Uncategorized

My travel to Ft. Meade to Monitor Guantanamo Bay Hearings for al Nashiri

534

I travelled to Ft. Meade, MD to monitor a US Military Commission in the case of Al Nashiri, as I was representing the Military Commission Observation Project, of the Program in International Human Rights Law. The following are a few charges brought by the government: Murder in Violation of the Law of War and Attempted Murder in violation of the Law of War. al Nashiri is the alleged mastermind for the bombing of the USS Cole and other maritime attacks.

Indianapolis to Ft. Meade:

I chose to view the al Nashiri hearings at Ft. Meade during the week of 12/12/2016 and view via CCTV. I flew United Airlines from Indianapolis to Dulles Airport on Sunday, 12/11/2016, where I rented a car and drove an hour to Laurel, Maryland. I stayed at the Days Inn in Laurel, which is fifteen minutes (7 miles) from Ft. Meade. The hotel rates were lower in the area, so I did not mind a 15 minute drive, which is easy to navigate during rush hour.

Arrival to Visitors Center at Ft. Meade:

The hearings were originally scheduled to being at 9:00 AM on Monday, but I learned via email from Prof. Edwards, that the hearings would be delayed for two hours. It was recommended that I arrive at Ft. Meade’s visitors center two hours before the start time of the hearing, so I arrived at 9:00 A.M., so that I could pick up my Ft. Mead Badge to permit entry to the base each day. I went to the Ft. Meade Visitors Center to pickup my badge, I had two show two pieces of ID for them to Issue my Ft. Meade Credential and an easy process (since I had a background check completed through my the Observation Project prior to travel). The line was short at 9AM, but it should be expected for there to be longer lines at 7AM, since that is the time the Visitors Centers open and anyone visiting the base would need to obtain credential prior to entering. I drove through an inspection point, the entry point is directly behind the Visitors Center, which was an easy process. The guards request to see a form of ID with the permit that was obtained at the Visitors Center. The guards will randomly search vehicles, follow instructions of the guards and all will go smoothly. If you are driving a personal vehicle, the guards may request to see insurance paperwork with your credentials and ID. I was driving a rental guard, so I provided the proof of insurance that was purchased through the rental car agency. Federal Law requires that all vehicles have updated insurance coverage when on base.

Observation Day 1

The al Nashiri hearings were broadcast by CCTV into a classroom at Ft. Meade’s McGill training center. When you arrive at the training center, be prepared for security to do a quick wanding, then lock up your cell phone in a small locker in the classroom. It is advisable to leave other devices and laptops in your hotel room or the trunk of your vehicle.

I attended three days of hearings, and each day there was only one other person in the room. That person was responsible for ensuring all phones were stored in the lockers. One the large screen in the font of the classroom, I could see different views of the courtroom at different times. The camera seemed to be pointed at the person who was speaking at the time, whether it was Judge Spath (the military judge), the prosecution or defense lawyers, or the Defendant al Nashiri himself.

At the beginning of the Day 1 hearings, Judge Spath advised al Nashiri that he had the right to be present for all hearings, if he chose not to attend it would not have impact on decision-making regarding rulings to motions. al Nashiri nodded and waved to the judge suggesting that he understood these rights. al Nashiri also waived his right to have the court stop proceedings for specified times throughout the day for prayers.

Whenever I saw al Nashiri, he was sitting in a chair at the far end of the defense table, facing the court. He wore a white flowing shirt, but I was told later that he would wear the suit jacket of his interpreter, who was seated next to him throughout the hearing. Al Nashiri’s hands and legs did not appear to be cuffed, and I was told later that he was not cuffed. I could not see guards on the screen, though I was told that at all times there were at least four or five guards within several feet of al Nashiri at all times, though the guards were not visible to me. As mentioned, an interpreter was visible sitting beside al Nashiri and both wore headsets during the proceedings.

The defense called former assistant deputy of the Convening Authority. Edward Sherran to testify. The questioning by the defense focused on his role as assistant deputy and those of the advisors within the Convening Authority. The defense also called Lt. Col. Lewis, again to offer insight to actions of the Convening Authority at the time Gill was the only advisor that was qualified to work on the Al Nashiri case.

Day 2:

Day 2 focused on a host of motions. The first motion was by the defense, which was to compel witnesses to support the defense claim of the Convening Authority’s unlawful influence. The defense would like to compel three former Convening Authority personnel to testify – Gill, Tull and former deputy Quinn. The defense claims testimony is necessary, as the government continues to not respond with items requested in discovery motions.

The hearings then moved towards what is referenced as the “Kuwaiti Files”. The defense requests intelligence relating to the drone strikes of Al Fahdi, as there is knowledge that there was a connection between Al Fahdi and al Nashiri. The defense argued that the fact the Department of the Treasury placed Al Fahdi on a watch list for his role in the Linberg attack is evidence that there is a connection between al Nashiri and Al Fahdi, and that the evidence is relevant and necessary to a robust, effect defense of al Nashiri. The defense claims that only 20 pages has been handed over by the government, that this is insufficient and that definitely more intelligence must be available, since the U.S. would not have killed Al Fahdi in a drone strike based on 20 pages of documents. The defense argued that the motion to compel government agencies to provide evidence is necessary, as the agencies have not been forthcoming.

The court discussed that the al Nashiri case has been in the discovery phase for five years, that it is necessary to move forward in a timely manner. The remainder of the Tuesday hearing focused on the defense arguing that there would be a violation of Brady and Giglio rulings, which could lead the defense to request a mistrial. Judge Spath stated the Brady and Giglio arguments are available during the appeal process, not during the discovery phase. The defense then argued that the court should still grant the motion to compel, to ensure that a record is established and that a record is necessary for the appeals court to consider post-trial.

After a lunch recess, the afternoon hearings focused on “505” matters, which meant that there were classified hearings that were closed to the public. It became clear that Friday hearings would also be classified and closed to the public.

On Tuesday, at lunch, I found the Ft. Meade food court, that offered several food options, including – Burger King, Boston Market, Philly Steaks, and Starbucks.

Day3:

Day 3, Wednesday morning hearings, were again open to the public and the Afternoon hearings were closed to cover classified matters.

In the morning, the defense raised additional motions to compel the CIA to provide information, especially relating to Black Site interrogations. The CIA claimed that tapes, containing footage of al Nashiri being exposed to enhanced interrogation techniques and these tapes were important for an adequate defense. The defense cited four other witnesses that should also be called to testify; these witnesses would provide information to the black site interrogations. One witness identified was Mitchell, who recently released a book relating to the Black Site operations.

The morning hearing was shorter than the first two days, but it was full of defense arguments as to why government agencies should be compelled to provide evidence, while the prosecution arguments that evidence relevant to the case has always been provided.

Conclusion:

It was fascinating to observe arguments presented by both the defense and prosecution, especially in a case that has been in the discovery phase for five years. I was able to understand the motions in the proceedings, as I reviewed the case summary that is available on the Observation Project’s website and the government web site, which provides transcripts and motion history/rulings. I learned a great deal about the matter regarding enhanced interrogation techniques, which is relevant to the defense of al Nashiri and I am curious as to how the court will approach this matter. Will the court compel a witness, like Mitchell, to testify?

I look forward to the opportunity of attending more hearings in the future, as being a student in the Masters of Jurisprudence program, it was relatively easy to understand the flow of the hearings and fascinating to how a court of law is operating in Guantanamo.

Heather Wilhelmus, MJ Student,

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

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Flying from Joint Base Andrews to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

The sun has not risen yet as I wait at the Joint Base Andrews air terminal to board a flight to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

My mission today is to attend, observe, analyze, critique, and report on U.S. military commission hearings for alleged war criminals. The hearings this week are against five Guantanamo detainees who are alleged to have masterminded the 11 September 2001 attacks on the Pentagon.

I am part of the Military Commission Observation Project of Indiana University McKinney School of Law, where I am a student.

Getting to Andrews
I arrived at Washington National Airport in Washington D.C. after midnight – around 12:30 a.m. – about 7 hours later than I was originally scheduled to arrive at Dulles Airport. I began my trip at Indianapolis airport and two of my flights were cancelled.

Arriving at the gate in Washington D.C. at 12:30am on 23 January 2017

I had planned to arrive yesterday afternoon but was forced to reschedule flights, which delayed arrival. My flight from Indianapolis to Detroit was cancelled but the folks at Delta were able to put me on another flight to Detroit later in the day. I made it to Detroit in time to catch my connecting flight to Washington D.C. but that connecting flight was also cancelled. All flights from Detroit to D.C. were overbooked so it was not possible to make it on time flying standby. I showed my invitational travel order to the folks at Delta and they put me on the next flight out. Do not book a flight to Washington that arrives the afternoon before a morning flight out of Joint Base Andrews. I barely made it and Washington National Airport is less than a thirty-minute drive from Joint Base Andrews. I went straight from the airport to Joint Base Andrews.

