Prosecutor: Extremist Magazine Prompted Order on Detainee Mail

FORT MEADE, Md., Jan. 18, 2012 — A pros­e­cu­tor in the tri­al of the alleged mas­ter­mind behind the USS Cole bomb­ing divulged today the root of a new order that allows offi­cials to mon­i­tor pris­on­ers’ legal mail at Guan­tanamo Bay, Cuba: a copy of an extrem­ist mag­a­zine found at the deten­tion facil­i­ty.

Navy Cmdr. Andrea Lock­hart, a mem­ber of the pros­e­cu­tion team in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, told the court a copy of Inspire mag­a­zine “got in” to the facil­i­ty, although she did not spec­i­fy exact­ly where. The Eng­lish-lan­guage mag­a­zine is pub­lished by the al-Qai­da of the Ara­bi­an Penin­su­la orga­ni­za­tion, and it includes arti­cles designed to inspire extrem­ists and teach them how to car­ry out vio­lent acts. 

Dis­cov­ery of the mag­a­zine – con­sid­ered con­tra­band – sparked Navy Rear Adm. David B. Woods, com­man­der of Joint Task Force Guan­tanamo, to insti­tute a new pol­i­cy last month that allows gov­ern­ment offi­cials to mon­i­tor prisoner’s legal mail. 

Lock­hart told the court today the dis­cov­ery of Inspire mag­a­zine demon­strat­ed that pre­vi­ous rules that cov­ered incom­ing mail at the deten­tion cen­ter weren’t sufficient. 

Dur­ing tes­ti­mo­ny yes­ter­day, Woods told Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes of the defense team the new pol­i­cy allows mem­bers of a priv­i­lege review team to con­duct a “plain-view review” of writ­ten com­mu­ni­ca­tions not marked as pro­tect­ed attor­ney-client infor­ma­tion. This review, Woods tes­ti­fied, is designed to ensure this cor­re­spon­dence does not include phys­i­cal or infor­ma­tion con­tra­band, such as maps of the deten­tion facility. 

Woods told the court yes­ter­day the new pol­i­cy bal­ances his respon­si­bil­i­ties to facil­i­tate attor­ney-client com­mu­ni­ca­tion while also ensur­ing secu­ri­ty, safe­ty, force pro­tec­tion and good order at the facil­i­ty. How­ev­er, the new order has become a major stick­ing point in Nashiri’s pre­tri­al hear­ing, even though both the defense and pros­e­cu­tion teams acknowl­edge his mail has nev­er been searched under the new policy. 

The issue has dom­i­nat­ed dis­cus­sion dur­ing both days of the pre­tri­al hear­ing that began yes­ter­day to address 10 motions filed by the defense and pros­e­cu­tion teams. 

Nashiri’s defense team con­tin­ued its argu­ment today that the new pol­i­cy com­pro­mis­es the attor­ney-client priv­i­lege because it allows a spe­cial review team to exam­ine detainees’ legal cor­re­spon­dence. The pros­e­cu­tion pro­posed that the review team oper­ate as an inde­pen­dent body, “walled off” from the pros­e­cu­tion, and that defense attor­neys be able to observe any reviews of their client’s legal documents. 

The defense con­ced­ed that prison offi­cials need to be able to inspect for con­tra­band, but insist­ed that this should not extend to read­ing legal mail. 

After exten­sive dis­cus­sion over the past two days by both teams, Army Col. James Pohl, the judge, deferred a deci­sion on the issue today. He did, how­ev­er, offer the defense assur­ance that a new order will come, prob­a­bly with­in “a cou­ple of weeks.” 

Pohl gave the defense team sev­en days to come up with a com­plete order it believes meets its require­ments. He also direct­ed the pros­e­cu­tion to come up with a clear def­i­n­i­tion of what “plain view” means, and said the team will have sev­en days to com­ment on the defense’s pro­posed order. 

