Trump’s Mouth and the Guantanamo Military Commissions

Trump’s Mouth and the Guantanamo Military Commissions

Trump’s Mouth and the Guantanamo Military Commissions

By : Lisa Hajjar

On 3 May 2018, the last item on the docket in the 9/11 case at Guantanamo was a defense motion to dismiss because of prejudicial comments President Donald Trump had made about military justice and the defendants. Whereas the proceedings in this military commission case typically showcase the frictions between the prosecution and the defense, when it came to this matter there was a moment of “peace breaking out”—a phrase actors here invoke in the rare instances when the adversaries agree. What they agreed was that Trump had made unprecedented (or as Trump might say “unpresidented”) and inappropriate statements that could taint the opinions of military officers who might be called to serve as jurors.

As president and commander-in-chief, what Trump says about a military legal proceeding carries weight and has consequences, unlike the volumes of silly, misinformed and irrelevant comments he made when he was a private citizen.

David Nevin, lead defense counsel for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, had filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of unlawful command influence; UCI is a military legal concept that occurs when a person bearing “the mantle of command authority” pressures—or even appears to pressure—military judicial proceedings. As president and commander-in-chief, what Trump says about a military legal proceeding carries weight and has consequences, unlike the volumes of silly, misinformed and irrelevant comments he made when he was a private citizen.

One of the examples that Nevin cited was Trump’s comments on 1 November 2017, the day after the truck attack in New York City by Uzbek national Sayfullo Saipov that killed eight people. (Keep in mind that at the time of Trump’s comments, Saipov had been arrested but not yet charged.) When Trump was asked by reporters whether Saipov should be sent to Guantanamo, he said yes. He elaborated, “We have to get much tougher. We have to get much smarter. And we have to get much less politically correct.” While that might not have indicated UCI, what he said next arguably was:

We also have to come up with punishment that’s far quicker and far greater than the punishment these animals are getting right now. They’ll go through court for years. And at the end, they’ll be—who knows what happens. We need quick justice and we need strong justice—much quicker and much stronger than we have right now. Because what we have right now is a joke and it’s a laughingstock.

Nevin also cited the harsh comments Trump tweeted about the military judge’s sentence in the court-martial of Army Sargent Bowe Berghdal: “The decision on Sergeant Bergdahl is a complete and total disgrace to our Country and to our Military.” Putting Trump’s comments in a larger context, Nevin said, “With respect to any case, I don’t think leaders should make statements about a desired outcome or prejudge guilt.” Would Trump’s comments have an effect on this case? Nevin noted that although potential jurors could be asked about whether Trump’s comments had influenced them during voir dire (jury selection), “it’s very hard to unring a bell like this one.”

Nevin closed out his argument by saying that the president’s remarks, as documented in the motion (which is not yet public), meet the legal definition of UCI and thus warrant a dismissal. But even if the judge, Col. James Pohl, decides not to dismiss the case, he should take the death penalty off the table.

James Harrington, lead defense counsel for Ramzi bin al-Shibh, seemed skeptical that Judge Pohl would dismiss on these grounds. “But,” he added,

... when you write a decision on this motion…, I think it would be helpful for you to make a comment about the potential effect of what people like the President of the United States can have in the future on these commissions so that there's a shot across the bow, so that maybe some of these things stop happening. I'm not saying that he will listen…We all know that he operates to the beat of his own drummer.

It was at that point that peace really broke out. Judge Pohl asked the prosecutor responding to the motion, Robert Swann, if he thought Trump’s comments were appropriate, and Swann said, “No, your honor, I do not…It is not permissible, and it should not be made.” Swann added that Barack Obama and Eric Holder had also made inappropriate comments in regard to the military commissions. Judge Pohl, expressing agreement, said that if a convening authority of the commissions made similar comments, he would be disqualified. Then Swann added: “How do we stop it, sir? That is the question.” Judge Pohl got animated: “Oh, I got ways to stop it… I don't mean to be flippant…, but I am not left without remedies…[W]ith all due respect to the Commander in Chief, if he wants to interject himself into this process by making these kind of comments, it's my job to make sure that the process is still fair.” Swann said something to the effect that no on pays attention to what Trump says, and he only pays attention when they appear in a motion like this one.

Swann’s argument against dismissal emphasized that this is the largest murder trial in US history. Some ill-considered and prejudicial comments by the president can be sorted out during jury selection and should not be the basis for taking the death penalty off the table. Judge Pohl took one more rhetorical swing at Trump for “interjecting himself” into an ongoing legal process.

