traveled to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for U.S. Military Commission hearings against five alleged September 11 conspirators.
My mission
I graduated with a J.D. from Indiana University McKinney School of Law in 1994, and am an employment lawyer in Indianapolis. When I was in law school, there were few international law opportunities for students.
Several years after I graduated, the school founded its Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), which for over 20 years has offered students and graduates many international opportunities. One of its projects is the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP), which sends faculty, staff, students, graduates to Guantanamo, after the program received special status from the Pentagon. I am thankful and excited about this opportunity!
My invitation to travel to Guantanamo and invaluable resources from the observer project
My mission through the IU McKinney project is to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on the hearings against the 5 alleged 9/11 co-conspirators.
The Defendants
Khalid Shaik Mohammad is the lead defendant, and is accused of masterminding the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and overseeing the operation and training of the hijackers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Walid bin Attash allegedly ran an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan where two of the 19 September 11 hijackers were trained. Ramzi bin al Shibah allegedly helped the German cell of hijackers find flight schools and enter the United States, and helped finance the plot. Ammar al Baluchi, Khalid Shaik Mohammad’s nephew, allegedly sent money to the hijackers for expenses and flight training, and helped some of them travel to the U.S. Mustafa al Hawsawi allegedly also helped facilitate fund transfers. All 9/11 defendants were arrested in the early 2000s, were held in CIA blacksites, and transferred to Guantanamo in 2006.
Khalid Shaik Mohammad (“KSM”)
My previous Guantanamo trip.
This is my second trip to “Gitmo” (the nickname for the naval station). In January 2018, I attended hearings in the case of alleged al -Qaeda commander Abd al Iraqi/Nashwan al Tamir. Al Iraqi / al Tamir has had five back surgeries in the past nine months, and that contributed to his having only two half-day hearings days the week I was here. Incidentally, hearings in Al-Iraqi’s case were again cut short this last week when he suffered spasms in the Courtroom and was rushed to a medical facility.
Last week, the sole high security courtroom at Guantanamo was double-booked, with hearings scheduled concurrently for the 9/11 defendants and for al Iraqi/al Tamir. Only one set of hearings can be held here at a time. Last week, the military judge in the 9/11 case, Marine Col. Keith A. Parella, held closed hearings in the Washington D.C. area, the first time a Guantanamo military commission criminal hearing in a death penalty case has been held in the continental U.S. Parella has presided since August 27 and replaced Army Col. James Pohl, who had presided continuously since 2011.
Preparing for My Trip to Guantanamo.
On Saturday, 10 November 2018, I traveled on a military flight from Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C. to Guantanamo Bay. Motion hearings in the 9/11 case are scheduled to take place all week. There will be eight other representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) observing the hearings with me.
My preparation for the mission to Guantanamo has included reviewing several publications of the Program in International Human Rights Law. These include the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual: Excerpts, which has introduced me to the relevant international and U.S. law. I believe this publication will be very helpful as I seek to analyze, critique and report on my Guantanamo experiences.
One of the NGO representatives, from the National Institute for Military Justice, provided the other NGOs documents relevant to the issues that are expected to be addressed. These are about 50 pleadings in the case, and a docket showing 17 motions which the court needs to address. More recent filings remain confidential, an issue which Al-Baluchi’s team hopes will also be addressed. This will certainly make for a full and interesting week.
We attended a barbeque hosted by al Baluchi’s defense team on Saturday night. The al Baluchi team sent a summary of five main issues that they expected would be addressed, and confirmed that Judge Parella intended to address those issues in a conference held earlier on Saturday.
The first is issue political influence with the military justice process, including the coordinated firing of senior military commission officials and the current CIA Director’s comments regarding the guilt of the accused.
The other issues are: defense access to additional information about CIA torture, defense access to other evidence, conditions of confinement issues, and the transparency of the military commissions. In January, our group of NGOs attended a similar barbecue hosted by Al-Iraqi’s defense team later in the week. Our meeting with al Baluchi’s defense teams this early in the week has helped us all understand the issues that will be addressed this week much better.
I plan to draft more blog posts as the week progresses.
Other NGOs and I relaxing before the start of a busy week
Paul Logan
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
I’m at Andrews Air Force Base waiting for a plane to take me to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to monitor hearings in the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks (the “9/11 case”). The hearings are scheduled to occur from 28 April through 5 May 2018.
I arrived in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, April 26 and have been preparing for my final exams that I am taking the week after I return from Gtmo.
This week’s hearings may likely include the following issues, including motions regarding CIA black site location information, access for the Defense to interview current or former members of the CIA, the Trump administration’s influence on military justice process, access to further evidence through discovery, current confinement issues, and procedural issues regarding the speed at which unclassified pleadings are released publicly.
I will report back after my observation this week.
Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, ’18)
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
I was confirmed by the Pentagon to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on military commission hearings at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GTMO) in the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks (the “9/11 case”). The hearings are scheduled to occur from 28 April through 5 May 2018.
Meeting fellow NGO observers in Gtmo during my last observation, October 2017.
This will be my fourth military commission observation. My first observation was at Ft. Meade, Maryland, where I observed hearings in the 9/11 case via CCTV in October 2016. My second observation was in January 2017 at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where I observed hearings in the case against Hadi al Iraqi / Nashwan al Tamir, an alleged high-ranking member of al Qaeda. My third observation took me back to Guantanamo Bay where I attended the 9/11 hearings in October 2017.
