Report from Guantánamo Hearings: When Due Process is a Matter of Life and Death
This week I’ve been at the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay Cuba observing the first military commission proceedings since the ten-year anniversary of the opening of the Guantánamo prison. The proceedings concern the case of (pronounced al-NAH-shiri) — first taken into U.S. custody in November 2002 — who faces a possible death sentence for his alleged involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole over eleven years ago. Over the course of two full days of proceedings the military commission judge struggled with several motions that squarely implicate fundamental due process and fairness concerns, particularly crucial in a criminal trial where the defendant’s life is at stake. Yet few of these critical issues were resolved or even clarified this week as the commissions system continues to be bogged down by novel rules and a near complete lack of any instructive precedent.
Extensive and time-consuming consideration of pre-trial motions is common in any complex death penalty case. What is exceptional about the al-Nashiri case is that most of the concerns raised by participants would never be at issue in a trial before any federal court, or even state court, where the rules are more fully developed and substantial precedent exists. Moreover, the atypical procedural obstacles that have arisen in the al-Nashiri case stem in large part from the omission of protections long recognized as essential by ordinary courts.
For instance, federal courts and all state courts have long acknowledged the particular importance of sufficiently resourcing the defense in capital cases, a right widely recognized as requiring that the defense be allowed to ask the court for resources without showing the request to the prosecution. That is because if the defense were to include the prosecution in such requests it would risk revealing its trial strategy and giving the prosecution an unfair advantage. In the military commissions, on the other hand, the refusal to grant defense resources in death penalty cases has been such a serious problem that in 2009 Congress passed legislation making clear that the commissions were to provide defense counsel in capital cases with resources comparable to those granted in federal courts.
Yet last month the Military Commissions Convening Authority, the body in charge of granting defense resources, inexplicably rejected a joint request from both the defense and the prosecution for the defense to be able to request resources from the Authority without sharing the request with the prosecution. On Tuesday, the defense challenged the Authority’s rejection before Judge James Pohl, who seemed uncertain about whether he had the authority to overrule the Convening Authority’s decision.
Ultimately, Judge Pohl attempted to side-step the issue by asking defense counsel to provide only minimal descriptions of the resource request and related justification to the Authority and the Prosecution and to come back to the judge if and when those minimally described requests were denied. Given that there was nothing in the Authority’s lengthy and unequivocal rejection to suggest that it would accept a minimal description, it appears most likely that the commission participants will re-litigate the issue several times, leading to further delays.
Another issue that would never come up in federal courts is the question of whether the government can examine the content of attorney-client mail. In federal court, the government would never be permitted to do so, as it would clearly violate the attorney-client privilege and provide the prosecution an unfair and significant advantage over the defense.
Such practices were also rejected at Guantánamo until this past fall, when the Commander responsible for the prison began ordering closer reviews of attorney-client mail in military commission cases. A recent order requires that all attorney-client mail for detainees involved in the military commissions be reviewed by a team of government contractors for both physical and “information” contraband. The top military commissions defense lawyer saw this order as being such a threat to the attorney-client privilege that he told the attorneys under his command that they were ethnically obligated not to comply.
In the al-Nashiri case, after several hours of oral argument and witness testimony over two days, Judge Pohl was still unable to resolve the issue. Instead, he ordered the defense and prosecution to provide additional information and the issue will be addressed--for third time in the al-Nashiri case — at the next hearing in April.
A final issue that was raised and remains unresolved implicates the torturing of al-Nashiri while he spent four years in secret CIA custody. On Tuesday, defense counsel began to argue why his client should not be shackled while meeting with defense counsel because of the residual impact of his having been tortured while in shackles. (Publicly available information indicates that interrogators held a gun and power drill to al-Nashiri’s head during interrogations.) The answer to the underlying question of al-Nashiri’s shackling during defense counsel meetings was postponed to give the defense the opportunity to more fully explain the relevance of al-Nashiri’s mistreatment, an explanation that will most likely occur in a session closed to the public thus providing confirmation that the consistent true aim of the military commissions is to keep the secrets of American torturers. Again, no one in a federal or state capital trial would bother to question the “relevance” of a defendant’s torture to his capital defense. Particularly not when the torture was at the hands of the same government that seeks his death.
In sum, after two lengthy days of arguments, the al-Nashiri case seems hardly closer to coming to trial. Defense counsel suggested that the al-Nashiri trial wouldn’t even begin until 2015 in commissions it described as a “facsimile of a court.” In a press conference following the proceedings’ conclusion, family members of the victims of the Cole bombing also commented on the delays, one man saying he expected he might see justice by the time he was an old man. What wasn’t discussed at the press conference was how many of delays and procedural quagmires that have delayed justice for al-Nashiri and the Cole bombing victims alike could have been avoided had the case been brought in the established federal forum where it properly belonged.
Learn more about Guantánamo: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
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.