Tag Archives: GWOT

From GTMO: CP&R Military Commission Observation, Day 2

Kelli Stout, Research Fellow at the Center for Policy & Research, is blogging from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba this week as an NGO observer.

After eight years of confinement, Noor Uthman Mohamed got his hearing. But instead of insisting of his innocence as he had for eight years, Noor pled guilty to providing material support to terrorism and conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism. The sentencing hearing will begin Wednesday.

The courtroom where the military commissions are held is close to Camp Justice, where the NGO representatives and the media stay. While the courtroom itself resembles any other civilian courtroom, the Department of Defense seal on the outside of the building certainly changes the external surroundings. It is no ordinary courthouse. The outside of the building is highly guarded, surrounded by high fences and barbed wire. I had to go through two metal detectors just to get to the building, and even then, the guards refused to let me go inside the courtroom because I was not on the list of observers with security clearance. I had to wait outside for half an hour while our military escort and other military personnel made phone calls and obtained additional documentation in regard to my security clearance so that I could go inside the courtroom.

When I arrived in the glass box inside the courtroom, the defense was already seated—four attorneys, a translator, and Noor, dressed in his white detention garment and a blue jacket. The eight members of the prosecution team filed in shortly thereafter. Military personnel with their name tags covered sat along the side wall closest to Noor.

Myself, the other NGO representatives and the media were in a partitioned-off observing room made of bulletproof and soundproof glass. The observing room is at the back of the courtroom about twenty yards from where the judge Navy Captain Modzelewski was sitting. There were several TVs in front of us to display a live but slightly delayed feed of the hearing. The video and the audio was about a minute delayed, making it useless to observe the actual hearing we could see through the glass. We are also subject to judge’s orders with regard to any information that we do hear—she can restrict what we can report back to the public.

Noor was given headphones so that he could hear the translator clearly. Between the last hearing and today, there were five 802 conferences addressing pre trial issuesbetween the judge, defense, and prosecution, but it is unclear if Noor knew these were occurring or knew the substance of the conversations. At the beginning of trial, Noor was sworn in by the lead prosecutor on the case. He sat slightly slouched in his chair, seemingly almost defeated . But in many ways, he already had been defeated. The options for Noor were slim: take a plea or go through with the unfair military commission trial, which could take years and result in life imprisonment. After eight years of detention at GTMO, he had no choice but to take a plea. He has lost out on an opportunity for a trial in a military commission and never given the opportunity for a trial in federal court. One member of the media commented on the lack of emotion in Noor’s voice when he answered the judge’s questions. We all agreed it wasn’t apathy in his voice that we heard, but defeat .

The hearing itself was incredibly long for a plea. Navy Captain Modzelewski went to great lengths to ensure Noor’s plea was voluntary, reading him the definitions of certain terms like “conspiracy,” explaining each one of the elements of the charges one by one, and asking him each time if he understood. It was a lot of due process for a situation that due process could no longer remedy. It was the right thing to do, although it also could have been to preclude any chance of appellate review. The Judge explained to Noor the rights he was giving up by taking the plea, including the right to self-incrimination, right to trial by the facts by a military commission, the right to confront the witnesses against him and call witnesses. In addition, the plea arrangement dictates that he must give up any collateral attacks pending, his habeas corpus petition in federal court, and his rights to challenge the conditions of his confinement. It is this last right that Noor gave up that is most concerning, considering what the world knows about the conditions and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo.

What I find interesting about the plea are the ethical issues that confine the attorneys in the situation. Noor forgoes challenges to the underlying issues of military commissions—challenges that could get his case dismissed and help set down precedent for future cases. For example, he can no longer argue that material support to terrorism and conspiracy are war crimes recognized under the MCA of 2009, and he cannot fight the unfair procedures of the military commissions. Considering the fundamental problems with military commissions, the plea may have ultimately been in Noor’s best interest. However, the underlying issues with military commissions will never be solved if the best, and seemingly only, option available to detainees is to plead guilty.

The government has prosecuted six cases to date in the military commissions—four resulting in guilty pleas and two trials resulting in convictions. The government has not used the military commissions to prosecute the “high-value detainees,” opting instead to try five of them in federal court. Federal court affords them many more protections than a military commission. It is ironic that the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General—the officials who decide which detainees get prosecuted and where— refuse to prosecute those detainees deemed not “high-value” in federal courts, where they are not subject to the same rules of evidence.

