(Originally posted on Daily Kos.)
At least 30 journalists and human rights observers descended on Guantánamo this week to witness the pretrial hearings in the case of Canadian Omar Khadr. Now 23, Khadr was 15 when he was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. medic. Khadr will be the first person prosecuted in a military commission under President Obama, and the second person selected for military commissions trial who was a juvenile at the time of his alleged offenses.
Khadr is an alleged child solder who was taken by his family to a war zone and subsequently mistreated for years in U.S. detention. And today's hearing felt truly experimental: no one in the courtroom was even familiar with the procedural rules for the military commissions, which prosecutors and defense lawyers saw for the first time only after the case was scheduled to begin this morning, reportedly about 15 minutes after the judge received a copy.
For judges and lawyers who have spent any time in a federal court or a military courts-martial, a situation where no one knows the rules when stepping into court is inconceivable.
After the commissions were "fixed" last year with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2009, the Defense Department should have issued a new set of procedural rules, called the Manual for Military Commissions, to give crucial guidance on how to implement the law in the courtroom. Rules of procedure are standard in any legal proceeding, but at a 5:30 p.m. press conference Tuesday night, the prosecution's own spokesperson, Navy Capt. David Iglesias, announced there was still no manual and the prosecution planned to proceed without it. Former chief military prosecutor Col. Morris Davis remarked to the Washington Independent, "it appears we're still trying to lay the tracks after the train has left the station, which is no way to run a railroad or a criminal justice system."
Two hours after the press conference, the news reached Guantánamo that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had signed the manual that evening. The 281-page manual, which contains relevant guidance on how to deal with the motion before the military commission today, wasn't released to the judge, prosecutors, or defense lawyers in Khadr's case until Wednesday morning. The judge had to recess until the afternoon so that he and the lawyers could read as much of the new rules as possible.
Speaking of those rules: The new guidelines for pleading guilty to charges that carry the death penalty remain unclear and raise constitutional questions. The guidelines also don't allow judges to give credit for time served in U.S. military custody, a shocking new rule that doesn't take into account the several years many of these defendants have languished at Gitmo without charge or trial.
The Defense Department was criticized for its lack of transparency in developing the new manual, most notably the National Institute of Military Justice, which said in a statement (PDF) "There is no excuse for excluding public participation."
Today's uncertainty and confusion in the courtroom are the predictable result of the military commissions system where the rules are being made up as we go along. What struck me sitting in the courtroom is how unnecessary today's courtroom circus was. At issue this week is whether Omar Khadr's past statements to interrogators were made under coercion or torture, and should therefore be excluded from trial. The new rules contain some guidance on how to handle this issue, but the rules are untested.
In contrast, the federal criminal justice system has rules on the use of coerced statements that have been developed over centuries. A new rule book simply isn't necessary if we transfer the Guantánamo cases to our tried and tested federal courts.
The Toronto Star was the first to report that the prosecution offered Khadr a plea offer of a five-year sentence, but his lawyers rejected it. Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Indpendent, who's among the press corps in Guantánamo, reported:
Breakfast conversation among reporters was garnished with speculation about whether the rejected plea offer means the prosecutors at the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions think they can't win the suppression hearing — meaning a lot of evidence against Khadr wouldn't be entered into court when his military commission properly begins in July — or that they don't want the flagship case of the Obama era to be one against a defendant captured and mistreated when he was 15 years old.
As we've said countless times, the best and most humane approach is to release Khadr from Gitmo and repatriate him to Canada, or if evidence against him warrants, send his case to U.S. federal criminal court. Stop treating this young man, who's spent a third of his life imprisoned in Gitmo, as a lab mouse in this never-ending military commissions experiment.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
National Security
Where Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President-elect Donald Trump rolls out his cabinet picks, we analyze how his nominee for secretary of defense will impact civil liberties. -
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.