Back to News & Commentary

Guant谩namo Chief Defense Lawyer Orders His Attorneys: Don't Agree to Monitoring

A graphic reading "Close Gitmo"
In seeking to force military defense counsel to cast aside their professional ethical obligations of client confidentiality, the new rules fly in the face of American justice and tradition.
A graphic reading "Close Gitmo"
Zachary Katznelson,
Senior Staff Attorney, 老澳门开奖结果 National Security Project
Share This Page
January 11, 2012

Ten years on, Guant谩namo authorities are back to their old tricks, throwing up roadblocks to fair trials. But now the top defense lawyer for the controversial Guant谩namo military commission system has ordered the attorneys under his command not to comply with issued by the Guant谩namo prison chief that require Defense Department screening of all written materials lawyers want to send to their clients.

In an email sent Sunday and obtained by the 老澳门开奖结果, Marine Col. J.P. Colwell, the chief military defense counsel for the commissions, informed all military commission defense lawyers that they were ethically obligated to refuse to follow the rules, which were issued last month.

Guant谩namo鈥檚 commander, Navy Rear Adm. David Woods, issued the rules on monitoring legal communications on December 27. Under these rules, any information provided by lawyers that military censors found objectionable 鈥 like communications about U.S. personnel who tortured the prisoners 鈥 could be kept from the prisoner and brought to the attention of the base commander. This would eliminate attorney-client confidentiality.

The new prison rules say that defense attorneys must agree in writing to the monitoring as a condition of communication with their clients. In his email, Colwell told military commission defense lawyers that they should not sign the monitoring agreement, and if they already had signed, then they should immediately withdraw from the agreement. Citing the ethics codes that govern every branch of the military, Colwell wrote that following the agreement and revealing such information would be 鈥渋n violation鈥 of rules for professional conduct.

Col. Colwell joins an honorable line of who have opposed superiors鈥 attempts 鈥 ostensibly in the name of security 鈥 to undermine longstanding rules necessary for a fair trial. In seeking to force military defense counsel to cast aside their professional ethical obligations of client confidentiality, the new rules fly in the face of American justice and tradition.

If we want to do justice 鈥 and be seen as doing it 鈥 these cases need to be in federal court where the rules are established, fair, and effective.

Learn more about detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .

Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page