But the path to a final decision on the admissibility of the 2007-08 “confessions” to FBI  interrogators who came to Guantánamo as “clean teams” (totally different from CIA interrogators, the government maintains) is far from straightforward.

One defendant, Ammar al-Baluchi, already successfully convinced the previous 9/11 judge that his FBI testimony could not be used at trial. The prosecutors in the 9/11 case have appealed this ruling in the Court of Military Commissions Review (CMCR). The three judges who heard arguments on the issue are expected to render their decision sometime this summer. Whatever the CMCR judges decide, the decision will likely be appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly to the Supreme Court.

While it does not establish a legal precedent in the 9/11 military commission, it is significant that in 2023, the judge in the case of U.S. v. Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the man accused of plotting the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, ruled his FBI confession was inadmissible. In 2025, the CMCR upheld the ruling, affirming that his “confession” was legally “tainted” and rendered  “involuntary” by the brutal torture Mr. al Nashiri endured at CIA “black sites” prior to the FBI interrogation.

The current 9/11 judge says he intends to issue a ruling on the confessions of three of the 9/11 defendants – Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the 9/11 “mastermind), Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi – by August. He will need to rule on each defendant separately, as they each had different experiences of CIA torture and of their later transition to Guantánamo. Mr. al-Hawsawi, for example, was for a period of time detained at Guantánamo when the CIA was still using it as a “black site.” His attorney argued forcefully that there was no way his client could ever experience any interrogation at Guantánamo as anything other than a continuation of CIA interrogation, that could lead at any time to renewed torture; in other words, he was programmed to tell the FBI agents “what they wanted to hear.”

Attorneys for all three defendants argued that their clients were not given a Miranda warning, notifying them of their right to remain silent, their right to have an attorney present, and the fact that anything they said could be used against them in court of law. Mr. Mohammed, in fact, asked if he could have an attorney and was falsely told that he was not yet charged with any crime, despite that fact that the FBI agents were brought to Guantánamo explicitly to obtain confessions to be presented at trial.

Further muddying the water, two years ago, in a surprising revelation in the 9/11 pre-trial hearings, veteran FBI analyst Kimberly Waltz testified that during the Obama Administration, when moving the 9/11 trial to Federal District Court in New York was being contemplated, the Justice Department decided it would not try to use the FBI “confessions” evidence in court. This was later confirmed by former federal prosecutor Adam S. Hickey.

There is no current litigation concerning the FBI interrogations of the fifth 9/11 defendant, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, because his case was severed following a ruling by the previous 9/11 judge that he was mentally incapable of participating in his own defense as a result of PTSD and a delusional disorder that developed following his torture in the CIA “black sites.”

 Should the current 9/11 judge find any of the defendants’ statements to the FBI admissible, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi’s defense attorney’s will be allowed to call witnesses and present additional arguments in the 9/11 pre-hearings. They are currently blocked from filing new motions in the military commissions until there is a final decision about the legality of the pre-trial agreements they signed in 2024, which were subsequently retracted by then Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin.

The one certainty about the prospects for a trial of the 9/11 accused, is that it will not start on January 11, 2027, as the prosecuting attorneys have requested.

The post As the 25th Anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks Approaches, the Prospects for a Trial in the Guantánamo Military Commissions Remain Uncertain appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

On the 24th anniversary of the opening of Guantánamo, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows (a founding member of UFPJ) issued a statement on Guantánamo’s legacy: “On January 11, 2002,  the first ’War on Terror’ detainees arrived at Camp X-Ray. Unnamed and unknown, these twenty men in orange jumpsuits ushered in an era of extraordinary rendition, terror jingoism, and a lack of accountability that continues to this day.”

Their statement continues, “When men in blindfolds arrived at the Guantánamo Naval base, they found themselves in a jurisdictional no man’s land. 24 years later, the world remains blind to the situation of the 15 men who remain at Guantánamo, and the history of how we got here. Furthermore, the five men alleged to have planned and supported the 9/11 attacks have yet to be held legally accountable. Indeed, the Guantánamo Military Commission has not even set a trial date. . . .   America has institutionalized a politics of fear. Just as our nation was scared into compliance in the aftermath of 9/11, we are being frightened into numbness now.”

