FORT MEADE, Md. — A military judge on Tuesday twice expelled Ramzi bin al-Shibh — one of five Guantánamo Bay detainees facing a death penalty trial — from a courtroom at the military base there in Cuba after he disrupted proceedings by shouting about his treatment.
Col. James L. Pohl, the judge presiding over the pretrial military commission hearing, clashed with Mr. bin al-Shibh at the start of both the morning and afternoon sessions. Each time, Mr. bin al-Shibh began loudly complaining about torture instead of answering a question from the judge about whether he understood his rights. He is charged with aiding the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
As guards took him away the second time to watch the hearing on a monitor in a nearby holding cell, Mr. bin al-Shibh’s voice faded from the closed-circuit feed that reporters — some at a media facility on the base, some here at Fort Meade — are allowed to watch. He appeared to be shouting something like “I am not a war criminal; you are a war criminal.”
The outbursts contrasted with the fairly technical arguments debated the rest of the day. Since the five detainees were arraigned in May 2012, after the collapse of the Obama administration’s plan to prosecute them in a federal civilian court, their pretrial hearings have been bogged down in numerous challenges by defense lawyers about the fairness of the tribunal process. Any actual trial remains a distant prospect.
Among other matters, defense lawyers have challenged the decision by the military official who oversees the tribunals to classify the case as a potential death penalty matter. They argue that various obstacles had prevented them from having a meaningful opportunity to persuade him to take the possibility of execution off the table because, they say, the Central Intelligence Agency tortured their clients.
The official, Bruce MacDonald, a retired admiral who has since ended his tenure as the tribunals’ “convening authority,” testified about his decision-making process in February. On Tuesday, defense lawyers argued that two former MacDonald aides should also be required to testify about what they did or did not tell him about C.I.A. torture — and why. But Colonel Pohl, who had already ruled that their testimony was unnecessary, declined to change his mind.
In addition, Walter Ruiz, a reservist Navy commander who represents another of the five defendants, Mustafa al Hawsawi, made a lengthy presentation about problems he had experienced in obtaining a translator and death penalty mitigation specialist with security clearances before Mr. MacDonald made his decision.
But the most vivid events of the day involved Mr. bin al-Shibh, 41, a Yemeni accused of passing money and messages from Al Qaeda to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
At the start of the day, Mr. bin al-Shibh’s lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Kevin Bogucki of the Navy, complained that guards had kept his client awake the night before with bangs and clanking sounds. As a result, he argued, his client was groggy and not able to be “meaningfully” present to aid his defense.
Colonel Pohl noted that the government disputed such complaints, and that Commander Bogucki had not made any motion seeking a remedy. After that exchange, Mr. bin al-Shibh declined to address a question from the judge about whether he understood his rights to be present or absent on subsequent days.
While each of the other four defendants, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, answered yes in turn, Mr. bin al-Shibh said,
“I totally refuse to answer this question as long as the judge is taking position against me and against my allegations.”
He then started in on a monologue. It was difficult to make out what he was saying on the audio feed, but it included something about “torture” and “a secret C.I.A. prison.”
“Nobody knows about it. Nobody enters it. Nobody sees it,” he said.
When Mr. bin al-Shibh refused requests to quiet down, the judge ordered guards to remove him until the hearing resumed after lunch. A similar scene ensued after the break.
When the detainee was removed the second time, Colonel Pohl told Commander Bogucki that he would not allow Mr. bin al-Shibh to provide other than “yes” or “no” answers because he might divulge classified information.
That explanation called into question Colonel Pohl’s order this week adjusting rules for the protection of classified information. The order has not yet been made public.
But in a statement on Monday, another defense lawyer, James Connell, said the judge had lifted a rule that deemed as classified the “observations and experiences” of the defendants about their time in custody.
Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a military spokesman, instead portrayed the order as merely removing a rule that the judge deemed “superfluous,” and warned that “interested observers are well advised to read it prior to opining on what it says and means, the opinions of defense counsel notwithstanding.”
No comments:
Post a Comment