Background and Interest in Observing
I became interested in the MCOP during the fall of my second year of law school after hearing about the program and other students’ experiences in observing the hearings. Stemming from my interest in human rights, I applied to participate in the MCOP observations.
Touristing in a bell tower while working with refugees at an NGO in Prague.
In the summer of 2017, I worked in Lisbon, Portugal and Prague, Czech Republic at non-governmental organizations (NGOs) through the Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), which is the program that administers the MCOP. During my time in Prague, I had the incredible experience of working with people seeking asylum in Czech Republic.
The PIHRL recently celebrated 20 years of successful internship placements around the world. I was also a research assistant to the program director of PIHRL in the fall of 2017. This coming fall, I will be working abroad in an area of international human rights law.
Preparing to Observe
Even though my observation is a few weeks away, I am preparing now so that I am fully informed and updated on the hearings. I am paying careful attention to a document developed and written by MCOP participants titled What Human Rights Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Observers and Others May Want to Know Before Traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This document, of which Professor George Edwards is the principal author, provides all of the information necessary to successfully prepare for and complete a mission to Guantanamo. Without this guide, preparing for my mission would not be complete, even though I have traveled to Ft. Meade and Guantanamo in the past. It is a resource that is full of information not only for the first-time participant, but also for the seasoned observer.
I have also been keeping up-to-date on the hearings and goings on at Guantanamo by following the Miami Herald online, as journalist Carol Rosenberg keeps close watch on the proceedings and reports on the hearings and beyond. I have also found Twitter to be instrumental in keeping informed about the hearings.
I will soon begin to prepare my travel arrangements to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where I will depart to Guantanamo Bay.
NGO Coins
The MCOP has developed a special coin for distribution. I will have a few coins available during this observation.
Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, ’18)
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
I traveled to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from 11 to 18 November 2017 to observe military
Four other NGOs and I at Guantanamo’s Camp Justice that week
commission proceedings against Mr. al Nashiri, who is facing war crime charges as the alleged mastermind of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole that killed 17 U.S. sailors and wounded dozens more. I am a student at Indiana University McKinney School of Law, and I was a non-governmental organization (NGO) representative on behalf of McKinney’s Military Commission Observation Project. I was there to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on my experiences.
My Previous Guantanamo Observation
Lighthouse at Guantanamo
Court was in session four of the five days during my week at Guantanamo. Most of the witnesses were called by the prosecution to testify about evidence they had collected from the USS Cole after the bombing and to verify the chain of custody.
Some of the witnesses were called to testify about the ongoing professional responsibility issue in the case. The issue is complicated, and is discussed more in-depth here and here.
In brief, Mr. al Nashiri’s Learned Counsel (an attorney who is experienced in death penalty cases) and two other civilian attorneys for Mr. al Nashiri did not travel to Guantanamo Bay for hearings that week as they contended that the Chief Defense Counsel of the Military Commissions released them from representing Mr. al Nashiri for “good cause.” The Judge disagreed with the Chief Defense Counsel’s decision and held him in contempt for refusing to rescind his order to release counsel and for refusing to take the stand and testify about the issues. The Judge has asserted that these three defense counsel have “abandoned” Mr. al Nashiri.
In January 2018, the Judge ordered the prosecution to subpoena the three defense counsel and recommended that the remaining defense counsel, LT Piette, become “more comfortable handling capital matters” so that the case can continue forward. The case did arguably move forward in January, in the sense that hearings were held that month, with LT Piette sitting in the courtroom as the only lawyer representing Mr. al Nashiri.
The Judge is awaiting decisions from two federal district courts.
Further Thoughts
Now that time has passed since I observed Mr. al Nashiri’s proceedings I have had time
In front of the North East gate which separates the U.S. and Cuba
to reflect on his case, and on the military commission proceedings in general.
U.S. military commissions are not new, and in fact have been around since the Revolutionary War. Our current military commission process is guided by the Military Commission Act (MCA) of 2009, which built upon the MCA of 2006, which followed from an Executive Order signed by President Bush in 2001. The MCA of 2009 is the legal authority for this court-martial/federal criminal court hybrid, and a legal observer can see the qualities of both criminal processes present in these military commissions.
Guantanamo defendants and defendants in the U.S. are under law meant to be afforded due process, and all have the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. On the other hand, their trials are guided by two different, but similar, rules of evidence. Both courts-martial and military commissions are generally open proceedings, but both can be closed for classified sessions. Courts-martial and military commissions both have a panel of military members and are not a trial by a judge or with a civilian jury.
Reasons for Wanting to Return
Flying over Cuba
I hope to travel back to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to either continue monitoring the commissions against Mr. al Nashiri, or to begin monitoring the commissions against Mr. Khalid Shaik Mohammad, also known as “KSM”, and his four co-defendants, also known as the “9/11 five.” I want to return to monitor the commissions against Mr. al Nashiri because I have observed his hearings in the past, and I have since been following his case.
I am also interested in observing the 9/11 five since the courtroom and military commission proceedings were designed to specifically try the 9/11 defendants. Further, I was in 2nd grade when 9/11 happened, and it is an event that I remember clearly and grew up learning about. It is an event that affected nearly everyone in the U.S. and beyond. In addition, 9/11 was a key event that changed how the U.S. combats terrorism and seeks to protect national security. I would be interested in observing and analyzing how the government is working towards those goals of counterterrorism and national security via the military commissions.
For either case, I believe it would be a great opportunity to learn more about this hybrid court-martial/federal criminal court process. I believe I would also gain insight that I could bring back to the Program in International Human Rights Law at McKinney so I can contribute to the Know Before You Go Guide and the Fair Trial Manual.
In addition to traveling to Guantanamo Bay, I would like to travel to Ft. Meade, Maryland, where the Guantanamo proceedings are broadcast by live CCTV to a secure room. This will offer me another perspective on the issue of openness and transparency of the proceedings, which is outlined in the MCA.
While I was observing the military commissions against Mr. al Nashiri in November
Camp Justice, where I lived with the other NGOs for the week
2017, I was taking courses in Counterterrorism, Evidence, Professional Responsibility, and Criminal Procedure: Investigation back at Indiana University McKinney School of Law. I found all these classes to be helpful in understanding what was happening in the courtroom. I believe I will now have an even fuller understanding of what is happening in the courtroom since I have completed those courses. I am now currently taking Military Law and Criminal Procedure: Adjudication. Considering the military commissions are essentially halfway between a court-martial and a federal criminal trial, all the mentioned classes are very helpful. I also greatly appreciate that I have the opportunity to observe what I am learning at McKinney in the real world.
Further, I would have the opportunity to achieve the goals of McKinney’s Military Commission Observation Project: to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on my experiences. I would be able to bring what I observed first-hand, critique and analyze it, and share it with the public via the Gitmo Observer.
Jessica Ayer (J.D. Candidate, ’19)
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
The Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law nominated me, and the Pentagon confirmed me, to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor U.S. Military Commission hearings in the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks.
This was my fourth scheduled trip as part of Indiana’s project, and my second trip to Guantanamo. I was originally scheduled to observe at the beginning of October in the case against Hadi al Iraqi, an alleged high-ranking member of al Qaeda, but as reported by Carol Rosenberg in the Miami Herald, the hearings were canceled due to a medical issue experienced by Hadi.
Breaking news concerning the case U.S. v. al Nashiri
A couple of days before we arrived at Guantanamo, we heard news that 3 members of the defense counsel for Mr. al Nashiri, who is charged in a separate death penalty case, were released from their defense roles by Brigadier General Baker, chief defense counsel. Mr. al Nashiri is accused of orchestrating the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in late 2000, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
The three members of the defense, including learned counsel Mr. Rick Kammen, quit earlier this month over a “secret ethical issue” that the defense claimed compromised attorney-client privacy. A learned counsel is an attorney with experience in capital cases, and whose representation and presence is a requirement for these proceedings. Today, judge Air Force Col. Vance Spath scheduled a contempt hearing to be held tomorrow Wednesday after the three members of the defense refused to appear at war court. Read more at the Miami Herald.
Arrival at Guantanamo
We arrived at Guantanamo on Saturday, 14 October and were immediately escorted to our lodgings where we quickly unpacked and began to settle in. That afternoon, our
Standing at the Camp Justice sign a few hours after arriving at Gitmo.
escort drove us to the Navy Exchange where we were able to stock up on snacks for the week, since our dining options are limited mostly to the galley (cafeteria food) or fast food (Subway, McDonald’s, Starbucks). We obtained our security badges and were instructed to wear any time we were home at Camp Justice.
Monday, 16 October
We entered the courtroom and were assigned seats in the gallery, which is separated from the courtroom by thick glass. There is a 40-second sound delay for the purposes of national security, where the judge is able to cut the feed to the gallery and the CCTV in case of accidental or otherwise classified discussion.
The hearings began promptly today with the defense counsel advising Judge Pohl that there were motions in the works to address the issue of possibly compromised meeting spaces after the developments concerning Mr. Kammen and the al Nashiri case came to light prior to the week’s hearings. Judge Pohl said he wasn’t certain that Brigadier General Baker has the authority to disband the trial team.
The defense also raised the issue of claims of lack of resources by the Joint Task Force (JTF) that directly affect the meetings between counsel and defendant. The Joint Task Force is in charge of the operations at Guantanamo, including detainee operation logistics and detainee transfer/supervision. Since the typical meeting spaces will likely be investigated after the developments in the al Nashiri case, the question concerned where the next most adequate space to meet with the defendants will be.
The defense raised a discovery issue — their ongoing request for Brady material. Brady refers to the case Brady v. Maryland, where the court held that the prosecution must turn over any evidence favorable to the defendant, or, exculpatory evidence (also known as “Brady material”). The Government responded that the defense has been provided with any material they (the Government) deemed relevant, and that the defense can request more discovery. The defense argued that the purpose of discovery is not to have to hunt for evidence. The Government referred to a “voluminous discovery” request by the defense, and said that the Government has no obligation to “spoon-feed” discovery to the defense.
The unofficial transcripts for Monday’s hearings may be found here.
Court recessed for lunch at around 1:00PM and the rest of the session was closed to observers.
Tuesday, 17 October
There was no court today, so the NGOs took the day to sightsee, relax, and catch up on work.
Wednesday, 18 October
The day began with news of government-seized attorney-client privileged material
The hearings resumed Wednesday morning, and started with the news that the JTF had seized the defendants’ laptops which the defense counsel argued contained attorney-client privileged material. Judge Pohl asked the Government to explain why the JTF seized the material. The Government stated that they were working on filing a response to what had occurred that morning and why.
