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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT