Skip to content Skip to footer
Inside Gitmo Military Commissions
Sorry, this media item is no longer available or fails to load.
More at The Real News

Inside Gitmo Military Commissions

Sorry, this media item is no longer available or fails to load.
More at The Real News

(Screengrab: The Real News)(Screengrab: The Real News)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.


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.

Also See: Caging Human Rights: Guantánamo and Beyond

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.

Briefly, we wanted to update you on where Truthout stands this month.

To be brutally honest, Truthout is behind on our fundraising goals for the year. There are a lot of reasons why. We’re dealing with broad trends in our industry, trends that have led publications like Vice, BuzzFeed, and National Geographic to make painful cuts. Everyone is feeling the squeeze of inflation. And despite its lasting importance, news readership is declining.

To ensure we stay out of the red by the end of the year, we have a long way to go. Our future is threatened.

We’ve stayed online over two decades thanks to the support of our readers. Because you believe in the power of our work, share our transformative stories, and give to keep us going strong, we know we can make it through this tough moment.

We’ve launched a campaign to raise $35,000 in the next 4 days. Please consider making a donation today.