Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi

I am privileged to have the opportunity to monitor the Military Commissions  of Abd Hadi al Iraqi (“Hadi”).  The Pentagon has granted Military Commission Observer status to the Program in International Human Rights Law (“PIHRL”) of my law school Indiana University McKinney School of Law.  Professor George Edwards developed the Military Commission Observer Program (“MCOP”).

The MCOP sends observers to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor the hearings in person and to Fort Meade, Maryland to observe hearings on closed circuit TV.  Our job, as MCOP observers, is to seek to determine whether the rights all stakeholders (prosecution, defense, victims, etc.) have been afforded to them. Essentially, we are to review the applicable international law and determine whether a fair trial has been afforded to all stakeholders.  I will submit a future post(s) regarding the rights we are tasked with safeguarding.

As such, it is an honor for me to travel to Fort Meade to observe the Military Commission.  My intent in this post is to provide some background on the Hadi al-Iraqi case and some personal reflections.

Background:

I spent 15 years in the Army as a military policeman.  I deployed to Afghanistan while serving the Maryland National Guard with then 290th MP Company.  Additionally, a sister company in our battalion served 6 months at Guantanamo Bay (“Gitmo”) guarding some of the first prisoners located there in  2003 – 2004.

Once I was informed that I was selected as an observer, I did some background research.  I began by checking previous entries on the Gitmo Observer Blog.  I noticed that a previous entry regarding female guards mentioned that Col. David E. Heath was the commanding officer of the detention center.

Col. (then Captain) Heath presenting me an award in June 1995.

I served under Col. Heath (then Captain Heath) from 1994-1995 as a military policeman on Johnston Island (referred to as “Johnston Atoll” by civilians) a small, desolate outpost in the south Pacific.  Johnston Island (“JI”) is located approximately 825 miles southwest of Hawaii. JI served as a storage and disposal point for chemical weapons. If I recall correctly, was Col. Heath’s first assignment as a commanding officer.

I then reviewed the charges and case materials and timeline for al Iraqi. It is alleged Hadi served as an Al Queda (“AQ”) liaison to the Taliban and later as an AQ commander.

Hadi is alleged to have sworn allegiance to Osama Bin Laden around 1999.  From 2002-03, he directed, funded, supplied, and supervised AQ operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Some key moments on the timeline stood out to me [Interspersed in bold / italics are some of my own personal reflections of my experiences in Afghanistan at the time some of the events occurred]:

Timeline of Allegations Against Hadi al Iraqi

June 7, 2003 – Hadi allegedly provided a suicide bomber to detonate a vehicle-borne explosive device (“VBIED”) hidden in a civilian vehicle near a bus carrying German military members.  The blast, which occurred near Kabul, Afghanistan, killed numerous German soldiers and Afghan civilians.

My unit (290th MP Company) arrived at Camp Phoenix, Kabul, Afghanistan in late June 2003, shortly after this incident.  The German unit that was bombed were on their way back to Germany.  Their duty in Afghanistan was complete.  Their bus was taking them from the ISAF base in Kabul to the airport when the VBIED went off next to one of the buses. This incident was briefed to us and provided a prime example of the importance of operations security (“OPSEC”).  We were aware how important is was to stay alert and not share too much information.

September 29, 2003 – Hadi allegedly organized and planned an attack on a US installation in Shkin, Afghanistan, killing one US soldier and firing RPGs and small arms at a marked medevac helicopter.  Additionally, the attack was videotaped.  The video showed the US soldier dying, and was used as a propaganda film.

October 2, 2003 – Hadi is alleged to have funded an improvised explosive device (“IED”) attack in which his co-conspirators planted an IED which detonated as a Canadian military convoy passed.  The blast killed 2 Canadian soldiers and injured another in Kabul.

I was in Kabul when this occurred.  The Canadians killed were a SGT and CPL.  Camp Phoenix observed a moment of silence for their passing. It also served as evidence that IEDs were being used in Afghanistan.  During this period of time, IEDs were mainly being used in Iraq.  That would change in the coming months and years. The use of IEDs in Afghanistan would accelerate rapidly. 

October 25, 2003 – Hadi’s alleged co-conspirators attacked a convoy using RPGs and small arms, killing 2 US persons in Shkin, Afghanistan.  They believed the convoy to be carrying “important persons” or “diplomats.”

November 16, 2003 – Hadi allegedly provided a reward of $200 – $300 US dollars to the Taliban for assassinating a civilian UN worker near Ghazni Afghanistan.

January 27, 2004 – Hadi allegedly provided a suicide bomber and funding for simultaneous attacks on coalition forces in Kabul.  The suicide bomber detonated an explosive vest directed at a Canadian convoy.  One Canadian soldier was killed, three injured.

