ILNews

A View From Gitmo: Proceedings lack transparency available in US courts

June 18, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

gitmo-riley sigGuantanamo Bay, Cuba, has finally been in the news again recently, but Americans have been in the dark too long with little or no information about the prosecution of alleged terrorists at the naval base. I recently had the privilege of serving as an observer for the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Military Commission Observer Program and traveled to Gitmo from April 21 to 28 to witness the pretrial motions hearings in U.S. v. al-Nashiri. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is accused of masterminding the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

This is the first article of a three-part series that I intend to write about legal procedures that are in contravention of the American court system. By creating the Military Commission Office in 2009, Congress has created a new paradigm like no other. But as any good appellate lawyer, I would first like to frame the issues and comment on how my experience has influenced my thoughts regarding the exchange of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Afghans imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

Guantanamo, at its core, remains a lawless place and at odds with the American value of transparency in its courts. Many dozens of inmates, not accused of any crime and, in fact, cleared for release still remain at Gitmo. Their release has nothing to do with legalities or justice, but just depends on the luck of the draw. There has never been an inmate repatriated to Yemen, the nationality of al-Nashiri. In fact, even if he is found not guilty (an unlikely prospect) he still will not be freed or allowed to leave Gitmo. He is referred to as a “forever prisoner.” So, the exchange of Bergdahl and the prisoners that were released is tied less to court decisions than to the politics of the time.

My first observation has only been reinforced these last few weeks. The hearings that I observed leading up to trial amount to political theater. The prisoner exchanges, which should continue, seem like a show. Legal principles are being re-interpreted with an eye toward satisfying the political wind of the times.

So, the first issue we should consider before we debate whether the transfer of five Afghans was lawful is this: the American public should ask themselves whether the detention of these prisoners is lawful. Many are held without charges being filed, there are few or no protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions as was true in prior wars, and the hearings that I observed did not follow constitutional principles that guarantee a fair trial.

Twenty prisoners were first taken to Guantanamo Bay to inaugurate Camp X-Ray Jan. 11, 2002. It is hard to get an accurate account of how many detainees are in Gitmo, but on April 15, 2014, a total of 2,268 remained at the camp, up from 2,127 as of Nov. 6, 2013 – before the prison camp imposed an information blackout. The cost to house one detainee a year in July 2011 was estimated to be $800,000 a year. By July 2013, it was estimated to cost $2.7 million per prisoner based on Defense Department figures. Most of the reporting coming out of Gitmo is from Carol Rosenberg at The Miami Herald, who has an up-to-date twitter account that I recommend, @carolrosenberg. Also, I encourage you to go to the IU McKinney Law School website, mckinneylaw.iu.edu, where there is a link to the MCOP program and its blog.

Al-Nashiri was arrested in 2002, and he is facing the death penalty as the alleged mastermind of the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole that killed 17 U.S. sailors. Even though he was arrested in 2002, he did not arrive at Gitmo until September 2006, as he was held in various “black sites” that the CIA operated.

It has been reported by Rosenberg and Adam Goldman at The Washington Post that three European countries hosted CIA “black sites” – Lithuania, Poland and Romania. Al-Nashiri was at the Polish site from December 2002 to September 2003, and then moved to other sites. The government has admitted that he was waterboarded many times, threatened to be killed with a power tool, threatened that his mother would be raped, and he was sexually abused. These are the tortures that the government admits.

One of the most contentious motions being considered in the al-Nashiri hearings was first argued in February, and on April 14, Judge James Pohl granted the defense attorneys’ limited discovery about what had happened to the defendant while at a black site. He ordered the CIA to give defense lawyers details – names, dates and places – of its secret overseas detention and interrogation of al-Nashiri.

When I was there in April, the government kept referring back to Appellant’s Exhibit 120 and wanted the court to rescind the part of its order that would allow the defense to have that information. In fact, the government’s motion to reconsider was the main issue argued at the recent June hearings.

The government has been giving the defense either redacted versions of its discovery or summaries. But since the government is in charge of discovery, they get to decide what is appropriate for the defense. Without Rick Kammen’s and other defense members’ relentless arguments about what they need in order to conduct a death penalty trial, there would be no need for a trial of any kind. Keep in mind that all the attorneys have top secret classification so they can read those documents. But their client does not have top secret classification so they cannot discuss those documents with their client.

While on a break at Gitmo, a family member of a serviceman killed in the bombing said loudly and in my presence that Kammen should just get on with it because all “we want to do is kill him (al-Nashiri.)” I understand that this is a war like no other, but we shouldn’t lose sight of our values of fairness and belief in the rule of law.•

__________

Patricia Riley, a judge on the Indiana Court of Appeals, is participating in the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Military Commission Observer Program. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT