老澳门开奖结果

Today鈥檚 hearing was perhaps the shortest of the military commission proceedings since they started in August 2004. Mr. Abdul Zahir (pronounced Thaher), a 34-year-old native of Hasarak, Afghanistan, and father of three sons, appeared for less than five minutes before the presiding officer, Marine Col. Robert Chester. After receiving 鈥渟atisfying answers鈥� from the detaining authorities in Guant谩namo, Mr. Abdul Zahir鈥檚 military defense attorney, Army Lt. Col. Thomas Bogar, withdrew a motion he had filed to protest Mr. Abdul Zahir鈥檚 conditions of confinement.

Lt. Col. Bogar explained after the adjournment that he was trying to improve Mr. Abdul鈥檚 Zahir鈥檚 conditions of confinement which worsened as a result of his transfer last march from camp 4 to camp 5. For Mr. Abdul Zahir, the transfer to camp 5 meant being held in a single cell in an austere steel and cement block facility that houses all 10 Guant谩namo detainees who face charges before military commissions. In camp 4, Mr. Abdul Zahir enjoyed less restrictive conditions and shared a communal facility with other detainees from Afghanistan. Unlike some of the detainees in camp 5, Mr. Abdul Zahir has not threatened to boycott the proceedings and, according to his lawyer, he is still keen to cooperate and prove his innocence before the commission. His lawyer is therefore concerned that the worsening conditions might affect the relationship with his client and ultimately the ability to prepare a proper defense before the military commission. Lt. Col. Bogar stressed that although Mr. Abdul Zahir is still not happy, they decided not to argue the motion and wait until the Supreme Court issues its decision in Hamdan v. Rumselfed.

Apparently, 鈥淎bdul Zahir鈥� is the prisoner鈥檚 first name. This name appears on the official charge sheet and on the general list of Guant谩namo detainees that was released by the Pentagon on Monday. His full name, in case someone at the military commission will bother to know, is: Abdul Zahir Abed al Kader Mohammad. But what difference does it make? He is, after all, another 鈥渆nemy combatant鈥� facing war crime charges before a military commission, that even if one day will find him not guilty, it would not guarantee his release and freedom since the President can continue to indefinitely detain him as an 鈥渆nemy combatant.鈥�

Once again, we heard today about the hurdles that impede defense attorneys鈥� ability to freely access and communicate with their clients and prepare their defense. Lt. Col. Bogar, who is working on Mr. Abdul Zahir鈥檚 defense alone, mentioned as an example that a letter that he sent to Mr. Abdul Zahir more than two weeks ago has not yet been handed to him. When I later asked the Military Commission Chief Prosecutor, Air Force Col. Moe Davis, about what his office is doing in this regard he said that they are now working on new operating procedures that will improve mail delivery and will improve telephone access.

Anywhere you go in Guant谩namo -- and you can鈥檛 really go that far! -- the talk of the day is how the Supreme Court will decide, in less than two months, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. While military commission officials are trying to project business as usual by scheduling three weeks of commission hearings in June and emphasizing that between 70 and 100 detainees will be charged before the military commission, you can鈥檛 escape the question: Is it the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?

While it鈥檚 hard to predict the outcome of the Hamdan decision, one can at least hope for guidance to end the ordeal of the military commission. The Hamdan decision will also determine the future of hundreds of habeas corpus challenges filed in federal courts over the past couple of years by Guant谩namo detainees challenging the legality and conditions of their detention.

The next military commission hearing is scheduled in mid June.