Friday, January 31, 2014
Sunday, December 15, 2013
[256] Robots Replacing Worlds" Teachers, FEMA Should Learn From India Cyclone, Gitmo on the Ground
At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
- Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
- Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
- Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
[256] Robots Replacing Worlds" Teachers, FEMA Should Learn From India Cyclone, Gitmo on the Ground
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
The CIA Trained Gitmo Detainees as Double Agents at a Secret Facility Named After a Beatles Song
The CIA Trained Gitmo Detainees as Double Agents at a Secret Facility Named After a Beatles Song
http://thedailynewsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/61717__iybjurfDeiQ.jpg
Between 2003 and 2006, the CIA recruited and trained a small number of Guantanamo Bay detainees as double agents, according to an Associated Press report published on Tuesday. The program was run out of a clandestine facility near the military prison, and—according to US officials—was useful in gathering intel for targeting and killing Al Qaeda leaders. (CIA officers would typically meet with double agents in Afghanistan.)
“Jail time at Guantanamo is a new asset on the résumés of many double agents, security officials say—an ultimate sign of credibility that often makes them revered and trusted among senior operatives,” another AP story, from 2010, reads.
In 2009, President Obama ordered a review of the double agents recruited during the Gitmo program because the agents provided intel used in drone-strike operations, according to one of the officials interviewed. But perhaps the most attention-grabbing part of the AP‘s new investigation is that the CIA’s old double-agent facility was nicknamed after a Beatles song.
Here’s the relevant text from the AP (emphasis mine):
The program was carried out in a secret facility built a few hundred yards from the administrative offices of the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The eight small cottages were hidden behind a ridge covered in thick scrub and cactus.
The program and the handful of men who passed through these cottages had various official CIA code names.
But those who were aware of the cluster of cottages knew it best by its sobriquet: Penny Lane.
It was a nod to the classic Beatles song and a riff on the CIA’s other secret facility at Guantanamo Bay, a prison known as Strawberry Fields.
Paul McCartney, the principal songwriter for “Penny Lane,” did not immediately respond to a request for comment on how he felt about this.
Read more about The CIA Trained Gitmo Detainees as Double Agents at a Secret Facility Named After a Beatles Song and other interesting subjects concerning The Edge at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Behind Bars: RT goes inside Gitmo
Behind Bars: RT goes inside Gitmo
http://thedailynewsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/6d53b_RT_default.jpg
Read more about Behind Bars: RT goes inside Gitmo and other interesting subjects concerning World News Videos at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Saturday, August 24, 2013
‘Back to the 19th century’: Mysterious techno breakdown hits Gitmo 9/11 tribunal
Defense lawyers for Guantanamo detainees asked the judge in the military tribunal on Friday to suspend pretrial hearings as mysterious computer glitches are just the latest technological setbacks to complicate the legal proceedings.
Defense lawyers for Guantanamo detainees asked the military tribunal judge to suspend pretrial hearings as mysterious computer glitches have made their job a ‘hot mess’ forcing some of them to draft motions with pen and paper.
“We’re basically put back in the 19th century,” Army Major Jason Wright, who represents the alleged mastermind of the terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, said on Friday, as quoted by Reuters. “It takes about five to 10 times what it would normally take to do defense functions.”
Defense lawyers for five Guantanamo detainees said email correspondences they sent were never received, investigative records that took years to compile had disappeared and external monitors were unable to access their internet searches. Even the prosecuting and defense teams had been given access to each other’s files.
The technical problems had started earlier in the year but by April they had become so severe that the chief defense counsel, Air Force Colonel Karen Mayberry, ordered defense lawyers not to use their Pentagon computers for any confidential casework.
The situation became so dire that when Pentagon officials wished to convey messages to legal advisors in other cities, they had to place the sensitive data onto external drives, head to Starbucks and file them via Wi-Fi using their personal computers and personal email accounts, Wright revealed.
Defense attorney James Harrington, who represents Yemeni prisoner Ramzi bin al Shibh, said he had been forced to draft motions with pen and paper.
Another defense attorney for Mohammed, David Nevin, commented: “In this day and age you cannot practice law this way.”
He said the chief of staff for the Pentagon official overseeing the military tribunals issued her judgment during a conference call on Thursday, declaring: “This is a hot mess.”