Floor mosaic and American flag at Washington National Airport

When I arrived at Andrews Visitor Control Center, a civilian escort picked me up and took me to Andrews air terminal, from where President Obama took his last flight on Air Force I 3 days ago — on Friday, 20 January 2017, after he left the Office of the Presidency.

At the terminal I met about a dozen other non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives who are also serving as Observers. I distributed copies of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manal: Excerpts, which was authored by Professor George Edwards and others at Indiana University McKinney School of Law. I have found the Excerpts to be a valuable tool to help me prepare for my mission, and I believe that other observers agree.
After distributing the manuals, the remaining manuals are left in the NGO Resource Center at GTMO.

Checking in at Andrews
Checking in at Joint Base Andrews is straight forward, similar to any commercial flights. Bags are labeled with green colored tags to identify the bags as belonging to NGO representatives. Next, I had to present my invitational travel order, APACS, and identification. Our identification functions as our boarding passes, although this is only because the printer is not working. Our military escort was kind enough to drive us all to the Starbucks on base, which opens at 5:30am.

NGO representatives enjoy Starbucks and wait to board the flight at Joint Base Andrews

Waiting to Board
Our flight to Guantanamo Bay was originally scheduled to depart at 8:00am, and we were required to be at Andrews at 4:30am for the flight

We just learned that our flight time has been delayed to 10:30am.

Now we sit and wait patiently to be allowed to board the plane and depart for Guantanamo Bay!

Written on 23 January 2017

Posted 24 January 2017

By Ben Hicks
J.D. Student
Military Commission Observation Project
Program in International Human Rights Law
Indiana University McKinney School of Law

First Guantanamo hearings in Trump Era possibly derailed

cheryl-bormann-waleed-bin-attash-counsel

Cheryl Bormann, counsel to 9/11 case defendant Waleed bin Attash, did not travel to Guantanamo Bay reportedly due to a medical emergency. (Photo from Flickr)

The first Trump-Era Guantanamo Bay war crimes hearings are set to commence tomorrow, 25 January 2017, but they may be derailed. A death penalty lawyer for one of the accused is absent from Guantanamo this week due to a medical emergency, and it is unclear whether hearings can or will go forward in her absence. Her client, one of the 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, is entitled to death penalty counsel. Ms. Bormann is the only death penalty lawyer who is representing him.

Walid bin Attash, a 9/11 case defendant who faces the death penalty, is without his death penalty lawyer for this week’s hearings at Guantanamo

The military judge for the case ordered that the hearings go forward on Wednesday morning, 25 January 2017, despite objection by the defense. If hearings commence on Wednesday morning as scheduled, it is unclear whether they will continue for the full 2 scheduled weeks, or whether they will come to a hasty end Wednesday, Thursday or Friday if objections continue.

Hearing participants — travel to / from Guantanamo

The hearings are held at the remote Caribbean island U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, yet the only participants in the hearings who reside at Guantanamo Bay are the detainee defendants. Virtually everyone else involved lives in the mainland U.S., and must be shuttled down. Typically a day or two before hearings commence, hundreds participant convene at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, D.C. and board a military plane for Guantanamo. This includes the judge and his staff, the prosecution team, 5 sets of defense lawyers and their staff, interpreters and translators, media, independent observers / monitors, and victims and victims’ family members. If hearings last for two or more weeks, on the weekend in between planes shuttle to / from Guantanamo Bay swapping out media, observers / monitors, and victims and their family members, most of whom attend for one week at a time only.

A question remains as to whether a plane will depart Andrews as scheduled on Saturday, 28 January 2016, carrying observers / monitors, media and victims and their family members for hearings next week, or whether next week’s hearings will be cancelled.

Docketing Order

Earlier this month the court’s docketing order listed topics to be covered this week and next. Here is the docketing order:

[office src=”https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=AA02978A4AC8C787&resid=AA02978A4AC8C787%21172&authkey=AHmyYsdkI8Mfh8c&em=2″ width=”776″ height=”588″]

George Edwards

Professor of Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Founder, Military Commission Observation Project & GitmoObserver

Founder, Program in International Human Rights Law

One Day Until Departure for Guantanamo Bay

Selected for Travel

I am a student at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and have been involved with the Military Commission Observation Project for almost a year now through the McKinney Law Program in International Human Rights Law. Through our program, students, faculty, staff, graduates, and other school affiliates have the opportunity to travel to either Ft. Meade in Maryland or Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to attend, observe, analyze, critique, and report on hearings for alleged war criminals.

I was selected to travel to Guantanamo Bay for the 25-27 January 2017 hearings of the five remaining detainees who are defendants in this case. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, along with the other four defendants, is alleged to be involved in the 11 September 2001 attacks on the Pentagon, World Trade Center, and United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania.

During the McKinney Law Fall Recess, I traveled to Ft. Meade, Maryland to attend, observe, analyze, critique, and report on one of the hearings for the five remaining defendants in the case, via live stream from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Details about the hearing that I attended in Maryland can be found in my 2 November 2016 blog post. I wanted to attend hearings on the 25-27 January 2017 because the case involves the 11 September 2001 attacks, which makes this a high a high profile case that is the subject of intense scrutiny.

Preparing for Departure

Departing for Guantanamo Bay requires a lot of preparation and staying on top of emails and paperwork for many institutions including the Pentagon, McKinney Law, and the Overseas Study Office, in addition to the logistical requirements for making the trip. The Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual has a “Know Before You Go” section that contains important information for those preparing for a mission to Guantanamo Bay. The manual is a compilation of resources and information to aid NGO representatives before, during, and after their missions to Guantanamo Bay or Ft. Meade. Also, when I arrive at Andrews Air Force Base, I will have excerpts from the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual to distribute to the other NGO observers. This is part of the role for the McKinney Law Program in International Human Rights Law. The excerpts are from the full volumes I and II and the manual contains a plethora of information right down to the layout of the courtroom and who sits where. The manual also discusses the rights of stakeholders in the proceedings, and has charts to help evaluate stakeholders’ rights. It also gives the source of law for each right being evaluated. The manual is a result of collaboration from previous observers and is continually updated as observers travel to hearings.

Eagerly Waiting

Khalid Shaik Mohammad, in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom. (Sketch by Janet Hamlin)

Despite intensive preparation, I know from previous experience that pre-trial hearings are sometimes delayed or cancelled, however I am hopeful that the pre-trial hearings will occur as scheduled. There are several other NGO observers scheduled to travel to Guantanamo Bay during the dates that I will be there. I look forward to working with these observers and receiving feedback and critique of the Fair Trial Manual.

By Ben Hicks

J.D. Student

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Obama Inauguration Flag to be Donated to Indiana National Guard After Flown at Guantanamo on 9/11 Anniversary

flag-at-michaels-guantanamo-inauguration-19-january-2017

With flag flown over Guantanamo’s Camp Justice on the 15th Anniversary of 9/11 (September 11, 2016), and flown over the U.S. Capitol on Barack Obama’s Inauguration Day (January 20, 2009)

A U.S. flag flown over Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on the 15^th Anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had also flown over the U.S. Capitol Building on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated as U.S. President, 20 January 2009, exactly 8 years ago today.

Five alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks who are detained at Guantanamo face war crimes trials there by U.S. Military Commission. The courtroom is at Guantanamo’s Camp Justice, where the Obama inauguration flag was flown on 11 September 2016, the 15^thanniversary of 9/11

This flag flown at the inauguration and on the 9/11 anniversary is being donated to the Indiana National Guard to hang in their Armory in Indianapolis.

indiana-guardsman-preparing-for-deployment

Indiana’s Adjutant General, Maj. Gen. Courtney P. Carr speaks at a departure ceremony for 60 Hoosier Guardsmen with the 38th Infantry Division in Indianapolis, 20 November 2015. The Guardsmen were to “oversee safe, secure, humane, legal, and transparent care and custody of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” (Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Lowry)

Why donate this flag to the @Indiana National Guard?

In September 2016, about 90 soldiers from the Indiana National Guard, 38th Infantry Division, the Cyclone Division were finishing a 9-month deployment to Guantanamo Bay (2015 – 2016), with another 90 of their soldiers commencing a 9-month deployment to the remote island naval base (2016 – 2017). The soldiers performed various functions across the base, from public affairs, to logistics, to law.

In September 2016, I hand-carried the Obama Inauguration flag to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and it was flown there on 11 September.