It is my recollection (but it may have been another incident that occurred during this time frame) that this bomber used a motorcycle or motorbike to drive alongside the convoy, in traffic, and detonate alongside the passenger side of the vehicle.  This information was provided to US forces, so that future convoys and patrols would be on the lookout for motorcycles and items placed on our vehicles. 

Late 2003/2004 – Hadi allegedly provided $25,000 US dollars to a co-conspirator in a plot to murder Pakistani President Musharraf.

June 2006 – Hadi is alleged to have begun to travel to Iraq and acted as an AQ liaison.

October 2006 – Hadi attempted to travel to Iraq undetected, and presented false passports and documents to Turkish officials.

Late 2006-Early 2007– The details of his capture and transfer are unclear.  Hadi was ultimately detained.  At some point he was transferred to US custody and held by the CIA.  In April 2007, the US confirmed that al Iraqi, along with 14 other “high value detainees” had been transferred to Gitmo.

Conclusion

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this project.  I am looking forward to observing the hearing and providing feedback.

Paul Schilling

J.D. Graduate, Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Front entrance of the Post Theater at Ft. Meade, Maryland, where Military Commission hearings are fed live from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Today, the court spent a third consecutive day questioning witnesses regarding the female guard issue. Colonel David Eugene Heath, the current overseer of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Defense focused heavily on Col. Heath’s understanding of the Geneva Conventions, as well as his understanding and application of the detainees’ status as prisoners of war.

Me in front of the Post Theater, just outside the room where Military Commission hearings are aired.

Defense council for one of the defendants also brought up the fact that a complaint had been lodged against the judge for undue influence by military officials. Judge Pohl quickly pointed out that he had refused to even look at the contents of the complaint. Defense council argued that even if there had been no undue influence, there was still an appearance of undue influence, which obliged the prosecution to provide defense council with the contents of that complain. The prosecution responded that “apparent undue influence” is determined through an objective standard of analysis–i.e. whether a reasonable person would deem that there had been apparent undue influence. Since this was not the case, argued the prosecution, the complaint need not be handed over to the defense.

I experienced a kind of Kafkaesque disorientation as I contemplated the microscopic issues being dealt with today when compared with the “Gorgon’s Knot” of a case being sorted out bit by bit at Guantanamo. I was particularly struck by the lack of timeliness evident at the tribunal. International Law grants the accused the right to a “speedy trial”–a name one could hardly give to these hearings with a straight face.

By: Luke Purdy, 11 December 2015, 9/11 Hearings Guantanamo Bay (viewed at Ft. Meade in Maryland)

Law Professor posts from Guantanamo Bay about 9/11 hearings.

I arrived at Ft. Meade’s theater a few minutes before the day’s Military Commission hearings were set to begin. Guantanamo Bay’s courtroom broadcasts a live feed of the hearings to a number of bases throughout the continental United States, including Ft. Meade. Hearings were set to begin yesterday, but they were delayed by a day, as the judge decided to spend monday discussing evidentiary matters with council.

Sign for the Post Theater, where live feed of the Military Commission Hearings is Shown. The theater also shows regular hollywood films at the base.

As the session began, the judge had a brief colloquy with the five detainees in the room. After reading their rights, the judge asked them each in turn if they understood what had been said. The detainees all replied in the affirmative, though one of the defendants complained about his female defense council, claiming that she was not representing his interests.

After the judge finished the colloquy with the defendants, the remainder of the day’s session was spent in direct and cross-examination of a witness in the case, who for confidentiality purposes when by the name “Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col)”, relating to her use of female guards during her oversight of the detention facility where the defendants were being kept.

Emotions were fairly heated during these exchanges. The questioning related to a motion that would make permanent an order by the military commissions judge that would prevent female guards from having direct contact with detainees who, for religious reasons, are opposed to direct contact with un-related women. Defense council questioned the Lt. Col. about her awareness of the rules concerning cultural awareness, as well as her reasons for selecting the guards who would ultimately do searches of the prisoners’ rooms. The prosecution sought to emphasize the Lt. Col’s dedication to following Military Commission rules in a practical and efficient manner.

Throughout the hearing, trial participants voiced concerns about confidentiality. Prior to questioning of the witness, the military judge emphasized that today’s hearings would only focus on nonconfidential materials, and that feed would be cut off to the continental locations (such as Ft. Meade) if council or the witness mentioned any sealed information. As a result, there were numerous times throughout the hearing that the witness would hesitate to answer a question due to confidentiality concerns.

Council for the prosecution and defense spend both the morning and afternoon sessions questioning the Lt. Col. about her oversight of the detention center that she oversaw when female guards were given positions that put them in close contact with the detainees. Depending on whether the judge agrees, she may be brought back for another round of examination in the coming days.