Pentagon technical personnel have said it would take “up to 111 days” to fix the glitches once a contract was signed and money allocated, and that it was doubtful the work could be finished before the start of 2014.
The judge, Army Colonel James Pohl, said he would give the matter further consideration at a pretrial hearing scheduled to start on Sept. 16 and decide then whether to cancel hearings scheduled for October, November, December and January.
“I understand the serious nature of being able to communicate as a defense counsel,” the judge said.
This is not the first time that the maximum-security tribunal has suffered from ‘ghosts in the machinery.’
Judge Pohl in January convened an emergency meeting after it was discovered that some outside source was cutting the audio feed when particular subjects in the trial were being discussed.
The judge stated he was not happy with this interference and added that he would like some clarification on “who turns that light on or off.”
“It’s a ‘whoa moment’ for the court,” Human Rights Watch observer Laura Pitter said in January, as quoted by the Miami Herald. “Even the judge doesn’t know that someone else has control over the censorship button?”
The five defendants are accused of training and funding the hijackers who allegedly crashed four commercial jets into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.
The Obama administration has backed down on its promise to close Gitmo and give the detainees civil trials on US territory in the face of extreme Republican pressure.
‘Back to the 19th century’: Mysterious techno breakdown hits Gitmo 9/11 tribunal
Friday, August 9, 2013
‘Gitmo Clock’ counts seconds since Obama’s unfulfilled pledge to free prisoners
Activists calling for closure of Guantanamo Bay prison have launched an online clock, which counts the time since President Obama’s latest promise to set free inmates whom the US cleared for release. So far all of the 86 men remain incarcerated.
The clock is a symbolic reminder of the fate of the 166 people who are currently kept in the controversial US facility.
Dozens of detainees are continuing their so-far six-month hunger strike, a gesture of despair from the people, who have little hope to ever be free, says Andy Worthington, a human rights activist who has been advocating for Guantanamo prisoners for years.
The promise to close Guantanamo prison was one of the key points of Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign. One of his first moves as the president was an order to do so, yet the facility still remains active.
The latest pledge from the president regarding Gitmo inmates came in a key security policy speech in May, which came in response to the concerns over the hunger strike voiced by some international bodies, including the UN, the EU and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Obama said that 86 inmates, who were cleared for release in January 2010 by the inter-agency Guantanamo Review Task Force, would be given freedom. The majority of those on the list – 56 – are Yemenis. The number of people released so far is 0. In the last three years seven prisoners have left Guantanamo.
With a few exceptions, Guantanamo prisoners were never charged with any crimes or tried. Of the 80 inmates not cleared for release, 46 were recommended for indefinite detention without trial, because there was no sufficient evidence against them. The majority of those recommended for prosecution has not been put forward for trials, and are unlikely to be, according to General Mark Martins, the chief prosecutor of the military commissions.
US lawmakers demand that the presidential administration certifies that any Guantanamo prisoner released would not be able to engage in any terrorist activities against the US. Worthington argues that such a certification is almost impossible to make.
While Guantanamo inmates remain in legal limbo, a terrorist threat has returned to the frontline of the public discourse in the US this week. Washington issued a major alert and shut down dozens of its diplomatic outposts, mostly in the Middle East, Persian Gulf region and Africa. The US also evacuated non-essential staff from two facilities in Yemen and Pakistan, also warning its citizens that those countries are not safe for travel.
The terror alert came after an intercepted Al-Qaeda communication indicating a major plot against America, US officials explained. Some skeptics voiced their doubts, saying that the threat may have been blown out of proportion and that the alert is being used to justify the massive surveillance methods used by the US National Security Agency.
The existence of programs for dragnet collection of electronic data, which was made public by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, sparked a major scandal. The US maintains that the programs are lawful, efficient and morally justified methods to provide national security. Critics see it as a major violation of privacy.
‘Gitmo Clock’ counts seconds since Obama’s unfulfilled pledge to free prisoners
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Inside Gitmo Military Commissions
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.
President Obama gave his counterterrorism speech on May 27. In that speech, the president talked about closing Guantanamo Bay, promise that he made it his first administration. Our guest today is Adam Hudson, who spent two weeks at Guantanamo Bay covering the military commissions for truth out. Adam is a freelance journalist, writer, and photographer. He covers war and peace issues, human rights, the Middle East, and North Africa, and institutional racism. His work has appeared in the nation, truth out, and AlterNet, and he’s a Stanford graduate in international relations and every bank. Thank you for joining us, Adam.
ADAM HUDSON, FREELANCE JOURNALIST, WRITER, AND PHOTOGRAPHER: Thank you, Jessica.
Desvarieux: So, Adam, my first question is: what exactly is a military commission if you could just get our audience up to speed? And how is that different from a civilian trial?
Hudson: Right. So the military commission traditionally have been used in times of military occupation or martial law. And basically it’s for when federal courts are kind of nonexistent or can’t really be up to the task for that situation. What they are specifically used for is to try to prosecute cases of war crimes. And so the way military commissions functioned right now, you have a military judge who’s appointed by the Secretary of Defense or someone kind of related to the Secretary of Defense, but usually the Secretary of Defense, and then their jury is usually a panel of at least five military service members. And they are chosen based on education, rank, years of service, age, and a really vague concept called judicial temperament. So that’s pretty much what military commissions are. There’s a lot of ways in which they are different from federal courts, but one of the specific ways is that they are tasked with prosecuting war crimes. And they are ultimately the militaries form of justice. And the reason why they are being tried, why there at Guantanamo Bay, is to try suspected terrorists in this global war on terror. The Bush administration and even the Obama administration has designated people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the people detained at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants are enemy belligerents in armed hostilities against the United States. So that’s pretty much why these men are being tried in military commissions, and that’s pretty much what military commissions are.
Desvarieux: So you were there on the ground for two weeks, as I mentioned. What sort of issues did you see come up during these commissions?
Hudson: Yeah. I saw a large number of issues. One issue that kept coming up is – so there are two commissions, one for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is alleged to have masterminded the plot in 2000 on the USS Cole bombing off the coast of Yemen, which killed 17 American sailors. He was rendered and tortured in CIA black sites. But the thing is is whenever I asked the defense attorney, Richard Kammen, about how he was treated, he can go couldn’t go into that because that was classified information. Pretty much how he was treated before he was at Guantanamo Bay is all classified. Even though that there’s plenty of public information out there to show that he was water boarded and indeed tortured. The same for it the five men, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who are alleged to have masterminded the terrorist attacks of 9/11. There is public information to show that these men have been tortured, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He’s been water boarded in March 2003 a number of 183 times, saying all sorts of crazy stuff. 90% of what he said was, basically false, just essentially showing how stupid the Americans were, because he was, trying to show off how much of a master torture resistor he was. But, anyway, you couldn’t talk about that. The defense attorneys couldn’t talk about it. Normally in a federal court that would be an issue that would be brought up. The defense attorney would say, look, my client was tortured. We need to treat him differently or at least and lower his sentence. But in this situation, at these military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, the defense attorneys are prohibited from discussing how their clients have been treated under US custody. So that was one thing that came up a lot. Another thing that came up is when attorneys and their clients meet in these rooms at Guantanamo Bay, usually, pots, there are listening devices. So they go in these rooms that claim to have no smoking rules, but there are smoke detectors there. Now, why would a smoke detector be in a room where there is no smoking? Well, that’s because this smoke detectors had listening devices to listen in on their conversations. Normally in a federal court that would not happen. But in a place like Guantanamo where a lot of purposes intelligence collection, they have these listening devices. So that was another issue. Another issue was the right of confrontation. Under the sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, defendants are allowed to confront witnesses who testify them in court. This came up in the face of out missionary. The government was bringing forth the witness, to testify or use his testimony against. Now, there’s something about. He’s dead. He was killed last year by the US don’t drone strike. So the US government is using him as a witness in a commission. He can’t possibly come to because he’s dead, but they’re still going to use his testimony. And his defense attorney was saying, look, my client can’t even confront this person because they are dead. So what right do you have to bring them forward and use their testimony in this commission? So and then there’s the issue of admitting hearsay in federal court. That’s – there are far more restrictions on admitting hearsay in military commissions. There’s less restrictions. So there’s a whole slew of issues in which military commissions are different than federal courts. But I think at the end of the day, military commissions are very ineffective when it comes to mean the rights of the accused. In that sense what you have is a balance of power tilted in favor of the government of the prosecution and the rights of the accused are diminished. So I think that’s – if there’s anything that’s separates military commissions from federal courts it’s that the accused have less rights.
Desvarieux: Okay. I wanted to ask you, since you were on the ground, if you are able to speak to people about how the progress of closing Guantanamo is going at. Did you pick up on anything? Did you speak to anyone about this?
Hudson: My sense is from the people I talked to. It seems pretty mixed. For the most part I think what you have to realize is that the soldiers at Guantanamo, their soldiers. Their task is not to run a prison. And, soldiers are trained to fight wars, not run prisons. And so some of the grants are just like, you know, I have to do what I have to do and listen to my superiors. But, you know, they didn’t see too keen on running a prison, particularly in this the southeastern edge of Cuba where it’s incredibly hot and humid, particularly in June. So but I think when you went higher up talking to spokesman and particularly the chief prosecutor, Mark Martins. He’s a U.S. Army Brigadier General. I think the further the top you go of the military chain of command, this sense I got is that overall the sense the issue of indefinite detention is not really going to change. But the guys more at the top, they seem to think it’s a good idea. In their mind, these guys are among the worst of the worst. We cannot bring them in a federal court. We have to keep them here indefinitely because they are engaged in armed hostilities against the United States. So in their mind indefinite detention is a good idea.
Desvarieux: So if I’m hearing you correctly, Adam, it’s essentially even if we close Guantanamo it doesn’t mean that the idea of indefinite detention will end. We’ll still be institutionalized within our military.
Hudson: Exactly. Yeah. And the reason – the whole picture big picture is of this is that people in the military and higher up in the Obama administration have embraced this idea, which was started, you know, largely under George W. Bush after 9/11 is that we are in a war against al-Qaeda, the Taliban. And what the Obama administration added, associated forces. Essentially, any co-belligerent with Al Qaeda or the Taliban. If they have been to share, like, a similar ideology and just happened to be a co-belligerent in armed hostilities against the United States, then we are at war with them. And when you embrace that kind of idea, that sort of war has no definitive end to it. It’s not like you’re fighting against a state and their army. You can at least sort of An idea of when that war is going to end with this idea that they are bracing is never ending. So the people detained at Guantanamo Bay, think of them as this: they’re basically prisoners of war in a perpetual war which is indefinite, hence indefinite detention. When the chief prosecutor, Mark Martins, he said out of all the 166 detainees, about 20 could conceivably be prosecuted. The rest are being held until the end of hostilities. And he presented away it was a good idea. So, yeah, the issue of indefinite detention for the most part has been very much institutionalized within the military and national security state. So, no, I don’t see it any time soon.
Desvarieux: Well, thank you for joining us, Adam.
Hudson: Thank you.
Desvarieux: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Inside Gitmo Military Commissions
Inside Gitmo Military Commissions
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.
President Obama gave his counterterrorism speech on May 27. In that speech, the president talked about closing Guantanamo Bay, promise that he made it his first administration. Our guest today is Adam Hudson, who spent two weeks at Guantanamo Bay covering the military commissions for truth out. Adam is a freelance journalist, writer, and photographer. He covers war and peace issues, human rights, the Middle East, and North Africa, and institutional racism. His work has appeared in the nation, truth out, and AlterNet, and he’s a Stanford graduate in international relations and every bank. Thank you for joining us, Adam.
ADAM HUDSON, FREELANCE JOURNALIST, WRITER, AND PHOTOGRAPHER: Thank you, Jessica.
Desvarieux: So, Adam, my first question is: what exactly is a military commission if you could just get our audience up to speed? And how is that different from a civilian trial?
Hudson: Right. So the military commission traditionally have been used in times of military occupation or martial law. And basically it’s for when federal courts are kind of nonexistent or can’t really be up to the task for that situation. What they are specifically used for is to try to prosecute cases of war crimes. And so the way military commissions functioned right now, you have a military judge who’s appointed by the Secretary of Defense or someone kind of related to the Secretary of Defense, but usually the Secretary of Defense, and then their jury is usually a panel of at least five military service members. And they are chosen based on education, rank, years of service, age, and a really vague concept called judicial temperament. So that’s pretty much what military commissions are. There’s a lot of ways in which they are different from federal courts, but one of the specific ways is that they are tasked with prosecuting war crimes. And they are ultimately the militaries form of justice. And the reason why they are being tried, why there at Guantanamo Bay, is to try suspected terrorists in this global war on terror. The Bush administration and even the Obama administration has designated people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the people detained at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants are enemy belligerents in armed hostilities against the United States. So that’s pretty much why these men are being tried in military commissions, and that’s pretty much what military commissions are.
Desvarieux: So you were there on the ground for two weeks, as I mentioned. What sort of issues did you see come up during these commissions?
Hudson: Yeah. I saw a large number of issues. One issue that kept coming up is – so there are two commissions, one for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is alleged to have masterminded the plot in 2000 on the USS Cole bombing off the coast of Yemen, which killed 17 American sailors. He was rendered and tortured in CIA black sites. But the thing is is whenever I asked the defense attorney, Richard Kammen, about how he was treated, he can go couldn’t go into that because that was classified information. Pretty much how he was treated before he was at Guantanamo Bay is all classified. Even though that there’s plenty of public information out there to show that he was water boarded and indeed tortured. The same for it the five men, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who are alleged to have masterminded the terrorist attacks of 9/11. There is public information to show that these men have been tortured, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He’s been water boarded in March 2003 a number of 183 times, saying all sorts of crazy stuff. 90% of what he said was, basically false, just essentially showing how stupid the Americans were, because he was, trying to show off how much of a master torture resistor he was. But, anyway, you couldn’t talk about that. The defense attorneys couldn’t talk about it. Normally in a federal court that would be an issue that would be brought up. The defense attorney would say, look, my client was tortured. We need to treat him differently or at least and lower his sentence. But in this situation, at these military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, the defense attorneys are prohibited from discussing how their clients have been treated under US custody. So that was one thing that came up a lot. Another thing that came up is when attorneys and their clients meet in these rooms at Guantanamo Bay, usually, pots, there are listening devices. So they go in these rooms that claim to have no smoking rules, but there are smoke detectors there. Now, why would a smoke detector be in a room where there is no smoking? Well, that’s because this smoke detectors had listening devices to listen in on their conversations. Normally in a federal court that would not happen. But in a place like Guantanamo where a lot of purposes intelligence collection, they have these listening devices. So that was another issue. Another issue was the right of confrontation. Under the sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, defendants are allowed to confront witnesses who testify them in court. This came up in the face of out missionary. The government was bringing forth the witness, to testify or use his testimony against. Now, there’s something about. He’s dead. He was killed last year by the US don’t drone strike. So the US government is using him as a witness in a commission. He can’t possibly come to because he’s dead, but they’re still going to use his testimony. And his defense attorney was saying, look, my client can’t even confront this person because they are dead. So what right do you have to bring them forward and use their testimony in this commission? So and then there’s the issue of admitting hearsay in federal court. That’s – there are far more restrictions on admitting hearsay in military commissions. There’s less restrictions. So there’s a whole slew of issues in which military commissions are different than federal courts. But I think at the end of the day, military commissions are very ineffective when it comes to mean the rights of the accused. In that sense what you have is a balance of power tilted in favor of the government of the prosecution and the rights of the accused are diminished. So I think that’s – if there’s anything that’s separates military commissions from federal courts it’s that the accused have less rights.
Desvarieux: Okay. I wanted to ask you, since you were on the ground, if you are able to speak to people about how the progress of closing Guantanamo is going at. Did you pick up on anything? Did you speak to anyone about this?
Hudson: My sense is from the people I talked to. It seems pretty mixed. For the most part I think what you have to realize is that the soldiers at Guantanamo, their soldiers. Their task is not to run a prison. And, soldiers are trained to fight wars, not run prisons. And so some of the grants are just like, you know, I have to do what I have to do and listen to my superiors. But, you know, they didn’t see too keen on running a prison, particularly in this the southeastern edge of Cuba where it’s incredibly hot and humid, particularly in June. So but I think when you went higher up talking to spokesman and particularly the chief prosecutor, Mark Martins. He’s a U.S. Army Brigadier General. I think the further the top you go of the military chain of command, this sense I got is that overall the sense the issue of indefinite detention is not really going to change. But the guys more at the top, they seem to think it’s a good idea. In their mind, these guys are among the worst of the worst. We cannot bring them in a federal court. We have to keep them here indefinitely because they are engaged in armed hostilities against the United States. So in their mind indefinite detention is a good idea.
Desvarieux: So if I’m hearing you correctly, Adam, it’s essentially even if we close Guantanamo it doesn’t mean that the idea of indefinite detention will end. We’ll still be institutionalized within our military.
