Showing posts with label David Frakt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Frakt. Show all posts

June 26, 2008

"Detainee" kangaroo courts update

Judge threatens to suspend war court trial


crosenberg@MiamiHerald.com

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- A military judge in the trial of Canadian captive Omar Khadr threatened Thursday to suspend the terror trial unless the prison camp releases a detailed log of Khadr's treatment in more than five years of detention as an alleged al Qaeda terrorist.

Khadr, 21, is accused of throwing a hand grenade in a July 2002 firefight between U.S. forces and al Qaeda suspects in Afghanistan. A Special Forces medic, Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, N.M., died of his wounds. Khadr was 15.

His attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, wants the log in a pretrial effort to limit the scope of evidence given to a jury of U.S. military officers at his upcoming trial, expected in late summer. He argues the circumstances of some interrogations would exclude some of his statements from the trial.

Thursday morning, the military judge, Army Col. Peter E. Brownback III, agreed with the defense that it should get copies of the log entries from the prison camp's Detainee Information Management System, or DIMS.

Brownback is believed to be the first war court judge to threaten to ''abate'' the proceedings if the prison camp's command staff does not turn over the evidence.

''I find that this is relevant because it shows the day-by-day, hour-by-hour track of Mr. Khadr throughout his detention here at Guantánamo Bay,'' the colonel said.

The extensive document is "a method of determining how he went through the system.''

The hearing took place in the original military commissions courtroom, an old air traffic control tower on a hill overlooking "Camp Justice.''

A day earlier, war court staff retreated from the Pentagon's showcase $12 million ''Expeditionary Legal Complex'' following a series of technical glitches, including a power outage, in a first test use of a maximum-security, snoop-proof court created for the trial of six alleged 9/11 conspirators.

The long the Khadr defense team seeks would draw back a layer of secrecy surrounding Khadr's treatment at this offshore Navy base, where the Toronto-born teen grew into bushy-bearded, six-foot-two adulthood behind the razor wire of Camp Delta.

A statement Thursday evening from the prison camps command staff, called the Joint Task Force, or JTF, said the commanders were "working closely with the prosecutors to redact the records for release.''

Redaction is a process of censorship that blacks out information that the Pentagon or other government agencies don't think the public should see.

''This entails a significant effort to redact information which would put JTF personnel at risk,'' the statement added, without elaborating on the nature of the risk.

Defense lawyers argue that Khadr, the son of an alleged senior al Qaeda financier, has been subjected to repeated mistreatment at Guantánamo to reinforce a confession he gave in detention at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan.

They say he was coerced into a confession soon after his capture, injured with two bullet wounds in his back -- and punished here if he didn't stick to that first account.

Prison camp commanders have consistently denied that Khadr has been mistreated and say all enemy combatants are treated with safety and humanely.

Khadr was sent here in 2002 after his 16th birthday and has been held in the cellblocks with other adult prisoners classified as ''enemy combatants,'' -- not at Iguana House, a special prison camp set up for juvenile combatants since sent home.

Brownback noted that Khadr's defense attorneys -- Kuebler and Rebecca Snyder, a civilian Pentagon lawyer -- are cleared to see any sensitive national security information that might be included in the log.

He set a deadline of 5 p.m. May 22 for authorities to turn over the log or find a remedy for the standoff over access to the details of Khadr's confinement.

''If not,'' Brownback said, "we stop.''

After the hearing, Air Force Maj. Gail Crawford, a military commissions legal expert, said there has been no abatement so far at the war court, which is now receiving pretrial motions in six cases and has charge sheets for seven more in the wings.

''If you can't get discovery, you can't go forward,'' Crawford said.

Brownback's ultimate remedy after abatement, she said, would be to dismiss the charges entirely.

In early 2005, his attorneys sought a criminal investigation into allegations that guards used Khadr as a human mop to clean up an interrogation room at the prison camps.

