Yesterday, I monitored the first day of this week’s pre-trial hearings in the case against the alleged 9/11 masterminds. I viewed the proceedings via secured video link at the McGill Training Center at Fort Meade, Maryland, and represented the Indiana University McKinney School of Law’s U.S. Military Observation Project.

A Defendant’s Defiance

“I don’t understand,” Ramzi bin al Shibh snapped at Military Commission Judge, Army Colonel James L. Pohl, upon being asked if he understood his rights to be present or absent at the hearings against him and four other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 Word Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. 

bin al Shibh, who allegedly helped hijackers find flight schools and enter the United States in addition to helping fund the operation, has alleged that the guards at Guantanamo Bay’s Camp 7 have been tormenting him and keeping him awake by shaking or vibrating his room and bed despite Judge Pohl’s order to cease the alleged conduct.

At the beginning of each week of pre-trial hearings, the 9/11 military judge requires each defendant to be physically in the courtroom, and asks each defendant whether he understands certain rights.

“You don’t understand your rights?” Judge Pohl asked bin al Shibh, noting that they had been through similar rights colloquies on other occasions.

bin al Shibh seemed to believe that Judge Pohl was being inconsistent and therefore unfair in enforcing rulings. He appeared to be upset that Judge Pohl could force him to be present at the hearing Tuesday, the first day of the hearing week, but that the guards at Camp 7 did not, according to bin al Shibh, have to comply with the Judge’s orders.

The two had a quick, yet contentious back-and-forth regarding who had to listen to whom.

Near the end of the exchange, Judge Pohl stated that if bin al Shibh “did not understand” his rights, that he would continue to be brought back in front of the court until it was clear that he did understand his rights. Judge Pohl then ordered bin al Shibh—who continued to talk over him—out of the courtroom until after the lunch break. On the CCTV, we could hear bin al Shibh continue to yell at the judge, even after bin al Shibh left his chair and was being escorted outside the courtroom. I learned from our Indiana McKinney observer who was physically in the courtroom’s gallery during the outburst that those sitting in the gallery behind double-paned glass could hear bin al Shibh yelling even after he left the courtroom and was on his way to his holding cell.

Other Defendants Acknowledge Their Rights

The other four defendants, Khalid Sheik Mohammed—who wore a green camouflaged “army” coat, what appeared to be a white Pakol (hat), and a red beard—Walid bin Attash, Ammar al Baluchi (aka “AAA”), and Mustafa al Hawsawiall acknowledged their rights. They all answered “yes” in Arabic when asked if they understood.

Judge Pohl’s Control of the Courtroom

At the beginning of the hearing, and especially during the contentious exchange with bin al Shibh, Judge Pohl appeared to keep his cool, and he allowed all of the accused to speak. To keep control of his courtroom, he could have reacted more assertively and perhaps even had bin al Shibh restrained. But he did not. And, bin al Shibh re-joined the hearing after the lunch break, though it was unclear from the video feed how he had changed his behavior during the remainder of the proceeding, though I did not observe any additional outbursts during the day.

bin Attash Complains

After the exchange between Judge Pohl and bin al Shibh, another defendant — Walid bin Attash — addressed the court and protested his counsel. He raised four points, which he said wanted to make for the record.

First, he said that he did not believe his defense counsel was helpful to him and therefore he didn’t want them.

Second, he appeared to state that no legal mail had been exchanged between him and his defense counsel, though it is not exactly what he was saying. I plan to check the transcript as soon as it is posted and update this blog post.

Third, he stated that he has had no meetings with his defense counsel since last year.

Fourth, he appeared to tell the Commission that the “ill” of the actions he alleged of his defense team, “will make them part of killing me…and part of the government’s decisions,” and that they would be of no help to him. Again, I plan to check the transcript as soon as it is posted and update this blog post.

al Hawsawi’s Motions

After the bin al Shibh and bin Attash fireworks subsided, the defense team for al Hawsawi called witnesses and made motions focusing on the rights of the accused related to material covered by attorney / client and other privileges that was removed from al Hawasi’s Camp 7 cell when a staff member inspected his cell in 2015.

