Sins of Commission

After nine years, the alleged al Qaeda mastermind of the USS Cole bombing is finally getting his day in court. But does anyone still think a military commission at Gitmo is a fair trial?

BY LAURA PITTER | NOVEMBER 11, 2011

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba – Escorted by no fewer than nine guards, but free of handcuffs and shackles, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, on Wednesday, Nov. 9, made his first public appearance since he disappeared into a CIA "black site" in 2002. The guards sat Nashiri, dressed in white prison garb and looking much older and heavier than his one public picture shows, at the front of the bright, air-conditioned, hangar-like courtroom at Guantánamo Bay. The few journalists, observers, and victims allowed on the U.S. naval base to view the proceedings were separated from them by thick, bulletproof glass. Nashiri seemed surprised by all the attention; he looked around and then turned and waved. His lawyer later explained he was just glad to be out of the 8-by-12-foot cell he has lived in for the past nine years.

Nashiri, a Saudi of Yemeni descent, faces charges of murder and attempted murder in violation of the laws of war for allegedly planning and participating in the attack on the destroyer USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000, which killed 17 U.S. servicemen; the failed attack on the destroyer USS The Sullivans on Jan. 3, 2000; and the attack on the French supertanker MV Limburg on Oct. 6, 2002.

Nine years after being apprehended in the United Arab Emirates, Nashiri is finally getting his day in court. The arraignment on Wednesday marks the beginning of the first death penalty case to be heard in the military commissions. But will this finally be justice?

Aside from Nashiri's long pretrial detention, the case and the court have been plagued with problems from the start. To begin with, the main charges against Nashiri for "war crimes" stem from events that took place in Yemen in 2000, long before any recognized armed conflict between the United States and al Qaeda. This calls into question whether the military commissions, created under U.S. law specifically to try war crimes, even have authority to prosecute the case.

Then there's the issue of Nashiri's torture in U.S. custody. Held in a secret CIA black site for four years, Nashiri is one of three people George W. Bush's administration admitted to waterboarding -- a form of mock execution by inducing near suffocation long considered torture under U.S. and international law. He was also, among other things, threatened with a gun and, later, with a revving power drill held near his head while he was hooded but otherwise naked. The CIA actually recorded some of Nashiri's waterboarding, as well as the ill-treatment of other detainees, but in 2005 destroyed the tapes, allegedly for national security reasons. Normally, the intentional destruction of evidence by the state in a criminal case would be grounds for serious sanction. But Barack Obama's administration announced last year -- just before the statute of limitations was about to run out -- that no one would be held accountable.

Nashiri supposedly confessed to many things during these interrogations, including his involvement in the Cole and Limburg bombings. He also allegedly said that Osama bin Laden had a nuclear bomb. He has since proclaimed his innocence and recanted those confessions, saying he only made them in a desperate attempt to appease his torturers.

It's unclear how much information gleaned from Nashiri during these interrogations, as well as from other detainees abused during the Bush administration, will be deemed admissible, but rules on the use of this evidence are looser in the U.S. military commissions than in federal court. Commission rules, revamped under Obama, bar the use of statements from the accused obtained by torture, but evidence derived from other types of coercion may be admitted in certain circumstances. In federal court, any evidence derived from coercion would be barred -- absent a showing that it would have been discovered in another lawful way.

Also unlike in federal court, multiple levels of hearsay are admissible, denying a defendant any genuine right to confront witnesses against him. That means prosecutors don't have to produce witnesses and can wait years to prosecute someone, as they did with Nashiri. It also allows prosecutors to launder evidence obtained by torture; the prosecutors need only submit a written summary of the interrogation -- not offer the interrogator, in person, as a witness.

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Laura Pitter is a counterterrorism advisor at Human Rights Watch.

BING520

11:16 PM ET

November 10, 2011

Trial or Circus?

After having locking a suspect for 9 years and denying the defense lawyers the full access to evidences, it does not look like a fair trial I have been taught to understand, but there would be justification. By the virtue of trial, we could say we did the right thing. It is a trial regardless of the degree of fairness.

Most people in this country would feel better or indifferent to the trial as long as we get over the trial fast and with no questions asked. We in our fine mind have already convicted him of murdering American sailors. Most Americans would be more than happy to agree that those locked up in Gitmo are presumed evil. It is a foregone conclusion.

After all, our behaviors are always more honorable than that of al Qaeda. We are always more decent than Taliban.

The trial is a circus. So be it.

 

MRTEXAS

7:30 PM ET

November 12, 2011

trial

"After nine years, the alleged al Qaeda mastermind of the USS Cole bombing is finally getting his day in court. But does anyone still think a military commission at Gitmo is a fair trial?"

Anyone think he didn't do it?

 

NAVIN KUNWAR

4:16 AM ET

November 11, 2011

Sins of Commission

BING520 is right, After having locking a suspect for 9 years and denying the defense lawyers the full access to evidences, it does not look like a fair trial I have been taught to understand, but there would be justification. By the virtue of trial, we could say we did the right thing. It is a trial regardless of the degree of fairness."
thats the fact

 

DR. KUCHBHI

1:06 PM ET

November 11, 2011

Why bother?

Rather than give a bad name to ALL of our judicial processes (many of which do need improvement), through this stupid kangaroo court, we're better off setting him free and shooting him as he tries to "escape."

That way, we send the message that we're tough on those who mess with us. We do this without adding "trial by American court" to the synonym list for Chinese, Burmese, North Korean, Taliban and other authoritarian justice systems which ring completely hollow. They too conduct trials.

 

LIZARDO

6:56 PM ET

November 12, 2011

Etc.

If our system of justice can cough up a fair trial we only endanger ourselves by losing the moral high ground. In other words, we cede victory to the terrorists by demonstrating that they are right. Which was what they wanted in the first place.

 

LISAJANE64

1:46 AM ET

November 27, 2011

Sins of OMISSION

"…would best protect the full range of U.S. security interests and the safety of the American people"

Thank you for this informative piece. We all know that whatever type of circus clown court they stage, the United States would still be world-famous for their unfair and completely substandard system of justice.

It’s funny that the US is on a perpetual manhunt for “Arab and/or Islam terrorists” while incidents such as the attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967 by Israeli troops, killing 34 and wounding 174 Americans, were quietly settled without giving the murderers a taste of “American justice”.

Is it baffling that the USS Liberty attack is “the only maritime incident in U.S. history where U.S. military forces were killed that was NEVER investigated by the US Congress”? Of course, Zionist America would never mess or criticize the Great Zionist “Jewish” State.

Much love, folks
Lisa O.