Law student travels to Guantanamo Bay to observe hearings

Julia Williams knows about military service. She comes from a long line of men and women who have served this country. So when the National Institute of Military Justice invited her to represent FIU Law at Camp Justice and witness a hearing whose defendants are among the world’s most violent terrorists, she didn’t hesitate.

On Oct. 25, Williams boarded a military charter plane from Washington, D.C. to Cuba. She wasn’t greeted with five-star accommodations. Instead, she shared a space with eight others in a tent city – the walls were made of cloth and everything was portable. She had daily wake-up calls at 6 a.m. and a full day in court.

Williams is president of FIU Law’s Veterans and Military Affairs Law Student Association. After graduation, she will be a Judge Advocate General in the United States Air Force. In the journal entry below, she shares a unique, insider look at the Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

During the week of Oct. 25, I traveled to Guantanamo Bay to observe the Military Commission sessions – an opportunity made possible by the National Institute of Military Justice.

Arriving at Guantanamo Bay was itself an experience. I first flew to Washington D.C. to catch a military flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Cuba. After the plane touched down, I immediately felt the hot Cuban sun blazing down as we walked across the barren tarmac. To be allowed in court, I had to get a clearance badge and go through TSA-type security.

In Camp 7, five of the United States’ highest value detainees await trial for their involvement in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It’s under the Military Commission Act of 2009 that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi are being charged. But this isn’t their first round in court – it’s the third time these defendants are here. In 2008, the defendants faced military commission, but those charges were dropped in favor of a civil federal trial in New York. In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the civil charges would be dropped and the defendants would move back to military commission in Guantanamo Bay.

But, the story doesn’t end there.

These proceedings include an 18-month hiatus. In April 2014, FBI agents approached Bin Al Shibh’s defense security officer. The FBI questioned the security officer about defense counsel’s activities, and then asked him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The FBI activity was later confirmed, and Military Judge Colonel James Pohl halted the proceedings so the issue could be investigated and determine whether defense counsel was working under a conflict or potential conflict. The Commission would not meet again until now, where Judge Pohl confirmed the FBI investigation was over and they found no conflict.

Though the commission has reconvened, the panel box – the military equivalent of a jury box – still sits empty. It’s been four years since charges were filed and the case is still stalled in the pretrial phase. The five defense teams have done a superb job of delaying any substantive action and requesting a delay in proceedings at almost every turn. Much to the chagrin of Judge Pohl, some defense counselors would say that justice delayed is a job well done.

During the October sessions, the commission considered many hot topic issues including: Bin Al Shibh’s competency stemming from alleged CIA torture; what pro se representation (when the defendant is his or her own counsel) would look like when classified information is involved; and whether the detainees’ religious beliefs are a reasonable basis to keep female guards from touching them.

The national attention this case has garnished seeps into the courtroom itself. On Oct. 23, three senators visited Guantanamo Bay to meet with Camp 7’s female guards, where it is suspected they discussed abhorrence of Judge Pohl’s order that female guards not touch the five defendants. A Camp 7 female guard, testifying under the alias Sergeant Jinx, met with the senators. Despite defense counsel’s best efforts to illicit testimony about Jinx’s conversation with the senators, Judge Pohl would not allow her to be questioned on the topic.

The courtroom in Guantanamo is kept chilly, despite the hot Cuban air. Observers – including victims – are separated from the defendants, counsel and judge by three panes of glass meant to muffle the sounds of potentially classified information. Though observers can see the courtroom, they are also provided with television sets on a 40-second audio delay. When information is said that the court wishes to remain secret, the judge presses a button that cuts off the audio and the televisions go to black. Governmental third parties also keep watch to make sure their interests are protected.

A daily, and almost hourly, subject brought up by defense counsel was the alleged torture detainees suffered at the hands of the United States government. Though the defendants’ experiences were all different, it seems to me clear from the Senate Torture Report that the CIA is responsible for grievous wrongdoing. Defendant Bin Al Shibh was subject to torture, and probably more during his holding in black sites before his transfer to Guantanamo Bay.

During the course of litigation, Bin Al Shibh’s competency has been called into question, as he believes that his cell in Camp 7 persistently vibrates. Camp 7 guards deny this, but Bin Al Shibh’s counsel argues that a sophisticated third party beyond even the control of the guards could be causing the vibrations. In response, the government asked that Judge Pohl have Bin Al Shibh examined and declared competent. Judge Pohl declined to do so; instead reasoning that he would continue to presume Bin Al Shibh competent until facts show otherwise. The belief in these vibrations, he said, do not rise to that level. Another view of this issue is that Bin Al Shibh’s continual assertion may be a tactical move to lay the foundation for a later finding of incompetency.

At this point in the proceedings, I was becoming accustomed to life on base at Guantanamo Bay. The escorts who guided me through my trip attempted to show the observers Camp X-Ray. This camp, now closed, is where the first wave of terrorists were held and allegedly tortured at the beginning of the War on Terror. Half way down the road to Camp X-Ray, though, we were held back by a rifle-holding marine who explained the area was closed for shooting practice. From the road on the drive back, other closed camps were also visible. Camp Iguana, meant for juvenile detainees, sits empty on the rocky seaside. The elusive and hidden Camp 7, however, we would never see. Defense counsel explained to us that in order to visit the detainees at Camp 7, they are placed in a blacked-out car and driven around for miles on end to distort their sense of direction.

Back at the commission, the court would next consider defendant Bin ‘Attash’s multifarious issues with representation. In the first week of the October session, Bin ‘Attash asked the commission what the process would look like if a defendant continued pro se. Considering that in the civil portion of this trial all defendants were pro se, the commission spent much time on the topic. In fact, the proceedings were delayed for days of consideration. On Sunday, Oct. 25, the commission reconvened and reasoned that until a defendant actually requested to continue pro se, there would be no longer delay in consideration of the topic. The next day, Bin ‘Attash himself interrupted the commission to fire his counsel. In response, the commission recessed the hearing for another day and a half so his counsel could fully inform him on the consequences of such an action. Among the considerations is the reality that Bin ‘Attash, an enemy of the state, cannot access classified documents that may become relevant to his defense.

Though, for some, the trial of 9/11 terrorists seems to have no end in sight, Judge Pohl and the prosecution assert that process of justice here may just need to be slow. Actually, the requirement for a speedy trial does not even appear in the Military Commission Act of 2009. Some estimates do not expect the commission to start on the substantive issues until 2017.

After considering the arguments from the government, victims, human rights advocates and the detainees themselves, I am passionately affected. Not many of my countrymen can say they have sat in a courtroom with our nation’s enemies. Having viewed these sessions and the zealousness of counsel, I have gained a new profound respect for the American sense of justice. Though the commission system is internationally subjected to criticism for delay, unfairness and alleged torture, the mundane reality of the commission speaks volumes.

Judge Pohl structures breaks around the detainees’ Islamic prayer times, complete with considerations of daylight savings adjustments. The detainees, held in one of the most secure, and probably most oppressive detention camps in the world, bring their plush prayer mats with them to pray in the courtroom. In court, the detainees chatter with each other, hop-on lap top computers and call for bathroom breaks.

In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity, Judge Pohl still contemplates whether he should deny female soldiers their guard duties based solely on our enemies’ religious-based desire not to be touched by female guards. In all, the Military Commission appears to be doing an admirable job in balancing the interest of justice with the desire to vindicate victims and punish enemies. It is a difficult thing to balance swift action and punishment for crimes so rife with personal loss and national tragedy while remaining authentic to desire for fairness and tolerance that is so unique to our country.