text:
The Gitmo Observer
Website of the Military Commission Observation Project of Indiana University McKinney School of Law's Program in International Human Rights Law
IU McKinney MCOP
GITMO Fair Trial Manual
National & International Legal Research & Resources
Torture Report
Daily Transcripts
Observer FAQ & Registration
Indiana Observer Information
NGO Guests & Media
Media & Commentary
Guest Writings
Guest Media & Commentary (Selected)
Periodic Review Boards (PRBs)
Know Before You Go to Guantanamo
Periodic Review Board Participants
Bound for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Reporting from Andrews Air Force Base
Reporting from Andrews Air Force Base
I am a recent graduate of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law (IU McKinney) representing the IU McKinney Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP). This morning I am traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor U.S. military commissions against an alleged high-level member of al Qaeda who is charged with several war crimes.
The MCOP, which was founded by Professor George E. Edwards, routinely sends IU McKinney students, faculty, staff, and graduates to Guantanamo to serve as non-governmental organization (NGO) Observers, through a Pentagon initiative in line with the U.S. government's stated objective of transparency in the war crimes proceedings occurring at Guantanamo. Indiana's NGO Observers travel to Guantanamo with a mission to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on the commissions. I write to you now from Andrews Air Force Base while waiting to board my military flight to Guantanamo in furtherance of this mission.
I am joined at Andrews by three other NGO Observers representing different organizations. This is a relatively small group of Observers, as Guantanamo NGO Observer groups can sometimes consist of ten or more individuals. While we wait, we are studying two manuals, prepared by Professor Edwards, related to our mission:
(a) Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual – Excerpts (which describes the U.S. Military Commissions, what a fair trial should look like at Guantanamo, the applicable law, and other related materials); and
(b) Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Bay (which describes a pragmatic approach to NGO Observation, the Roles and Responsibilities of NGO Observers, the Dos and Don'ts at Guantanamo, the beaches, the restaurants, the theaters, and various other amenities available at Guantanamo when court is not in session).
NGO Observers reviewing copies of the "Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual – Excerpts".
Beyond this, we have been introduced to two escorts who are to serve as our primary liaisons and guides during our stay at Guantanamo. Our escorts have identified various rules to be followed while at Guantanamo (including photography limitations, security badge requirements, and the need to inform each other of our activities and whereabouts during our stay). They also explained that serving as an NGO Observer at Guantanamo would be an exercise of flexibility and patience, as rules and schedules are often subject to change (see "Reduced Hearing Schedule" heading below).
Nashwan al Tamir / Abd Hadi al Iraqi
I will be observing the case against Nashwan al-Tamir (what he declares to be his true name), or Abd al Hadi al Iraqi (the name the prosecution used in the charges; hereinafter "Nashwan / Hadi"). Nashwan / Hadi is an alleged senior member of al-Qaeda, and is accused of commanding indiscriminate attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan and Pakistan in collaboration the Taliban, among other charges. Nashwan / Hadi was captured in Turkey in late 2006 and was soon turned over to U.S. intelligence. He subsequently spent 170 days in secret CIA custody before being transferred to Guantanamo in 2007, where he has been the subject of proceedings since 2014. He is described as a "high-value detainee" by U.S. officials, and was proclaimed by the Bush administration to be among Osama bin Laden's "most experienced paramilitary leaders".
Reduced Hearing Schedule
In the days preceding my scheduled flight to Guantanamo, I received an email from the Office of Military Commissions (OMC) Convening Authority informing me that the hearings for this coming week in the Nashwan / Hadi case had been reduced from a full week of hearings (24 – 28 September 2018) to a single hearing day (24 September 2018). I was not entirely surprised by this news. Guantanamo hearing schedules tend to change with little notice, perhaps especially in the case against Tamir / Hadi, given the reported fragile state of his health. Indeed, during my past nomination, the hearings I was scheduled to observe were cancelled altogether.
The OMC initially suggested that because of the reduced hearing days, we would return from Guantanamo earlier than scheduled. However, at Andrews our escorts informed us that we would remain at Guantanamo for the entire week – Sunday through Saturday – even though we would have hearings only on Monday morning. Our escorts also told us that they are organizing non-court activities at Guantanamo, with more information to soon follow.
I am excited for the hearing, and to see how the rest of the week unfolds.
Please stay tuned for future updates; I plan to continue blogging throughout my stay at Guantanamo.
Fellow NGO Observers and I holding our copies of the "Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Bay Guide" in preparation for our trip to Guantanamo. I am second from the right.
Jacob Irven, J.D. 2018
Military Commission Observation Project
Program in International Human Rights Law
Indiana University McKinney School of Law
Voter Protection Legal Fellow
Indiana Democratic Party
Jacob.Irven@gmail.com
Posted in Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, al Nashiri, al Tamir, Andrews Air Force Base, Fair Trial Manual, GITMO, Gitmo Observer, Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, Hadi al Iraqi, Jacob Irven, Know Before You Go Guide, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo, Professor George Edwards, Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), Uncategorized on September 24, 2018 by jacobirven. 1 Comment
Travel to Guantanamo Bay to Monitor War Crimes Hearings Against Nashwan al Tamir / Hadi al Iraqi
Nominated for Travel
I am a recent graduate of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law (IU McKinney) seeking to begin a career in public interest law, and I am participating in IU McKinney's Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) as an NGO Observer.
Nashwan al Tamir / Abd Hadi al Iraqi (2014 photo by the International Committee of the Red Cross)
With the Pentagon's approval, I am now scheduled to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on military commission hearings at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station (GTMO) in the case against Nashwan al-Tamir (what he declares to be his true name), or Abd al Hadi al Iraqi (as he is being charged by the prosecution; hereinafter "Tamir / Hadi"). I am scheduled to observe hearings in the case against Tamir / Hadi between 22 September 2018 and 29 September 2018.
Tamir / Hadi is an alleged senior member of al-Qaeda, and is accused of commanding indiscriminate attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan and Pakistan in collaboration the Taliban, among other charges. Tamir / Hadi was captured in Turkey in late 2006 and was soon after turned over to U.S. intelligence. He subsequently spent 170 days in secret CIA custody before being transferred to GTMO in 2007, where he has been the subject of criminal proceedings since 2014. He is one of seventeen men U.S. officials have described as a "high-value detainee" currently being held at GTMO, and was proclaimed by the Bush administration to be among Osama bin Laden's "most experienced paramilitary leaders". Tamir / Hadi faces a maximum sentence of life in prison for his alleged crimes.