At the end of the commission on Tuesday during the press conference, a reporter asked Captain Murphy why it was so important that the government secured this plea confidentially. He responded: “Every case is important. Every case is part of an overall strategic plan.” What that strategic plan is, is unclear. Out of the approximately 100 detainees left at gtmo, the military commissions have prosecuted only six detainees, leaving the others to sit in Guantanamo and wait for charges or, perhaps, for release. Currently, the prosecutors are only considering prosecuting three other cases. While the number of detainees that remain at the camp are slowly decreasing, the problems surrounding Guantanamo and the military commissions still exist, and we cannot forget that.

Terrorism: A Double Standard

By Sean A. Camoni

This article originally appeared in The Cross Examiner, Seton Hall School of Law’s student newspaper, Vol. I, Issue 1, March 2010.

A man with a grudge against the American government committed an unthinkable act of destruction, killing innocent people in a misguided and futile attempt to force his world view into being. The incident happened in Texas, and afterward, a trail of clues led investigators and the media to warning signs that had gone unnoticed. In the wake of the tragedy, disturbing video footage played on repeat on the cable news networks while talking heads speculated wildly with very little factual information.

This story describes not one tragedy, but two. On February 18, Andrew Joseph Stack lit his house on fire with his wife and daughter inside and flew his small piper aircraft into a federal building housing Interal Revenue Service offices in Austin. On November 5 of last year, military psychiatrist Major Malik Nadal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood military base in central Texas. Mr. Stack’s family escaped, but one federal employee was killed and 15 people were injured. Major Hasan killed 13 and wounded 30. Both were Americans. Both wrote online about their grievances with the United States government. Both killed innocent people, espousing abhorrent philosophies to justify their actions. But the response to these two events has been markedly different.

Some immediately labeled the Fort Hood massacre an act of terrorism. The magazine The New Republic proclaimed the killings an “act of jihad.” President Obama was widely criticized for not calling Major Hasan’s actions an act of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas) suggested the motivations were more personal than ideological, stating that Major Hasan was unhappy about an imminent deployment. Major Hasan was eventually charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder. There have been no terrorism charges.

Mr. Stack spent months writing an anti-tax, anti-government screed that he posted online the morning of February 18. He concluded that his only solution was violence.  Within hours of the plane crash, some Facebook pages celebrated Mr. Stack as a hero. Images of “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, and Thomas Jefferson’s quotation about the blood of tyrants and patriots watering the tree of liberty emerged across the internet, causing Facebook to remove several pages it believed were actual threats. Newly seated Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.), likened Mr. Stack’s government-aimed anger to frustrations he heard on the campaign trail. “No one likes to pay taxes,” Senator Brown said. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) called the attack a sad incident, but said if the IRS had been abolished when he’d first advocated it, Stack wouldn’t have had a target. Mostly, Mr. Stack has been portrayed as a lone, disturbed man, nothing more.

Federal criminal statutes under Title 18 of the U.S. Code define “domestic terrorism” as “activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

Major Hasan’s intentions remain unclear. If he wanted to die rather than deploy to a war zone, and this was his deranged method of suicide, then the intent elements of terrorism would not appear to be met. However, if his communications with a radical American cleric abroad in Yemen or his speeches and writings directed at fellow soldiers at home reveal evidence of an ideological bent, then the intent standard could be met.

Mr. Stack’s intentions are clear from his online manifesto. He concluded that violence was the answer, and hoped that “the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less.” His actions appear intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population, influence government policy by intimidation or coercion and to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction and assassination. Under U.S. law, Mr. Stack’s actions constitute terrorism. And yet, no one has publicly used that term.

A lamentable double standard exists in America when, for committing like acts of violence, a Muslim man with an Arabic name is immediately labeled a terrorist, and a White man with a biblical first name and an Irish surname is not. Either these men are terrorists, or they are not.

As journalist Matt Duss writes, terrorism is not “any violence by any Muslim anywhere at any time for any reason.” Terrorism is terrorism, no matter the skin color, religion, or national origin of the perpetrator. And in the United States, terrorism is a crime.

As a nation, we will never be able to defeat an idea we cannot even define.