NGO Resource Center

Reporting from Guantanamo Bay: Commission Hearing in Limbo

Reporting from Guantanamo Bay

I am a recent graduate of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law (IU McKinney) and a representative of the IU McKinney Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP). I traveled to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, this weekend to monitor hearings in a U.S. military commission against an alleged high-level member of al-Qaeda charged with war crimes.My mission at Guantanamo is to attend, monitor, be seen, analyze, critique, and report on the proceedings of the defendant, Mr. Nashwan al-Tamir / Abd Hadi al-Iraqi (hereinafter “Nashwan / Hadi”). Read more about the MCOP and Nashwan / Hadi through my earlier blog posts here.

43403134_874299346292395_3842884119369351168_n

The NGO Observer tents in Camp Justice where I reside at Guantanamo.

The Only Thing Constant in Guantanamo

Three fellow non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives joined me this week in Guantanamo. On Monday morning (24 September 2018), my fellow NGO representatives and I walked from our residence tents located in Camp Justice to the courthouse complex, about one hundred yards away. I observed heavy equipment mobilizing around the courthouse complex as we walked. While I presume the U.S. employs this equipment according to a series of multi-million dollar expansions proposed for Guantanamo under the Trump administration in 2018, I am still determining.

After passing through a series of security checks to enter the courtroom site, we joined media representatives and military personnel in the Guantanamo courtroom viewing gallery to watch the proceedings. I entered the gallery around 8:30 a.m. and observed a nearly empty courtroom behind a double-paned glass wall separating the gallery from the well of the courtroom. Only a few uniformed military personnel sat along the right-hand courtroom wall while another conducted mic checks. I observed a 40-second delay between the live activities within the courtroom, the sound emitting from the gallery speakers, and the images displayed on five closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) mounted within the gallery. I expected this delay through a prior review of the Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Bay guide. One of my escorts has since informed me that the delay seeks to ensure classified information is not released into the gallery and to the broader public.

At 8:57 a.m., a U.S. Army internal security officer briefed gallery attendees on proper gallery decorum and standard emergency protocol. He informed us that we were visible to the rest of the court attendees, that we were visible through gallery cameras, and that we were forbidden to cause any distractions during the hearing. He told us that we were free to exit the gallery during proceedings or recess and take our personal belongings with us upon exiting. He told us that the Office of Military Commissions (OMC) would not assume responsibility for our possessions and that the OMC would destroy any materials left in the gallery after the court hearing concluded. The courtroom remained nearly empty, with only a few military personnel moving throughout.

At 9:02 a.m., another Army internal security officer informed us that the court indefinitely delayed the scheduled hearing and that it may “not occur at all.” He told us we could exit the court site and return later should the hearing be rescheduled. As we left the gallery, I confirmed with the announcing officer that Nashwan / Hadi was not present at the court site. I began to accept the possibility that I may not have a chance to monitor live proceedings at Guantanamo.

My fellow NGO representatives and I remained near the court site as directed while waiting for further updates on the delayed proceedings. By 12:00 p.m. (noon), I became restless as we continued to wait for updates.

Clamoring for news, I fruitlessly searched through various web resources, including the Office of Military Commissions (OMC) website and the Miami Herald, which often feature reports and articles regarding commission proceedings published by Ms. Carol Rosenberg. Ms. Rosenberg is an award-winning and widely printed reporter of Guantanamo happenings and was among the media representatives present with me in the courtroom gallery when the internal security officer announced the hearing delay.

At 2:30 p.m., our escorts received notice that the hearings would continue and that we should immediately return to the courtroom gallery. However, upon our return, the court delayed its hearing again, now until 4:00 p.m.

“The only thing constant in Guantanamo is change!” one of my escorts declared with a chuckle.

Commission Hearing Resumes

Finally, at 4:03 p.m., the recently detailed Marine Lt. Col. Michael Libretto took the bench for the first time as the presiding military judge over the Nashwan / Hadi case. Mr. Adam Thurschwell spoke as the lead defense attorney for Nashwan / Hadi, while Mr. Vaughn Spencer spoke as the prosecuting attorney for the U.S. Government.

Libretto began the Monday 24 September 2018 hearing by stating that Nashwan / Hadi would not be present for the day’s proceedings. Libretto said that today’s proceedings were delayed because Nashwan / Hadi “refused to attend…and refused to expressly waive his presence via a written waiver.”