Previous Nomination
I was previously nominated to observe proceedings against Tamir / Hadi in April 2018. However, approximately one week prior to my scheduled travel date, I received an email from the U.S. Office of Military Commissions declaring that these hearings were cancelled. I never received an official communication stating the reason for this cancellation, nor have I located definitive information regarding this cancellation elsewhere. Thus, I cannot conclusively state the reason for it one way or another at this time.
Notably, however, Tamir / Hadi's severe chronic back pain, which caused him to undergo a series of four spinal surgeries in 2017, has compelled cancellations and other adjustments within Tamir / Hadi's hearing schedule in past instances. Indeed, Tamir has apparently undergone a fifth spinal surgery as late as May 2018, which also resulted in hearing cancelations. With this in mind, I have opted to keep my September schedule largely flexible so I may possibly attend alternative hearings in the event of further cancelations.
Background and Interest in Observing
Me speaking during the Program in International Human Rights Law 20th Anniversary in December 2017.
I became interested in the MCOP through my past engagements with IU McKinney's exceptional Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), which recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. During the summer of 2017, I had the opportunity to support human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spanning across three continents as a PIHRL Intern. I worked with NGOs in Poland, Uganda, and Mongolia on a broad range of public interest and human rights work.
With the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland, I generated research presented in amici curiae briefs in the European Court of Human Rights. With the Community Transformation Foundation Network in Uganda, I conducted field interviews with survivors of intimate partner violence to supplement ongoing impact reports. With the LGBT Centre in Mongolia, I helped train over 100 police officers to better understand Mongolia's newly-established hate crime laws and to better support survivors of hate crimes.
It is through these tremendous experiences that I developed a deeper appreciation for international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. This appreciation immediately attracted me to the MCOP, as the crux of its mission is to ensure the U.S. Government follows its enduring mandate to respect fair trial rights and other internationally-recognized human rights for all stakeholders during GTMO proceedings.
Me in the Ulaanbaatar City Public Library in August 2017 presenting and facilitating discussion on "A Guide to U.S. Master of Laws (LL.M.) & Other U.S. Law Degree Programs for Students from Mongolia", as prepared by Professor George E. Edwards.
Preparing to Observe
Me reviewing the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual (Volume I) in preparation for travel to GTMO during my previous nomination.
To prepare myself to travel to GTMO as an NGO Observer, I continue to review several relevant documents authored by Professor George E. Edwards with contributions from other IU McKinney affiliates. First among these are the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual (Volume I) and the Appendices to Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual (Volume II). These Manuals identify the internationally-recognized rights which apply to fair trials in the U.S. Military Commission context. They also detail the roles and objectives of NGO Observers in this context, and thus continue to be invaluable resources during my preparations.
Next among these documents is the Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Bay Guide. The Guide further details the roles of NGO Observers at GTMO, and seeks to assist Observers with all manner of logistics as they prepare to travel and observe hearings. Information regarding how to travel to GTMO, how to stay healthy while at GTMO, and even where to eat while at GTMO are all included in the Guide. Not only has this Guide been informative, it has also offered me great peace of mind.
Beyond these materials, I have continued reviewing publicly accessible GTMO case information through the U.S. Military Commission website – www.mc.mil – to better familiarize myself with the substantive proceedings in the case against Tamir / Hadi, and to better understand the procedural context of Military Commissions in general. Among the most notable progressions in the Tamir / Hadi case since my first nomination is the detailing of Marine Lieutenant Colonel Michael D. Libretto as the new presiding judge over proceedings, who replaced the previously detailed Marine Colonel Peter S. Rubin on 13 June 2018.
Since my first nomination, I have also closely monitored posts authored by journalist Carol Rosenberg which are available on the Miami Herald, as well as subsequent blog posts by other MCOP Representatives which are available on the GITMO Observer. As past MCOP Representatives have pointed out, Ms. Rosenberg provides comprehensive reports on GTMO proceedings, which serve as excellent supplements to the GTMO case information I described above.
I remain hopeful and excited that the hearings I am scheduled to attend will not cancel as they did during my prior nomination, and I remain eager to fulfil my important role as an NGO Observer.
As always, please stay tuned for future posts.
Jacob Irven, J.D '18.
NGO Monitor, U.S. Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP)
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Posted in Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, al Tamir, Carol Rosenberg, GITMO, Gitmo Observer, GTMO, Guantanamo Bay, Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, Hadi al Iraqi, Indiana University McKinney School of Law, IU McKinney School of Law, Jacob Irven, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo, MCOP, Military Commission Observation Project, NGO Observers, Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL) on August 17, 2018 by jacobirven. Leave a comment
My Nomination to Observe War Court Proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
I am a third-year law student at Indiana University McKinney School of Law, and have participated in the law school's Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) as an NGO Observer since October 2016. The MCOP is part of the law school's Program in International Human Rights Law.
I was confirmed by the Pentagon to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on military commission hearings at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GTMO) in the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks (the "9/11 case"). The hearings are scheduled to occur from 28 April through 5 May 2018.
Meeting fellow NGO observers in Gtmo during my last observation, October 2017.
This will be my fourth military commission observation. My first observation was at Ft. Meade, Maryland, where I observed hearings in the 9/11 case via CCTV in October 2016. My second observation was in January 2017 at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where I observed hearings in the case against Hadi al Iraqi / Nashwan al Tamir, an alleged high-ranking member of al Qaeda. My third observation took me back to Guantanamo Bay where I attended the 9/11 hearings in October 2017.
I became interested in the MCOP during the fall of my second year of law school after hearing about the program and other students' experiences in observing the hearings. Stemming from my interest in human rights, I applied to participate in the MCOP observations.
Touristing in a bell tower while working with refugees at an NGO in Prague.
In the summer of 2017, I worked in Lisbon, Portugal and Prague, Czech Republic at non-governmental organizations (NGOs) through the Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), which is the program that administers the MCOP. During my time in Prague, I had the incredible experience of working with people seeking asylum in Czech Republic.
The PIHRL recently celebrated 20 years of successful internship placements around the world. I was also a research assistant to the program director of PIHRL in the fall of 2017. This coming fall, I will be working abroad in an area of international human rights law.
Even though my observation is a few weeks away, I am preparing now so that I am fully informed and updated on the hearings. I am paying careful attention to a document developed and written by MCOP participants titled What Human Rights Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Observers and Others May Want to Know Before Traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This document, of which Professor George Edwards is the principal author, provides all of the information necessary to successfully prepare for and complete a mission to Guantanamo. Without this guide, preparing for my mission would not be complete, even though I have traveled to Ft. Meade and Guantanamo in the past. It is a resource that is full of information not only for the first-time participant, but also for the seasoned observer.
I have also been keeping up-to-date on the hearings and goings on at Guantanamo by following the Miami Herald online, as journalist Carol Rosenberg keeps close watch on the proceedings and reports on the hearings and beyond. I have also found Twitter to be instrumental in keeping informed about the hearings.
I will soon begin to prepare my travel arrangements to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where I will depart to Guantanamo Bay.
NGO Coins
The MCOP has developed a special coin for distribution. I will have a few coins available during this observation.
Sheila Willard (J.D. Candidate, '18)
Posted in 9-11 Case, al Baluchi, GTMO, Guantanamo Bay, Indiana University McKinney School of Law, IU McKinney School of Law, JTF-GTMO, Khalid Shaik Mohammad, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo, Military Commission Observation Project, NGO Observers, Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), Sheila Willard, Uncategorized on April 20, 2018 by wandervista. Leave a comment
Reflections on my Previous Guantanamo Observation Trip
I traveled to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from 11 to 18 November 2017 to observe military
Four other NGOs and I at Guantanamo's Camp Justice that week
commission proceedings against Mr. al Nashiri, who is facing war crime charges as the alleged mastermind of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole that killed 17 U.S. sailors and wounded dozens more. I am a student at Indiana University McKinney School of Law, and I was a non-governmental organization (NGO) representative on behalf of McKinney's Military Commission Observation Project. I was there to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on my experiences.
My Previous Guantanamo Observation
Lighthouse at Guantanamo
Court was in session four of the five days during my week at Guantanamo. Most of the witnesses were called by the prosecution to testify about evidence they had collected from the USS Cole after the bombing and to verify the chain of custody.
Some of the witnesses were called to testify about the ongoing professional responsibility issue in the case. The issue is complicated, and is discussed more in-depth here and here.
In brief, Mr. al Nashiri's Learned Counsel (an attorney who is experienced in death penalty cases) and two other civilian attorneys for Mr. al Nashiri did not travel to Guantanamo Bay for hearings that week as they contended that the Chief Defense Counsel of the Military Commissions released them from representing Mr. al Nashiri for "good cause." The Judge disagreed with the Chief Defense Counsel's decision and held him in contempt for refusing to rescind his order to release counsel and for refusing to take the stand and testify about the issues. The Judge has asserted that these three defense counsel have "abandoned" Mr. al Nashiri.
In January 2018, the Judge ordered the prosecution to subpoena the three defense counsel and recommended that the remaining defense counsel, LT Piette, become "more comfortable handling capital matters" so that the case can continue forward. The case did arguably move forward in January, in the sense that hearings were held that month, with LT Piette sitting in the courtroom as the only lawyer representing Mr. al Nashiri.
The Judge is awaiting decisions from two federal district courts.
Further Thoughts
Now that time has passed since I observed Mr. al Nashiri's proceedings I have had time
In front of the North East gate which separates the U.S. and Cuba
to reflect on his case, and on the military commission proceedings in general.
U.S. military commissions are not new, and in fact have been around since the Revolutionary War. Our current military commission process is guided by the Military Commission Act (MCA) of 2009, which built upon the MCA of 2006, which followed from an Executive Order signed by President Bush in 2001. The MCA of 2009 is the legal authority for this court-martial/federal criminal court hybrid, and a legal observer can see the qualities of both criminal processes present in these military commissions.
Guantanamo defendants and defendants in the U.S. are under law meant to be afforded due process, and all have the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. On the other hand, their trials are guided by two different, but similar, rules of evidence. Both courts-martial and military commissions are generally open proceedings, but both can be closed for classified sessions. Courts-martial and military commissions both have a panel of military members and are not a trial by a judge or with a civilian jury.
Reasons for Wanting to Return
Flying over Cuba
I hope to travel back to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to either continue monitoring the commissions against Mr. al Nashiri, or to begin monitoring the commissions against Mr. Khalid Shaik Mohammad, also known as "KSM", and his four co-defendants, also known as the "9/11 five." I want to return to monitor the commissions against Mr. al Nashiri because I have observed his hearings in the past, and I have since been following his case.
I am also interested in observing the 9/11 five since the courtroom and military commission proceedings were designed to specifically try the 9/11 defendants. Further, I was in 2nd grade when 9/11 happened, and it is an event that I remember clearly and grew up learning about. It is an event that affected nearly everyone in the U.S. and beyond. In addition, 9/11 was a key event that changed how the U.S. combats terrorism and seeks to protect national security. I would be interested in observing and analyzing how the government is working towards those goals of counterterrorism and national security via the military commissions.
For either case, I believe it would be a great opportunity to learn more about this hybrid court-martial/federal criminal court process. I believe I would also gain insight that I could bring back to the Program in International Human Rights Law at McKinney so I can contribute to the Know Before You Go Guide and the Fair Trial Manual.
In addition to traveling to Guantanamo Bay, I would like to travel to Ft. Meade, Maryland, where the Guantanamo proceedings are broadcast by live CCTV to a secure room. This will offer me another perspective on the issue of openness and transparency of the proceedings, which is outlined in the MCA.
While I was observing the military commissions against Mr. al Nashiri in November
Camp Justice, where I lived with the other NGOs for the week
2017, I was taking courses in Counterterrorism, Evidence, Professional Responsibility, and Criminal Procedure: Investigation back at Indiana University McKinney School of Law. I found all these classes to be helpful in understanding what was happening in the courtroom. I believe I will now have an even fuller understanding of what is happening in the courtroom since I have completed those courses. I am now currently taking Military Law and Criminal Procedure: Adjudication. Considering the military commissions are essentially halfway between a court-martial and a federal criminal trial, all the mentioned classes are very helpful. I also greatly appreciate that I have the opportunity to observe what I am learning at McKinney in the real world.
Further, I would have the opportunity to achieve the goals of McKinney's Military Commission Observation Project: to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on my experiences. I would be able to bring what I observed first-hand, critique and analyze it, and share it with the public via the Gitmo Observer.