The Indiana University McKinney School of Law, where I have taught for many years, has a long history with Guantanamo Bay. My students and I became involved with Guantanamo in 2003—conducting research, providing research memos, consulting (and I was called as an expert witness on a Guantanamo case).

Our Indiana law school has also been sending students, faculty, staff and graduates to Gitmo for years as independent Observers / Monitors, and through our Military Commission Observation Project undertake to attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on Military Commission hearings. We have produced the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, which examines rights and interests of a range of Guantanamo stakeholders, including the defendants, the prosecution, defense counsel, victims and their familes, observers, witnesses, soldiers deployed to Guantanamo, media, and others.

Furthermore, we at the law school have produced Know Before Your Go to Guantanamo Bay, which is available for anyone who travels to Guantanamo Bay for any purpose, related to the Military Commissions or otherwise, as it provides information about the Commissions as well as about many non-Commission aspects of Guantanamo Bay.

A forthcoming book is The Guantanamo Bay Reader, which tells the story of the Guantanamo Bay Military Commissions from the mouths and perspectives of those who have shaped, are shaping, and will shape the Guantanamo Bay experience.

Many Indiana Guard members have been Indiana law students / graduates, and some of them have been deployed to Guantanamo Bay.

The Indiana Cyclones have sent troops to Guantanamo for years, and indeed have a long history of servicing the nation there and elsewhere, with multiple deployments to perform military duties in places such as Afghanistan and Kosovo in addition to Guantanamo.

Another flag with inauguration / 911 anniversary provenance

Indiana McKinney law graduate at Camp Justice (Guantanamo) in front of the flagpole where the Inauguration flag was flown on 9/11 2016. The US flag is at half-mast for the death of former US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

I have another flag with identical provenance – flown above the US Capitol 8 years ago today, and flown at Camp Justice on the 15th anniversary of 9/11.

I am donating this 2nd flag to the Indiana University McKinney School of Law to hang in our building – to help demonstrate the overlapping Guantanamo Bay connections of the Indiana National Guard and our students, faculty, staff and graduates, and to demonstrate our pride at the great service performed for the school, the city of Indianapolis the state of Indiana the U.S., and the international community.

Hanging next to these donated flags – at the Indiana National Guard Armory and at the law school — will be the framed President Obama Inauguration Certificate, the framed Gitmo Camp Justice Certificate, and a framed letter explaining all of the above.

George Edwards

My Overnight in D.C. On My Way to Guantanamo bay

I am a 2L at Indiana University McKinney School of Law and am traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on mission representing the Indiana University Program on International Human Rights Law (PIHRL) Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) at the hearings in the case against Abd al Hadi al Iraqi. My Ft. Meade experience and my Guantanamo Bay pre-departure post may be found here.

Flight and Hotel Information

I had an uneventful 1.5-hour flight from Indianapolis, Indiana to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Washington, D.C. and have checked into my hotel. The Uber ride from the airport to the Quality Inn took around 30 minutes and cost a little less than a dollar per minute. A shared van or Uber could have been cheaper, but I preferred to quickly settle in to the hotel for the night. I am staying at the Quality Inn in Camp Springs, MD, which is just across the street from Joint Base Andrews. The hotel is humble and unassuming, and the rooms are large and very clean. There are three stories in the hotel building, and a room may be rented for as little as $81 per night.

Quality Inn on Allentown Road in Camp Springs, MD

There are several restaurants advertised at the front desk that deliver lunch and dinner straight to your hotel room. I ordered dinner from Pizza Boli’s. They have a website you can order from, but I called their number to place the order. My combined lunch/dinner was here in less than half an hour and the food was hot and of good quality.

Arrival Requirement

I traveled to D.C. the night before my scheduled flight to Guantanamo Bay, because I am required to arrive at Andrews by 5:00AM tomorrow (Sunday) morning, and the Pentagon graciously arranged a pick-up for me from the hotel at 4:45AM. The flight to Guantanamo Bay is scheduled to depart from Andrews at 8:20AM.

Hotel room at Quality Inn in Camp Springs, MD.

Preparing for Tomorrow

Tonight, I am preparing for departure from Andrews by re-reading an informative email I received from the Pentagon, and going over my Orders (sheila-willard_orders_redacted) and APACS (Aircraft and Personnel Automated Clearance System) (sheila-willard_apacs_redacted). These documents were sent to me by my Pentagon contact.

I am excited to meet my fellow NGO observers tomorrow morning and pass out a copy of the Manual Excerpt, a comprehensive guide for preparing to observe Guantanamo Bay proceedings. Hopefully we will have time to introduce ourselves, our organizations, and share more about our missions and perhaps receive feedback for the MCOP’s Manual, a 500-page, 2-volume resource for all things Guantanamo drafted by Professor Edwards and the PIHRL at Indiana, the Manual Excerpts, a reduced version of the Manual with highlights, such as what a fair trial looks like, the roles and responsibilities of an NGO observer, and background info on Guantanamo military commissions, and Know Before You Go Guide, a 76-page guide that speaks directly to NGO observers and is helpful in preparing for a successful mission, and may also be found in both the Manual and Manual Excerpts.

Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, ’18)

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

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

I’m heading back to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba today

My Guantanamo Bay flight boarding passport and passport, and my Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manuals.

It’s 3:59 a.m. and I just arrived at Andrews Air Force Base for my 5th or 6th trip to Cuba since the 2016 summer, and my second trip to Guantanamo Bay since the November Presidential Election.

4:15 a.m. Sunday at Andrews Air Force Base.

This time I’m monitoring hearings in the US Military Commission against al Nashiri, who allegedly masterminded the 2000 attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, killing and wounding dozens of US sailors. He is charged with a series of war crimes and faces the death penalty.

The Andrews USO area.

My job as a human rights law monitor (or observer) is to attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on these pre-trial hearings. We are interested in whether the rights and interests of all military commmission shareholders are being afforded to them. “Stakeholders” include the defendants, and also include the victims and their families, the media, the prosecution, witnesses, the US and international communities, among others.

This should be an interesting week. We have 5 days of pre-trial hearings scheduled. The issues are plentiful, with some being novel.

As I’m sitting here at Andrews, I’m observing al Nashiri’s lawyers enter the terminal, members of the prosecution team, human rights group (NGO) representatives, IT staff, trial judiciary staff, and others, all waiting for our 8:00 a.m. flight.

Why arrive at 4:00 a.m. for an 8:00 a.m. flight? Well, because we were instructed to do so. That’s it.

Jefferson Memorial–3:45 a.m.–while driving to Andrews Air Force base.

George Edwards

Arrival at Guantanamo Bay to Monitor the 9/11 Pre-trial Hearings

I have been nominated and confirmed to monitor the 9/11 pre-trial hearings against the five alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The hearings are scheduled to take place at the Guantanamo Naval Station, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from December 5-9. I am participating as an affiliate of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), which is a non-governmental organization (NGO). You can see my previous blog posts regarding this mission here and here.

Arriving at Guantanamo Bay

I left Joint Base Andrews (JBA) at 8:00a on Saturday, December 3^rd, my pre-departure blog post can be seen here. I flew over on a Boeing 767-200ER operated by Omni Air International. As an NGO observer, there was no cost to me for the flight. The flight was about half full and had approximately 110 passengers. I previously heard that the plane is usually divided into sections for different stakeholders. However, there was never any mention of sitting in a specific area and it appeared that everyone sat wherever they wanted to. It may have been different because the flight was so empty.

After arriving on base at about noon, the NGOs gathered in a group with our escort. There are eight NGO observers in my group, including myself. Our mission is to be the eyes and ears for the outside world. We are responsible for attending, observing, analyzing, critiquing, and reporting our experiences at the pre-trial hearings and Guantanamo Bay in general. We have an escort that helps us move around the base. Our escort also facilitates various needs that we have throughout our time at GTMO. The escort also ensures that we get to court and other places on time. This was our escort’s first time working as an NGO escort, although the escort has been to Guantanamo Bay multiple times.

After departing the plane, the NGOs went into a building where military personnel checked our passports and paperwork. The military personnel inspected our paperwork then sent us to a lobby in the building. Our escort made a phone call to see if we had a vehicle coming to pick us up. After about fifteen minutes, two vans arrived to take us and our luggage to Camp Justice. The main portion of the Naval Base is across Guantanamo Bay from the airport where the plane arrived. I, along with the other seven NGOs, were taken across Guantanamo Bay via ferry. It took about 20 minutes to get across Guantanamo Bay.

