It's Time to Rethink Guantánamo Bay Military Commissions
Between Air Force Col. W. Shane Cohen's departure from the bench and new challenges presented by COVID-19, now is the time to either try these detainees or release them.
April 22, 2020 at 05:26 PM
6 minute read
News that Air Force Col. W. Shane Cohen is stepping down from the five-co-defendant 9/11 case at Guantánamo Bay is only the latest blow in the Kafkaesque history of U.S. military commissions. In addition to the judge's departure, one of the defendants in the case, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, just lost his longtime capital defense lawyer, known as "learned counsel." Meanwhile, the case against accused USS Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is essentially back to square one after hundreds of rulings were overturned because of a judge's conflict of interest. Two years before, al-Nashiri lost most of his defense team because of improper government surveillance.
It will take time for new judges and lawyers to get up to speed—especially because of the coronavirus pandemic. The first case was diagnosed at the base March 24. Remote access is extremely limited. Under a brand-new policy instituted in response to the coronavirus, lawyers who obtain "mission essential status" to take the weekly air shuttle to Guantánamo must remain in isolation for two weeks before being allowed to cross Guantánamo Bay to the site of the prison, and will have to self-quarantine for two weeks when they return to the mainland. Of course, detainees are at risk for the virus due to the age of many, conditions of confinement, and physical and psychological debilitation associated with nearly two decades of indefinite detention.
COVID-19 is just one more twist in two cases that have come to symbolize the difficulty—no, the impossibility—of prosecuting detainees through the military tribunal system. The questions began in 2001, when the Bush administration established the commissions to try foreign terrorism suspects, continued through the Obama administration, and remain. Today, these cases are stalled in pretrial proceedings with no realistic trial date in sight.
The challenges for military commissions are well-known. They are operating under new, untested rules. Important evidence remains classified—including evidence of detainees' torture in various "black sites." The far-flung location and rudimentary housing on the base pose a hardship for all commission personnel and interested others.
I spent a week at Gitmo in January as an NGO observer. Two of my former students are defense counsel: Lt. Alaric Piette (USS Cole defendant al-Nashiri) and William Montross (Sept. 11 defendant Walid bin Attash). Piette was a Navy SEAL who now represents a man alleged to have killed American sailors. He says that when he joined the Navy he pledged to uphold the U.S. Constitution and is doing the same as defense counsel. Montross has been a public defender and capital defender. He believes the most despised need the best lawyers.
I had been following the 2000 USS Cole case, because of its recurrent ethical issues, and managed to plan a trip when hearings were scheduled. I had to arrive at Andrews Air Force Base by 5:45 a.m. on a Saturday morning, even though the plane wouldn't take off for hours. NGO observers are at the bottom of the totem pole: earliest to arrive at Andrews, seated in the back of the plane, the last to board the ferry to the base and housed in tents. The other NGO observers were not what I'd imagined. There was a 70-something former family court judge obsessed with civil war military commissions and law students representing right-wing organizations like the Federalist Society and Judicial Watch.
Gitmo itself is out of a Joseph Heller novel or "MASH" rerun. I kept looking for Alan Alda. NGO observers and the press are housed in an area called Camp Justice—with no irony. Every indoor space is freezing from jacked-up air conditioning to prevent mold. But mildew was thriving in the latrine and shower tents.
Little got done that week. Monday, hearings were "closed." Tuesday featured a full day of hearings. Wednesday, there was a hearing in the morning. Nothing was scheduled for Thursday. Friday, there was a hearing in the morning. The subject matter of hearings ranged from substantive matters to scheduling, with scheduling consuming the most time. Before every court session, a reservist read the "rules of decorum" to the gallery, including "no laughing or outbursts of any kind that could be construed as disrespectful to anyone in the courtroom." And no sleeping.
No wonder these cases are nearly 20 years old. And all at taxpayers' expense.
Amid the madness of these cases, it must be said that the lawyers—especially military defense counsel—are superb. Piette is an able young lawyer, who was recently denied promotion, apparently because of his zealous representation of al-Nashiri. His colleague Captain Brian Mizer is a gifted and graceful oral advocate. Brig. Gen. John Baker, who heads up all the defense teams at Gitmo, is another unsung hero. The new judge in the case seems diligent and capable.
It is a shame to take these lawyers and judges from their families for weeks, months and years when the more time passes, the less likely these cases will ever go to trial. The work is onerous. Lawyers and judges age, like the rest of us. In his March 17 letter, Cohen (now shamefully known for allowing secret in-court communication between the CIA and prosecutors) said he was leaving the case and retiring in "the best interests of my family." Learned counsel James P. Harrington is leaving the case for health reasons. Remarkably, Harrington is being replaced by prominent capital defender David Bruck. But he is in his 70s.
If the rule of law means anything, we should either try these detainees or release them. Military commissions have turned out to be more absurd than anyone could have imagined. Meanwhile, federal courts have convicted more than 660 individuals on terrorism-related charges since Sept. 11. We must end the absurdity, stop the weekly plane trips, take down the tents at Camp Justice and commit to doing real justice on the mainland.
Abbe Smith is a professor of law, director of the Criminal Defense & Prisoner Advocacy Clinic, and co-director of the E. Barrett Prettyman Fellowship Program at Georgetown University Law Center. She is the author of "Guilty People."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLingering Questions at Supreme Court About Climate Change Litigation Need Resolution
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250