Jessica Ayer (J.D. Candidate, '19)
Posted in al Nashiri, Camp Justice, Defense Attorneys, Gitmo Observer, Guantanamo Bay, Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, Indiana University McKinney School of Law, Judge Spath, Khalid Shaik Mohammad, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo, KSM, MCOP, Military Commission Observation Project, NGO Observers, Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), Rick Kammen, Rick Kammen - al Nashiri Defense Counsel, Uncategorized, USS Cole Case on February 6, 2018 by jessicaayer. Leave a comment
Arrival at Guantanamo Bay's "Camp Justice"
Tents where we live at Guantanamo Bay's Camp Justice.
[By Paul Logan. Posted by G. Edwards]
After a long day of traveling yesterday (Sunday, January 28), we arrived at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba's, "Camp Justice," which is a "tent city" where I and other representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will live for the next week. We are here to monitor U.S. military commission hearings against Hadi al Iraqi (also known as Nashwan al Tamir), who is accused of perpetrating war crimes in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the early 2000s. I am representing the Military Commission Observation Project of Indiana University McKinney School of Law, and traveled here with five observers from other NGOs: Zoe Weinberg (National Institute of Military Justice – NIMJ); Sarah Ruckriegle of Georgetown Law School; Kelly Mitchell (American Bar Association); Eric Helms (Human Rights First); and retired New York State Judge Kevin McKay (City Bar of New York).
Our flight to Guantanamo
We had an early start, as our "show time" at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington was at 6 a.m., for a flight scheduled for 10:20 a.m., which actually took off shortly after 11. We observers were told to sit together in three rows near the back of the chartered National Airlines plane. Others on the plane were seated in groups in different sections, including the judge and his staff (in the very front of the plane), employees of the Office of Military Commissions staff, defense lawyers, prosecutors, staffs of the prosecution and defense, court reporters, translators and interpreters, security officials, and Guantanamo Bay Press Corps Dean Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald. While victim's and victim's family members and panel or jury members are sometimes on these flights, I understand none of these were on our flight today. Also on this flight were defense lawyers who came down to visit their clients who are prisoners who are not involved with the Hadi / Nashwan al Tamir case we came to monitor.
While there were some rough patches, it was generally an uneventful and uncrowded flight. The 757 can fit about 120 passengers, and there were a little over 80 on board, so each of us had three seats. I finished reading my copy of Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Bay, and began to draft this blog post. The manual, produced by Indiana's Professor George Edwards, offers many suggestions on things to do when not involved in Military Commission activities, as well as how we can prepare substantively for our Gitmo mission. We had a very nice view of some islands out of my side of the plane, which I at first supposed to be the Bahamas, but because we were still a ways from Cuba, may have been the outer banks of North Carolina.
It was cool and rainy in Washington this morning and was sunny and beautiful here at Gitmo when we arrived after our 3-hour flight. After taxiing on the short airstrip on the leeward side of Guantanamo Bay, Naval Station authorities checked documents of the passengers. After we went through security, we met one of our escorts who will transport us around "the island," as those here refer to the base, and boarded a ferry to cross from the across Guantanamo Bay from the leeward to the windward side of Gitmo (as the Naval Station is sometimes called).
Reaching Camp Justice
We NGOs were transported to our homes for the next week — tents in "Camp Justice". We then made our first trip to the Expeditionary Legal Complex (ELC) to receive our badges that we have to wear when we go to court. The ELC complex contains Courtroom II in which cases are heard against high value detainees (HVDs), as well as judges' chambers, trailers for the defense and prosecution, court offices, witness trailers, and holding areas for the detainees. We received a tutorial on not taking any photographs of any part of the ELC, and not bringing electronic devices to Court.
As our evening escort drove us to dinner, he received a phone call notifying him that the hearings set for today (Monday the 29th) will be closed to observers, presumably because classified information will be discussed. We all knew that there was a possibility of closed hearings, but we were disappointed that hearings on the first day would be closed, as we are anxious to do what one of the things we came here to do — observe the proceedings. We all understand that sitting in the courtroom is only one of the things that NGOs do. Our NGO mission has 6 parts to it: We are here to attend, observe, be observed, analyze, critique, and report on all we experience, both inside and outside the courtroom. We look forward to talking with prosecutors, defense counsel, Office of Military Commission officials, Carol Rosenberg, and others whose experiences will enlighten us and help us to do our jobs as monitors.
What we did Monday when Court sessions were
At Radio GTMO
This morning our escorts took us to visit Radio GTMO, which operates three radio stations broadcast from the base. I purchased a bobblehead of Fidel Castro displaying the radio stations call letters on it. Thereafter, we took a look at Camp X-ray, where prisoners were first held here in 2002. Some may recall the photos in the news of detainees
An Igauna at the beach
in orange jumpsuits held in primitive outdoor "cages" surrounded by chain link fence and barbed wire. Several wooden guard towers ring the camp. Camp X-Ray has been closed for some time. We were informed that it has not been taken down as it is evidence in an ongoing case.
We then took the 2½ mile ridge line hike which has some dramatic vistas of the island, and saw a very large iguana. After our hike, it was time for some R&R at Glass Beach, not far from Camp Justice. We had another iguana visit on the beach.
A view from the Ridge. That's Guantanamo Bay in the background. You can also see the part of Cuba over which the Cuban government exercises jurisdiction, outside the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay.
We are all looking forward to finally seeing the inside of Courtroom II tomorrow, and finally observing the proceedings against Hadi al-Iraqi / Nashwan al Tamir.
Paul Logan, JD '94
Posted in Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, Camp X-Ray, Hadi al Iraqi, Know Before You Go Guide, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Guide, Miami Herald, Nashwan al Tamir, Radio GTMO, Uncategorized on January 29, 2018 by gedwards97. Leave a comment
Second Observation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et al.
I have been nominated by the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP) of the Indiana University McKinney School of Law and confirmed by the Pentagon to attend the military commission hearings in the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks. I will be observing from the military commission court at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from 14 October until 21 October 2017.
Previous observations and nomination
This will be my third observation in the 9/11 proceedings. My first observation was at Ft. Meade, Maryland, where I observed hearings in the same case as this observation, against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et al., via CCTV in October 2016. My second observation was in January 2017 at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where I had the chance to observe the hearings in the case against Hadi al Iraqi, an alleged high-ranking member of al Qaeda.
Speaking with Professor George Edwards at Ft. Meade, Maryland before leaving back to Indiana after observing a pre-trial hearing via CCTV.
I was initially nominated to observe earlier this month at Guantanamo in the case against Hadi al Iraqi, but the hearings were canceled due to Hadi's health and an urgent medical issue. The Miami Herald reported that Hadi had been referred for neck surgery after a period of time of known health issues. Hadi also had lower back surgery in early September 2017 that he is recovering from.