The first motion was picked up from Monday at the end of the session concerning an issue of metadata that was brought by the defense. The defense argued that the prosecution turned over photographic evidence with all metadata stripped off. Metadata is the information that attaches to a digital photograph, including location, date, and time of the photograph, and depending on the sophistication of the equipment used, could even reveal the name of the person who took the photograph. The defense argued that such information is important to their case. The Government responded that the metadata was not relevant, and that the Government will seek to classify the information if the Judge orders that the government turn over metadata to the defense.
The defense also raised a motion to compel the Government to release information regarding certain torture sites, including information on the confinement buildings. The defense sought any architectural drawings, contracts, agreements, etc. pertaining to the buildings. The defense argued that prison architecture can typically reveal a lot about the conditions under which the detainees were held. The actual sites were destroyed or decommissioned, and the defense argued this information may help draw the picture of the conditions under which the defendants were held while at black sites around the world.
The Government responded that the defense could obtain this information from the defendants themselves, and that any information remaining on the black sites is classified “across the board”. The Government argued that while the information may be material to the defenses’ preparation, it is inapplicable to the case because the Government is not using building logistics in their case against the defendants.
The unofficial transcripts for Wednesday’s hearings may be found here.
The session ended late in the afternoon, at around 5PM. The gallery emptied at the close of session, but the NGO observers stayed behind to discuss the day’s events. During this time, we observed one of the four alleged war criminals rise and begin the Islamic Call to Prayer as the four other men stayed seated and continued discussion with their defense
Photo by Janet Hamlin of the five defendants in the KSM case in 2012. Source.
teams. Even though we had the thick glass separating us from where he was standing in the courtroom, we could still lightly hear the sound of the call. It was a surreal moment for the observers, and one I will never forget.
Thursday, 19 October
Today’s hearing was delayed by over an hour because of yesterday’s JTF seizure of the defendants’ laptops that contained attorney-client privileged material. The facts were somewhat unclear, but I believe that the laptops of four of the five defendants were seized as the defendants were on their way to court either the hearing or meeting with their counsel, and one of their materials was seized from the defendant’s cell. The Government noted that they will file notice with an explanation of why the seizure happened, and that the facts will justify the seizure.
This has been the third major seizure of attorney-client privileged material since this case started. The defense asked the judge for transparency in this process and the Government responded that they were filing a response as to what happened. Judge Pohl asked the Government to tell the courtroom what had happened, but the Government insisted that the judge would be interested in seeing the notice first.
The defense presented a list of over 100 potential witness. The defense mentioned the logistical issues that might arise with that high number of witnesses potentially coming to Guantanamo. This includes the issue of sufficient lodging, the threat to judicial independence if hearings are canceled and rescheduled, the fact that there is only one courtroom for all the current cases, scheduling conflicts for all parties involved, etc. The defense mentioned that resources are already an issue and affecting the military commission process.
Government invoked national security privilege during defense oral argument
Around half way through the defenses’ presentation on the proposed witness list, the Government quickly rose to address Judge Pohl and invoked the privilege of national security in regards to the presentation. From the observer standpoint, it seemed that the Government was invoking national security because of information found on the slides, which the judge confirmed with the defense had been sent through the appropriate review and declassification procedure prior to the hearing.
Judge Pohl issued a 10-minute recess so that the Government could figure out what the issue was. During the confusion, the obviously frustrated judge addressed the Government, “Now what do I do?”
The NGOs were allowed to remain in the gallery and we were able to observe the confusion in the courtroom.
Once court was reconvened, the Government requested more time. Judge Pohl inquired into what he deemed an arbitrary interruption to the proceedings and told the Government that there was no classified information in the presentation and therefore no reason to assert national security privilege. There was confusion because the Government did not continue to object to the defenses’ presentation, and the hearing was suddenly free to continue. Judge Pohl asked the Government if the defense was allowed to proceed, to which the Government replied that the defense may continue argument as planned.
The afternoon continued with oral argument on motions to compel the identities of witnesses who were only identified with pseudonyms, and also a motion to compel the location of black sites.
Towards the end of the day’s hearing, defense counsel brought up the seizure of the defendants’ laptops, seeking resolution. The defense claimed that there was no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion for the laptops to be seized. The Government’s position was that the laptops would not be returned and the Government would file more pleadings on the issue “in light of the circumstances described”.
Over 24 hours after the attorney-client privileged material was first seized by the JTF, Judge Pohl issued an order that the materials be secured with tamper-proof tape, and placed in a receptacle secured with the same.
The unofficial transcripts for Thursday’s hearings are not available.
Final thoughts
A lot of questions came up during our NGO discussions throughout the week, mostly surrounding the seizure of attorney-client privileged material, the Government invoking national security privilege on declassified material, and also about the judge’s role in the
A look at the NGO Resource tent where the NGOs retreat to socialize and work after each hearing.
whole process. The defense seems to be strongly advocating for the interest of their clients, and going above and beyond in their duty to the rule of law and the constitutionally-bound process.
While I heard less from the government this week, it seems that they are ultimately interested in achieving justice, but hold a lot of control over the court (such as having the immediate ability to stop all discussion as happened at the hearing on Thursday, even though there was no classified material being discussed.)