Next, Libretto stated that a recently detailed U.S. Army Senior Medical Officer or “SMO” (whose duties began on 17 September 2018) conducted a medical examination of Nashwan / Hadi following Nashwan’s / Hadi’s “refusal” to attend. Libretto then stated that that today’s hearing was being held “for the limited purpose of hearing testimony from the [SMO]”.

Next, prosecuting counsel (Spencer) and defense counsel (Thurschwell) took turns questioning the SMO. The crux of their questions regarded Nashwan’s / Hadi’s health concerns, and whether or not it would be reasonable for this week’s remaining commission hearings to proceed in Nashwan’s / Hadi’s absence.

Nashwan al Tamir / Abd Hadi al Iraqi (pictured) underwent his fifth spinal surgery within an eight-month period in May 2018 (2014 photo by the International Committee of the Red Cross).

During questioning, the SMO stated that it would be “reasonable” for Nashwan / Hadi to be transported from his cell for up to four hours at a time, but not more than once per week. This would allow Nashwan / Hadi to meet with defense counsel, and to attend abridged commission hearings as needed.

Accordingly, Spencer asked the SMO whether or not removing Nashwan / Hadi from his cell for up to four hours as the SMO suggested would “affect his [Nashwan’s / Hadi’s] underlying medical condition in any way”.

The SMO responded, “I don’t believe so.”

Next, Thurschwell expounded upon Nashwan’s / Hadi’s health concerns through a series of questions. Notably, Thurschwell asked the SMO whether or not Nashwan / Hadi has suffered chronic “severe upper back pain and spasms” which have at times caused Nashwan / Hadi “difficulty breathing”. Thurschwell also characterized Nashwan’s / Hadi’s symptoms as “extreme pain, stress, and difficulty breathing”.

The SMO affirmatively acknowledged Nashwan’s / Hadi’s symptoms, and at one time declared, “He [Nashwan / Hadi] reports tightness and tension in his shoulders and in his trapezius that he says has been consistent for a long time.”

Later, Thurschwell asked the SMO if he could predict whether or not transporting Nashwan / Hadi from his cell could cause “those severe symptoms” on any particular occasion.

The SMO responded, “Those symptoms? Not specifically.”

Finally, Thurschwell asked the SMO whether or not he has “any reason to doubt” Nashwan’s / Hadi’s reported pain or symptoms.

The SMO responded, “No.” and “I don’t.”

At 5:13 p.m., Libretto dismissed the SMO from the day’s proceedings, and stated that the commission would recess for 10 minutes.

Following the recess, Libretto issued the following order, directed commission officials to inform Nashwan / Hadi of the following order, and in turn concluded the Monday 24 September 2018 hearing:

One, that a session of the commission will commence tomorrow morning 25 September 2018 at 0900 [9:00 a.m.].

Two, pursuant to R.M.C. 804, the accused has a right to be present at the session.

Three, the senior medical officer has medically cleared the accused to travel to this commission session that is scheduled for 25 September 2018.

The commission is hereby ordering the presence of the accused at the 25 September 2018 session.

The commission will not order the use of force to compel the accused’s presence.

And finally, six, that it is possible that the commission may proceed in the accused’s absence if he refuses to attend the 25 September 2018 session.

Note: For those wishing to access the unofficial / unauthenticated transcript of the 24 September 2018 proceedings as published through the OMC website, you may do so here.

Conclusion

My first day of monitoring hearings at Guantanamo required great patience and flexibility.

Pleased stay tuned for future updates.

43314849_246204346063131_841728545368571904_n

Me working in the NGO Center located near Camp Justice.

Jacob Irven, J.D. 2018
Military Commission Observation Project
Program in International Human Rights Law
Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Voter Protection Legal Fellow
Indiana Democratic Party

Jacob.Irven@gmail.com

Second Day of the al Darbi Deposition in Hadi al Iraqi Guantanamo Bay Military Commission Case

NGO observers working in the NGO Resource Center after a day’s court session.

I have been in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since Sunday, August 13th, 2017 serving as an NGO observer with the Indiana University McKinney School of Law’s Program in International Human Rights Law. The program is approved by the Pentagon to send observers to view proceedings that are a part of the military commission system. Other schools and organizations that have an interest in what goes on in GTMO also send observers. I am here with five other observers from four organizations and one other law school.

