On October 22, 2008, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was first brought before his military commission for his arraignment on charges that he helped perpetrate the bombing of the United States Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in August of 1998. At his arraignment, Mr. Ghailani informed the military judge that he wanted me as his attorney, although I am informed that he also said he was willing to work with military counsel. I learned this from his military counsel.
Upon informing the court of his desire that I represent him, Mr. Ghailani was informed by his military counsel that I had been suspended from the group of attorneys authorized to represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay before the military commissions. My suspension was effective as of August 29, 2008. I have attached a copy of my suspension letter for your review. At the time, Mr. Ghailani's cell at the prison at which he was housed at Guantanamo Bay adjoined the cell of Ammar al-Baluchi, my client who has been in the news the past couple of weeks. While Mr. Ghailani was transferred to Guantanamo in September of 2006, Mr. al-Baluchi was the only other detainee he had seen or spoken to at Guantanamo Bay, as of October 22, 2008.
Upon returning to his cell after his arraignment, Mr. Ghailani informed Mr. al-Baluchi of my suspension from practicing before the military commissions. That same day, Mr. al-Baluchi filed a motion in his military commission (the 9/11 commission), complaining of certain treatment, and asking that I be added to his military commission defense team. At the next 9/11 military commission court proceeding, which took place on either November 3rd or November 4th of 2008, all five 9/11 defendants announced (1) that they wanted to fire both their military and civilian attorneys, and (2) that they wanted to enter guilty pleas in the 9/11 case.
I have no proof that the 9/11 defendants' learning of my suspension was the catalyst for their firing their attorneys and attempting to enter guilty pleas. However, the timing is striking. Upon learning of my suspension, the detainees were certainly made aware that there were (and remain) serious procedural problems with the military commissions. In the military commissions, one side of the litigation (the government) can apparently suspend the other side's (the detainees') attorney without warning and without just, or any, cause. That circumstance can present both practical and perception problems, to say the least.
As a result of these circumstances, I am not convinced that the 9/11 defendants ever really wanted to voluntarily take guilty pleas. While the public has certainly been made aware that the 9/11 defendants attempted to take guilty pleas, the public has never been made aware of (1) my suspension, or (2) the close temporal relationship between my suspension and the 9/11 defendants' apparent attempt to plead guilty.
When they learned of my suspension, the detainees' suspicions regarding the bogus, sham nature of the commissions was confirmed. They realized they had little hope of a fair day in court and that the proceedings were taking place simply to add some perceived legitimacy to the government's decision to either kill them or to hold them for the rest of their lives.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