In order to observe through the MCOP, there are various levels of forms to be submitted to both the Program Director, and the Pentagon.
Pentagon Requirements The documents required by the Pentagon are 1) Hold Harmless Agreement, 2) Invitational Travel Worksheet, 3) Navy Base Access Pass Registration, and 4) NGO Ground Rules, along with a biography and picture. As an observer going through an Indiana University program, the forms must go through the appropriate channels in order to be approved by the university prior to sending to the Pentagon. Note to future observers: this will take time. Be sure you submit your paperwork immediately to avoid potential delays.
Once I received the stamped approved documents from IU, I forwarded these requirements to my Pentagon contact. The Pentagon contact will complete their formal review process, and will email confirmation if everything is in order. This may take a few days.
MCOP Requirements The MCOP document procedure is more simple than the Pentagon procedure. In order to participate through the MCOP, the observer must timely submit any and all Pentagon-related communication to the Program Director. He will facilitate the initial document review, IU review, and final review prior to submitting anything to the Pentagon. This will help in avoiding potential delay if any information is missing from the forms.
The MCOP requires for the participant to submit blog posts to this blog as a program requirements, an MCOP checklist to be completed by the observer, and proof of health insurance for the observer going abroad or even observing domestically.
The female NGO tent that will be "home" for the next week at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Preparation: The Gameplan
To prepare for my observation, I am re-reading the Know Before You Go to Guantanamo guidebook, since it has been a few months since my last observation. I need to prepare appropriate clothing to take with me on the weeklong trip, which includes professional clothing for events and hearings, and casual clothing for downtime. The observer is also
responsible for booking her own travel to and from Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, D.C., and any overnight accommodations that are necessary on the night before arrival into D.C. and the day of return from Guantanamo. My university-sponsored foreign health insurance is in place and my itinerary is scheduled.
This week is fall break for my law school, but I still have assignments and a mid-term exam to prepare for and complete in the next couple of days prior to leaving for D.C. on Friday morning.
Posted in Know Before You Go to Guantanamo, KSM, Military Commission Observation Project, NGO Observers, Pentagon, Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), Sheila Willard, Uncategorized on October 13, 2017 by sheilawillard. Leave a comment
From Indianapolis City Employee to Guantanamo Bay Observer — Nomination, Confirmation, Preparation
From my perch as an Indianapolis city employee working in economic development, I don't often receive an email inquiring about the seriousness of my interest in traveling to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
But that's exactly what happened on January 31, 2017.
Indiana University McKinney School of Law Professor George Edwards, an International Human Rights Law Professor of mine and who was also my third-year law school research paper faculty supervisor, emailed me with a simple question: "Are you available for a quick phone call?"
I was puzzled. I had, years ago, inquired about the law school's then new Guantanamo Bay Military Commissions Observation Project (MCOP), but after a few exchanges with Professor Edwards and other inquiries, I realized it was simply bad timing on my part.
That said, it turns out I had been in contact with Professor Edwards on an unrelated matter, and renewed my interest in traveling to Guantanamo Bay to monitor military commissions. Professor Edwards and I discussed the project, and he impressed upon me the gravity of the undertaking.
Professor Edwards asked If I really want to travel to Guantanamo Bay to do the work; which includes lots of preparation, work once you're there, and work once you return.
He reminded me of the importance of the work of our law school's Program in International Human Rights Law generally, and about the importance of its Guantanamo Bay work which began more than a decade ago.
It was quite clear this wasn't a passive trip to Cuba; this was to be taken very seriously and the hard work required of each individual would ideally result in substantive and value add contributions to the policies and procedures Professor Edwards and his partners have worked hard to create.
After a discussion with my spouse, I was officially committed.
For some background, I was not deeply involved with human rights when I was a law student, and I am not a human rights attorney. Since graduating from McKinney law school in 2010, I have worked in the private sector for a global aerospace company and in the nonprofit sector for a disabilities services organization. I currently work for the City of Indianapolis managing real estate transactions and economic development projects and strategy.
In short, I did not think that I was an obvious candidate for a mission to Gitmo as part of a legal proceedings observation effort. But, it is my hope that my outside viewpoint and fresh set of eyes can be beneficial and offer a different perspective as I observe and try to contribute to the understanding of existing guidelines and procedures.
Back to the Storyline
Once I told Professor Edwards I was committing to the assignment, it was time to better understand the process and the various entities involved.
The Indiana University McKinney School of Law Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), under the leadership of Professor Edwards, established the Military Commission Observation Project (MCOP). After the Pentagon Guantanamo Bay Convening Authority granted MCOP Non-Governmental Organization Status, affiliates of Indiana University McKinney became eligible to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor U.S. military commissions which were established to try alleged perpetrators of war crimes. Specifically, as observers or monitors, our 5 principal responsibilities are to: (a) attend; (b) observe; (c) analyze; (d) critique; and (e) report on hearings of detainees at Gitmo.
My process began by submitting certain personal information for consideration by the MCOP Advisory Council. Once approved for advancement by the Council, my name was then submitted to Pentagon as a nomination. At this point, the Pentagon can confirm you or deny you. Fortunately, on February 9, 2017, I was "CONFIRMED" by a Pentagon representative.
To be specific; from the Pentagon:
"You have been CONFIRMED to observe the March 18-25 9/11 Week ONE military commission in-person at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Currently, the flight schedule is as follows:
Departing from Joint Base Andrews to Naval Station Guantanamo Bay on 18 Mar (SAT) at 1000
Departing from Naval Station Guantanamo Bay back to Joint Base Andrews on 25 Mar (SAT) at 1000."
I then had to fill out various forms and agreements. In some ways, this has been the most complicated part so far, since each of the documents is different, and each document must be completed following very specific guidelines. Professor Edwards sent my "completed" documents back to me numerous times for me to modify my original entries to comply with Pentagon requirements, and with requirements of the Indiana University administration including IU lawyers who review some of the forms before we observers are permitted to return them to the Pentagon. The templates that I was given to follow were helpful, but it was nevertheless still a challenge.
Finally, all the documents were reviewed by Indiana University officials (including the IU Treasurer) and by the MCOP, I sent all requisite information to the Pentagon in the hopes that they would grant me full clearance.
What Hearings will I monitor?