Arriving at Camp JusticeAfter exiting the ferry, we were then driven to Camp Justice and had an opportunity to unpack and settle in. The accommodations have been surprisingly comfortable. We have had access to free internet (via Ethernet cord) in the MWR (morale, welfare, and recreation) tent, which is only 50 feet from the housing tents.

After we settled into camp, we were taken to have our badges made. We also received a short briefing from the head of security. A lot of the discussion focused on where we were allowed to take pictures. Within the Expeditionary Legal Center (ELC), we were informed that we could only take pictures in three areas. The head of security provided us a map that showed the areas that we could take pictures. I folded the map and took it with me when we were finished with the security briefing. After I walked outside the head of security came out and told me that he needed the map back. Without the map it was unclear where pictures were allowed to be taken in the ELC. The general rule at GTMO is to not take any pictures of structures that are inside a fence. Some areas also have signs that say “no photography.”

Around the island

Since we arrived on Saturday, and hearings do not start until Monday, we had the weekend to explore the base with our escort. On Saturday, we had a meeting lined up with the defense team for al Baluchi. The meeting was a great opportunity to speak with the defense team in an informal setting. They were very candid in their responses, and they answered all of the questions asked. It was nice to get their perspective, but I will reserve any judgment until I have had an opportunity to listen to the prosecution and see the hearings this week.

On Sunday, we went on a driving tour of the base. We started by driving to Camp X-Ray. I had requested a foot tour of Camp X-Ray but our escort said that it takes at least a month to get approval to do a foot tour. We stopped on the road and were able to look at the camp. It was probably 150 yards from the road and was very overgrown with weeds and trees. We were not allowed to take photographs of Camp X-Ray. We were then taken to Windmill Hill, which provided excellent views of the island. We could also see the detention facilities from there. There were no pictures allowed there either. Next, we drove by Radio GTMO, which was closed. We then drove to Cable beach. Finally, we made our way back to Camp Justice.

A portion of our group then decided to go to the beach. We were informed that Girl Scout Beach would be the best beach for swimming. Hurricane

Justin at Girl Scout Beach

Matthew caused some damage to the stairs that lead down to the beach, but it had been repaired recently. The beach was nice but sandals or beach shoes would have been helpful because it is very rocky. The water temperature was great and the water was very clear.

Part of the group finished the day at O’Kelly’s Irish Pub and the other half of our group watched Hacksaw Ridge at the Lyceum outdoor movie theater. I was happy to see that the base had many of the same amenities as home, although, it often creates a strange dichotomy. One minute you are driving by a football field and McDonalds, then the next minute you are driving by buildings and tents surrounds by fencing and razor wire.

The base also had a lot of holiday activities and decorations. There was a Christmas parade on Sunday, with decorated floats. The NEX (similar to a supermarket) had a bunch of decorated Christmas trees outside. Near the marina, there was a very large decorated tree and a bunch of outdoor Christmas decorations. When we are traveling through the base, it very much felt like any other town.

Justin and two other NGOs.

I look forward to posting about the upcoming pre-trial hearings.

Justin at Girl Scout Beach

Iguana at Girl Scout Beach

Justin’s room at Camp Justice

Girl Scout Beach

Girl Scout Beach

Girl Scout Beach

Justin W. Jones (J.D. Candidate, ’18)
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
Program in International Human Rights Law
Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Awaiting Departure to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

I am now at Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility Washington, known as JBA – Joint Base

Reading the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual the night before departure.

Andrews – awaiting my departure at 08:00. I was picked up, along with three other NGO Observers, at 04:00, at a hotel just outside of JBA. The check-in process was quick and very similar to checking into a civilian airport.

Boarding ticket

We are fly to Guantanamo Bay to monitor hearings in the case against Khalid Shaik Mohammad and four other alleged masterminds of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The flight is scheduled to depart at 08:00. The original departure time was 10:00. I heard that the flight was moved up two hours because the pilot would have been over hours for the day if the flight departed at 10:00.

The hearings are scheduled to run from December 5 – 9. I will be returning to JBA on December 1o.

I have met the other NGO’s Observers and distributed excerpts from the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual.

I will be departing soon, and my next post will be from Cuba.

Justin W. Jones (J.D. Candidate, ’18)
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
Program in International Human Rights Law
Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Preparing to travel to Guantanamo Bay to monitor 9/11 hearings

I was selected to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor the U.S. Military Commission in the case against the alleged masterminds of 9/11. I was approached just over a week ago by Professor Edwards when he was inquiring into my availability to travel to Guantanamo Bay either the first or second week of December. He informed me that there was no guarantee of nomination or acceptance, but I was very excited to even have the possibility of traveling to Guantanamo Bay to monitor the 9/11 hearings. I quickly responded that I was available to monitor the hearing during the first week of December. Less than 24 hours later I was on a video conference with Professor Edwards regarding my interest in traveling to Guantanamo Bay to monitor the 9/11 pre-trial hearing. I was nominated by the Program a few hours later and my information was sent to the Pentagon for selection approval. To my surprise, less than three hours after being nominated by the Program, I received the following email from the Office of Military Commissions (OMC) – Convening Authority:

Good afternoon Justin,

You have been CONFIRMED to observe the December 5-9 9/11 military commission in-person at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are scheduled to depart Andrews Air Force Base at 1000 on Saturday, December 3, 2016, and will return on Saturday, December 10, 2016, around 1330.

I was very excited to have received the confirmation, and I was incredibly surprised that it occurred so quickly. I was concerned that the process might be slowed down by the upcoming holiday, so I was very happy to have received the confirmation the same day.

The Logistics

On the evening of December 2^nd, I will be arriving at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Arlington, VA. That night I will be staying at a hotel at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. Joint Base Andrews was formed when Andrews Air Force base and Naval Air Facility Washington merged in 2009. I am scheduled to depar usbase t Joint Base Andrews at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, December 3^rd. I plan to arrive at Guantanamo Bay from December 3^rd until December 10^th. Travel plans have frequently changed during other NGOs’ missions, so I am trying to book refundable tickets in case anything changes in the next week. I currently do not have any information on the type of plane or the estimated time of arrival in Guantanamo Bay.

Paperwork

In the email that I received from the OMC – Convening Authority, I was informed that I would need to complete and return four documents: (1) a hold harmless agreement, (2) an invitational travel worksheet, (3) a Department of Navy base access pass registration, and (4) the NGO ground rules. Aline Fagundes was kind enough to provide me with copies of

Aline at Guantanamo Bay

her paperwork so that I could use them as a guide to properly fill out my forms. The forms are generally self-explanatory; however, there are some parts of the forms that would be difficult to accurately fill out without having a sample. I am currently working on creating a pdf with sample forms and instructions for completing the four documents required by the OMC.

I did run into an issue with sending the documents back to the OMC. I sent the four documents as .pdf attachments. Three of them went through fine, but the OMC told me that one of the documents was too dark. I opened the document up and it looked great on my end. I resent the document but again the OMC stated that the document was too dark. I rescanned the document into individual pictures (not .pdf). Then I sent the document in two individual attachments, with one page in each attachment. This time the OMC was able to clearly read the document. I used the same scanner both times and both times the document was clear and legible on my end.

NOTE: If the OMC is having issues reading your document, try to send the document in .jpeg format instead of .pdf.

Preparing for the Hearing

I still have a lot of work to do in the next week. First, I will

Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual

continue to review the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual. I will also be checking mc.mil to review the pleadings and filing that are currently available. Hopefully, by early next week, mc.mil will have more up-to-date postings. I will also be speaking with Aline because she was the last IU Affiliate to attend a 9/11 hearing. I was at Ft. Meade in October to observe the al Nashiri pre-trial hearing, see the blog post here, but I am not up-to-date on the 9/11 hearings yet.

Justin at Ft. Meade

Conclusion

I am honored to have been selected to travel to Guantanamo Bay to monitor the 9/11 hearing. I look forward to documenting my experience and providing my analysis of the proceedings.

Justin W. Jones, J.D. Candidate (2018)
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
Program in International Human Rights Law
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Arriving at Guantanamo Bay for Hadi hearing.

I flew from Andrews Air Force base to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on a Delta Airlines 757 chartered by the Department of Defense to ferry over 100 people involved with the Military Commission case against Hadi al Iraqi.

I am with a team of 11 representatives of non-governmental organization fouls (NGOs) who are monitoring these criminal proceedings.

Today’s business on the ground was primarily getting a security briefing, picking up our Military Commission badges, learning our likely program of courtroom and other activities for the week, dinner at O’Kelly’s Irish pub, and playing Taboo.

Our first hearings are in the morning.

Members of the Delta cabin crew joined me for photos at the Guantanamo Bay Air Station.

A couple of the NGOs took photos at Camp Justice, where we are living in tents for the next several days.

My First Trip to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Post Trump’s Election

At Andrews Air Force Base this morning

Usually in my pre-departure blogs before I travel to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, I focus on the specific detainee whose hearings I am traveling to monitor. This time it is a little bit different.

I’m sitting at Andrews Air Force Base waiting for a plane to Cuba for hearings in the case of Hadi al Iraqi, who is alleged to be a high level member of al Qaeda, liaison between Al Qaeda Iraq and the Taliban, and responsible for deaths of multiple individuals perpetrated in the context of armed conflict.

This is my first trip to Guantánamo Bay under a new administration elect. There are dozens of us here at Andres, sitting and waiting. Everyone is involved with the Military Commission hearings–the prosecution, defense counsel, media, NGOs, court room staff, tech staff, and many others.

How many are asking themselves now whether the new administration will move towards closing Guantánamo Bay, move towards keeping it open, or move towards increasing the numbers of detainees at Guantanamo?

Will members of ISIS or Daesh be sent to Guantanamo? Will “enhanced interrogation” continue at the levels deemed acceptable by the Obama administration, or will it be increased beyond that–at levels deemed by the Obama administration to be unlawful? Will this enhanced interrogation, if it is reinstituted, be conducted at Guantánamo Bay or conducted elsewhere before individuals are taking to Guantanamo Bay?

Will there be additional prosecutions of detainees who have bee at Guantanamo up to 15 years? If so, will there be charges that carry the death penalty?

We should have answers to these and other questions soon enough–if not before 20 January 2017, then certainly soon after.

With NGO colleague Lyn who was with me in September for Hadi hearings st Gitmo

My Experience: Monitoring Guantanamo Bay War Crimes Hearings

I Monitored Guantanamo Bay War Crimes Hearings Broadcast Live at Ft. Meade, Maryland.

Guantanamo Bay war crimes hearings are broadcast via CCTV live from Cuba to Ft. Meade, an army base in Maryland. I traveled from Indiana to Ft. Meade, Maryland to monitor Guantanamo Bay pre-trial hearings in the case against Khalid Shaik Mohammed and the 4 other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

I arrived at Washington-Dulles International Airport on Sunday, 9 October 2016 for hearings scheduled to begin the next day. Monday, October 10, Columbus Day. We learned that the hearings would start a day later, on Tuesday, October 11, so I decided to use Monday to tour Washington D.C. Unfortunately, while at Ft. Meade I missed my husband’s bar admission ceremony on Tuesday morning in Indianapolis. Thankfully, he had encouraged me to attend the hearing, as he understood that it was a very special opportunity.

Local Transportation and Venturing into D.C.

I booked a Super Shuttle – a shared van cheaper than a taxi — to take me to Ft. Meade. Since I opted for the cheaper option, it took about 2 hours to reach the military base. The van dropped off 3 other passengers on the way. The Ft. Meade Visitor Center was closed when I arrived. I was thankful that fellow Indiana University McKinney School of Law students Katherine Forbes was waiting at the gate to escort me onto the base. Katherine is a member of the military, and has an ID card (Department of Defense CAC – Common Access Card) that permits her to enter the base and escort others onto the base. I was not going to be able to pick up my Ft. Meade access badge until Tuesday morning, just before the hearings began. We had dinner and went to our hotel for the evening.

The next morning, Columbus Day, Katherine dropped me off at Odenton train station (the MARC station), about an 8-minute drive from Ft. Meade. The train ride into D.C. was very reasonably priced, and only took about 40 minutes from Odenton Station to Union Station. Union Station is located half a mile from the Capitol building and the Supreme Court. From there, I used Uber to get around and spent the day wandering around the city and walking from landmark to landmark. I made it back to Ft. Meade by 7PM, and had dinner with Katherine before continuing to prepare for the next day’s hearing.

The Hotel

Katherine is in the Indiana National Guard, so we were able to stay at the Candlewood Hotel located inside Ft. Meade. The hotel was built only 3 years ago, and was very clean and well-appointed. Our room had a kitchen, including a dishwasher, full size refrigerator, microwave, and coffeemaker. The cabinets were stocked with silverware, dishes, and glasses. Every morning, the hotel offers a complimentary continental breakfast.

Entrance to the Candlewood Hotel located inside the base at Ft. Meade.

Visitor Center

On Tuesday morning, Katherine and I drove to the Visitor Center and met up with Faisel Sadat, an Egyptian international LL.M. student at IU McKinney. He needed to be escorted onto the base, and Katherine was able to do that. Faisel and I were each issued a day pass onto the base.

After successfully picking up my day pass to access the base.

Badge Issue

Originally, we were under the impression that our Ft. Meade badges would be valid for one year from the day of pick-up. Unfortunately, there must have been a misunderstanding, because we were only issued a one-day pass. We were able to get back onto the base with no problem, and made our way to the hearing located at the McGill Training Center.

driving%20up%20to%20ft%20meade%20entrance

Driving up to the Ft. Meade control station after picking up our badges from the Visitor Center.

The Courtroom – Viewing from McGill Training Center

The room in which the hearing was broadcast was a large training/educational room in the McGill Training Center. There were several rows of desks with 2-3 chairs per long desk. In the back of the classroom, there was a cubby box of around 20 individual cubbies to place your phone in, which could be locked with a key. Personal communication devices are not allowed during the transmission of the court proceedings. Apart from the IU McKinney attendees, there was one gentleman present who works for a federal law enforcement agency, another gentleman I did not meet, and a lady whom I also did not meet.

The section of the courtroom at Guantanamo Bay that was visible at any given moment depended on who was speaking and which camera was panning at that moment. There was a camera that showed most of the courtroom, with the defendants, their counsel, and the prosecution visible at once, a view of the judge when he spoke, a view of the witnesses who testified seated next to the judge, and live feed from witnesses who transmitted their testimony from a location just outside of Washington, DC.

From the perspective of the judge looking into the courtroom, the 5 defendants were seated on the right, each at a separate table.

Each defense team was split according to the defendant, and divided into 5 small groups, seated in the 5 rows. Seated at the 6^th and final table on the defense side were lawyers for one of the defendants who did not want his lawyers to sit next to him at his table. Each defendant was wearing a headdress, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the most recognizable in his

The prosecution sat at a series of tables to the left of the judge.

The Hearing

The hearing started at 9:00 AM with Military Commission Judge Army Colonel James L. Pohl addressing each defendant, inquiring whether they understood their rights to waive attendance at the hearing. Each of the five defendants was required to be present to hear their rights, but, Ramzi bin al Shibh was not present when court opened.

The judge addressed al Shibh’s counsel, requesting that he convince al Shibh to voluntarily be present at the hearing, otherwise, he would be involuntarily brought in. He called for a 15 minute recess for bin al Shibh’s counsel to speak with him. When the court reconvened, al Shibh had joined his defense at the table.

bin al Shibh stated on the record that he boycotted the legal proceedings, and in an act of protest, refused to acknowledge his right to waive attendance. The judge asked him several times to acknowledge his rights, but al Shibh refused. Eventually, the judge asked for al Shibh to be escorted away, and we found out through Aline Fagundes, a McKinney LL.M. student who was present in the observer gallery of the courtroom, that al Shibh was removed, while

The four other defendants — Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ammar al Baluchi, and Mustafa al Hawsawi — acknowledged their rights in Arabic. Each defendant had an interpreter seated next to him to who helped facilitate conversations between the defendants and their defense team members. There was an off camera interpreter who interpreted on-the-record communications in the courtroom.

Motions

The hearing proceeded with the following motions/issues addressed:

Defense raised al Baluchi’s motion to compel declassification of classified documents.
Regarding the seizure of a certain document containing defense notes from the defendant, four witnesses were put on the stand to testify:
- “Captain L”
- “Captain B”
- “Assistant Watch Commander 1482”
- “Major (?)”

Regarding the modification of a protective order, Learned Counsel James Connell III asked the judge to require the modification of the order in question, and not allow the creation of a new order as a matter of simplification.

Lunch

The courtroom recessed at 12:45 PM for lunch, and the group of observers made our way to lunch on the base, to discuss what he had experienced so far, and ask for clarification from Professor Edwards on procedural questions.

The 6 IU McKinney Observers went to the Food Court. We chose different restaurants, got our food, then all sat together to talk about what transpired that morning in court. We talked about the proceedings up to that point, and discussed why the hearings were taking as long as they are, in general.

I learned from that defense’s counsel appear to work as hard for their clients as any defense counsel would, notwithstanding what criminal actions the client may have allegedly been involved in or how much evidence may exist of the client’s involvement.