Hudson: Exactly. Yeah. And the reason – the whole picture big picture is of this is that people in the military and higher up in the Obama administration have embraced this idea, which was started, you know, largely under George W. Bush after 9/11 is that we are in a war against al-Qaeda, the Taliban. And what the Obama administration added, associated forces. Essentially, any co-belligerent with Al Qaeda or the Taliban. If they have been to share, like, a similar ideology and just happened to be a co-belligerent in armed hostilities against the United States, then we are at war with them. And when you embrace that kind of idea, that sort of war has no definitive end to it. It’s not like you’re fighting against a state and their army. You can at least sort of An idea of when that war is going to end with this idea that they are bracing is never ending. So the people detained at Guantanamo Bay, think of them as this: they’re basically prisoners of war in a perpetual war which is indefinite, hence indefinite detention. When the chief prosecutor, Mark Martins, he said out of all the 166 detainees, about 20 could conceivably be prosecuted. The rest are being held until the end of hostilities. And he presented away it was a good idea. So, yeah, the issue of indefinite detention for the most part has been very much institutionalized within the military and national security state. So, no, I don’t see it any time soon.
Desvarieux: Well, thank you for joining us, Adam.
Hudson: Thank you.
Desvarieux: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Inside Gitmo Military Commissions
Inside Gitmo Military Commissions
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.
President Obama gave his counterterrorism speech on May 27. In that speech, the president talked about closing Guantanamo Bay, promise that he made it his first administration. Our guest today is Adam Hudson, who spent two weeks at Guantanamo Bay covering the military commissions for truth out. Adam is a freelance journalist, writer, and photographer. He covers war and peace issues, human rights, the Middle East, and North Africa, and institutional racism. His work has appeared in the nation, truth out, and AlterNet, and he’s a Stanford graduate in international relations and every bank. Thank you for joining us, Adam.
ADAM HUDSON, FREELANCE JOURNALIST, WRITER, AND PHOTOGRAPHER: Thank you, Jessica.
Desvarieux: So, Adam, my first question is: what exactly is a military commission if you could just get our audience up to speed? And how is that different from a civilian trial?
Hudson: Right. So the military commission traditionally have been used in times of military occupation or martial law. And basically it’s for when federal courts are kind of nonexistent or can’t really be up to the task for that situation. What they are specifically used for is to try to prosecute cases of war crimes. And so the way military commissions functioned right now, you have a military judge who’s appointed by the Secretary of Defense or someone kind of related to the Secretary of Defense, but usually the Secretary of Defense, and then their jury is usually a panel of at least five military service members. And they are chosen based on education, rank, years of service, age, and a really vague concept called judicial temperament. So that’s pretty much what military commissions are. There’s a lot of ways in which they are different from federal courts, but one of the specific ways is that they are tasked with prosecuting war crimes. And they are ultimately the militaries form of justice. And the reason why they are being tried, why there at Guantanamo Bay, is to try suspected terrorists in this global war on terror. The Bush administration and even the Obama administration has designated people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the people detained at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants are enemy belligerents in armed hostilities against the United States. So that’s pretty much why these men are being tried in military commissions, and that’s pretty much what military commissions are.
Desvarieux: So you were there on the ground for two weeks, as I mentioned. What sort of issues did you see come up during these commissions?