There are three sets of hearings ongoing at Guantanamo Bay now. During the week of my scheduled monitoring (19 – 25 March 2017), hearings will be held in the case against the 5 alleged masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I remember where I was on September 11, 2001, and I cannot escape the impact it had on me. Pictured in this blog is Khalid Shaik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind himself, who was, among other things, waterboarded 183 times.
This is Actually Going to Happen?!?
At this time my focus has turned to the nuts and bolts of traveling from Indianapolis to Cuba. Easy right? Yeah… I plan to fly to Washington, DC then snag a Lyft and drive to a hotel near Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, which is around a thirty-minute trip. I will stay overnight there, in anticipation of my morning flight from Andrews in a military airplane directly to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
While at Guantanamo Bay, among other duties, I plan to provide updates via this blog site.
I hope to offer unique insights contributions to the existing body of work relating to legal proceedings, policies, and guidelines. I see this as an occasion to provide transparency from an "on the ground" perspective. Very few have had the chance to travel to Gitmo to monitor military commission proceedings; I intend to make the most of this opportunity, for the benefit of all concerned.
One of the most important tasks of anyone traveling to Guantanamo Bay as part of the IU McKinney MCOP is to contribute to the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual. You can find the Manual here: https://gitmoobserver.com/military-commission-observers-manual/
This Manual is the product of the hard work performed by Professor George Edwards and other student and legal partners who have been observing at Gitmo for years. It provides many of the policies and procedures that govern the treatment of detainees and the trial and legal proceedings. It is an objective and independent document that is used by observers from other institutions and others as they form their own judgments as to whether Guantanamo Bay stakeholders are being afforded all rights and interests they are owed.
I feel it an honor to be able to observe and contribute to this important document.
I am proud to be an Indiana McKinney School of Law alum, and thankful for the opportunity provided by the MCOP and the Program in International Human Rights Law.
Brent M. Pierce, J.D. '10
Posted in 9-11 Case, Andrews Air Force Base, Camp X-Ray, Fair Trial Checklist, Fair Trial Manual, George Edwards, GITMO, Gitmo Observer, Guantanamo Bay, Indiana University McKinney School of Law, IU McKinney School of Law, Khalid Shaik Mohammad, Know Before You Go Guide, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Guide, MCOP, MCOP Advisory Council, Military Commission Observation Project, NGO Observers, Pentagon, Professor George Edwards, Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL) on February 23, 2017 by brentmpierce. Leave a comment
Are you going to Guantanamo? New Manual Excerpts for NGO Observers & Others
Click this link for the full Manual — over 500 pages. Below you can download the Manual Excerpts!
If you're going to Guantanamo Bay in January 2017, you might be interested in our new Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual: Excerpts that offers insights into:
what the right to a fair trial is and how a fair trial should look
how to assess whether a fair trial is being afforded to all Guantanamo stakeholders
roles & responsibilities of independent Observers sent to monitor Guantanamo hearings
background info on Guantanamo the military commissions
a schematic of the courtroom (so you can know who is who)
and a 76 page "Know Before You Go To Guantanamo" insert that will tell you what to expect on your flight to Cuba, the ferry ride across Guantanamo Bay from the landing strip to your Quonset Hut accommodations, base security, food (which can be quite good!), beach, boating, and of course the courtroom, the hearings, and briefings by the prosecution and defense.
In the past, the Gitmo Observer (of Indiana University McKinney School of Law) distributed Manual Excerpts to Observers after we arrived at Andrews Air Force on the morning of our flight to Cuba (or distributed at Ft. Meade, Maryland, for Observers monitoring live by secure video-link from Cuba). Observers said they wish they had had it earlier.
So, we started to e-mail the Manual Excerpts to Observers as soon as we were sent e-mail addresses of Observers scheduled to travel, and we would receive those e-mails 3 – 6 days before the scheduled departure. Observers said that they wish they had it even earlier than that, that 3 – 6 days in advance wasn't enough time.
So now we are posting the Manual Excerpts on this site, for access by anyone interested, whether or note traveling to Guantanamo Bay (or Ft. Meade or elsewhere), but especially for those traveling to Guantanamo Bay to monitor 3 weeks of January 2017 hearings. Ideally, about 40 independent observers would travel to Gitmo this month, to fill all the slots allocated to observers.
The Defense Department has stated that it favors strong and robust transparency. Having full complements of Observers for each hearing week would help promote transparency, human rights, and the rule of law for all military commission stakeholders (with stakeholders including the defense, the prosecution, victims and their families, witnesses, the media, observers, observer escorts / minders, the public, the U.S. soldiers and others who operate the detention facilities, the military commission court staff, and others).
Here are the Excerpts! Please let us know if you have any suggestions for improving our Excerpts, our full Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual (over 500 pages in 2 volumes!) and our Know Before You Go To Guantanamo Guide (76 pages). Send to GitmoObserver@yahoo.com
[office src="https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=AA02978A4AC8C787&resid=AA02978A4AC8C787%21170&authkey=AHjg1WC29jVzNPY&em=2″ width="876″ height="688″]
Posted in Department of Defense, DoD, Fair Trial Manual, Fort Meade, GITMO, Gitmo Observer, GTMO, Guantanamo Bay, Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, Indiana University McKinney School of Law, JTF-GTMO, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Guide, Military Commission Observation Project, NGO Observers, Office of Military Commissions - OMC, OMC, VFM, Victims and Victims' Families on January 3, 2017 by gedwards97. Leave a comment
What you may want to know before traveling to Guantanamo Bay's war crimes court
Did you receive a rare Pentagon invitation to travel to Guantanamo Bay for war crimes hearings?
If so, are you searching for info on how to prepare for a Guantanamo trip, what to pack, will your U.S. mobile phone work, what about internet access, how is flying on a military plane from Andrews Air Force Base different from flying civilian, do you need your passport, can you meet detainees and see the prisons camps, will you have the resources needed to accomplish your Guantanamo mission / goals?
Each new Guantanamo traveler has these and other questions, which are answered in this revised and expanded Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Guide (downloadable below).
In 24 Chapters (76 pages, 2 Appendices), the Guide speaks directly to non-governmental organization (NGO) observers, who play a specific, valuable role at Guantanamo Bay. The Guide anticipates new observers' concerns, and addresses them methodically and comprehensively, and helps observers prepare for their missions. The Guide may be helpful for anyone traveling to Guantanamo hearings, including media, court staff, witnesses, foreign government representatives, etc.