Since February 2025, over 700 immigrants – most of them transported from the United States – have been temporarily detained at  Guantánamo’s Migrant Operations Center or  at Camp 6, part of the military detention facility. Read Peaceful Tomorrows’ full statement HERE.

 An outpouring of anger, frustration, and sadness has marked this year’s shameful anniversary. A statement from 115 U.S.-based organizations committed to human rights and the rule of law (including UFPJ, and our member organization, September 11^th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, FCNL, CPDCS, and PANYS) calls for:

1) Transferring without delay the six men who are not charged with a crime.

2) Ending the failed military commissions and resolving pending cases.

3) Permanently closing the Guantánamo military detention facility, without repurposing it for any future detention regime.

4) Holding perpetrators of U.S. crimes accountable; and

5) Providing redress to those whose fundamental human rights the U.S. has violated.

The 24th anniversary of Guantánamo’s opening also saw worldwide protests.

Only fifteen “war on terror” prisoners remain of the approximately 780 Muslim men and boys the Bush Administration sent to the Guantánamo military detention facility after 9/11. That is because over 97% of the detainees were never charged. Instead, they were “rendered” yet again to various countries around the world without their input or consent.

Life after Guantánamo is filled with challenges, as these former detainees make clear. Mansoor Adayfi organized and supports the Guantanamo Survivors Fund, which recognizes how, after suffering years of torture and imprisonment without charge, former detainees have been transferred to countries far from their families, where they are stigmatized, receive little or no assistance, and have no legal status or permit to work. The Guantanamo Survivors Funds supports men working to rebuild their lives. Read Mansoor Adayfi’s book, Don’t Forget Us Here, where he shares with great insight and empathy a narrative of fighting for hope and survival in unimaginable circumstances.

Another former detainee, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, discussed his current situation with Nael Georges, Middle East and North Africa Programme Coordinator at PEN International. Slahi ends with a powerful message to U.S. citizens: “Readers should know that law and democracy are valid and useful, and that despising democracy and human rights is invalid and inadmissible. Why am I saying that? Because the US said it would be torturing me until I confessed, then it would take me to court and prosecute me. I was sent to be tortured in Jordan, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, and yet it [the US] was unable to bring me before the court. The US did all that so it could collect proof of violence and sentence me in court. The United States failed. Why? Because a state of law is the only one that is valid.”

Is the United States TODAY a state of law? If we reflect on the 24 years of the Guantánamo Detention Facility and the former detainees’ messages, we must conclude otherwise.

The post The Shameful 24th Anniversary of the Opening of the Military Detention Facility on the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

McCall suppressed the confessions of defendant Ammar al Baluchi because of his torture by the CIA, despite that fact that his confessions were made later to an FBI “clean team.” The suppression issue has been central to the 9/11 legal proceedings from their beginning, because all the 9/11 defendants, indeed all the Muslim men charged in the Guantanamo military commissions were tortured in CIA “black sites.”

No legal effort has ever been made by the U.S. government to pursue accountability for the gross violations of human rights and humane treatment—rights explicitly guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture, both of which the U.S. signed.

Following President Obama’s decision to “look forward not backward,” and his refusal to investigate let alone prosecute those who ordered and carried out torture, it seemed there would be no reckoning. Yet in an odd twist, the legal arguments, motions, and rulings over suppression in the 9/11 case (and the USS Cole Bombing case, another of the Guantanamo cases in pre-trial hearings) have become the only legal venue in which the details of post-9/11 torture and what it cost our nation’s prospects for truth, justice, and accountability are publicly argued.

Judge McCall’s ruling suppressing confessions to the FBI applies to only one 9/11 defendant, Ammar al Baluchi, as three other defendants had signed pre-trial agreements (PTAs) last year, pleading guilty to all charges against them in exchange for a promise they will not facing a death penalty conviction. As a result, they and their lawyers have been observing, but no longer participating in the legal proceedings at Guantanamo.

The three who signed PTAs include the alleged “9/11 Mastermind,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (known as KSM), Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi. A decision on the legality of their PTAs has been long awaited from the DC Circuit Court, which heard oral arguments on the issue in January of this year.

The fifth defendant in the 9/11 case, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, was declared mentally incompetent to participate in his own defense, as a result of the long-lasting effects of his torture. His case has been severed from that of the other four defendants. While the prosecution maintains that Mr. bin al-Shibh can be restored to mental competency and will again be able to stand trial, his defense team sees no potential for that.

So, what now are the prospects for justice and accountability for the crimes of 9/11?

UFPJ founding member organization September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows has long advocated for PTAs. The organization filed an amicus brief with the DC Circuit Court that was joined by 9/11 victim family members who are not members of Peaceful Tomorrows, stating clearly its long-held convictions that PTAs are the only path to judicial finality. Whichever way the DC Circuit Court rules on the legality of the existing PTAs, the decision will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the prosecution in the 9/11 case is appealing Judge McCall’s suppression ruling through the military commission appeals process. That issue too could end up in the DC Circuit Court and go on to the Supreme Court.

But, back at Guantanamo there does not appear to be a qualified military judge who is willing to take over the 9/11 case. So, for the foreseeable future, 9/11 pre-trial hearings are cancelled one week at a time as an “administrative judge” handles day-to-day legal minutia. With the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks rapidly approaching, victim family members and the American nation just wait and wonder if there will ever be judicial finality. Or will the alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks simply die “legally innocent”?

The post 9/11 Case at Guantanamo is Again Without a Presiding Judge—but the Judge who Retired Issued a Momentous Ruling Before His Departure appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

On July 31, three of the remaining four accused, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, each signed a pretrial agreement, which was approved by the Convening Authority (CA) of the Military Commissions, former Brigadier General Susan Escallier. Escallier, had been appointed as the CA by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in August of 2023. The CA, according to the rules of the Military Commissions:

(M)ay either accept or reject an offer of the accused to enter into a pretrial agreement or may propose by counteroffer any terms or conditions not prohibited by law or public policy. The decision whether to accept or reject an offer is within the sole discretion of the convening authority.

The agreements that Escallier approved included guilty pleas along with lengthy “stipulations of fact” describing each defendant’s actions related to 9/11. In exchange the government agreed to forego the death penalty, for sentences that would likely be life imprisonment. Then in near lightning speed, barely two days later, Secretary Austin overruled the prosecuting attorneys, who had worked for months to craft the agreements, and the CA issuing a terse statement:

I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused in the above-referenced case, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009. Effective immediately, I hereby withdraw your authority in the above-referenced case to enter into a pre-trial agreement and reserve such authority to myself.

Effective immediately, in the exercise of my authority, I hereby withdraw from the three pre-trial agreements that you signed on July 31, 2024 in the above-referenced case.

The developments have been described by legal scholars as a “train wreck and a serious embarrassment for the government.” The ACLU declared, “(b)y revoking a signed plea agreement, Secretary Austin has prevented a guilty verdict in the most important criminal case of the 21st century. This rash act also violates the law….” Analysis of the issues at stake by former government officials who have been close to the issues in the case for more than two decades explained, “(t)he history of torture-tainted cases in the military commissions demonstrates the near impossibility of obtaining death penalty judgements” and concluded that the pretrial agreements the were the only realistic options for achieving a conviction in the 9/11 case.

The former U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, framed Austin’s action in an international legal framework, emphasizing its human rights consequences. She described revoking the agreements as a lost opportunity “to conclude meaningful and rule of law compliant plea agreements, finally redeeming the rights of 9/11 families…with an admission of guilt…(and) offering the potential to write a new chapter of international law compliance following decades of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at the site (Guantanamo) and beyond.”

While just how the issues will be ultimately resolved, whether the agreements will stand, or whether Secretary Austin will prevail, is currently unclear. When the 9/11 pre-trial hearings resume following the 23^rd anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there will be lengthy litigation over the issues, as the judge in the case, Lt. Col Matthew McCall has ordered both the prosecution and the defense attorneys to file briefs and present arguments about a path forward.

The post 9/11 Pre-Trial Hearings at Guantanamo Enter Unchartered Legal Territory appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

The central issue in the pre-trial hearings, which began in May of 2012, remains unchanged: SUPPRESSION, whether the prosecution will be allowed to use information obtained by interrogators who questioned the 9/11 defendants after they were tortured by the CIA. The last five weeks of legal proceedings included some stunning witness testimony as well as several striking new developments that will have a bearing on the issue.