Walter Ruiz, counsel for al Hawsawi, examined two assistant staff Judge Advocates (SJA) who were stationed at Camp 7 during those inspections. Ruiz inquired about what legal materials al Hawsawi is permitted to have in his cell; how those materials are to be marked to indicate that they are protected; where in those cells those legal materials are to be maintained; procedures for when materials are located in the cell and the materials are not in a “legal bin” and are not “marked”; and how all of that comported with Judge Pohl’s order regarding the protection of an accused’s legal documents.

Colonel Sterling Thomas, who represents al Baluchi, questioned the current SJA, known in the hearing as “Major.” It appears as though he suggested that because the accused help with their own defense, the accused need to be able to create their own documents. And, if there were a protocol for giving the accused pre-marked / pre-stamped sheets to use for their work product, guards and others would know that words written on those sheets were protected and not subject to retention or seizure. The lack of a protocol could put defendants at a disadvantage and give the government an upper hand. The lack of a protocol could also tend to diminish defendants’ trust in the process.

I believe that the lack of protocol also might present concerns for the government, specifically regarding guard safety and national security. If pre-stamped / pre-marked sheets are essentially deemed invincible and shielded, then it is possible that those sheets could communicate potentially harmful acts or plans within them.

Furthermore, it was revealed that the translator, who possessed no legal background or qualifications, determined whether the documents were legal in nature. This is a concern for both the government and defense, and it is counter a requirement that an impartial third-party review documents for their safety and legitimacy. If someone must determine that a particular document is protected by privilege, the one who makes the determination about the nature of the words on the page should be trained as an attorney.

al Baluchi’s Motions

al Baluchi’s team focused on allowing access to certain redacted documents. To be sure, the accused have a right to certain classified information, especially if it is being used against them. It’s necessary to the right to a fair trial and the right to have the effective assistance of counsel.

Yesterday’s motions focused on documents with alleged arbitrary redactions; redactions of the specific names of personnel; and some documents which were identical in content but contained different redactions which would arguably unnecessarily burden defense counsel who would need to piece the information together.

Other redactions contained certain incidents involving the accused to which Judge Pohl exclaimed, “He was there! What are we keeping from him?”

Defense counsel argued that in capital cases, it is essential for an adequate defense to be able to confront witnesses for better or worse, and preferred that the military Judge review the redactions to ensure that the information was not material; rather than taking the prosecution at its word.

The government argued the redactions were needed for “force protection” (protecting guards, staff, etc.) and national security.

My Conclusions

The hearings illuminated the very fine line that the court must walk in balancing the rights and interests of the accused and the rights and interest of the United States government, as well as the rights and interests of other stakeholders – including, for example, JTF-GTMO personnel, the victim’s and their families, the public, the media and others.

Mike Cunningham, J.D. Candidate (2017)

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

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

I completed the first leg of my journey from Indiana to Ft. Meade, Maryland to monitor the U.S. Guantanamo Bay Military Commission case against the 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The hearings are being broadcast from Guantanamo to Ft. Meade this week. I am monitoring as a representative of the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Program in International Human Rights Law of Indiana University McKinney School of Law.

My arrival in the DC area

I arrived at Washington-Dulles Airport late last night (Sunday) and proceeded to Ft. Meade, where my fellow Indiana McKinney student Katherine Forbes was waiting to escort me onto the base. Katherine was able to escort me on to base since she is also a member of the Indiana National Guard.  She and I are staying at a hotel inside of Ft. Meade, which makes picking up our badges and attending the hearings very convenient.

Katherine Forbes (left) and I in our hotel room inside Ft. Meade.