According to their description, Khadr had been left shackled so long in an interrogation booth in March 2003 that he urinated on himself. To clean it up, they claimed, guards poured a cleaning solvent on his soiled prison camp uniform and dragged him across the floor to wipe it up.

In March, a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, said there ``was no evidence to substantiate these claims."

Different war court judges have been struggling with their authority to issues orders related to the running of the prison, a razor-wire-ringed series of camps that sprawl across a bluff overlooking the Caribbean -- several miles from the tribunal building.

The judge in the case of Osama bin Laden's driver, expected to be the first at trial, has set late May for a hearing on the conditions of confinement of the driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

Hamdan's lawyers say he is so emotionally unstable after years of isolation in the camps that he is not competent to assist in his defense.

Last week the driver declared he would boycott the proceedings after the judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, postponed a hearing on the topic.

''I don't have any control over the conditions of your confinement,'' Allred told Hamdan. "I've read in the newspapers that you and others are unhappy with them, and I understand that.''

Then Wednesday, a defense attorney in the case of Afghan detainee Mohammed Jawad, captured at 17, point blank asked Brownback whether he had the authority to intervene in the circumstances of his client's captivity. Brownback hedged a reply.

Jawad is accused of throwing a grenade into a U.S. military jeep at a bazaar in Kabul and injuring two American soldiers and their interpreter. He claims he was punished for refusing to come to his war court arraignment in March.

In order to get him there, his lawyer said, guards dragged him from his cell. In March, he was brought into the court in leg shackles, a war court first.

''I believe that some court should have some supervisory power over the administration of the detention facility. Up until now, it has been an empire unto itself,'' said Jawad's attorney, Air Force Reserves Maj. David J.R. Frakt, who is in civilian life a California law professor.


The crimes and cruelty of Buschco never cease, do they?

Guantánamo (from Miami Herald)


In this courtroom sketch, Omar Khadr attends his war-crimes trial in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba Thursday, May 8, 2008.
JANET HAMLIN / COURTESY CBC
In this courtroom sketch, Omar Khadr attends his war-crimes trial in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba Thursday, May 8, 2008.

June 02, 2008

WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS: UPDATE ON TERRORISM TRIALS

WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS

At terrorism trials, is no defense a defense?

Military defense lawyers face a dilemma at the war court: Is offering up no defense the way to defend an alleged terrorist at trial?

crosenberg@MiamiHerald.com

The Military Commissions building is seen in this August 2004 photo at the US Navy Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
MARK WILSON / GETTY IMAGES
The Military Commissions building is seen in this August 2004 photo at the US Navy Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- Can no defense be a legitimate defense at a war crimes trial?

Attorneys for alleged terrorists who could face life prison sentences are grappling with this dilemma as a succession of detainees announce plans to boycott the first U.S. war crimes tribunals since World War II.

Most, but not all, have also fired their Pentagon-paid lawyers, or limited what they can do in their defense -- actions that critics say threaten to undermine the legitimacy of any future convictions.

But the chief prosecutor doesn't agree. The burden at the war court, he says, is not for an alleged terrorist to prove his innocence but for the Pentagon to prove his guilt.

''The accused doesn't have to do a damn thing,'' said Army Col. Lawrence Morris, chief prosecutor for the military commissions.

``And it is not necessarily a negligent or inappropriate defense to just shoot holes in the government's case and insist that they failed to meet their burden.''

Morris should know. Before this assignment, prosecuting alleged war criminals, he served as chief of the Army's Trial Defense Service -- responsible for all of the Army's lawyers as they defended American soldiers at court-martial.

But this is the war court, and unlike U.S. troops who generally welcome an opportunity to prove their innocence, with an American military defense lawyer, the detainees don't.

The next test will come Thursday when the military brings the five alleged 9/11 architects to arraignment -- and Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators say whether they will work with their U.S. military counsel.

These men would face the death penalty if convicted, which may be a greater incentive.

But for those who could face life in prison, the latest challenge came last month when alleged Afghan spy Mohammed Kamin, in his 30s, told his military judge that he didn't want to attend his trial.

Moreover, Kamin said he didn't want any help from his Pentagon-appointed defense lawyer, Navy Lt. Rich Federico, who returned to the United States from a posting in Italy to help defend captives.

''I don't want him,'' Kamin said at the commission hearing here, sitting beside Federico. ``I don't want another one. I didn't want to come to court.''

TROUBLING ISSUE

Defense lawyers find this troubling on many counts.

Some of the alleged terrorists have spent years in detention without ever consulting lawyers, and now, based on perhaps a sense of hopelessness or distrust, they say they don't need attorneys.

And they insist that they want to offer no defense.

The 30-something Afghan is accused of joining al Qaeda in 2003, spying on U.S. forces near Khost, Afghanistan, and setting up and firing missiles in their direction. Nothing in his charge sheet suggests that anyone was hurt.

Kamin's judge, Air Force Col. W. Thomas Cumbie, ordered Federico to serve as his defense lawyer anyway -- unless Federico's Indiana bar reported back an ethical conflict.

Meantime, the judge told the Navy lawyer to study the government evidence that might be used at the Kamin trial.

That allows the lawyer to prepare, if not stand up in court, while working through the ethics of defending a client who wants no defense.

The judge is also permitting the lawyer to see the detainee's prison camp mental-health records -- in case the prisoner has a profound enough psychiatric condition that prevents him from making his own decisions.

Kamin may be just one man, an alleged al Qaeda foot soldier facing life in prison. But Federico argued that, with seven of the eight men before the court engaging in some sort of boycott, the war court is now facing a ``systemic issue.''

''How do I represent him? That's the key question,'' he told the judge. ``This is not a dilemma that faces me or faces this court, but it faces the whole military commissions system as well.''

But this is no blanket one-size-fits-all boycott.

Each of the Arab and Afghan detainees has dealt with it differently. And so have their Pentagon-appointed attorneys -- a collection of reservists and active-duty Judge Advocate General officers, who have converged on this remote base from posts around the world as well as from civilian law practices to defend clients at the war crimes tribunals.

CLIENTS' WISHES

• Salim Hamdan of Yemen, one of two alleged Osama bin Laden drivers and bodyguards now charged, has said he wants to keep his lawyers, but doesn't want them to say a thing in court when he opts to boycott. His attorneys have so far continued to file motions for his defense, but at the last hearing sat silently because Hamdan was boycotting.

• Ali Hamza al Bahlul of Yemen, bin Laden's alleged media secretary, has fired every U.S. military lawyer assigned to him -- and said he will represent himself, by not doing a thing. His judge has appointed Bahlul's latest defense lawyer, Army Maj. David J.R. Frakt, to serve as ''standby counsel,'' a status that means Frakt could be ordered to defend Bahlul if the detainee is found incapable of doing it himself.

• Frakt's other client is Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan accused of tossing a grenade into a van at the Kabul bazaar. Two U.S. soldiers were hurt. Jawad refused his defense attorney and was forced into court the first time, but came voluntarily the second time, Frakt said, for fear that he would be forced again.

Now, Jawad has allowed Frakt to defend him for two limited purposes -- to attack the legitimacy of the war court, and to try to improve his prison conditions.

What of a trial?

''There is precedent for defendants -- even defendants facing very serious charges -- to simply remain mute in the face of those charges. And they are well within their rights to do so,'' said Frakt, who in civilian life is a law professor in California.

That's because, in the end, it is up to a prosecutor to prove guilt, not a defense lawyer to prove innocence.

But generally, he said, ``I think it would be frustrating to a counsel who believed that he had a potentially viable defense and was unable to put it on because the client did not wish him to do so.

``Any trial lawyer likes to mix it up in the courtroom, and it's supposed to be an adversarial process. But the desires of the client have to remain preeminent.''


ShareThis