Morning Session Deposition – Day 2, Wednesday August 16, 2017

The prosecution called Guantanamo prisoner Ahmed al-Darbi to the witness stand to testify in the military commission case against Hadi al Iraqi, an alleged al Qaeda commander. al-Darbi pleaded guilty in 2014 to charges related to the 2002 attack on a French oil tanker, and as a part of that plea deal agreed to testify when called upon by the prosecution.

An issue of the direct examination on both days was that the prosecutor asked numerous complex and compound questions that appeared to be lost in translation and objectionable.

Unlike the first day of the deposition when Hadi al Iraqi was present, on the second day, he voluntarily waived his appearance and did not attend. al-Darbi looked very much like a business professional dressed in a dark gray suit, light gray tie, white shirt, and nice watch.

The second day of the deposition began with the prosecutor asking al-Darbi about Hadi’s alleged activities at a guesthouse/headquarters building in Kabul, Afghanistan. al-Darbi described about how Hadi would go to the communications room to check on the latest developments from the front and later go to the front himself to check on his fighters. The prosecution elicited from al-Darbi information in an apparent attempt to paint a picture of Hadi as an active al Qaeda commander, the extent to which he commanded the defense will most likely dispute. al-Darbi testified he last saw his former commander Hadi al Iraqi in the year 2000 at the guest house in Kabul.

Struggles in Recounting Torture

Camp X-Ray, the temporary detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where the first 20 detainees were brought in January 2002. The camp closed in April 2002 and a court has ordered the preservation the camp to be potentially used as evidence in any future litigation. Though al Darbi arrived to Guantanamo after Camp X-Ray was closed, during his interrogation, he was allegedly threatened with being sent there where bad things would happen to him.

The afternoon session began with al-Darbi’s account of being taken in to U.S. custody, first at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, and later at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. During this portion of the testimony, al-Darbi’s body language changed drastically. Instead of leaning towards the microphone when giving sometimes lengthy answers at a normal volume, when speaking of his captivity he leaned back in his chair and gave short answers at a low volume. The only time he gave a long answer during this portion of his testimony was when he stated that remembering the details about the things that happened to him after he was captured was more difficult than the experiences themselves.

al-Darbi appeared visibly to have had a difficult time recounting his treatment at Guantanamo Bay. He testified to having had to endure “stress positions,” sleep deprivation, physical assault (to include pushing, hitting, and having chairs thrown at him), humiliating tasks, and being forced to wear bunny ears and a diaper on his head.

The most difficult line of questioning came when al-Darbi described an incident while at Bagram Airfield in which his interrogator, Army Private First Class Damien Corsetti exposed his private parts and put them in al Darbi’s face. Though by all accounts he lived up to his nicknames as “The Monster” and the “King of Torture,” notorious interrogator Corsetti was acquitted of charges relating to his abuse of detainees.

The strategy of the prosecution in the latter portion of the second day seemed to be to bring out torture on direct examination because there is little doubt the defense will question his ability to recall the over 20 people he previously identified due to the time that has passed as well as the physical toll of the torture. The prosecution also attempted to blunt the impact of it later by asking questions reiterating the free and voluntary nature of his plea deal.

Meeting with Chief Defense Counsel, Brigadier General John Baker

Brigadier General John Baker assumed his duties as Chief Defense Counsel in July 2015.

The NGOs had the opportunity on Thursday, August 17, 2017 to meet with the Chief Defense Counsel, Marine Corps Brigadier General John Baker. Earlier in the week we had met with the Chief Prosecutor, Army Brigadier General Mark S. Martins. BG Martins released a statement on August 19th about the hearings that occurred the week of August 14th. That statement can be read here.

BG Martins appears to be very much hands on with the prosecution of each of the military commission cases his office is responsible for prosecuting. He plays a direct role in the direction the cases take both from a staffing standpoint as well as a legal strategy. In addition, because of his background as Rhodes scholar, instructor at the Center for Law and Military Operations, and being widely published in professional journals, his meetings are significantly more polished, though not necessarily better. He speaks much more fluidly and longer winded in a manner that shows he speaks about the military commission system and law in general in the political arena.