My DC tour after hearing opening delay

Originally the hearings this week were scheduled to begin on Monday, 10 October 2016. Since the hearings were pushed back to start a day later on Tuesday the 11th, I decided to use Monday to visit Washington D.C., since I have never had the chance to visit before.  I took a train from Odenton MARC station near Ft. Meade, and was dropped off at Union Station in D.C. about 40 minutes later.  From there, I took a taxi to the Lincoln Memorial.  As I walked up to the monument, I was struck with a surreal moment of finally seeing the statue of Lincoln in person, only every having seen it in media.  I sat on the steps of the memorial, looking towards the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and the Washington Monument, and thought of how Dr. King must have felt, standing in the same location, giving the “I Have A Dream” speech to thousands of supporters.

Spending time at the Lincoln Memorial.

From there, I walked down the National Mall, stopping at the Vietnam Memorial, as I made my way to the White House.  There it was, as I’d always seen it in videos and pictures.  I was surrounded by people speaking in foreign languages, French, Spanish, Vietnamese, German – other languages I couldn’t distinguish.  It was an honor to me, at that moment, realizing that these people had traveled thousands of miles to visit our center of government, and the heart of our great nation.

After the White House, I walked over to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, before making my way to the United States Supreme Court.  There were less tourists at the Supreme Court than anywhere else I had visited, so I took my time and enjoyed the near-deserted symbol of American jurisprudence.

Enjoying a beautiful, sunny day on Capitol Hill.

Unfortunately, since today is a federally recognized holiday, the court was closed, so I enjoyed the view of the Capitol building from the steps of the Supreme Court, before making my way over.  The Capitol building was my last stop for the day, having walked several miles, and needing to prepare to observe the hearing tomorrow morning.  I made my way to the Union Station, and caught a train back to Ft. Meade.

Conclusion

So far, this trip is, to me, what law school is all about.  To be exposed with a wide variety of experiences makes for a well-rounded individual. Today prepared me for tomorrow in a way I couldn’t imagine before.

Speaking of tomorrow, I have been spending time preparing for the hearings, trying to learn as much as I can about the case. I am looking forward to it.

This looks like just a picture of a fence. It is. But, behind this fence is the courtroom for the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay. For security purposes, this is the only permitted photo of the Military Commission courthouse. Part of my job there was to make sure this was the only photo the media took directly of the courthouse area.

From June 2013 to February 2014, I was deployed to Guantanamo Bay as an Army public affairs non-commissioned officer. While there, I worked in the Media Operations Center (MOC) where the foreign and domestic media watch the pre-trial hearings via a live feed from the courtroom. When court was not in session I made sure the media had transportation, a comfortable and clean tent to sleep in, and followed the security rules set in place. But when the court sessions began, I would sit and watch the hearings live feed with the media. The two cases I saw concerned the alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and of the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen.

I often watched these hearings with fascination at how the arguments were presented and wondered what their implications were for the realm of international law.

All of that was before I started law school.

Now, I am in my second year at Indiana University School of Law studying international law. The Guantanamo Bay, Cuba U.S. Military Commission Observation Program (MCOP) through the Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL) of Indiana University McKinney School of Law provided the opportunity to travel this week to Ft. Meade, Maryland, where pre-trial hearings are being broadcast live via CCTV direct from the Guantanamo Bay courtroom. Unlike three years ago, I will be an objective and independent human rights observer specifically tasked with attending, observing, analyzing, critiquing, and reporting what I see and hear. That is my role with the Program.

I am enrolled in an International Criminal Law course this semester, taught by Professor George Edwards. In this course I am researching a section of a Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual. I am using this opportunity at Ft. Meade to gain further insights into my research topic for the Manual.

My mind is eager to know more about this process and to witness these hearings as a student of the law—to be a part of the flip side.

Katherine M. Forbes, 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

I am honored and humbled to have been selected as an observer for the IU-McKinney U.S. Military Commission Observation Project. This week I will monitor the hearings of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. I’m excited to contribute to the betterment of the  Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual.

I take very seriously my duty, in this historic project, to be the eyes and ears of the outside world, and to report on these commissions “independently, impartially, accurately, and with integrity.”