Hudson: Yeah. I saw a large number of issues. One issue that kept coming up is – so there are two commissions, one for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is alleged to have masterminded the plot in 2000 on the USS Cole bombing off the coast of Yemen, which killed 17 American sailors. He was rendered and tortured in CIA black sites. But the thing is is whenever I asked the defense attorney, Richard Kammen, about how he was treated, he can go couldn’t go into that because that was classified information. Pretty much how he was treated before he was at Guantanamo Bay is all classified. Even though that there’s plenty of public information out there to show that he was water boarded and indeed tortured. The same for it the five men, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who are alleged to have masterminded the terrorist attacks of 9/11. There is public information to show that these men have been tortured, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He’s been water boarded in March 2003 a number of 183 times, saying all sorts of crazy stuff. 90% of what he said was, basically false, just essentially showing how stupid the Americans were, because he was, trying to show off how much of a master torture resistor he was. But, anyway, you couldn’t talk about that. The defense attorneys couldn’t talk about it. Normally in a federal court that would be an issue that would be brought up. The defense attorney would say, look, my client was tortured. We need to treat him differently or at least and lower his sentence. But in this situation, at these military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, the defense attorneys are prohibited from discussing how their clients have been treated under US custody. So that was one thing that came up a lot. Another thing that came up is when attorneys and their clients meet in these rooms at Guantanamo Bay, usually, pots, there are listening devices. So they go in these rooms that claim to have no smoking rules, but there are smoke detectors there. Now, why would a smoke detector be in a room where there is no smoking? Well, that’s because this smoke detectors had listening devices to listen in on their conversations. Normally in a federal court that would not happen. But in a place like Guantanamo where a lot of purposes intelligence collection, they have these listening devices. So that was another issue. Another issue was the right of confrontation. Under the sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, defendants are allowed to confront witnesses who testify them in court. This came up in the face of out missionary. The government was bringing forth the witness, to testify or use his testimony against. Now, there’s something about. He’s dead. He was killed last year by the US don’t drone strike. So the US government is using him as a witness in a commission. He can’t possibly come to because he’s dead, but they’re still going to use his testimony. And his defense attorney was saying, look, my client can’t even confront this person because they are dead. So what right do you have to bring them forward and use their testimony in this commission? So and then there’s the issue of admitting hearsay in federal court. That’s – there are far more restrictions on admitting hearsay in military commissions. There’s less restrictions. So there’s a whole slew of issues in which military commissions are different than federal courts. But I think at the end of the day, military commissions are very ineffective when it comes to mean the rights of the accused. In that sense what you have is a balance of power tilted in favor of the government of the prosecution and the rights of the accused are diminished. So I think that’s – if there’s anything that’s separates military commissions from federal courts it’s that the accused have less rights.
Desvarieux: Okay. I wanted to ask you, since you were on the ground, if you are able to speak to people about how the progress of closing Guantanamo is going at. Did you pick up on anything? Did you speak to anyone about this?
Hudson: My sense is from the people I talked to. It seems pretty mixed. For the most part I think what you have to realize is that the soldiers at Guantanamo, their soldiers. Their task is not to run a prison. And, soldiers are trained to fight wars, not run prisons. And so some of the grants are just like, you know, I have to do what I have to do and listen to my superiors. But, you know, they didn’t see too keen on running a prison, particularly in this the southeastern edge of Cuba where it’s incredibly hot and humid, particularly in June. So but I think when you went higher up talking to spokesman and particularly the chief prosecutor, Mark Martins. He’s a U.S. Army Brigadier General. I think the further the top you go of the military chain of command, this sense I got is that overall the sense the issue of indefinite detention is not really going to change. But the guys more at the top, they seem to think it’s a good idea. In their mind, these guys are among the worst of the worst. We cannot bring them in a federal court. We have to keep them here indefinitely because they are engaged in armed hostilities against the United States. So in their mind indefinite detention is a good idea.
Desvarieux: So if I’m hearing you correctly, Adam, it’s essentially even if we close Guantanamo it doesn’t mean that the idea of indefinite detention will end. We’ll still be institutionalized within our military.
Hudson: Exactly. Yeah. And the reason – the whole picture big picture is of this is that people in the military and higher up in the Obama administration have embraced this idea, which was started, you know, largely under George W. Bush after 9/11 is that we are in a war against al-Qaeda, the Taliban. And what the Obama administration added, associated forces. Essentially, any co-belligerent with Al Qaeda or the Taliban. If they have been to share, like, a similar ideology and just happened to be a co-belligerent in armed hostilities against the United States, then we are at war with them. And when you embrace that kind of idea, that sort of war has no definitive end to it. It’s not like you’re fighting against a state and their army. You can at least sort of An idea of when that war is going to end with this idea that they are bracing is never ending. So the people detained at Guantanamo Bay, think of them as this: they’re basically prisoners of war in a perpetual war which is indefinite, hence indefinite detention. When the chief prosecutor, Mark Martins, he said out of all the 166 detainees, about 20 could conceivably be prosecuted. The rest are being held until the end of hostilities. And he presented away it was a good idea. So, yeah, the issue of indefinite detention for the most part has been very much institutionalized within the military and national security state. So, no, I don’t see it any time soon.
Desvarieux: Well, thank you for joining us, Adam.
Hudson: Thank you.
Desvarieux: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Inside Gitmo Military Commissions