BG Baker on the other hand is, as he characterized his role, more of a manager. He views his job as getting the tools each of his defense teams state that they need to do their job. He does not personally represent any of the clients, though he does seem to meet with them on a regular basis. One of the challenges he spoke at length about was the personnel issues that both he and his adversary, BG Martins have to deal with unique to the military. Most military attorneys, or JAG officers, are assigned for 2-3 years. In order for military personnel to advance their careers they cannot stay in place for long periods of time, and because these military commission cases in some instances last for a decade or more, staff continuity in the case is a constant challenge. Ultimately, the client suffers when the staff members are constantly turning over and the careers of the staff members suffer if they stay in their positions for too long.

BG Baker responded to our questions much more candidly and off the cuff. He, unlike BG Martins, gave us explicit permission to attribute things to him, as well as quote him. BG Baker spoke frankly about how he views the military commission system as a “failed experiment” and how he sees no way in which these cases will survive appeal. Though he says he is a firm believer in the general idea of military commissions, he sees “zero benefit” to trying the cases in this iteration of the military commission system.

On Friday of last week, the judge in the Hadi al Iraqi case, Marine Corps Colonel P.S. Rubin issued an order suspending the CCTV feed of the al Darbi deposition to Fort Meade. I asked BG Baker directly if he had received an explanation about why feed was suspended. He offered a theory that the deposition was not a court proceeding and therefore not under the authorization of a protective order issued by the judge, to send the feed to Fort Meade. The issue of whether or not to allow a deposition to be transmitted to Fort Meade has come up before. In the al-Nashiri case, the judge ruled the deposition of al-Darbi was to be completely closed. This meant no NGO observers could be present and the CCTV feed was suspended. In the Hadi case, the judge ruled NGO observers could be present, but still no CCTV feed.

BG Baker recognized the unprecedented nature and importance of the presence of NGOs at Guantanamo Bay hearings. He said to tell the world of about what happened here. That’s a responsibility I felt like each NGO observer has taken seriously in this unique and fascinating week.

Defense Team BBQ

Sunset over Camp Justice at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, August 13, 2017

Two members Hadi’s defense team invited all of the NGOs to the temporary house where they were staying for a BBQ. They cooked great burgers and hotdogs, and had a wide variety of beverages. Each NGO observer reported having a number of fascinating conversations with individual members of the defense team, to include the lawyers, intelligence personnel, investigators, and paralegals.

In September 2015, I traveled to Guantanamo Bay to observe a hearing for Hadi’s case in which he fired his military defense counsel. Fast forward to August 2017 and Hadi finally seems to have a solid defense team in place. According to members of this team, he chose Navy Commander Aimee Cooper to lead his defense, though she is not the highest ranking member of the team. The members of the defense team I spoke to report having a really good relationship with their client. This bodes well for his defense and seems to solidify the chance that he will have the rights afforded to him (as outlined in the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual) protected to the greatest extent possible.

Concluding Remarks

I want to thank each of my fellow NGO observers for an incredible week. Each shared their unique insights and made the experience one I will never forget.

I will continue to follow this case as it moves slowly forward in the hopes that someday justice will be served in a way that does not undermine the values America supposedly stands for.

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

Member, Military Commission Observation Project

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Guantanamo Bay lawyers on all sides brief non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

9 NGO representatives following briefing by Guantanamo Bay Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) fly to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for ringside seats at U.S. Military Commission war crimes proceedings. NGOs, which tend to focus on human rights issues, attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on what they see and hear at Guantanamo. NGOs are windows to the outside world for people without Guantanamo access.

For the first time in recent memory, this week NGOs at Guantanamo had separate briefings by each of the three sets of lawyers involved with a pending case against a particular defendant.

The 9 NGO representatives present were briefed by: (a) the Chief Prosecutor; (b) the Chief Defense Lawyer; and (c) the military and civilian lawyers for al Nashiri, who is accused of masterminding the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding dozens. The NGOs were at Guantanamo for a week of pre-trial hearings in the case of al Nashiri, who faces the death penalty.

The first lawyers’ briefing of the week was by Chief Prosecutor Brigadier General Mark Martins, who is responsible for the prosecution of any and all Guantanamo Bay detainees. He is formally part of the prosecution team against all defendants, including al Nashiri, and he actively participated at the prosecution table in this week’s hearings.

9 NGO representatives following briefing by Guantanamo Bay Chief Defense Counsel John Baker and Deputy Chief Defense Counsel Brent Filbert

The next lawyers’ briefing was by Chief Defense Counsel Brigadier General John Baker, joined by Deputy Chief Defense Counsel Captain Brent Filbert. General Baker is responsible for all defense counsel on all Guantanamo cases, and is not part of the al Nashiri defense team or of any other defense team. Neither he nor Captain Filbert has an attorney client privilege with any detainee.

The final lawyers’ briefing was by civilian and military attorneys for al Nashiri. These were civilian lead counsel (Learned Counsel Rick Kammen) and military co-counsel (Lt. Commander Jennifer Pollio).

NGOs with al Nashiri’s Learned Counsel Rick Kammen and military co-counsel Lt. Commander Jennifer Pollio.

These briefings offered the 9 NGOs insights into a range of perspectives on Guantanamo law and practice. The NGOs on this mission, who agreed that these briefings were insightful and very helpful, expressed hope that the NGO briefings would continue when future NGO representatives travel to Guantanamo for future hearings.

Substance of the briefings

Predictably, the three briefings focused on similar issues. Military Commission fairness (or not). Compliance with U.S. and international law (or not). Transparency of the process (or not). Rights afforded to all stakeholders (or not). Comparisons among U.S. federal criminal law and criminal procedure, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the Military Commission substantive and procedural statute, regulations and rules (favorable / unfavorable comparisons).

The lawyers expressed different perspectives on the pace of the proceedings, to whom delays should be attributable, and logistical and other issues regarding trials at Guantanamo Bay versus on the U.S. mainland. They also shared on more personal issues, such as their careers and families, and possibilities for life for the lawyers after Guantanamo. And yes, the topics of Guantanamo iguanas, banana rats, gnats and mosquitos came up.

None of the briefings was on the record, and of course none included any classified information. All the briefings helped NGOs understand critically important matters related to the case at bar – against al Nashiri – and about larger Guantanamo-related issues.

Briefing Style; Briefing Tools

Each of the briefings differed from the others. Each lawyer had a unique personal style, had particular messages they apparently wanted to convey, and used different means to communicate with the NGOS — including visual aids.

Briefing tools used during the week included (without disclosing which lawyers used which briefing tools!): CDs that contain papers for motions on the week’s docket; basic Military Commission instruments and other information projected onto a screen and a staffer to navigate such; CD readers for NGOs whose new generation laptops lack CD drives; prepared remarks; a scribe to record briefing notes; e-mail addresses and invitations for further NGO communication; a follow-up invitation to a bar-b-que (that served Subway sandwiches!); and a staffer who served as photographer for group and individual shots of the lawyers and the NGO representatives.

[Sidebar – The NGO representatives came into contact with various members of the lawyers’ staffs. In every instance those staff members were helpful, informative, and genuinely interested in assisting the NGOs. And, without exception, each staffer was friendly, pleasant, and just nice — both formally during the briefing, and informally when we would bump into them around the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, whether at Subway or another restaurant, the gym, the bowling alley, or the Guantanamo airport or Andrews Air Force Base.]

Conclusion

NGOs huddled during the week seeking to think of ways that the lawyers might further enhance the NGO experiences. Among the NGO suggestions were for the lawyers to provide NGOs — before the NGOs depart for Guantanamo Bay — a short summary of the week’s expected motions, the statutory and other information on the CD that was provided, statements / remarks to be presented by the lawyers to the media (if available), and confirmation that the briefing will take place (to prevent NGOs from having to inquire as to whether a particular briefing will occur).

Some of the NGOs wondered about the venues of the different briefings, and who decided which briefings were held in which venue.

Venue 1: The Media Operations Center (MOC), in a room with cushioned chairs, a blue velvet stage curtain, high tech audio / visual equipment, and parasol shades for camera lighting.

Venue 2: The NGO Resource Center, barren, with the lawyers sitting on folding card-table chairs.

The NGOs unanimously agreed that the NGO briefings by all sets of lawyers were very helpful to the NGOs as they seek to fulfill their remit of attending, observing, analyzing, critiquing and reporting on the U.S. Military Commissions.

If NGOs are to be the eyes and ears to the outside world, they should be able to see and hear from the lawyers who are most intimately involved with the Guantanamo Bay cases. The NGOs all hope that briefings by all sets of lawyers will become routine at Guantanamo Bay during weeks when hearings or trials are held.

Full NGO briefings by Guantanamo Bay lawyers promote transparency, human rights, and the rule of law.

_______