My hope for these proceedings is that more Americans become interested and involved in something that a lot of people don’t even know is currently ongoing. Observation is difficult considering that the methods to watch these pre-trial hearings are severely limited, but there are great resources online from both media and NGO observers that members of the public may follow.
Even then, I noticed that the daily transcripts that the military commissions posts on the webpage at www.mc.mil are not complete, with some days missing hours’ worth of transcripts, and some days, such as Thursday, 19 October, missing completely from the website. Without observer and media reporting, the public would likely not know what happens are Guantanamo war court.
Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, ’18)
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
From my perch as an Indianapolis city employee working in economic development, I don’t often receive an email inquiring about the seriousness of my interest in traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
But that’s exactly what happened on January 31, 2017.
Indiana University McKinney School of Law Professor George Edwards, an International Human Rights Law Professor of mine and who was also my third-year law school research paper faculty supervisor, emailed me with a simple question: “Are you available for a quick phone call?”
I was puzzled. I had, years ago, inquired about the law school’s then new Guantanamo Bay Military Commissions Observation Project (MCOP), but after a few exchanges with Professor Edwards and other inquiries, I realized it was simply bad timing on my part.
That said, it turns out I had been in contact with Professor Edwards on an unrelated matter, and renewed my interest in traveling to Guantanamo Bay to monitor military commissions. Professor Edwards and I discussed the project, and he impressed upon me the gravity of the undertaking.
Professor Edwards asked If I really want to travel to Guantanamo Bay to do the work; which includes lots of preparation, work once you’re there, and work once you return.
He reminded me of the importance of the work of our law school’s Program in International Human Rights Law generally, and about the importance of its Guantanamo Bay work which began more than a decade ago.
It was quite clear this wasn’t a passive trip to Cuba; this was to be taken very seriously and the hard work required of each individual would ideally result in substantive and value add contributions to the policies and procedures Professor Edwards and his partners have worked hard to create.
After a discussion with my spouse, I was officially committed.
Background and Experience
For some background, I was not deeply involved with human rights when I was a law student, and I am not a human rights attorney. Since graduating from McKinney law school in 2010, I have worked in the private sector for a global aerospace company and in the nonprofit sector for a disabilities services organization. I currently work for the City of Indianapolis managing real estate transactions and economic development projects and strategy.
In short, I did not think that I was an obvious candidate for a mission to Gitmo as part of a legal proceedings observation effort. But, it is my hope that my outside viewpoint and fresh set of eyes can be beneficial and offer a different perspective as I observe and try to contribute to the understanding of existing guidelines and procedures.
Back to the Storyline
Once I told Professor Edwards I was committing to the assignment, it was time to better understand the process and the various entities involved.
The Indiana University McKinney School of Law Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), under the leadership of Professor Edwards, established the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP). After the Pentagon Guantanamo Bay Convening Authority granted MCOP Non-Governmental Organization Status, affiliates of Indiana University McKinney became eligible to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor U.S. military commissions which were established to try alleged perpetrators of war crimes. Specifically, as observers or monitors, our 5 principal responsibilities are to: (a) attend; (b) observe; (c) analyze; (d) critique; and (e) report on hearings of detainees at Gitmo.
My process began by submitting certain personal information for consideration by the MCOP Advisory Council. Once approved for advancement by the Council, my name was then submitted to Pentagon as a nomination. At this point, the Pentagon can confirm you or deny you. Fortunately, on February 9, 2017, I was “CONFIRMED” by a Pentagon representative.
To be specific; from the Pentagon:
“You have been CONFIRMED to observe the March 18-25 9/11 Week ONE military commission in-person at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Currently, the flight schedule is as follows:
Departing from Joint Base Andrews to Naval Station Guantanamo Bay on 18 Mar (SAT) at 1000
Departing from Naval Station Guantanamo Bay back to Joint Base Andrews on 25 Mar (SAT) at 1000.”
I then had to fill out various forms and agreements. In some ways, this has been the most complicated part so far, since each of the documents is different, and each document must be completed following very specific guidelines. Professor Edwards sent my “completed” documents back to me numerous times for me to modify my original entries to comply with Pentagon requirements, and with requirements of the Indiana University administration including IU lawyers who review some of the forms before we observers are permitted to return them to the Pentagon. The templates that I was given to follow were helpful, but it was nevertheless still a challenge.
Finally, all the documents were reviewed by Indiana University officials (including the IU Treasurer) and by the MCOP, I sent all requisite information to the Pentagon in the hopes that they would grant me full clearance.
What Hearings will I monitor?
There are three sets of hearings ongoing at Guantanamo Bay now. During the week of my scheduled monitoring (19 – 25 March 2017), hearings will be held in the case against the 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I remember where I was on September 11, 2001, and I cannot escape the impact it had on me. Pictured in this blog is Khalid Shaik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind himself, who was, among other things, waterboarded 183 times.
This is Actually Going to Happen?!?
At this time my focus has turned to the nuts and bolts of traveling from Indianapolis to Cuba. Easy right? Yeah… I plan to fly to Washington, DC then snag a Lyft and drive to a hotel near Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, which is around a thirty-minute trip. I will stay overnight there, in anticipation of my morning flight from Andrews in a military airplane directly to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
While at Guantanamo Bay, among other duties, I plan to provide updates via this blog site.
I hope to offer unique insights contributions to the existing body of work relating to legal proceedings, policies, and guidelines. I see this as an occasion to provide transparency from an “on the ground” perspective. Very few have had the chance to travel to Gitmo to monitor military commission proceedings; I intend to make the most of this opportunity, for the benefit of all concerned.
This Manual is the product of the hard work performed by Professor George Edwards and other student and legal partners who have been observing at Gitmo for years. It provides many of the policies and procedures that govern the treatment of detainees and the trial and legal proceedings. It is an objective and independent document that is used by observers from other institutions and others as they form their own judgments as to whether Guantanamo Bay stakeholders are being afforded all rights and interests they are owed.
I feel it an honor to be able to observe and contribute to this important document.
I am proud to be an Indiana McKinney School of Law alum, and thankful for the opportunity provided by the MCOP and the Program in International Human Rights Law.
Brent M. Pierce, J.D. ’10
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
“Aline, we nominated you for the 9/11 week to travel to Guantanamo Bay to monitor hearings.”
This was the first sentence I had read on the morning of August 25, around 6 am, when, still in bed, I opened my mailbox on my phone. I could barely hold my excitement! The first step was given!
Well, let me start from the beginning…
My name is Aline Fagundes, I was born in Oakland, California, but I was raised in Brazil, where I received my first degree in law in 1993, from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, in Porto Alegre. From 1993 to 2005 I worked as a trial attorney, and on September 23, 2005 I became a judge in the Labor Court.
In 2015 I applied for IU McKinney Master of Laws Program in Human Rights, certainly one of the best steps of my academic and professional life. Through the program I was introduced to a great variety of opportunities, all of them incredibly well supported by the Law School. For instance, I attended an externship at the Indiana Supreme Court, where I improved in networking, state matters and law, also made friends for life. The most recent activity I engaged is the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP).
MCOP was established by IU McKinney Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), once it was granted “NGO Observer Status” by The Pentagon’s Guantanamo Bay Convening Authority. Through MCOP, IU McKinney Affiliates can be selected to attend, observe, analyze and critique and report on hearings of the Guantanamo Bay detainees charged with war crimes. IU Affiliates can either travel to Guantanamo to observe in person, or monitor the proceedings from Ft. Meade, Maryland military base via secure video-link.
The selection process includes being nominated by the MCOP Advisory Council and having your name submitted to the Pentagon, who in last instance may grant or not the authorization to be an observer. In my case, I was nominated on August 24, 2016, and on September 9, just two days before the 15th anniversary of the September 11 Attack on the World Trade Center, I received this message from the Pentagon:
“You have been CONFIRMED to observe the 11-14 Oct military commission in-person at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are currently scheduled to depart Andrews Air Force Base at 1000 on Saturday, Oct 8, 2016, and will return on Saturday, Oct 15, 2016, around 1330.”
Khalid Shaik Mohammed, the lead defendant in the 9/11 case against 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
The date was extremely significant. The hearings I am scheduled to attend are in the case against defendant Khalid Shaik Mohammad, and four other alleged masterminds of the September 11 Attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It has been 15 years since that attack, and the defendants in that case are still in the middle of pre-trial hearings.
Logistics of the mission to Guantanamo Bay
Since I have received that message about the Pentagon accepting me to travel to Guantanamo Bay, I could not stop thinking about Guantanamo Bay all the time. I am expected to travel from Indianapolis to Andrews Air Force Base (where is based Air Force One, the United States Air Force aircraft carrying the President of the United States). At Andrews, I am expected to fly on a military transportation to Cuba, where I would stay in a military tent. Guantanamo Bay is a U.S. Naval Station (in 1903, Cuba signed a treaty that leased Guantanamo Bay to the United States for use as a Naval Station).
I plan to blog step by step my experience on behalf of the Indiana McKinney Military Commission Observation Project. It is part of my responsibility to be the eyes and ears from Guantanamo Bay to the outside world, as most people will never have the opportunity to travel there for these hearings. I hope to help promote transparency, to tell the outside world what I hear, see – what I experience as part of this Guantanamo Bay mission. I recognize that this mission has already begun, with my preparation. I plan to continue to blog before I go, while I am there, and after I return.
The academic meaning is even more exciting. If you search Guantanamo on the web, an enormous number of links will direct you to stories related to torture and human rights violations. Unfortunately, an expressive number of it are true, or were true. The fact that the United States are taking action in order to provide transparency represents a lot, and to be granted the opportunity of working on this goal is a tremendous responsibility. After my journey to Guantanamo Bay, I will have a better idea about how transparent the process really is.
As part of my mission, I will be contributing to the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, that Professor George Edwards is creating with students to help observers / monitors and others interested in the rights of and interests of Guantanamo Bay stakeholders. We are reminded that not only do the defendants have rights, but also other individuals and groups have rights and interests, including the prosecution, victims and their families, witnesses, men and women who guard the detainees, the media, and the domestic U.S. and international communities. I hope to share information about and with the full range of stakeholders.
Through the Manual and the observing / monitoring that I and others do at Guantanamo Bay, we are helping to ensure that “whatever happens in Guantanamo does not stay in Guantanamo”. Information is important, and I will do my best to help ensure that knowledge about Guantanamo Bay is share with others on the outside.
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
Program in International Human Rights Law
Indiana University McKinney School of Law
All of my comments above are mine and mine alone, written in my personal capacity, and not in the capacity as a Judge, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Indiana McKinney’s MCOP, the PIHRL, or any other individual or group.