Testifying for the prosecution, former Naval investigator Robert McFadden described Walid bin Attash as participating voluntarily in interview sessions and eager to discuss his role in 9/11. McFadden also admitted the defendant was never read his Miranda rights nor offered legal counsel. McFadden previously testified in the USS Cole bombing case and the judge in those proceedings suppressed statements the defendant made to McFadden because of the defendant’s previous torture at a CIA black site. That decision has been appealed by the USS Cole prosecution, but there has been no decision after more than 10 months. READ MORE.

 Testifying for the defense, former CIA psychiatrist Dr. Charles Morgan (who played no part in the CIA’s RDI – “rendition, detention, and interrogation” – program) who is on the faculty of Yale Medical School and the University of New Haven, and works at the National Center for PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), portrayed the post-CIA interrogations very differently. Mr. bin Attash, he testified, would have been suffering PTSD and unable to distinguish between CIA and subsequent interrogators; any confessions he made, regardless of their apparent voluntary nature, were in fact “conditioned fear memories.” Morgan added that the defendant’s PTSD would have been causing him “pain and distress and psychological despair” and that the interrogators were “interviewing a person (who had) been traumatized…a person who suffers from a significant mental illness.” READ MORE.

 Despite significant testimony from witnesses like McFadden and Morgan, it also became clear that failure to conduct a speedy trial in the 9/11 case is producing new problems for the prosecution. Increasingly, expert witnesses are dying, suffering from health issues that make their appearance in court impossible, or showing understandable lack of detailed memory now more that 22 years after the events of 9/11.

During the five-week session the judge also made an unprecedented visit to the CIA black site on the Guantanamo base, presumably to see the interrogation room first-hand and determine how similar it is to rooms where post-CIA interrogations were subsequently conducted. He issued a statement explaining that a site visit would be “beneficial for determining” how to rule on suppression. READ MORE. While the April-May hearings were on-going, the New York Times broke a story concerning the attempt to move the 9/11 case to federal court, in 2009. Federal prosecutors, at the time, had rejected using confessions the 9/11 defendants made during FBI interrogations because of the failure to “Mirandize” them. READ MORE.

9/11 pre-trial hearings are scheduled to resume in July and August for another four weeks as the judge attempts to hear from all the witnesses whose testimony bears on the issue of suppression.

The post Hearings in the 9/11 Case at Guantanamo Move Closer to Crucial Decisions on Admissibility of Key Government Evidence appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

Increasingly, however, activists and human rights advocates are learning of the profound challenges men face after Guantanamo, which can be particularly difficult if one is relocated to a country other than where he was initially from. These men are often unable to find work, they struggle with housing, may have no access to medical care (and many of them have severe health challenges after the torture and hunger strikes that they experienced.) Few former detainees ever obtain passports that grant them freedom of movement. Again, from the UN Special Rapporteur, “For the men who the U.S. government has transferred or resettled, my report documents the despair, challenges, and undisputable harms most continue to face following release. Former detainees need the essential means to live a dignified life.” On the occasion of the 22nd anniversary, Ms. Ní Aoláin emphasized that activism by released detainees now forms the frontline of advocacy for their rights. READ MORE.

 No one better embodies this role of detainee activism and advocacy than Mansoor Adayfi, author of Don’t Forget Us Here: Lost and Found at Guantanamo. Mr. Adayfi was one of the lead organizers of the hunger strikes by detainees that captured world attention in 2005, 2008 and 2013. Living in Serbia since 2016, he writes frequently about the situation former detainees now face. Just one example is Saudi engineer Ghassan Abdullah al-Sharbi, who the U.S. repatriated to his home country in March of 20223 and shortly later he disappeared. Others have experienced torture and even execution after being relocated. It’s what former detainees cynically refer to as GITMO 2.0. READ MORE. Mr. Adayfi is also the Outreach Director of the No More Guantanamos Survivors Fund which had pledged to provide limited assistance to former detainees until the U.S. fulfills its responsibilities for reparations and torture rehabilitation.

Mansoor Adayfi and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin were joined by Aliya Hussain, from the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Daphne Eviatar, from Amnesty International—USA, in a powerful webinar “Guantanamo, Where Do We Go From Here?” discussing the long history of the Guantanamo detention facility, the work that remains to finally shutter the facility, and the many issues that must be addressed to provide accountability for the wrongs, harms and violations of law that took place. Watch the webinar here.