Nevin got the last word because it was his motion.

[I]f you read the social science research where jurors in capital cases have been interviewed, what you find is that frequently, these decisions boiled down to ineffable moments within a trial or within the consciousness of the person making the decision. It isn't a simple weighing process. It is hard to say what moves a person from this column to that column. [T]his is why I think it's so important that proceedings like this one be as impeccable as they can be.

Who says Trump cannot be a unifying force? For the duration of one briefly argued motion, Trump unified the participants in the military commission case against his extremist and ignorant commentary.

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Can We Talk about Palestine? Laws and Crimes

      Can We Talk about Palestine? Laws and Crimes

      For better or worse, my expertise is what is legal in war. It may seem, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the laws of war, that it’s almost oxymoronic. Legal in war? But there is a thing called international humanitarian law. And “humanitarian” signals the centrality of protecting civilians in the context of any war. The things that constitute gross violations of IHL—or war crimes—include deliberately targeting civilians, deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure, excessive use of force, siege warfare, collective punishment, and forced displacement. All of these are war crimes, and we have seen all of these things happening. That is the reality of Gaza now. For 16 years, Gaza has been described as the world’s largest open-air prison, and now it can be described as the world’s largest crime scene. It is a crime scene.

    • Henry and Me: A Fauxbituary for Kissinger

      Henry and Me: A Fauxbituary for Kissinger

      Now that Henry Kissinger is dead, the time is ripe to reveal my personal relationship with him. In 1969 when I was eight years old and for several years thereafter, Kissinger was my role model. Why, you might wonder, would a child want to emulate Kissinger? My answer is a coming of age tale of political consciousness. 

    • Lisa Hajjar, The War in Court: Inside the Long Fight against Torture (New Texts Out Now)

      Lisa Hajjar, The War in Court: Inside the Long Fight against Torture (New Texts Out Now)

      The War in Court traces the fight against US torture in the context of the “war on terror” and the complicated legacy it has left. My long-running interest in torture grew out of my curiosity about the relationship between law and political conflict.

Setting New Precedents: Israel Boycotts Human Rights Session

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique mechanism that intends to review the behavior of states without distinction. The UN General Assembly established it in 2006 as part of the functions of the Human Rights Council. It is a state-driven process to comprehensively assess a state`s compliance with human rights law. The Human Rights Council is to hold three two-week sessions each year during which time they review the files of sixteen member states. Accordingly each state will undergo the review every three years. As of 2011, all 193 UN member states had undergone a review.

The Human Rights Council conducted Israel`s UPR in 2009.  In response to the findings, Israel`s ambassador to the UN explained that it took the Review process "very seriously" because it is "an opportunity for genuine introspection, and frank discussion within the Israeli system" 

Israel`s second UPR is scheduled to take place in 2013. A coalition of Palestinian human rights organizations submitted their concise report on Israel`s violations between 2009 and 2012.  This document will not be read, however, because Israel is boycotting the UPR, citing bias.  In May 2012, Israel described the Human Rights Council as “a political tool and convenient platform, cynically used to advance certain political aims, to bash and demonize Israel.”

Israel`s condemnation of the Human Rights Council followed the body`s initiation of a fact-finding mission to investigate the impact of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Today, the Council released its report at a press conference in Geneva. It states that Isreal must cease all of its settlement activity  "without preconditions" and  "must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers", or face prosecution before the International Criminal Court. Sources in Geneva tell me that Israel`s threats of boycott aimed to derail the Council`s fact-finding mission`s report. Failing to do that, Israel unilaterally withdrew from its Universal Periodic Review all together.

This is not Israel`s first attack on the UN. It has cited bias in the past in response to the UN`s critique of its human rights violations, specifically after the World Conference Against Racism (2001); the International Court of Justice proceedings on the route of the Separation Barrier (2004); denial of entry to Special Rapporteur to the OPT, Richard Falk (2008); and its refusal to cooperate with the Human Rights Council`s fact-finding delegation to Gaza in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead (2009). 

Israel is unique for its boycott, which evidences the tenuous nature of the voluntary compliance process. In fact, human rights advocates and governement officials worry that Israel will open the door to non-cooperation by other states. The battle for accountability continues even in the UN. Despite its acceptance of international law & human rights norms, even within the multilateral human rights body, the last word on human rights matters is political.