By: Luke Purdy, 9 December 2015, 9/11 Hearings, Guantanamo Bay

This is a Getty image photo. I plan to swap out this photo for one that I took at GTMO today, as soon as I can get a better internet connection.

I have been to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba several times, but only when U.S. Military Commission hearings were scheduled involving alleged war criminals charged with heinous crimes.

This time my visit is focusing on the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) side, dealing with the detention of “detainees” (rather than dealing with trials of “defendants” or “accused” persons).

My goal on this trip is to gather information useful for my new book, The Guantanamo Bay Reader, set to be published by Indiana University Press.

Please watch this space for more on the detention side of what happens at Gitmo. My first 24 hours at Gitmo have been busy, and I have an even busier next 24 hours scheduled.

Stay tuned.

George Edwards

I’ve been to Guantanamo Bay in multiple capacities. Today I go to conduct research on my new book, The Guantanamo Bay Reader (Indiana University Press, 2016). 

I’m flying on my own today, not attached to a specific US Military Commission.  That’s why my flight check-in to Guantanamo was at a discreet counter, on the lowest floor of the Ft. Lauderdale International  Airport, next to the baggage claim. In the past I’ve flown with a group from Andrews Air Firce Base. 
I’ll check in later after touching down in Cuba. 

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued “Towards the Closure of Guantanamo.” The report, consisting of an executive summary and six chapters, reiterates the IACHR’s call to close Guantanamo. The report is available at the link above and below. To scroll, simply place your cursor anywhere on the document, there is no scroll bar. Note: there are numerous blank pages in the scrollable PDF document.

[office src=”https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=AA02978A4AC8C787&resid=AA02978A4AC8C787%21110&authkey=AIDgbTATjVNqPyE&em=2″ width=”876″ height=”688″]

Summary

The July 2015 session of the Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi court hearings began Wednesday morning, 22 July 2015, at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. This session was scheduled to last until Friday, 31 July 2015. After about three hours of legal argument this morning, the court recessed the hearings without setting a new hearing date/time. 

Hearing Overview

At approximately 9:00am, the judge took the bench and began the proceedings. The judge noted that the prosecution, defense, and he had conducted a number of conferences since the court was last in session. These hearings were not on the record and were conducted by telephone. 

In reviewing these conferences, the judge noted that the parties had agreed to cancel prior hearings and instead address the pending legal issues during the 20 July – 31 July court hearings. The judge indicated that holding one longer hearing would be more efficient than conducting multiple smaller hearings to resolve these issues.  

Sunday, 19 July Conference

The judge stated one such hearing took place last Sunday, 19 July. During this hearing, one of Hadi’s attorneys informed the judge that the prosecution gave the defense, just two hours prior, information indicating that one member of the defense team may have a conflict of interest. At that time, the court delayed the start of the proceedings from Monday, 20 July until Wednesday, 22 July. However, after approximately three hours of argument morning of 22 July, the court recessed the hearings again so that the defense team could further investigate the potential conflict of interest issue.

Thursday, 23 July Ruling

On Thursday, 23 July, the court conducted another hearing with the parties off the record. The other Observers and I were notified afterwards that the court ruled that no additional hearings would be heard during the current court session. Therefore, even though the court hearings were scheduled to last until 31 July, no other hearings in the case would occur during this timeframe. As the court order will not be available online for approximately two weeks, I have not yet reviewed the document for information that may provide insight regarding the court’s rationale beyond what was said in court. 

The case is next set for hearings 21 September – 25 September. 

Preparing to Leave

Based upon this court order, the media, the Observers (including me), and others involved with the military commission process began preparations to depart Guantanamo Bay a week early. We originally planned on leaving on August the first, but since there were no more court hearings, it was time to head home.

We arrived at Guantanamo Bay safely. It took a while to get settled in.

One of my first tasks was to set up the Gitmo Observer Resource Center, which is a compilation of Military Commission documents, Geneva Conventions, Briefing Books, and office supplies for all of the NGO Observers to use. It is set up in a room called the “NGO Lounge”. All of our Gitmo Observer materials were in a big black trunk, presumably placed there by the last Indiana University McKinney Law School Observer who was down here at GTMO last week.

On the plane to GTMO and while here, several NGO Observers have been reading Gitmo Observer’s Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual. They seem to be very intrigued. This 400-page document written by IU McKinney affiliates looks at rights and interests of all stakeholders, including defendants, prosecution, victims, the press and others.

It was freakishly cold last night in our tent. IU McKinney’s GTMO sleeping bag AND electric blanket came in very very handy!

In the morning we are taking a tour of the GTMO courtroom.

(Avril Rua Pitt, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 2 March 2015)