Posted on 11/02/2017 12:24:48 PM PDT by markomalley
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth on Thursday denied defense counsel’s request to halt USS Cole hearings at Guantanamo, despite the refusal to participate by three civilian lawyers for the accused.
Within minutes of the denial, lawyers for Brig. Gen. John Baker, the chief defense counsel for military commissions, filed an unlawful detention petition in Lamberth’s court. The USS Cole case judge, Air Force Col. Vance Spath, on Wednesday sentenced the Marine general to 21 days confinement in his quarters, in a trailer park behind the Guantanamo courthouse, for refusing to return the civilian counsel to their jobs.
The 20-page habeas corpus petition accuses the colonel of denying Baker “due process rights by depriving him of his liberty without giving him any opportunity to be heard.”
The case against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — the alleged mastermind behind al-Qaida’s Oct. 12, 2000, suicide bombing of the ship in Yemen, which killed 17 U.S. sailors — has been thrown into turmoil by the withdrawal of the lawyers, who say they are refusing to “provide unethical legal services to keep the facade of justice that is the military commissions running.” The lawyers resigned over an ethical conflict that has been kept secret.
Lamberth’s decision clears the way for a showdown Friday over whether the three lawyers who quit will report to an office building in Alexandria, Va., by 8 a.m. to litigate al-Nashiri’s case by video-feed to Guantanamo, as the trial judge, Spath, has ordered. Civilian Pentagon-paid attorneys Rick Kammen, Rosa Eliades and Mary Spears earlier in the week rejected Spath’s order to travel to the remote base for proceedings in the case.
At issue is who has the authority to release the three attorneys. Baker, who hires and fires defense attorneys, said he had sole authority to do so. Spath disagreed. He ordered Baker this week to rescind his excusal. Baker refused, and was found in contempt of the war court on Wednesday and immediately taken to the brig.
Baker, the second highest-ranking lawyer in the Marine Corps, was in the second day of his sentence — confined to his quarters in a trailer park behind the courthouse complex called Camp Justice.
Michel Paradis, another civilian counsel for al-Nashiri, argued that the case has “gone off the rails” and described the trial process as “lawless.”
Justice Department attorney Ronald Wiltsie argued there would be no harm in the trial proceeding.
“While the government has an interest in ensuring that the proceedings at Guantanamo are fair, that interest is not compelling enough” to stop the proceedings, Wiltsie said in Lamberth’s courtroom Thursday.
Without Kammen, Eliades and Spears, al-Nashiri has no representation with capital experience. If found guilty, al-Nashiri could face execution.
The exercise over who can release an attorney of record is also testing the reach of the war court set up by President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks and reformed by President Barack Obama. A year ago, a USS Cole case prosecutor said the war court has no authority to force a reluctant witness to Guantanamo. Instead, Spath sent U.S. marshals to scoop up the witness, Stephen Gill, from his home in Massachusetts, hold him overnight in a Virginia cell and deliver him to the same video-feed site where he has ordered Kammen, Eliades and Spears to appear as al-Nashiri’s counsel of record.
In that instance, a federal public defender sent a letter to the Guantanamo courtroom, offering to represent Gill, who was an un-mobilized Navy Reserves lawyer. Spath explicitly ordered that Gill not be told of the offer until after Gill had testified.
Sounds like libtard defense attorneys are just trying to muck up the case???
“Civilian Pentagon-paid attorneys Rick Kammen, Rosa Eliades and Mary Spears earlier in the week rejected Spath’s order to travel to the remote base for proceedings in the case.”
Cite them for contempt and toss them into cells adjoining their client.
L
Whip it out and we can measure
Just take them out for a swim in the bay.
This seems pretty clear-cut according to recent judicial rulings.
Force those defense attorneys to “bake the cake”, even if they don’t want to.
So a US Navy ship is bombed by an enemy in 2000. And now, 17 years later, we are having a criminal trial like it someone knocked over a 7-11. And an Air Force judge, has managed to lock up a Marine General???
Pure comedy.
Maybe as punishment we should make the jihadi take a round the world cruise on a USN destroyer. It’s not likely he would survive since they don’t know how to drive.
We are so screwed.
The idea that we are a nation of laws is far outweighed by the notion that 17 years later we are still screwing around with this.
We sure as H E Double Hockey Sticks aren’t getting the full story. Lawyers generally can’t withdraw from representing a client without approval of the court (Spath, in this case), but what is the “undisclosed ethical conflict”, and how does the Marine General supposedly have any authority to order civilians to appear in someone else’s court? Once the civilian says “I quit”, any leverage is gone, unless there’s something I’m missing. How can the military court order the jailing of a civilian (witness) for its own convenience?
First, I do not see why civilians of any stripe have to answer to a military judge. That includes the attorneys.
Second, if we’re going to put on a legal process that’s supposed to be fair and impartial then make it so. Given that the attorneys clearly think otherwise then this is just a show trial with a predetermined outcome.
To be clear: I am fine with a military tribunal convicting this terrorist and ordering his execution.
But what’s going on seems to me to be a mockery of justice with a trial whose outcome was decided before it started.
I object to that regardless of who is on trial.
After nearly 10 years on the case, and when it is finally coming to trail...they quit and leave an O-3 (IIRC) who cannot legally represent the defendant.
Seems to me like a ploy to prevent prosecution.
Supposedly the government has done something classified that it should not have. Since it is classified, we don’t know what.
The attorney resigned in protest and the Marine General allowed him to - which prevents the trial from proceeding after 17 YEARS!
There is a dispute on the law over who can or cannot allow an attorney to quit. As a practical matter, the trial is in Cuba and the attorney is in the USA...so not much will happen to him. But if you allow the attorney to quit just when the trial is about to start, how can anyone ever be tried?
This circus is why the subhuman who murdered eight people on the NYC bike path yesterday should be tried oh either NY or NJ Federal District Court. The courts there know how to run these terrorist cases, have done many, and have many convictions. Indeed, the surviving Tsarnev brother, the pressure cooker bomber, got a death sentence in Boston.
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. If he’s an islamist, shoot him on that principle alone.
Destroy islam
“Civilian Pentagon-paid attorneys Rick Kammen, Rosa Eliades and Mary Spears”
They’re not “Pentagon paid”, they’re Taxpayer paid!
Why are we still paying to defend, after 17 years? Hang-em!
I repeat, TRUMP IS RIGHT AGAIN !
Leni
He's one of the judges that ruled against those trying to stop the voter fraud commission.
He is also the one who also mocked opponents of Trump voter commission.
Not a joke. Apparently this Chinese fire drill is reality. We are so hamstrung that 17 years later, we are having a trial for someone who attacked the US navy.
And it presided over by the USAF. And in the process he locks up an honorable USMC General.
What a farce.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.