As a member of the “9/11 generation,” this project is particularly special to me, because it allows me to directly participate in promoting the liberty and security of all mankind. Terrorism, war, and international crime in a global world are things with which we — the United States — must deal. But how we proceed is crucial to fostering that liberty, peace, and security for generations to come.

If we are to be a force for good in this world, then we must be vigorously devoted to our principles of fairness and justice—even in the hardest of circumstances.

That is achieved through a steadfast commitment to the rule of law.

In his defense of the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trials, John Adams eloquently argued that:

The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men.…The law, no passion can disturb. ‘Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. ‘Tis mens sine affectu; written reason; retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but without any regard to persons, commands that which is good, and punishes evil in all, whether rich, or poor, high or low, ‘Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible.  On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace.

The IU-McKinney U.S. Military Commission Observation Project helps hold our government to high standards, of which we can all be proud. This accountability encourages improvement and it provides us with an opportunity to set a good example for the rest of the world, which in turn emboldens the United States with the necessary credibility to be brokers of peace and diplomacy.

Mike Cunningham, J.D. Candidate (2017)

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

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

I was selected to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor U.S. Military Commission proceedings in the case against al Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding dozens more.

I applied for and was accepted as a non-governmental organization (NGO) monitor with the US Military Commission Observer Project (MCOP) through Indiana McKinney School of Law’s Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL). As a student at IU McKinney, I am enrolled in an International Criminal Law course taught by Professor George Edwards, who also founded the school’s Military Commission Observation Project. As part of this class, I and other students are researching and drafting the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, which is used by monitors around the U.S. who travel to Guantanamo Bay to seek to ascertain whether all stakeholders are being afforded their rights. This Manual explores the rights of the defendants, and also explores the rights and interests of the prosecution, victims and victims’ families, the media, the guards at Guantanamo Bay, witnesses, monitors, and others.

Why did I apply?

I applied to the observer project to learn more about how internationally recognized rights are or are not available for people involved with Guantanamo Bay. I was initially thinking about rights of detainees only in the U.S. Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay, but now I understand that there are more stakeholders. I was also interested in learning more about Guantanamo Bay, generally, and the law that is applied there – much of what I am learning about in my International Criminal Law class. Finally, I believe that my travel to Guantanamo Bay will help as I continue to research and write my sections of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual.

Before now, most of what I knew about Guantanamo Bay has come from media reports.  That is, until I enrolled in International Criminal Law, taught by Professor Edwards.  In the class I have been learning about the military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay and how international law applies to and plays a role in the hearings and trials of the detainees held at Guantanamo. I am a career military officer, and have spent the majority of my adult life in the military. I am also a law student and attend the evening law program at IU McKinney. This has given me a strong desire to observe all sides of the legal issues at Guantanamo.  Going to Guantanamo Bay and seeing firsthand what the pre-trial hearings entail is the best way to fully explore these issues.

As a career military officer I was surprised at how little I knew about this topic and the law that surrounds these issues.  Hopefully traveling to Guantanamo will help provide a better understanding of both international criminal law and how it applies in a military tribunal. I am thankful to have been accepted for this Guantanamo Bay mission. I have been diligently preparing by reviewing the Military Commission Act of 2009 and other related resources.  The dates I am scheduled to attend hearings are October 17-21, 2016.  The plans are for me to travel to Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, D.C. in order to connect with a military transport. From Andrews AFB the military transport is schedule to take me to and from Guantanamo Bay.

The U.S.S. Cole bombing defendant

During the week I am scheduled to be in Guantanamo Bay, the court will be holding hearings in the case involving the October 2000 USS Cole attack.  The Defendant is Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu al-Nashiri. Surprisingly, al-Nashiri has been held in U.S. custody, without a trial, for 16 years.

Professor George Edwards created the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trail Manual, mentioned above.  As described by the Manual, it  “identifies general categories of internationally-recognized rights that apply to fair trails in the U.S. Military Commission context, and explains how these rights have been interpreted and applied by U.S. and international tribunals.”  You can access the Manual here. I am responsible for researching, drafting, and updating multiple sections of Manual.  These sections include the “Right to Trial by Competent Independent and Impartial Tribunal” and the “Right to be Present at or Absent Form Pre-Trial Hearings.”

The schedule

Since being accepted as an observer I have received notice that the court already reduced the hearing days down to three days instead of five.  The scheduled hearing days are now 17 Oct – 19 Oct. Hopefully the court will not reduce the hearing days even more or cancel them completely. I have also been reading another IU McKinney student, Aline Fagundes blog.  Aline Fagundes was supposed to travel to Guantanamo Bay Cuba on Saturday the 8^th of October, but has been rescheduled to Monday the 10^th of October, due to hurricane Matthew. Hopefully there are no more delay’s and she makes it to Cuba in time to make her trip valuable as an observer.  Hopefully I do not have the same delays, especially considering the short week we already have scheduled.

Defense Counsel

In the U.S. Military Commission, if the defendant faces the death penalty, the court is required to ensure that the defendant is assigned “Learned Counsel”, that being defense counsel with experience handling death penalty cases. The Learned Counsel in this case is Mr. Richard Kammen, who happens to be a criminal law practitioner based in Indianapolis, IN. This is of particular interest due to my attendance at IU McKinney School of Law also located in Indianapolis, IN.

Professor Edwards was recently at Guantanamo Bay for hearings in the al Nashiri case, While there, Professor Edwards conducted our International Criminal Law class by video conference and included guests, Mr. Kammen and his military co-counsel, Lieutenant Commander Jennifer Pollio. My understanding is that this may have been the first such law school class conducted live from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. Mr. Kammen is scheduled to come to our law school in the near future to speak to our class again. Hopefully when I travel to Guantanamo Bay I will have the opportunity to meet Mr. Kammen and speak with him about the hearings.

David Frangos, J.D. Candidate (2018)

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

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

All of my comments above are mine and mine alone, written in my personal capacity, and not in the capacity as a member of the United States Army, or the Indiana Army National Guard, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Government, the U.S. Army, or the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

Here’s a story from Weather Nation TV about Guantanamo Bay being partially evacuated due to Hurricane Matthew:

http://www.weathernationtv.com/news/guantanamo-bay-evacuated-matthew-nears/

From 1 – 8 October 2016, I am scheduled to be in Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba as a non-governmental organization (NGO) representative to monitor U.S. military commission proceedings against 5 men alleged to have masterminded the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I was selected to as a monitor for the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law.

I was first introduced to the complex issues surrounding Guantanamo Bay during the summer of 2015 when I monitored a pre-trial proceeding of Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, who is an alleged high ranking member of al Qaeda and liaison between al Qaeda Iraq and the Taliban. Those proceedings were held at Guantanamo Bay, but I observed them through a secure video feed at Ft. Meade, Maryland, along with Ms. Hee Jong Choi (an IU McKinney School of Law alumni), and Professor Edwards (who founded and directs the IU McKinney Guantanamo Bay project).

I was previously at Ft. Meade monitoring a pre-trial proceeding of Abd al Hadi al Iraqi.To my left is Ms. Heejong Choi and Professor Edwards.

Since 2015, I have learned a great deal about military trials and the rights of all stakeholders during this arduous process. I applied to travel to Guantanamo Bay to gain a further understanding of the military proceedings and to observe firsthand whether the rights of all stakeholders are being afforded to them. I recognize that detainees have the right to a fair trial. But other individuals and entities have rights and interests as well – for example, the victims and family members, media, the prosecution, and the general public all have rights and / or interests in this process. Because of this, I am very excited that I have been selected to travel to Guantanamo Bay.

Initial thoughts on my travel to Guantanamo Bay

Throughout the past 2 years of law school, I have had a few experiences related to the U.S. Military.