We then took group photographs before returning for post-lunch proceedings.

Afternoon Hearing

The court reconvened at 2:00 PM.

The first motion presented after lunch concerned classified material. The defense argued that documents received from the prosecution were highly redacted and in some cases, unable to be read other than a few words. It was a concern to the defense that the redactions were causing discovery issues, and that redactions were being applied arbitrarily and in a disingenuous manner, to intentionally interfere with defense’s preparation. The hearing continued until 4:00 PM on the topic of redaction, until Judge Pohl called for the hearing to be continued the following day.

Post-Hearing

After the courtroom was dismissed for the day, I had a chance to speak with one of the other Observers who seemed to work for the government and who has been to Guantanamo Bay on many occasions. It was interesting to speak with someone who appears to have sound knowledge about the Military Commissions.

A little later, I was dropped off at the Visitor Center where Super Shuttle was picking me up to take me back to the airport. While at the Visitor Center, I ran into Professor Edwards, and we discussed the hearing, and my background and interests. He was at the Visitor Center to discuss the issue of several observers being given one-day passes instead of a year-long access card. The person in charge told Professor Edwards that they would look into the problem. After discussing the issue, Professor Edwards and I took several pictures outside of the Visitor Center that may be helpful to a future observer in finding where to go upon arrival at Ft. Meade.

Enjoying a nice chat with Professor Edwards at the Visitor Center while waiting for my shuttle back to Dulles airport.

From Ft. Meade to Dulles, and Home Again, Reflection

This time, I was the only person picked up by the shuttle, so the drive to Dulles only took about an hour, even in evening rush hour traffic. The plane ride back home was quick and uneventful. I look forward to observing again in the future.

This opportunity afforded me a valuable glimpse into the proceedings that are ongoing in Guantanamo Bay. The fact that I am one of not many people to actually be able to witness the proceedings feels very special, and something I will remember for the rest of my life.

I knew that the hearings would have the normal U.S. court proceeding structure, but the realization did not occur to me until that morning that I would have the rare opportunity to hear the “9/11 Five” speak live. Seeing the defendants and hearing them speak both Arabic and English really brought a very human moment to an occurrence in history that seemed surreal to me, having happened when I was a young girl.

I urge anyone with an interest to apply as an observer. The opportunity is very unique, and not something many people can say they have ever experienced from the vantage of the IU McKinney Military Commission Observation Project.

Sheila Willard, J.D. Candidate 2018

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

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Fall Break Trip to Meade for KSM hearings

A Long Awaited Trip to Fort Meade

Over fall break I had the opportunity to travel to Fort Meade, Maryland to view the pretrial hearings of alleged terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). KSM is alleged to be involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as well as other terrorist activities. Mohammed is currently being held in Guantánamo Bay, and while the hearings take place in Cuba, approved NGO observers can view the hearings via secure link from Fort Meade military base. I’ve been involved with the Military Commission Observation Project for almost a year now and this is the first time I’ve had an opportunity to view a hearing. This spring I was scheduled to attend the hearing of Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, who is alleged to be involved in attacks and terrorist plots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, however that hearing was postponed just before departure.

As an NGO observer it’s important to stay up to date on the hearing schedule because it changes frequently and sometimes with little notice. The KSM hearings were originally scheduled for Monday through Friday of Fall Break however we received word from Professor Edwards that the hearings most likely would not be held on Monday and the earliest start would be Tuesday. I arrived on Tuesday morning after an all-night drive from Indiana. After checking in at the Fort Meade visitor Center, I proceeded to the building on the military base where the hearings were streamed. I didn’t realize how large Fort Meade is. It has its own shopping mall with food court and hundreds of families live on the base, which is home to divisions of several government agencies.

Court is in Session

The court room was not at all what I expected. I was imagining a traditional looking court room and was playing off some stereotypes from the 1992 thriller “A Few Good Men”, however the court room was a simple room and full of books on rolling carts. Also I expected to see one camera angle for the duration of the hearings, however the court has several cameras for several camera angles and the feed switches camera angles depending on who is speaking in the courtroom. A few times during the hearing we had to pause because of problems with the translator’s equipment, which is apparently a reoccurring problem. This matter is further confounded by the fact that KSM speaks English and was educated in the United States. The main issue being discussed while I was at the hearing had to do with contents of KSM’s legal bin. Detainees have their own legal bin, which is a physical bin, and when they do any work in preparation for trial they are instructed to place this work in their legal bin so that it is not reviewed by unauthorized parties. Further any paper with writing or any material done in anticipation of trial is supposed to be stamped with a detainee specific stamp and number.

Topics for Consideration

Problematically KSM is not supplied with pre-stamped paper. His attorneys allege that material from his legal bin was reviewed during cell searches. The facts seem to support this claim and we heard testimony from several people with relevant knowledge of the incidents. It really seemed to come down to the fact that while the material was in the legal bin, it wasn’t stamped with the proper stamp and number. Those who gave testimony and who had relevant knowledge of the matter claim that when the cell was searched and the materials in question were discovered, a translator was summoned and that the translator recognized that the writing, which was in Arabic, was done in anticipation of legal proceedings. While, practically, a translator might be qualified to make this determination, procedurally, this is inappropriate because the translator shouldn’t be functioning in a legal capacity. Further, if the writing was done in anticipation of legal proceedings then the contents of that material should be limited to only KSM and his attorneys. These incidents threaten KSM’s attorney-client privilege, because unauthorized parties are reviewing legal material. However, one can also see why it might be problematic to provide KSM with pre-stamped paper to be used for legal purposes without knowing what he’s going to write on it and that it actually will be used for legal purposes.

The court went on to consider other motions and the subject of classified material became a forefront issue. Specifically, there were a lot of pages of classified material that the defendant’s attorney would like to have further access to. During the hearings in Fort Meade the live stream sometimes shows a document rather than a camera angle. During the hearing I attended, several documents were presented with sections of the documents blocked out, not visible, because the materials were considered classified. One of the problems that the court struggled with is what to do with this situation. The judge at one point, in an aside, plundered aloud whether he should be the one to review the documents which he himself claimed not to have access to. It was also briefly considered that it might be appropriate for KSM’s attorneys to have access to some of the classified material, while withholding it from the detainee himself. Of course this also presents challenges because KSM’s attorneys might be acting on information that KSM is not privy to himself.

A Word to Future Observers

As is often the case in legal proceedings, the Military Commission Observation Project pretrial hearings are often plagued with cancellation, delays, and other incidents that can affect the hearing schedules. In fact, when I went to Fort Meade over fall break there was concern that Hurricane Matthew could delay the hearing, but nonessential evacuated personnel were returned to Guantánamo Bay before that hearing was set to take place and the hearings preceded on Tuesday, one day later than previously scheduled. And the Abdul Hadi al Iraqi pretrial hearings in January were postponed as a result of a motion for continuance.

I drove out to Fort Meade and next time I’ll consider flying, but if I do fly I’ll be sure to purchase travel insurance in case something unexpected happens with the hearing that I’m scheduled to attend. Getting onto base at Fort Meade is easier than I expected. I submitted the proper paperwork to Professor Edwards prior to departure and didn’t have any problems when I got to the Fort Meade Visitor Center. However, after you’ve been cleared by the Visitor Center, make sure you attempt to enter the base through gate that is convenient to get to the viewing building and see the hearing. I learned the hard way that if you put the building location in your GPS, your turn by turn navigation might lead you into Fort Meade installation by a gate other than the one that is the most convenient for you. In the end I was fine however I entered Fort Mead military installation through an NSA drop off entrance. While I was allowed entrance to Fort Meade through the NSA entrance I was subject to additional security screening. This happened on the second day when I attempted to return for the hearings. On the first day I followed Prof. Edwards instructions, went in through the most convenient gate, and didn’t have any problems.

My Week in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

For a week in October 2016, I had the most extraordinary experience of my academic life, certainly one of the most extraordinary experiences of my whole life. I traveled to the Guantanamo Naval Station, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to monitor the U.S. Military Commission case against five alleged masterminds of the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I was nominated to represent the Military Commission Observation Project of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law. Our Indiana program, sponsored by the McKinney Program in International Human Rights Law, is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that is permitted to send law students, faculty, staff and graduates to Guantanamo to monitor hearings.

photo-oct-10-12-49-35-pm

Flying to the island

Our flight from Andrews Joint Base, near Washington DC, to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was originally scheduled to depart on Saturday, October 8. For reasons that are not very clear to me (click here for more details), a large plane flew for Guantanamo Bay but left at least two groups of people behind – member of the media and 13 NGO representatives, including me. The NGOs flight was postponed until Monday, October 10. That meant that we had to spend two nights in hotels near Andrews, at our own expense.

The original Saturday flight was supposed to be operated as a charter by a regular commercial airline (like United, or American Airlines). Usually, the regular flights carry virtually all Guantanamo Bay participants, including the defense counsel, the prosecution, the judge and the judge’s staff, the media, victims and victims’ family members, interpreters and translators, IT personnel, and other personnel. Everybody travels together on the same plane, arrives at Guantanamo Bay at the same time, and have an equal amount of time on the ground at Guantanamo Bay to prepare for the hearings.

The Pentagon hired a Jetstream 31, 15 seat private jet to transport the NGOs on Monday morning. The trip from Andrews to Guantanamo on Saturday’s commercial flight took around 3 hours. Our trip on Monday on the Jetstream took over 9 hours, including one layover in Georgetown, SC and one in Opa-Locka, FL. The last leg on the Jetstream, which had no toilet on board, lasted 3 hours. Tough.

We arrived at Guantanamo (“on island”, as they call it) around 8 pm on Monday, and had to hurry to catch the ferry from the landing strip to the main part of the Guantanamo base, otherwise we would need to wait another full hour – until 9 pm – for the next ferry.

We finally made it to Camp Justice, our “tent city” where we would live for the next week. We NGOs left all our stuff in the tents we were housed and went directly to the security area where they made our security badges. After that, it was so late that the only place open for food on island was the Guantanamo Bay MacDonald’s. The tiredness and hunger prevented any complaints. After we ate, the military escorts took us to our tents. I knew we would be housed in tents, but I confess I underestimated what this entailed. The tent and other facilities were extremely simple.

photo-oct-10-9-55-39-pm

The tents were simple and, to keep iguanas and banana rats away, extremely cold.

The first full day

Those who wanted to have breakfast at the Galley, which is the cafeteria where soldiers on base eat, should be ready standing outside the tents at 6:15 am. Worth it. Excellent breakfast for $ 3.45.

The hearings were scheduled to start at 9 am. So, after breakfast, our Pentagon escorts met the NGOs at 8:00. Even though the walk to the courtroom takes only about 5 minutes, we had to go early so we could go through several security checks, much more extensive than security at any U.S. airport.

After we entered the courtroom, I went to my assigned seat in the Courtroom Viewing Gallery, which is in the back of the courtroom. Between the gallery and the actual courtroom there is a double-pained bullet proof glass. The NGOs, media, victims and victim’s family members watch it from the gallery, where the sound from the courtroom is transmitted with 40 seconds delay, in case any classified information is mentioned. My seat was directly behind the five alleged masterminds of the 9-11 attack. Unbelievable. We were seated only a few feet behind 5 men who allegedly perpetrated one of the greatest crimes in history – the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The hearings

The hearing lasts from Tuesday to Friday, though some of the hearings contained classified information and those portions were closed to NGOs, media, and victims and their families. Memories of this week in courtroom include arguments about torture, debates about a joint defense agreement (the 5 defense teams agreeing on some points), documents seized by jailers, depositions by closed-circuit transmission, one accused acting in his own defense, the defendants’ prayer ritual in the courtroom, extraordinary arguments on novel topics, and even a few jokes between the judge and the counsels. The hearings are still in the pre-trial phase, though the World Trade Center attack happened over 15 years ago (11 September 2001), and these 5 defendants were arraigned 5 years ago (2011).

To be able to write faster I made all my annotations in Portuguese, my first language. I brought around thirty pages of written records, which I am willing to organize and publish. Thanks to the Indiana University McKinney School of Law’s Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual I was able to follow more appropriately all the procedures.

At the end of the hearings on the first day of the week, the family members of victim’s, who were seated on the right side of the gallery, walked to the left side and stopped right behind the defendants, just in front of my seat. A family member held the picture of her youngest sister against the glass, pointing in the direction of the defendants, who would walk towards us as they were escorted out of the courtroom. This was a very sad and tense moment.

photo-oct-13-4-04-43-pm

Conclusion

I left the Guantanamo Bay feeling conflicted. That beautiful place facing the Caribbean blue sea carries sadness and shame. Much needs to be done to reach justice, fair trial, and transparency. My mission is not done. I realized it has just begun. I consider myself a fortunate person to be afforded an opportunity to be the eyes and the ears of the outside world in Guantanamo Bay. Keep tuned! I will publish more!

Post Hearing Report

October 21, 2016

By: Casey Seaton

The al-Nashiri hearings I was scheduled to observe were to take place October 17-19. . . . I managed to catch the October 18th. Missing the 19th was part of my scheduled plan as I needed to return to work in Indianapolis, but missing the 17th was an unscheduled but not unanticipated scheduling change.

As many know, hearings are subject to change; that is even more so the case for the hearings of this commission. Instead of starting at 0900, the first day of the hearing was rescheduled for a start time of 1300. The scheduling change was due to some sort of setback between al-Nashiri and his lawyer. A change of counsel was mentioned, though I cannot confirm that is what caused the delay.

At any rate, since everyone at Ft. Meade–seemingly everyone but the individual in charge of streaming the video feed–was in the dark about the rescheduling, I naturally made sure to show up plenty early for the 0900 start time I then still believed was in effect. Being early, I had plenty time to take a brief self-guided tour of the base; I got to see it amid a beautiful, crisp Maryland morning, and I even came across a street named for one of Indiana University’s most revered alumni:

The lack of knowledge about the rescheduling was not much of an issue though as it gave Prof. Edwards and myself time to tour the military base and take, I believe at last count, half a billion photos in front of various Ft. Meade related signs. A few samples are shown here:

The afternoon start time proved to be ineffective at Ft. Meade as well. Though the hearing had commenced down in Cuba, the audio and video feeds were faulty at our location. Word is that this was the first time in seven years of doing this at Ft. Meade that technical difficulties carried the day. We later found out that severe storms temporarily damaged the transmitter down in Cuba, causing the malfunction. Fortunately, IU McKinney student-observer David Frangos was live at the Gitmo site and fully filled us in on all the relevant details.

Tuesday, October 18th proved to be a much smoother ride. The hearing began promptly at 0900 as scheduled. The morning hours of the hearing were filled with oral argument by military members representing both the government and the defendant. As a slight aside, the military member representing the defense during this session was female, a fact relevant to the balance of employment versus religious rights issues that occasionally creep into these settings. Though attempting to keep a neutral perspective on the entire process and each involved individual’s rights and stakes, I admittedly feel strongly biased here in favor of the woman, which is why this is as far into this issue as I will delve given the context and point of these observation positions.

Now back to our regularly scheduled report: Each side questioned witness Michael Quinn, a higher ranking military man brought, remotely, as the defendant’s witness but seemingly favoring the government’s story. Mr. Quinn was testifying as a witness for the defense as they attempted to make their case that the military commission set up to oversee and overhear these terrorism trials was flawed, perhaps legally unsupported, and untrustworthy. On direct examination, Mr. Quinn seemed to be getting cross examined, and on cross he seemed to be on direct. It was a bit odd, but for the purpose for which the defense called him to testify, perhaps the facts just lent themselves towards supporting the government’s argument. It did seem as though the defense was really stretching and contorting their argument beyond what evidence of foul play they had, but perhaps that was just a combination of my lack of understanding and the defense counsel’s lack of clarity.

After a lunch break, the afternoon portion of the day’s hearing began. This section of the hearing was much more understandable and thus easier to follow, perhaps because of the background knowledge that came as a result of observing the morning session. This session was dominated by Mr. Kammen, a high-profile defense attorney from Indianapolis, and Mr. Martin, a highly decorated military officer, representing, as he put it, “a very large client in the U.S. government.” We did catch two glimpses of the defendant, but we never heard him speak. He was present only for the afternoon session this day because he had been feeling ill and opted not to attend the morning session.

The afternoon was dominated by what swelled to become passionate colloquy about a couple of emails, only it wasn’t about the emails, only it was. . . . Apparently, the government and the judiciary, not the presiding judge but someone else in his camp, exchanged a few emails without letting defense counsel know about the exchanges. In some circumstances, this is allowed, such as when it is clear that the exchanges were simply regarding housekeeping, administrative issues. In all other cases, such ex parte exchanges are considered prejudicial foul play and are highly disfavored by the unincluded party. Such exchanges as the latter also cast a vast shadow of distrust and abuse of discretion over the entire process, since both the prosecution and the judiciary are actually government-related creatures.

