It's a safe bet that future generations will judge the U.S. military's detention, treatment and trial of prisoners at Guantánamo harshly, as one of the lowest points in this country's history. But the full story has to include accounts not just of leaders who betrayed this country's most fundamental values, but also of the lower-ranking military personnel who stood up to confront their own government. During the military commissions hearings last week, military defense lawyers and a prosecutor reminded us, again, that there are men and women of courage and honor who are willing to risk their careers and livelihood to speak out against injustice.
At the beginning of the week, military defense lawyers assigned to advise the 9/11 defendants fought zealously to seek some measure of fairness in a system stacked against these detainees. In the latter part of the week, all the focus was on a dramatic development in the commissions' case against Mohammad Jawad: Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, the lead prosecutor, resigned because he does not believe he can ethically proceed with the case.
Before the start of Thursday's hearing in Jawad's case, Major David Frakt, his lawyer, told the media and observers that Vandeveld had given him a written declaration setting out the reasons for the resignation, which Frakt had filed with the court. During the hearing, Frakt reminded the court that Vandeveld "was quite an aggressive prosecutor" but said "he is nevertheless guided by a strong ethical and moral compass." Frakt told the judge that although Vandeveld feared retaliation against him, he was willing to testify, either by phone or videoconference.
The retaliation Vandeveld feared began even before he testified, and it was fierce and personal. Frakt told the court that the chief prosecutor had directed Vandeveld to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, ordered him to stay at home, and prohibited him from coming into his office pending his official release from military service. Once Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the in charge of logistics for the military commissions, found out about Vandeveld's declaration, he quickly armed commissions personnel with media talking points that discredited Vandeveld and called his motivations into question. (Frakt had a copy of the talking points, which he provided to the judge.)
Hartmann has a well-documented history of improperly attempting to influence commission proceedings. Until a couple of weeks ago, he oversaw the military commissions as a legal advisor, a position in which he was supposed to maintain neutrality. But, as military judges found in three cases, Hartmann pressured prosecutors to make decisions based on political considerations or otherwise exercised inappropriate control over them. Hartmann was likely reassigned by the Pentagon in an attempt to neutralize criticism, but it seems that the fox was removed from the henhouse only to act as if he were in charge of the farm. Frakt told the court that since Hartmann was reassigned, he has "lost any pretense of impartiality" and that he was "very involved" in efforts to prevent Vandeveld from testifying.
Perhaps because of Vandeveld's fears of reprisals, on Thursday he initially asked for immunity from prosecution in return for his agreement to testify. It appears Vandeveld had a change of heart, though, because he does not seem to have pressed the issue and he testified without immunity on Friday afternoon. It will be important and telling, in the coming days and weeks, how the Pentagon treats Vandeveld and whether there are further attempts to smear him. Already, Vandeveld's request to be transferred to Afghanistan or Iraq for the remainder of his time on active duty has been denied and he is being released from active service.
Based on Vandeveld's own testimony and Frakt's description of his declaration in court, Vandeveld has three main reasons for resigning. First, Vandeveld said he turned from a "true believer" in the military commissions to feeling "truly deceived" when he realized records were not being provided to defense lawyers as required — and simply could not be — because the process for gathering, maintaining and transferring records was in "utter disarray." According to Vandeveld, the systemic flaws "deprive the accused of basic due process and subject the well-intentioned prosecutor to claims of ethical misconduct."
Second, Vandeveld said that the government has not provided Jawad's lawyers with exculpatory evidence — evidence that could show Jawad's innocence — as it is required to do; he provided examples of specific documents that had not been turned over. On cross-examination by the government (his former co-counsel), Vandeveld admitted that he had himself known about the existence of certain of those documents for a year, but had not turned them over to the defense. According to Vandeveld, he was waiting for the documents to be declassified and for a judge to issue an order establishing a schedule for document production. This struck me as odd. Every prosecutor knows that exculpatory evidence has to be turned over to the defense promptly, regardless of whether there's a court order. Why would a prosecutor willing to resign over documents not being handed over to the defense himself fail to provide those documents? Vandeveld didn't address that question specifically. Given his general description of pressure to prosecute cases aggressively, quickly and without being too cooperative with the defense, I'd speculate that he was working in an environment in which an ethical prosecutor may need the protection of a judicial order to do the right thing.
Finally, Vandeveld said that he had become troubled that Jawad, who was a teenager at the time of his capture, had not been segregated from adult prisoners and had not been provided with rehabilitation. He added that his view of the case had "evolved" over time because he suspected that Jawad was duped into joining an anti-American group and was drugged before the event of which he is accused — throwing a grenade at two U.S. service members and an interpreter. Vandeveld also referred to the abuse Jawad suffered at Bagram and at Guantánamo. Based on all this, and on his strong belief as a Catholic in "reparative and restorative" justice, Vandeveld had come to the conclusion that the government should offer Jawad a plea deal — a short period of confinement that would include rehabilitation, followed by release. His supervisors refused.
Rather than the plea deal Vandeveld wanted to give him, Jawad faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. But Vandeveld's concerns about prosecuting Jawad were reinforced by the government's own witnesses who testified on pre-trial evidentiary issues that were also before the court during the hearing. These witnesses told the court they knew at the time of Jawad's capture that he was a juvenile, and that he may have been forced by adults to throw the grenade. Jawad's defense counsel questioned whether he even threw the grenade, given that Afghan authorities arrested at least one other person, an adult, in connection with the attack.
The first military interrogator to interview Jawad after his capture admitted that Jawad said he had not wanted to throw the grenade and that "when it came time to commit the act, he got cold feet and was afraid. He was drugged and accompanied by an older gentleman who did not give him the option not to go through with the act." In addition, the interrogator testified, Jawad said he'd been "recruited" by a Taliban-affiliated group, the Hizb-i-Islami, with the understanding that he would be able to make money to support his family, but that "at the time he was recruited, he wasn't fully aware of what he would be doing." A part of the military interrogator's testimony took place behind closed doors because the interrogation techniques to which he subjected Jawad are apparently classified. (The ACLU has challenged similar abuses of the classification power in other cases) In open court proceedings, though, Jawad's counsel made clear that the techniques could include acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
There is a souvenir shop a short drive from the courtroom in which the hearing in Jawad's case took place. On Friday, after Vandeveld testified and the hearing ended, I walked around the shop looking at T-shirts and coffee mugs emblazoned with Honor Bound to Defend Freedom, the motto of the military task force responsible for detainee operations in Guantánamo. It struck me that the only honor to be salvaged in the courtroom that afternoon had been that of the military lawyers defending Jawad, and the military prosecutor who refused to continue on the case against him.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.