Con­sid­er­ing anoth­er motion, Pohl respond­ed to a defense con­cern that clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion used by the defense – and sum­ma­rized with the goal of cre­at­ing an unclas­si­fied doc­u­ment that also omits sen­si­tive mate­r­i­al such as sources and col­lec­tion meth­ods – risks leav­ing out key infor­ma­tion the defense team needs. 

Richard Kam­men, the lead civil­ian defense coun­sel, argued that Pohl’s deter­mi­na­tions oth­er­wise will be made in a vac­u­um with­out con­sid­er­a­tion for the defense. 

Pohl ruled that the defense has until a hear­ing to be sched­uled in April to tell him exact­ly what kind of mate­r­i­al it needs to build its case. That way, he will be able to take that infor­ma­tion into con­sid­er­a­tion when com­par­ing the prosecution’s sum­ma­ry to the source material. 

The judge will then share any changes he makes to the sum­ma­ry with the pros­e­cu­tion team before approv­ing it. At that point, the doc­u­ment becomes final, not able to be recon­sid­ered except in the event of an appeal, offi­cials explained. 

Dur­ing a post-hear­ing news con­fer­ence, Kam­men accused the pros­e­cu­tion of try­ing to get Pohl to make a quick, irrev­o­ca­ble deci­sion that will impact the defense’s case, but with no mean­ing­ful input from the defense. He com­mend­ed Pohl for delay­ing action until April, although indi­cat­ing that it’s still too lit­tle time for the defense team to ade­quate­ly review the moun­tains of infor­ma­tion involved and request need­ed resources. 

“Three months in the con­text of the demands of this case is a blink of an eye,” he said. 

Kam­men again con­demned the mil­i­tary com­mis­sion process, say­ing it was designed “sole­ly to pro­vide the façade of jus­tice, but not real jus­tice.” He said it is “com­plete­ly out­side the pale of what Amer­i­can jus­tice has stood for for 200 years.” 

Army Brig. Gen. Mark Mar­tins, chief pros­e­cu­tor for the Office of Mil­i­tary Com­mis­sions, under­scored the impor­tance of pro­tect­ing clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion as well as sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion when it is in the pub­lic inter­est dur­ing this and oth­er trials. 

He empha­sized that mil­i­tary com­mis­sions – like all crim­i­nal tri­als in the U.S. fed­er­al sys­tem of crim­i­nal jus­tice – must sub­scribe to rules that bal­ance the accused’s right to a fair tri­al and the need to pro­tect nation­al secu­ri­ty and oth­er pub­lic inter­ests. Although Nashiri was in the court­room dur­ing today’s pro­ceed­ings, all the activ­i­ty revolved around the pros­e­cu­tion and defense teams. 

Nashiri, 47, is charged with “per­fidy,” or treach­ery; mur­der in vio­la­tion of the law of war; attempt­ed mur­der in vio­la­tion of the law of war; ter­ror­ism; con­spir­a­cy; inten­tion­al­ly caus­ing seri­ous bod­i­ly injury; attack­ing civil­ians; attack­ing civil­ian objects; and haz­ard­ing a vessel. 

The charges arise out of an attempt­ed attack on the USS The Sul­li­vans in Jan­u­ary 2000 and an attack on the USS Cole in Octo­ber 2000, dur­ing which 17 U.S. sailors were killed and 37 more wound­ed. Nashiri also is accused of involve­ment in an attack on the MV Lim­burg, a French civil­ian oil tanker, in Octo­ber 2002, in which one crew mem­ber was killed and about 90,000 bar­rels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Aden. If con­vict­ed, Nashiri could be sen­tenced to death. 

Nashiri did not enter a plea dur­ing his arraign­ment at Guan­tanamo Bay in November. 

The Guan­tanamo Bay pro­ceed­ings are being broad­cast via closed cir­cuit tele­vi­sion to three sites in the Unit­ed States. Two of those sites are at Fort Meade, in a the­ater and train­ing-room facil­i­ty. Anoth­er, at Nor­folk Naval Base, Va., is reserved for fam­i­lies of USS Cole vic­tims as well as crew mem­bers aboard the ves­sel dur­ing the attack. 

U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs) 

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →