Mohammad Jawad's military commission hearing last week was unusual for many reasons. Jawad was a minor when he was captured in Afghanistan and now faces life in prison if convicted for allegedly throwing a hand grenade that wounded two U.S. soldiers and their Afghan interpreter in December 2002. Not only did the pre-trial hearing last 14 hours, but there were several "firsts:" a prisoner (Jawad) testified about the mental torture and abuse he suffered under the ; a civilian sleep deprivation expert, , testified via video conference from Hanscom Air Force Base about the short- and long-term mental effects of sleep deprivation; and, finally Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the Legal Advisor to the Convening Authority, testified before the commission.
Brig Gen. Hartmann, a witness for the government, was called to testify to counter the defense testimony of Col. Morris Davis. Col. Davis, the former chief prosecutor of the military commissions, quit his position in October 2007 in protest of Brig. Gen. Hartmann's overbearing interference in the work of the prosecution, and immediately thereafter became a popular defense witness, testifying and speaking publicly about Hartmann's improper political interference. It was truly a surreal scene watching a military supervisor cross-examine his subordinate (Col. Lawrence Morris, the chief prosecutor, cross-examined the deputy chief prosecutor, Lt. Col. William Britt, who served under Col. Davis) and military defense counsel challenge the credibility of a superior officer in the Air Force JAG Corps Reserve. (Unlike Office of Military Commission's-prosecution team, Maj. Frakt of the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel is independent and is not subordinate to the Legal Advisor, Brig. Gen. Hartmann).
The chief prosecutor's task was more than just defending the government's case against Jawad's motion to dismiss all charges due to unlawful influence. Col. Morris also attempted to seize the moment to defend the integrity of this tainted and discredited system and, more importantly, discredit the validity of the former chief prosecutor's account. Col. Davis' testimony in the case of Salim Hamdan resulted in the (PDF), and caused serious damage to the world's perception of this system of injustice.
The military defense counsel, Maj. David Frakt, relied heavily on Col. Davis' testimony and tried to show that Jawad's case was prioritized and charges were advanced only to satisfy Brig. Gen. Hartmann's eagerness to move the process forward. Lt. Col. Britt testified that Brig. Gen. Hartmann was "very enthusiastic" about Jawad's case, believing it would "grab the public's attention." Lt. Col. Britt testified that "there is no doubt in my mind that [Brig. Gen. Hartmann] was the driving force behind the prosecution's effort." Lt. Col. Britt said on the witness stand that he was not aware of any evidence of abuse against Jawad and was not aware of the fact that Jawad was subjected to the frequent flyer sleep deprivation program. He stated this despite the However, Lt. Col. Britt made it clear on the stand that he would not, as a matter of personal ethics, allow charges against anyone he believed to have been tortured to move forward. This testimony supported the defense assertion that had the prosecution not rushed to file the charges and done their due diligence, as required of them, the charges against Jawad would probably not have been filed.
While Col. Davis' testimony was not very different from his , he appeared more wounded, having been denied a medal from the Department of Defense for his service. Col. Davis testified that under Brig. Gen. Hartmann's tenure, the prosecution's office suffered from an "environment of fear" which discouraged prosecutors from speaking their minds. Although the defense's request to get access to Col. Davis' emails when he was the chief prosecutor was not processed, Col. Morris, in cross-examination, used one of the old emails in an attempt to discredit Col. Davis' assertion that charges against Jawad weren't ready to be filed and referred by the Convening Authority.
The prosecution invited Brig. Gen. Hartmann to provide testimony 鈥� something that it did not seek in the Hamdan case 鈥� in an attempt to offer him the chance to set the record straight. The prosecution asserted that there was no unlawful command influence and tried to paint a picture of, at best, an unpleasant work environment due to personality issues. Brig. Gen. Hartmann testified that his authority over the prosecution does not enable him to order charges, but does enable him in to insure that the system moves in a systematic speed. He expressed dissatisfaction with the work of Col. Davis and defended the statement attributed to him as saying the prosecution should bring cases that capture the imagination of the American people. He confirmed that he created a timeline for the cases to be filed by the prosecution and described his management style as "intense and direct."
Asked specifically about Jawad's case, Brig. Gen. Hartmann testified that he believed Jawad was 16, 17, or 18 years old, and was not aware of the criticism regarding the age of Omar Khadr, another minor (when he was first detained) who is also facing a military commission. But, Brig. Gen. Hartmann denied ordering the prosecution to file charges in this case. Finally, he testified that he was not aware of the frequent flyer sleep deprivation program. He stated this in spite of the fact that Jawad's military defense lawyer, Maj. Frakt, shared with him prior to his testimony a classified version of the prison logs which revealed the frequent flyer program! While the military judge will rule soon on the defense's motion to dismiss all charges due to unlawful influence, the judge ordered a medical examination of Jawad to determine if he is competent to stand trial.
The new details published in a front page story in last Sunday's New York Times about how should make people question how this system will deliver justice. These doubts are only exacerbated when we learn that the Legal Advisor charged with overseeing the process seems to be less interested in whether torture was used against the prisoners than in pushing the trials forward in the midst of the presidential election.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that officially, Maj. Frakt is under Brig. Gen. Hartmann's command. The Office of the Chief Defense Counsel is independent of the Legal Advisor. Brig. Gen. Hartmann is, however, a superior to Maj. Frakt within the Air Force JAG Corps Reserve.
In addition, the previous version of this post should have emphasized that the charges against Jawad would have undergone due diligence 鈥� and probably would not have been filed 鈥� had Hartmann not pressured the prosecution to file charges.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON 鈥� The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, 老澳门开奖结果 and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project: 鈥淲hile this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We鈥檙e profoundly frustrated that the administration didn鈥檛 take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.鈥� -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government鈥檚 case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. 鈥� This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 case, his claims challenging the government鈥檚 detention of him would fail. 鈥淩eviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we鈥檙e heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,鈥� said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Center for Democracy. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.鈥� In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court鈥檚 ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. 鈥淢r. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,鈥� said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. 鈥淗e cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.鈥� Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the University of Chicago Law School鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.