This high level of mistrust and skepticism was what made this seemingly non-issue into such a majorly contentious point. The defense wanted the judge to order the government to turn over the communications for the sake of transparency and integrity and to counter the history of “iffiness” about the trustworthiness of the commission that has pervaded the years of litigation involved with these terrorism charges. The government’s interest in keeping the communications out of the hands of the defense was to avoid setting a precedent of having to disclose what they considered work product or confidential communications over to the defense. Essentially, it was the public policy versus the slippery slope argument. The judge did not rule on this issue the day I was there.

The judge was put in a precarious position, but he did a good job of transparently explaining his thought process in weighing the evidence and the effect of his decision-making. He repeatedly emphasized, essentially, how much time is wasted year-in-and-year-out over such seemingly trivial issues. I believe this is why he kept pushing the defense to trust that the communications in dispute were in fact trivial. Still, the defense did a good job of using reason to express why he felt obligated to distrust this approach, however trustworthy he actually thought the judge.

The judge clearly wanted to take a pragmatic approach and get the ball rolling on these hearings, largely for the sake of the families of victims involved, among all others who have committed so much time to these cases, whether voluntarily or not. I appreciated how the judge pushed each side by using the best, strongest, toughest arguments of one side against the other. He would appear strongly in favor of the side adverse to the person he was questioning thereby really making each side’s counsel clarify their points and make their case in the most persuasive ways possible. He would then express that he is still wholly undecided and will really need to think this through. I thought it was a very effective approach.

I am glad to have participated in the hearing observation program, but I do have two major criticisms about the hearings and this process as a whole. From my vantage point, the long drawn out nature of these cases (over 16 years thus far for this case) is extremely excessive. I mean, this case is not even close to going to trial. This process needs to be revamped for efficiency going forward for the sake of all parties involved. Further the entire process needs to be revamped for the sake of economical soundness. From what I understand, defense counsel are flown to and from their places of residency, for Mr. Kammen that would be Indianapolis, IN, to either DC or Cuba (oftentimes on more or less empty military planes for the Cuba trips) each and every time something as minimal as a legal paperwork filing happens. I would imagine that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to such waste too, unfortunately. I understand that the reason for such apparent waste is security, but in today’s technological age and with our country’s know-how, we can definitely do better, be more efficient, and provide fairer trials beneficial to all involved.

Preparing To Travel To Ft. Meade

Introduction

My name is Justin W. Jones and I am a 3L evening student at the IU McKinney School of Law. I work as an accountant, and I am also an extern at the United St aaeaaqaaaaaaaaiiaaaajdc1yjhlyjg5ltliodgtngmyys1hmdqzlwfkmmm3zdm5ymiyyq ates District Court- Southern District of Indiana. I am honored to have been selected as an observer for the IU McKinney U.S. Military Commission Observation Project and look forward to contributing to the project. I am scheduled to monitor the hearing of Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu al-Nashiri. My fellow IU McKinney classmate, David Frangos, has an excellent post on this blog discussing the upcoming al-Nashiri hearing (dated October 10, 2016).

As I type this post, I am currently finishing a fall break road trip with my fiancée and daughter. We are driving over 4,000 miles in nine days and have had the opportunity to see and experience many great parts of our country. Some of the highlights of the trip were Yellowstone National Park, Jackson Hole, the Badlands, and Mt. Rushmore.

While looking at Mt. Rushmore, I was reminded of a quote by Abraham Lincoln: “[A] law may be both constitutional and expedient, and yet may be administered in an unjust and unfair way.” The Military Commission Observation Project allows us to hold our government accountable for administering our laws in a just and fair manner. We owe it not only to the defendants, but also the victims and their families, the media, the prosecutors, and everyone else to ensure that our government is held to a high standard that makes us proud to be Americans. My goal is to accurately and impartially report my observations.

Schedule

I will be monitoring the proceedings in the case against al Nashiri. He is the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which resulted in the death of 17 U.S. sailors. The hearing was originally scheduled to run from October 17 to October 21. I have been informed that the court has reduced the hearing down to three days, October 17-19. I will be leaving Indianapolis on October 18 and plan to arrive at Ft. Meade by 8:30am the same day. If everything occurs as scheduled, I will be able to monitor the hearing on October 18 and 19.

al Nashiri

I was notified that the hearing scheduled for today was delayed until the early afternoon. Further, the video feed to Ft. Meade was not working. Hopefully the IT issues will be fixed by tomorrow morning.

Preparing for the hearing

I have used the many hours I’ve spent in the car over the past week to prepare for the upcoming hearing. I have been reading the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual and the many excellent posts on this blog. I hope that my efforts are beneficial in promoting transparency in the legal proceedings that will occur this week.

I look forward to making more posts in the next couple of days.

The Seeds of Principle, the Growth of Diplomacy

By Casey Seaton*, October 15, 2016 (pre-Ft. Meade).

Diplomacy is defined, most basically, as a noun meaning something along the lines of governmentally-representative exchanges between nations. Those exchanges can take the form of trade deals, arbitral negotiations, peace talks, hostage releases, money transfers, media management, land rights discussions, immigration quota standards, natural resource use provisioning, joint relief efforts, and joint war efforts . . . just about anything but actually being at war against one another. That act of going to war against one another marks some failure of diplomacy. But if law school has taught me anything—besides that the answer is always “it depends”—it’s that when a problem arises, so too does an opportunity.

So what in the world does any of that have to do with Gitmo? Well, I’ll tell ya. Gitmo is, of course, a United States Government prison facility, to put it in the plainest terms. As such, it is an extension of the U.S. Government. Given its secretive and consequently legendary yet infamous existence, it has become much more than a simple government prison facility. It has become much more than an alleged terrorist holding site. And it has become much more than a political chess piece inside American politics. Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp has become a metaphor for the bedrock of America.

Gitmo tests America’s resolve for upholding some of our most core principles of life, liberty, fairness, and justice. It takes persons who are despised on a national and even international scale and, ideally anyway, makes certain that such persons are treated humanely and fairly until their culpability is judged. If we as Americans fail in our own courtroom to uphold the principles that we base our daily lives on, our societal structure on, then how can we be trusted, how can our word be honored diplomatically when we promise to conduct affairs outside of the courtroom based on these principles? In other words, if we fail to honor our core values in court, in a setting arguably representing the most direct connection to law in its reddest form, how then are we to be trusted to honor those same values elsewhere?

Right, right, right. That’s some great idealism and all, but still, what’s the link between diplomacy and Gitmo?

It’s this. War itself may not be diplomacy, but the failed diplomatic efforts that lead to war do produce diplomatic effects. The prisoners that end up being taken from one land and brought to and held in another create a situation that, at its core, tests the principles upon which diplomatic relations so often stand.

Therefore, Gitmo is a test and a bridge. It tests our resolve to stick to our core principles in what could easily transform into an emotionally-driven, biased-laden environment. It is a bridge between (a) honoring those principles in some of the toughest situations here at home wherein we are our only critics and (b) consistently applying them abroad through the promises diplomats promote. The way we act in the privacy of our own home—albeit a home on a separate island—should be the way we act outside of it as well.

This Guantanamo Bay Military Commission Observation Project provides a means of ensuring that our collective conduct is adequate here at home. It allows curious-minded, legally-trained people like me to be the public eye on the trials. The problem of war, terror, and the trials stemming therefrom then becomes an opportunity for practicing and spreading American ideals.

Conversely, some view this Project as a concession to terrorists. That is a poor view for one central reason; we, as observers, aren’t charged with rooting for persons accused of attacking our countrymen. No. Instead, we are charged with making sure our ideals aren’t only stated but are consistently put into practice in each and every case, no matter how high the emotional stakes. Without domestic diplomatic missions, of sorts, like the one I am about to make to Ft. Meade, a mission diplomatic in the sense that I am an envoy seeking to safeguard the best of American principles, we lose the benefit of being able to show other nations, ‘hey, we do stand by our promises even when we seemingly will have little perceptible gain.’

Of course, having yet to visit Ft. Meade or Guantanamo to see the conduct of these trials, this is all merely speculative, quixotic prose. My main goal then in viewing the al-Nashiri trial next week, a trial the basis of which IU McKinney student and career military officer David Frangos expertly discussed in his October 10^th post on this blog, is to: 1. See if my views linking Gitmo to diplomacy actually do have some practical resonance, and 2. Be an active participant watchdog for American principles. These two goals are of course intertwined, and my participation in the latter has a chance of ensuring the former. I say this because I aspire to be a U.S. diplomat (a.k.a. foreign service officer), which explains the prevalence of diplomacy focuses throughout this piece. As a diplomat (eventually), I can hopefully use what I take from goal number 2 and apply it to confirm the success of goal number 1. I want to see the seeds of U.S. ideology sprout into U.S. diplomatic doctrine.