Of all the detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base detention center, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, deserves to be there more than most. He has been implicated in plotting a range of different attacks on U.S. targets, from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Wednesday, the Pentagon released a transcript of the unclassified portion of the military tribunal currently dealing with Mohammed's case. I decided to read and analyze the transcript, because it sheds a fair bit of light on what normally has been a somewhat mysterious and vague process for most of the public.
The transcript begins with a quick summary of who's present at the tribunal. The president of the tribunal is a captain in the U.S. Navy. The other two members of the tribunal are lieutenant colonels, one from the Air Force and one from the Marine Corps. Also listed as being present at the tribunal are: a reporter, recorder and a Judge Advocate, all of whom are members of the U.S. military. Finally, the defendant has a personal representative, another lieutenant colonel from the Air Force.
Since I really did not have any idea what a personal representative actually does, I went to search for any documents that might offer some clarification. According to a fact sheet released by the military in 2004, the personal representative is "not a lawyer but provides assistance to the detainee that is not normally offered." A more informative answer is provided by a question and answer session held July 9, 2004 by Navy Secretary Gordon England. Secretary England says, "Their personal representative always appears and always presents whatever data is provided to them by the detainee. So their view is always heard." Furthermore, Secretary Gordon stated in the same session that there is no confidentiality between the personal representative and the client, meaning that the personal representative can reveal to the court whatever the detainee tells them. The personal representatives of detainees are far from being true lawyers. This is a large difference from normal court cases and one of the prime reasons that military tribunals have been widely criticized throughout the legal community.
Getting back to the case, the transcript then indicates that Mohammed asked for two detainees at the detention facility to come to the tribunal and testify that several pieces of evidence seized along with him were not actually his. However, after reviewing the request, the president of the court struck down the request for two witnesses and refused to allow them to testify. While in a civilian court, both the prosecution and defense can call witnesses; in the military tribunals only the prosecution has the guarantee to do so.
After attempting to call witnesses, the court moved on to statements from Mohammed. To begin with, the court took up the issue that Mohammed was tortured during his time in U.S. government custody. The tribunal allowed him to explain his side, although several parts of his testimony were redacted, or cut out for national security reasons. Afterward, his personal representative read off a list of 31 different attacks and plots that he was involved in and took responsibility for, including 9/11, the Bali night club bombings in Indonesia and a shoe bombing attempt, among many others. He says that he oversaw the planning, training and financing stages of these attacks. To me, it seems to be a little too convenient for him to have been involved in all of these different plots. While Mohammed may have been a high-ranking official in al-Qaida, I suspect that he is taking credit for operations that he may not have been involved in.
After the reading by his personal representative, Mohammed read a long personal statement containing his view of history, his justification for his actions, his ideology, etc. It makes for an interesting read, though I'm not sure how much of it is actually truthful versus self-justification and posturing.
After going through the transcript and conducting a bit of outside research, I remain unconvinced that this is the best method to prosecute enemy combatants. Judicial proceedings need to be transparent to ensure that due process is observed. In these tribunals, denying the accused the right to question witnesses, as well as the right to counsel, creates an enormous legal problem. On top of that, many of the detainees at Guantanamo may not be actual enemies of the United States, as many have been released without charges. This emphasizes the need for legal counsel at these tribunals. The short-circuit method of justice present in these tribunals should not be a practice with enemy combatants.
Andrew Wagner ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