The Guide notes that monitors (also to as "non-governmental organization observers" or "NGO observers") have the responsibility to attend, observe, analyze, review and critique Guantanamo Bay Military Commission (war crimes) hearings. This requires substantive preparation before traveling to Guantanamo, full schedules on the ground there, and follow-up upon return to the U.S.
Monitors (and others) must eat, sleep and exercise at Guantanamo and the Guide informs about that, and about Guantanamo tourist attractions, souvenirs, and entertainment such as outdoor movies.
Here is the Guide:
[office src="https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=AA02978A4AC8C787&resid=AA02978A4AC8C787%21169&authkey=AMjLhfMMvM4a6xE&em=2″ width="876″ height="688″]
Pentagon's observation / monitoring program
The Pentagon has been permitting NGO observers to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to monitor cases against men charged with heinous crimes concerning the 9/11 World Trade Center and Pentagon attack, the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen, and other incidents.
The monitors, who must be U.S. citizens, include representatives of human rights groups, lawyers, judges, law professors and law students, and the non-legal community members.
The Pentagon has stated that it invites monitors to promote transparency — for monitors to be the eyes and ears into Guantanamo to the outside world. Monitors attend, observe, analyze, critique and report on the substance of the war crimes hearings themselves and on the process involved in the proceedings.
Monitors assess how transparent the proceedings are, and examine whether the monitors are given the access to the personnel, proceedings, resources they need to perform their assigned tasks.
Monitors tend to travel for one week at a time, departing the U.S. on a weekend and returning the following weekend, with hearing days scheduled Monday – Friday of that week.
We hope that the Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Bay Guide is helpful to you as you prepare for your mission!
PS: If you have any comments / suggestions / tips to be included in the next iteration of the Guide, please let us know in a comment below. Or, please send an e-mail to us at GitmoObserver@yahoo.com.
Posted in Andrews Air Force Base, Know Before You Go Guide, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo, Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Guide on December 30, 2016 by gedwards97. Leave a comment
Click here for Blog
Click for GTMO Fair Trial Manual
Click for The Guantanamo Bay Reader Website
"While [at Guantanamo Bay] I was given a copy of the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual for U.S. Military Commissions. I read it cover to cover. This is simply required reading for anyone who goes [to Guantanamo Bay] to observe. Thank you for the enormous effort it must have taken to produce it.
[NGO Observer, 2014]
After reading the Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual, "I feel a high calling to meet the obligations you note for an observer to report what they have observed."
An iguana at the marina when we got back.
Standing in front of Camp Justice.
Pictured: Mosaic at the entrance to the museum. The NSA headquarters is located adjacent to the museum.
IU Logo
Radio GTMO
Reflections as I Prepare to Attend to the 9/11 Pre-Trial Hearings at Guantanamo Bay November 3, 2021
Destination Gitmo: Embarking on a Journey to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba for the al-Nashiri Hearings September 26, 2021
Preparing to Travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Observe Pre-Trial Hearings in the Case Against Five Alleged Plotters of the 9/11 World Trade Center / Pentagon Attacks September 11, 2021
Guantanamo Prisoner Covid-19 Issues Raised at United Nations – Geneva Hearing on 9 November 2020 November 7, 2020
Proposed Democratic Party Platform 2020 Pledges to Close the Guantanamo Bay Prison August 4, 2020
Categories Select Category 9-11 Case (81) ABA – American Bar Association (1) Abd al Hadi al Iraqi (41) abu Zubaydah (5) Advisory Council (2) Air Force One (2) al Baluchi (7) al Darbi (5) al Hawsawi (8) al Nashiri (52) al Qaida (3) al Tamir (12) Aline Fagundes (10) American Bar Association (1) Andrews Air Force Base (30) Andy Klein (4) Avril Rua Pitt (4) Bali Bombing (1) Bali Nightclub Bombing 2002 (1) Ben Hicks (1) Brent Filbert – Deputy Chief Defense Counsel (1) Briefing Binder – MCOP (3) Camp 5 (1) Camp 6 (1) Camp 7 (1) Camp Justice (11) Camp X-Ray (9) canine (1) Canine Dog (1) Carol Rosenberg (10) Catherine Lemmer (21) Center for Victims of Torture (1) Cherif Bassiouni (1) Christopher Jenks (1) Chuck Dunlap (10) CIA Detention and Interrogation Program (7) Clarence Leatherbury (1) Closing Guantanamo (2) Conflict of Interest; Conflict Counsel (7) Conspiracy (1) Conviction Overturned (1) Court of Military Commission Review – CMCR (2) Dan Mori (1) Darbi (2) David Hicks (1) David Nevin (3) David Remes (1) Dean Klein (1) Defense Attorneys (4) Department of Defense (2) DoD (2) Due Process (9) Duke (1) Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (1) Excerpts – Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual (1) Fair Trial Checklist (6) Fair Trial Manual (32) Faisel Sadat (1) FBI (3) FBI Infiltration of Defense Teams (7) female guards (8) Fort Meade (42) Frank Garrett (1) General Mark Martins (12) George Edwards (19) GITMO (12) Gitmo Observer (54) Gitmo Observer Advisory Council (1) Greg Loyd (6) Grooming (1) GTMO (93) Guantanamo Bay (26) Guantanamo Bay Diary (1) Guantanamo Bay Fair Trial Manual (54) Guantanamo Bay Reader (3) Hadi al Iraqi (40) Hambali (1) Harrington (defense counsel) (1) Hassan Guleed (1) Hattie Harman (17) Heather Wilhelmus (1) Hee Jong Choi (2) Human Rights First (4) Human Rights Watch (2) Indiana International & Comparative Law Review (1) Indiana University McKinney School of Law (18) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1) ISIL / ISIS (1) ISIS / ISIL (1) IU McKinney School of Law (18) Jacob Irven (6) James Connell (1) James Zender (2) Jeff Meding (28) Jeff Papa (10) Jeffrey Kerner (2) Jennifer Pollio (1) Jennifer Pollio – al Nashiri's Defense Counsel (2) Jerk House (1) Jiho Park (2) John Baker – Chief Defense Counsel (2) John Kerry (1) John Marshall School of Law (1) Joint Base Andrews (3) JTF-GTMO (7) Judge Pohl (6) Judge Spath (5) JW Marriott Bombing 2003 – Jakarta (1) Khalid Shaik Mohammad (21) Know Before You Go Guide (5) Know Before You Go to