Today I traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland to observe pre-trial hearings in the criminal case against 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The hearings are being broadcast live from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the Post Theater at the Fort Meade Army Base, and can be viewed there by media, human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs), victims and victims’ families, and other stakeholders.
I traveled there as an official NGO Observer sponsored by the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP), which Professor George Edwards founded at Indiana University McKinney School of Law. Our Project, which is also referred to as the Gitmo Observer, has sent dozens of IU McKinney Affiliates — faculty, staff, students and graduates — to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Ft. Meade to attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on these hearings.
My trip to Maryland – Sunday
I flew to Maryland last night, and had time to re-review the wealth of background material the Project provided. One important resource is the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual – with lead author Professor Edwards, and whose researchers have included many IU McKinney affiliates. The Manual provides significant information — general and basic, as well as highly specialized information — about the military commissions. It 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. The Manual is a must read for anyone interested in Guantanamo Bay hearings.
We are in front of the McGill Training Center, the new site for Guantanamo video viewing.
Closed hearing – Monday morning
Early this morning I met Professor Edwards at the hotel, and discussed final details before we went to the army base, which happens to be the home of the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence entities.
We were forced to modify our plans to observe hearings of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (who was waterboarded 183 times) and the other 4 defendants accused of planning the September 11th attacks. We learned that the military judge decided that today’s hearings would be “closed”, meaning that Observers were not permitted to observe. I was disappointed that I would not have a chance to witness today’s hearings. But, it was still a very worthwhile trip.
What we did at Ft. Meade – hurdles & highlights
The day had highlights and hurdles. I’ll mention some below.
First, Fort Meade recently instituted security procedures that require new visitors to stop at the Visitor Center at the base’s Main Gate (Reece Road Gate) and collect a hard plastic badge. Ordinarily Observers would submit their personal information 10 days before they arrive for a hearing, and can pick up their sturdy badges quickly at the Visitor Center. These procedures apply not only to military commission observers, but also to anyone with business on the base, and includes civilians visiting family.
We arrived at the Visitor Center to pick up my badge. We had quite a wait. There were dozens of other people also seeking to get badges. I was grateful that Professor Edwards had a permanent Ft. Meade badge, which made it easier for me to get processed in. The good news is that once you get cleared, you can swipe your badge at any of the gates and drive onto the base, directly to the viewing site.
A word to the wise for IU McKinney Affiliates who plan to observe Guantanamo Bay hearings at Fort Meade: Bring your drivers’ license and passport, and arrive early.
The Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual is an invaluable tool to help prepare for an Observation mission.
Second, after I gained clearance to enter the base, Professor Edwards and I went to the McGill Training Center, which will soon be the new permanent site for video observations of Guantanamo proceedings. (Until now, all the video hearings were broadcast into a large auditorium at the Post Theater, where they show feature films in the evenings and on weekends.) A staff member escorted Professor Edwards and me through the training center, and explained that the site change had been made for several reasons, including the ability to move hearings to a variety of different rooms to enhance security by keeping exact screening locations unknown until the hearings take place. Most of the rooms at the training center are also much smaller than the Post Theater auditorium, which may make sense since at times only a small number of Observers attend hearings on the base.
Outside the Post Theater, where “Central Intelligence” was being screened — $6.00 for adults, and $3.50 for children.
Third, Professor Edwards and I went by the Post Theater, where many IU McKinney Affiliates have viewed Guantanamo proceedings. Unfortunately, the doors were locked and we couldn’t go inside. But, based on what I have heard about the actual theater – that happens to be showing the PG film “Central Intelligence” now (see photo) – it’s very much like a Broadway theater with a big screen set up on the stage to show the Guantanamo Bay feed.
Fourth, Professor Edwards was able to brief me on the status of the Khalid Shaikh Mohammad 9/11 hearings, the substance of some of the upcoming motion hearings that I had hoped to observe today, other cases pending for trial, and the one convicted detainee who is awaiting sentencing. He also briefed me on the Periodic Review Board (PRB) that he observed at the Pentagon on Thursday the 14th, in which a Libyan detainee asked the Board to send him back to Libya or to a third country for resettlement. That PRB observation is through the IU McKinney Periodic Review Board Project.
Fifth, it was good to tour the facilities mentioned above. It was also interesting to drive around the base, appreciate its size and the breadth of work performed there.
Another shot in front of the Post Theater
Conclusion
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.
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 here.
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.
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”.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
The 9/11 hearings at Guantanamo Bay were recessed until 9:00 am Wednesday, February 11 to give the defense and prosecution teams to investigate the defense team interpreter accused of being a CIA black site worker.
Today’s action started with a request by retiring Navy Lieutenant Commander Kevin Bogucki to resign from the defense team for Ramzi bin al Shibh. When asked if he accepted Major Elena Wichner as new counsel, Mr. bin al Shibh stated that he could not trust the defense team interpreter sitting next to him because he recognized him as CIA black site worker that was involved in the CIA Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program. Cheryl Bohrmann, Learned Counsel for Walid bin Attash, stated her client had informed her of the same just minutes before.
Ironically the interpreter alleged to be a CIA black site worker replaced the individual dismissed from Mr. bin al Shibh’s team who was found to be the FBI infiltrator.