During the summer of 2015, I worked with the Navy JAG as a legal clerk for the Military Court of Criminal Appeals located at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.

Also, as mentioned, during that summer I had the chance to observe a military hearing of Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, an alleged senior member of al-Qaida, at the Fort Meade military base. During these proceedings I was able to listen to Hadi speak at length with the military judge – in open court — about whether he understood the rights afforded to him. Also, at this proceeding I was able to observe the issue of whether there was a potential conflict of interest in having the defendant’s lawyer represent another detainee, with whom the defendant had close ties.

Upon returning to school for the Fall 2015 semester, as part of my International Criminal Law class, I conducted high level academic research on the use of hearsay in military courts for the Guantanamo Fair Trial Manual.

I believe the ability to remain objective is an essential skill for human rights advocates and lawyers. Collectively, my past experiences involving the military have greatly shaped how I view the issues surrounding military trials and Guantanamo Bay. I believe my ability to remain objective during the upcoming proceedings will require less mental effort as my prior experiences have given me a balanced understanding of the issues.

My Indiana McKinney Law School Career

Since beginning law school in the fall of 2014, I have been engaged in a variety of activities.

During my 1L year, I was a legal intern at the Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic in Indianapolis. Also, as previously mentioned, during the summer of 2015 I was an intern for the Navy JAG in Washington, DC and participated in the MCOP at the Ft. Meade military base.

During my 2L, I participated in the JESSUP international moot court competition in Chicago as well as my school’s Staton moot court competition. I was also an executive board member of the Asian Law Students Association (ALSA) and the International Human Rights Law Society (IHRLS). Through the IHRLS, we were able to raise over $8,000 for Women and Law Swaziland (WLSA), an NGO in Swaziland involved in promoting women’s rights.

In Swaziland with three women for a rural village. I had the opportunity to work with Women and Law Swaziland (WLSA) promoting women’s rights. 

During the summer of 2016, I was a participant in my school’s Program in International Human Rights Law Overseas Internship Program. As part of that program, I had the opportunity to work at Women and Law Southern Africa (WLSA), a women’s rights NGO in Manzini, Swaziland for 5 weeks, and HURIGHTS, a human rights NGO in Osaka, Japan for 8 weeks.

I interned at HURIGHTS Osaka for 8 weeks during the summer of 2016. I collaborated with a few NGOs as part of my research. Here I am with a staff members of CHARM, which I wrote a newsletter article on. 

Now as a 3L, along with being a full-time student, I am an intern at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in downtown Indianapolis.

I am hoping to work as an intern for the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the spring of 2017, and delay my law school graduation.

Conclusion

I am hoping that my travel to Guantanamo Bay and my observation of the week’s proceedings will give me insight into the U.S. military’s approach with high profile cases and will help clarify some of my questions, namely, how the legal mechanisms in place are implemented and are they implemented in a way that conforms with international standards of justice and a fair trial?

I am glad that I had an opportunity to travel to Ft. Meade for the Hadi al Iraqi hearings and to work on the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual. I would encourage any IU McKinney law student, graduate, or faculty or staff member to participate in the MCOP.

Tex Boonjue, J.D. ’17

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

Program in International Human Rights Law

Indiana University McKinney School of Law

I returned to Washington, DC from Guantanamo Bay on Saturday the 10th of September, and am going back to Guantanamo on Monday the 12th.

On Sunday, the 15th Anniversary of the World Trade Center and Oentagon attacks, my law student Faisel Sadat and I paid respects at Arlington Cemetery. 

Why Guantanamo Bay again?

Last week I was there for pretrial hearings in the U.S. Military case against all Nashiri, who allegedly masterminded the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 US sailors. 

This week I am monitoring the modification of the guilty plead for Majid Khan, who is the only person convicted of crimes among the 61 men being held at the Guantanamo prison. 

I am joined by 6 non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives (pictured above), including one who was with me last week.

We are expected to have only one hour of court this week, on Wednesday. 

Abdul Rabbani set to plead for release from Guantanamo Bay

On the morning of Thursday, 7 July 2016, a Pakistani detainee imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay since 2004 was scheduled to formally plead for his freedom. Such hearings are held at Guantanamo Bay, but are piped in by live video at a secure location near the Pentagon.

I have for many months sought to observe these hearings — called Periodic Review Boards (PRBs) — but have not been granted permission. Members of the human rights community, media, and others routinely attend and observe these hearings. I am awaiting a letter from the Director of the Office in charge, telling me “yes” or “no”, officially, whether I will be able to observe the last scheduled of the “initial review” PRBs. The last in this initial series is scheduled for Thursday, 14 July 2016 — one week from today.

Abdul Rabbani, born in Saudi Arabia but claiming Pakistani citizenship, is alleged, among other things, to have operated safe houses in Karachi, Pakistan that housed high level al Qaeda members, and to have had links with Osama bin Laden, Khalid Shaik Mohammad, and 11 of the 9/11 hijackers.

Today’s hearing is not a criminal in nature (unlike all the other Guantanamo Bay hearings I have observer) — today there are no charges, judge, or jury.

Today’s hearing was prompted by a 2011 Presidential Executive Order through which detainees are periodically reviewed on whether they maintain a threat to U.S. national security. If they do not pose a threat, they could in theory be set free from Guantanamo Bay (as many hundreds have been released since 2002, and have many dozens have been released recently).

These PRB hearings are incredibly important for many reasons, and it is important for observers to be able to observe them, live, in progress, at least from the remote security DC-area facility.

Instead of a bona fide judge and jury, this morning Rabbani would have made his case for release to a a cross-section of representatives of the US national security community that he is not a threat to the national security of the US, and that he should be repatriated to his home country or transferred to a third country. They would likely render a decision within a month from today.

If they find that he is not a significant threat, that might be another step in the direction of Guantanamo Bay closing, if Rabbani could be freed from Guantanamo. The Guantanamo Bay population is below 70 detainees, from a high of 780.

Did Rabanni’s hearing happen this morning?

I do not yet know if the hearing went forward this morning. Though I timely requested to observe, and submitted significant materials in support of my request, I was not granted permission to attend and observe.

I posted earlier about the published standards for clearing observers for PRB hearings, and linked to the Pentagon website that lists the standards.

We at the Periodic Review Board (PRB) Project are very much looking forward to receiving an official letter either officially granting permission to attend next week’s final “initial review” PRB, or officially denying permission to attend and observer next week’s final “initial review” PRB.

We will keep you posted!

PS:  I will plan to post some of the materials I submitted to the Pentagon as credentials to gain PRB observer status.

George Gedwards

The Periodic Review Board (PRB) Project of The Gitmo Observer is discussed on this page:  https://gitmoobserver.com/prbs/.

This project details a critically important process at Guantanamo Bay in which detainees are given an opportunity formally to plead to the U.S. Government that the detainees should be set free from Guantanamo Bay. Detainees may argue that they are not a significant security threat to the national security interests of the U.S., thus possibly paving the way for the detainees to be repatriated to their home countries or transferred to third countries. Many of the detainees have been held at Guantanamo Bay since soon after the prison site was opened in January 2002, with some of them approaching their 15th year being at the remote Caribbean Island prison.

Below is a Chart of Periodic Review Boards that were provided for in 2011 but commenced in 2013. The final 2 “initial reviews” that may occur appear to be set for 7 and 14 July 2016. This chart was prepared by The Gitmo Observer, with information gathered primarily from the Pentagon’s PRB Secretariat website (www.prs.mil), with consultation of publicly available information from new sources and NGOs.

[office src=”https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=AA02978A4AC8C787&resid=AA02978A4AC8C787%21137&authkey=ABdMvFS9AHCkUT8&em=2″ width=”876″ height=”688″]

PRB Chart – 3 July 2016

_______