The post Guantanamo at 22: Continuing Violations of Human Rights and the Growing Challenges and Harms Experienced by Former Detainees appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

On February 1, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the counter-terrorism and human rights, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, announced she had come to an agreement with the U.S. government to visit and review practices at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Here technical visit will include meetings in officials in Washington D.C. followed by a four-days spent at the U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba where she and her team will talk with detainees and military personnel. Over a three-month period, Ní Aoláin will also interview individuals in the U.S. and elsewhere, on a voluntary basis, including victims and families of victims of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks and former Guantanamo detainees in countries to which they have been repatriated or resettled. At the conclusion of her mission, Special Rapporteur Ní Aoláin will issue an end-of-mission report on her findings and recommendations to address violations of human rights and international law.

Then on February 2, Majid Khan, who had been detained for nearly a year more than the sentence he received from senior military officials in October of 2021, was finally resettled to Belize, where his wife and daughter will join him. Khan was captured, in 2003, forcibly disappeared by the U.S., imprisoned, and tortured at overseas “black sites” operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, before he was brought to Guantanamo September of 2006. Khan pled guilty, in 2012, to war crimes including supporting al Qaeda by transferring money to individuals who carried out terrorist attacks in the years after 9/11. Although he completed his sentence in March of 2022, Khan remained at Guantanamo. In June of 2022, he filed a case in federal court, Khan v. Biden, challenging his continued imprisonment. The government never responded to the merits of Khan’s filing but arranged his resettlement in advance of a court-ordered deadline to do so. Read more about the many years of Khan’s legal challenges to Guantanamo justice.

The same day that Khan left Guantanamo, Theodore Olson, who coordinated 9/11-related litigation for the Bush administration and who is himself a 9/11 victim family member, became the highest-level member of the Bush Administration to acknowledge publicly the fundamental failure of the Guantanamo military commissions to deliver justice and accountability for the crimes of 9/11 and other terrorist acts. As Olson, who served as the 42nd solicitor general of the United States from 2001 until 2004, wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “we made two mistakes in dealing with the detained individuals at Guantanamo. First, we created a new legal system out of whole cloth…. [T]he commissions were doomed from the start. We used new rules of evidence and allowed evidence regardless of how it was obtained. We tried to pursue justice expeditiously in a new, untested legal system. It didn’t work.” The second mistake was to pursue the death penalty in the newly created commissions, Olson continued. Although federal courts could have handled the cases 15 or 20 years ago, he concluded, that today, “the only guarantee that federal court prosecution brings is years of appeals resulting from the legal morass of the past two decades. This is no resolution…. The American legal system must move on by closing the book on the military commissions and securing guilty pleas.”

As the month drew to a close, on February 23, the Rabbani brothers, were returned to Pakistan after spending 20 years at Guantanamo without ever being charged with a crime. Although Pakistani by nationality, the brothers were born and raised in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and are ethnically Rohingya. They were captured by Pakistani security forces in 2002 and then held at a CIA detention site for 550 days before being taken to Guantanamo in 2004. The younger of the two brothers, Ahmed, became well known for his artwork and also for his participation in the hunger strikes Guantanamo detainees have mounted. The Pentagon recently partially lifted its ban on the release of detainees’ artwork, but it is unknown whether Ahmed was able to take the more than 100 paintings he made at Guantanamo with him to Pakistan.

The post GTMO UPDATE: Detainee Releases and High-Level Reviews of Guantanamo Policies and Practices appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

Mr. Khan was the first “high-value detainee” held at Guantanamo to settle a case in the military commissions through a plea agreement. At his sentencing he was allowed to speak publicly about his torture. The jury of senior military officers who sentenced him were outraged by Khan’s torture and issued a statement supporting clemency.

These developments were recounted during the Senate Judiciary Hearing on December 7, 2021, “Closing Guantanamo: Ending 20 Years of Injustice,” which included testimony from Colleen Kelly, a co-founder of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows that detailed the failure of the 9/11 military commission to deliver justice to the families whose relatives were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Peaceful Tomorrows has supported plea agreements in the 9/11 military commission at Guantanamo since 2017, when five years after the arraignment of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and four other men accused of planning and supporting the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it became clear to Peaceful Tomorrows’ members that no trial would ever take place. The principal obstacle was the interminable litigation over what evidence the government would declassify and allow to be presented in the courtroom.

The prosecution repeatedly blocked defense motions to allow more information about the defendants’ “enhanced interrogation” at CIA black sites. The defense persistently pursued more details about their interrogation by the CIA and later the FBI, in an effort to demonstrate that statements the defendants had made about their activities was inadmissible because they were obtained through torture. Despite the clear failure to progress beyond pre-trial litigation, the 9/11 case ground on for another five years until 2022.

Now as Peaceful Tomorrows argues in its amicus brief  in support of Majid Khan, Khan MUST be released so that other cases can be similarly resolved. On March 1, 2022, Khan had served his sentence. If the 9/11 defendants and the other men charged in the Guantanamo military commissions are also going to cooperate, the government must honor Khan’s plea agreement.

Peaceful Tomorrows’ brief states: “The government’s failure to transfer [Majid Khan] and abide by the terms of its plea bargain with [Khan}—in a case likely to be closely watched by the 9/11 Defendants, their defense counsel and prosecutors—may dissuade the 9/11 Defendants from pleading guilty, depriving the victims of September 11 (including the members of Peaceful Tomorrow) of the finality, justice and information to which they are entitled.”

Peaceful Tomorrows’ brief concludes: “For two decades Peaceful Tomorrows’ families have waited for answers, information, acceptance of responsibility, and reliable, final convictions pursuant to the rule of law. In that time, many of Peaceful Tomorrows’ members, and other victims’ family members, have passed away never having seen a measure of justice served for the crimes that occurred on September 11, 2001. The government now has a chance—perhaps its last—to resolve the case against the 9/11 Defendants and provide these victims with the justice, finality and information they deserve. The success of that effort depends to a large degree on whether the government will follow through on its commitments and legal obligations.”

Majid Khan’s detention at Guantanamo must end.

The post September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows Supports the Legally Required Release of Guantanamo Detainee Majid Khan appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

You can watch a video recording of Colleen Kelly’s testimony and that of the other witnesses at the hearing, “Closing Guantánamo: Ending 20 Years of Injustice.” Colleen emphasized the lack of truth, justice and accountability for the crimes of 9/11. “The rule of law is a bedrock principle of our nation, and after 9/11 we expected our government to uphold the rule of law in seeking accountability for our relatives’ deaths. It failed to do so and as a result we still are awaiting justice twenty years later.”

Colleen’s testimony went on to describe a way forward in the 9/11 case that would clear a path for the closure of Guantánamo: pre-trial agreements. “We understand that in exchange for guilty pleas the government would in all likelihood no longer seek the death penalty; this would be in part in recognition of the torture each of the defendants experienced. What we would hope to finally get, however, is answers to our questions about 9/11 from the defendants—answers and information that we have been denied for two decades.”

Currently, 39 men remain at Guantánamo. In addition to the five men accused of planning and supporting the 9/11 attacks, seven other men have been charged in the military commissions. While two men have been convicted, trials of the other ten have not even begun. Pre-trial agreements could end that legal limbo. Another 14 men are being held in indefinite detention as “law-of-war detainees,” and the remaining 13 men have been cleared for transfer to another country (many of them cleared during the Obama Administration and have therefore been awaiting transfer for many years).

September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows believes the Biden Administration needs to transfer those cleared for transfer with all due speed; next either charge or clear for transfer the 14 “indefinitely” held men, and also negotiate pre-trial agreements with all those charged. This is the only option as the military commissions have demonstrated, after more than a decade, that they are fundamentally broken.

In addition to Colleen Kelly, the Democrats called three other witnesses:

Brigadier General John Baker, Chief Defense Counsel for the Military Commissions

Major General Michael Lehnert (ret.), Who supervised the construction and served as the first commandant of the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp

Ms. Katya Jestin, One of the defense attorneys for Majid Khan, Guantánamo detainee who pled guilty, negotiated a plea agreement and then made a public statement about his torture by the CIA

General Baker stated that it was clear to him that the military commissions were today further away from convening trials than they were two years ago. He firmly supported pre-trial agreements as the only way to end the paralysis caused by the death penalty, illegal intrusion into the defense process, and the legal stalemate over discovery of evidence of the torture that all the accused experienced. Katya Jestin concurred with Baker’s support for pre-trial agreements. Major General Lehnert stated bluntly that the Biden Administration needed a detailed plan to finally shutter Guantánamo. Recalling that he has been given 96 hours to set up the detention facility in 2002, he suggested 96 days would be a reasonable timeframe for closing them today. Lehnert stressed how leaving the facility open posed an ongoing risk to U.S. security as Guantánamo remains a recruiting tool for anti-American organizations worldwide.

Republicans and Democrats found little to agree on, other than their shared frustration that the Biden Administration sent no one from the National Security Council, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Defense to the hearings to present the Administration’s plan for closure. Indeed, the Administration’s record, after 11 months, in meeting its avowed goal of closing Guantánamo – one detainee transferred (whose terms of transfer were negotiated by the Obama Administration) and one additional detainee cleared for transfer – suggest that it may have no plan.

The Republicans called two witnesses:

Mr. Jamil N. Jaffer, Founder and Executive Director, National Security Law and Policy Program, George Mason University

Mr. Charles “Cully” Stimson, Manager, National Security Law Program, The Heritage Foundation

They used most of their time to argue about the failed exit strategy from Afghanistan and the likelihood of released detainees “returning to the battlefield” and rarely focused on the issues that Guantánamo’s continuation presents.

Despite the partisan gulf, it does seem that at long last the failure of the military commissions at Guantánamo to deliver justice is getting recognition. Pre-trial agreements are being openly promoted, which was not common a year ago. As the 20th anniversary of Guantánamo, January 11, 2022, follows the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks it is time to shutter the detention facilities at last. Can we heed the words of former detainees who wrote to President Biden urging action:

“Many of us were abducted from our homes, in front of our families, and sold for bounties to the US by nations that cared little for the rule of law. We were rendered to countries where we were physically and psychologically tortured in addition to suffering racial and religious discrimination in US custody—even before we arrived at Guantánamo….

“Most of the prisoners currently or presently detained at Guantánamo have never been to the United States. This means that our image of your country has been shaped by our experiences at Guantánamo—in other words, we have only been witnesses to its dark side.

“Considering the violence that has happened at Guantánamo, we are sure that after more than nineteen years, you agree that imprisoning people indefinitely without trial while subjecting them to torture, cruelty and degrading treatment, with no meaningful access to families or proper legal systems, is the height of injustice. That is why imprisonment at Guantánamo must end.”

September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows agrees. CLOSE GUANTÁNAMO NOW, IT CAN BE DONE!

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

Senator Durbin denounced Guantánamo during Senate debate on the NDAA.
Senator Durbin wrote the Department of Justice criticizing positions it had taken in federal courts that undermined the Biden Administration’s stated goal to close Guantánamo.
Senators Durbin, Leahy and other Democrats wrote Biden to close Guantánamo.

The post Guantánamo: 20 Years of Injustice Must End! appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

Protests around the world erupted in support of a Free Palestine as Israeli warplanes once again began bombing Gaza.  From one hundred thousand people in London to the several thousand in Boston and many cities in-between (Montreal, Iowa City, San Francisco…) long-time peace activists and first-time protesters donned masks, made signs and stepped into the streets in support and solidarity with Palestinians.

According to Jewish Voice for Peace, rallies were held in at least 36 U.S. cities on May 17^th with their members co-sponsoring, speaking and attending in contingents that sometimes numbered in the hundreds.  “The tide is shifting. We are supporting Palestinians’ liberation struggle.  We are building Jewish community beyond Zionism. We are standing with the oppressed against the oppressor.” [From a Facebook post]

The U.S. is still arming Israel with a new $735M weapons sale recently (May 5, 2021) proposed by the Biden Administration.  Several elected representatives (Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Mark Pocan, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Betty McCollum, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar) have introduced a Joint Resolution of Disapproval (the first ever regarding a weapons sale to the Israeli government) to block this sale. UFPJ has signed on to support this resolution along with many other organizations in response to a JVP call.

As of this writing, more protests are planned around the world, you can find one near you at:

https://samidoun.net/2021/05/global-calendar-of-resistance-join-these-events-to-defend-palestine/

The post The Palestinian Struggle for Freedom Enters a New Phase appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.