After a brief recess to bring in General Martin’s prosecution team, Judge Pohl asked the prosecution and defense for a “way forward.” General Martin’s asked for time to investigate and make filings. David Nevin, Learned Counsel for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, requested that the Military Commission require the dismissed interpreter be held on the island and made available for interviews with the defense.
Cheryl Bohrmann inquired of Judge Pohl if General Martins’ prosecution team was the best option for the investigation of what might again be the government’s infiltration of the defense teams. She noted that her client, Mr. bin Attash, was “visibly shaken” and suggested the the Special Review Team already in place to investigate the FBI conflict-of-interest matter should be used.
Judge Pohl chose to rely on the prosecution and indicated that he didn’t intend that this matter would go through the usual three-week briefing schedule. The hearings are recessed until Wednesday, February 11.
(Catherine Lemmer, 9/11 Hearings, Guantanamo Bay, February 9-13, 2015)
I 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)
I am scheduled to leave for Guantanamo Bay on February 7 to observe 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 toattend, 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.
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)
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 Edwardsand 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)
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 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.
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.
9/11 lead defendant Khalid Shaik Mohammad (KSM), in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom. KSM was waterboarded 183 times in 2003.* (Sketch by Janet Hamlin)
I am scheduled to monitor Guantanamo Bay military commission proceedings 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).
First, I will travel to Ft. Meade, Maryland, where Guantanamo Bay courtroom proceedings are simultaneously transmitted by secure video link. Then, I will travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where I will be in the courtroom itself, with the judges, defense, prosecutors, media, victims and their families, and the 5 defendants. These hearings, scheduled for 9 – 21 February 2014, will address pre-trial legal issues. The trials may not begin until 2016 or later.
Monitoring Guantanamo Bay trials
The Pentagon has said it wants military commissions to be open and transparent. They want Guantanamo Bay trials to be fair, and they want independent outsiders to monitor the proceedings and assess this fairness. This is consistent with the U.S. statutory requirement that these proceedings shall be publicly held, and that they operate in accordance with international and domestic law mandates for open and fair trials.
The Pentagon selected a handful of non-governmental organizations to send monitors to Guantanamo Bay. In 2014, the Pentagon granted NGO Observer status to the human rights program I had founded at Indiana University McKinney School of Law. I then founded our Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP), which has morphed into The Gitmo Observer.
Gitmo Observermissions include to attend, observer, analyze, critique and report on Guantanamo Bay proceedings. Numerous IU McKinney observers have traveled to Ft. Meade and Guantanamo Bay to monitor proceedings, and have published on their observations. Also we are publishing the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, which examines rights and interests of all stakeholders of the proceedings. The Guantanamo defendants have rights and interests. But other stakeholders also have rights and interests. These stakeholders include the prosecution, victims and their families, witnesses, and the press. The Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manualidentifies the binding international and domestic law that provides for these rights and interests, and guides stakeholders as to which rights and interests they are entitled, and discusses enforcement and remedies.
Issues February 9/11 hearing
All the issues docketed for the February 9/11 hearings deal with stakeholder rights, principally pre-trial and trial rights of the defendants. They also include U.S. government rights related to national security, rights of female Guantanamo Bay guards to freedom from employment discrimination based on sex, and rights of the international community regarding U.S. compliance with international law.
Right to trial without undue delay (“inordinate” delays of the proceedings)
Rights related to mental competency of a defendant to stand trial
The right to counsel (right to not have the FBI interfere with a defendant’s defense team)
Conflict of interest rights
U.S. national security rights and interests
Access to information (discovery, classified information rights, use of information from undisclosed sources)
Rights of female guards to perform same duties as male guards regarding, for example, shackling and escorting defendants (employment discrimination)
Right to free exercise of religion (male Muslim defendants being touched by female guards)
Right to counsel (defendants not meeting with lawyers because of female guards touching them)
Right to trial by an independent tribunal (with no unlawful interference or influence)
Right to non-interference with professional judgment of the defense lawyers (right to counsel)
Rights related to torture and access to information (Senate report on torture)
Right to conditions of pre-trial confinement (including privacy rights, intrusive searches)
Right to access to the outside world (defendants’ telephonic access to families)
Right to facilities to prepare a defense (including access to computers)
Right to access to witnesses
A defendant’s right to access representatives of his government
Rights under the Geneva Conventions
Rights under the U.S. Constitution
The 26 January 2015 docketing order can be found here.
IU McKinney Affiliates traveling to Guantanamo Bay in February 2015
Professor Catherine Lemmer, IU McKinney School of Law
Catherine Lemmer, who is a lawyer and international librarian at the faculty of Indiana University McKinney School of Law and who has played instrumental roles in the development of the Gitmo Observer, 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 played instrumental roles as library liaison to the Gitmo Observer, and as a 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.
Tom Wilson, who is a lawyer and law professor at the IU McKinney School of Law, 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?
IU 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.
IU McKinney Law School Dean Andy Klein is expected to travel to Ft. Meade, Maryland to monitor military commission trials during the Spring 2015.
*Khalid Shaik Mohammad’s waterboarding is widely reported, including in the Miami Herald, which cites Justice Department and CIA reports
Professor George Edwards (left) with Chuck Dunlap, and IU McKinney graduate who traveled to Guantanamo Bay and Ft. Meade, sitting behind Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manuals Mr. Dunlap delivered to Guantanamo Bay (Fall 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.
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 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…)
What Hearings will I monitor?
serve 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.