Guantanamo (9) Know Before You Go to Guantanamo Guide (7) Kristi McMains (2) KSM (5) Lee Feinstein (1) Lee Hamilton (1) Leila Sadat (1) Leontiy Korolev (4) Listening Devices Disguised as Smoke Detectors (2) Luke Bielawski (2) Luke Purdy (2) Major Mori (1) Margaret Baumgartner (9) Mark Martins – Chief Prosecutor (2) Matt Kubacki (1) Matt Kubal (3) MCOP (21) MCOP Advisory Council (3) MCOP Registration – Sign Up For Mission (3) Media Operations Center – MOC (1) Melina Milazzo (1) Miami Herald (8) Michael Dan Mori (1) Military Commission Observation Project (29) Mitch Robinson (1) Modamedou Ould Slahi (1) Monitors (2) Nashwan al Tamir (2) National Bar Association (1) Nature (1) NBA – National Bar Association (1) NGO Observers (58) NGO Resource Center (3) Obaidullah (1) Observers (5) Observers Gallery (2) Office of Military Commissions – OMC (4) OMC (3) Organization of American States (1) Paracha (1) Patricia Riley (3) Patrick Flor (Commander) (1) Paul Babcock (1) Paul Schilling (5) Peaceful Tomorrows (1) Pentagon (13) Perfidy (2) Periodic Review Board (24) Periodic Review Board Project – PRBP (6) Periodic Review Boards (PRBs) (24) Periodic Review Secretariat (6) Photos (1) Prayer time at Gitmo (1) PRB (21) PRB Project (16) PRBP (2) PRBs (17) Presumption of Innocence (1) Professor George Edwards (30) Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL) (31) Prosecution (4) PRS (1) Qifan Wang (5) Rabanni (1) Radio GTMO (1) Ramzi Bin Al Shibh (4) Red Light (1) Release (1) Repatriation (2) Resettlement (1) Rick Kammen (3) Rick Kammen – al Nashiri Defense Counsel (21) Saifullah Paracha (1) Sean Gleason (1) Secretary of State (1) Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (3) Shahram Dana (1) Sheila Willard (5) SMU – Southern Methodist Dedman School of Law (1) Stakeholders' Rights (7) Stephen Xenakis (1) Tex Boonjue (4) The Guantanamo Bay Reader (2) The Indiana Lawyer (3) Tim McCormack (1) Tom Wilson (2) Torture (10) Torture Committee (1) Torture Convention (1) Torture Report – Senate (4) Traci Cosby (1) Treachery (1) Tyler Smith (1) UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (1) UN Torture Committee (1) UN Torture Convention (1) Uncategorized (204) Undue Influence (2) United Nations Committee Against Torture (1) USS Cole Case (27) Uzair Paracha (1) VFM (6) Victims and Victims' Families (7) Walter Ruiz (1) Water Boarding (1) Whitney Coffin (3) Zero Dark Thirty (1)


text:
'Informer' & Three More Edge-of-Your-Seat TV Series to Binge on Amazon Prime Video
Mara Reinstein January 6, 2019
Sophie Mutevelian/Amazon Prime Video
The gripping new thriller Informer starts off with a literal bang. But executive producer Nicholas Brown wants audiences to know this is not just another hyperslick, high-octane espionage entry in the Peak TV era. "The characters have no idea they're in a thriller," he says. "It's about how well-meaning actions lead to unintended consequences and tragedy. It's a personal and human story told from the ground up."
The six-episode series — which premiered to wide acclaim on the BBC last fall — centers on Raza (Nabhaan Rizwan), a young, aimless second-generation Pakistani living in east London.
Amazon Anthology 'Modern Love' Casts Tina Fey, Anne Hathaway & More
After he gets busted on a minor drug charge following a night out with friends, counterterrorist agent Gabe (Paddy Considine) manipulates him into becoming a you-know-what. That means infiltrating a drug ring and getting close to the foot soldiers of a possible terrorist network. ("I don't know any terrorists!" Raza tells his handler in exasperation. Replies Gabe, "Not yet, you don't.") Meanwhile, Gabe is hiding his own secrets from his nosy and ambitious new field partner, Holly (The Diary of a Teenage Girl's Bel Powley, above, with Considine).
Inspired in part by the complex storytelling of The Wire, HBO's 2002-08 police drama, Informer "strips the heart of the story back to the relationship between these two men in their different worlds and how these lives crash into each other because of outside forces," adds Brown. The actors themselves come from different worlds: Veteran performer Considine is a Peaky Blinders alum; Rizwan is making his small-screen debut. Says Brown, "We wanted to cast someone the audience had never seen before, because Raza has to be a chameleon. And you completely believe him and feel for him every step of the journey."
The episodes build to a big reveal: Who's responsible for a terrorist attack in London? Brown isn't saying, of course. (And no Googling allowed!) Just keep in mind, he says, that Informer's narrative illustrates "what happens when you lie to those you love and the price that people pay to keep us safe."
Informer, Series Premiere, Friday, Jan. 11, Amazon Prime Video
Other Nail-Biting Series To Stream:
You Are Wanted
On this German drama from 2017, someone has targeted hotel manager Lukas (Matthias Schweighöfer) with a cyberattack and framed him as a terrorist. Who did it? Why? Lukas aims to find out as authorities close in.
Seasons 1–2 Available, Amazon Prime Video
Why Netflix's Engrossing Thriller 'The Five' Is Perfect for Crime Drama Fans
John Krasinski just nabbed a Screen Actors Guild nod for his portrayal of the fictional CIA officer. These eight episodes track the former Marine's transition from office worker to butt-kicking hero.
Season 1 Available, Amazon Prime Video
Sleeper Cell
FBI agent Darwyn Al-Sayeed (Michael Ealy, below) goes undercover to infiltrate a U.S.-based terrorist group —run by a brutal extremist (Oded Fehr, 24: Legacy) — and prevent an attack on L.A. The tense 2005–06 Showtime series was nominated for five Emmys.
Informer where to stream
Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan where to stream
Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Just south of the skyscrapers, Pioneer Square, the tourists and the ferry terminals in downtown Seattle, lies SoDo, an industrial neighborhood that has somehow managed to avoid some of the gentrification typical of the rest of Seattle.
The busy streets are shared by commuters, football and baseball fans heading to the stadiums as well as armies of container trucks heading to and from the Port of Seattle. There in a nondescript building, recognizable only by a red flag over the front door, there's a distillery whose founders are single-handedly rethinking everything there is to know about American single malt whiskey.
Westland takes advantage of Washington's natural attributes like Skagit Valley grains, Washington State peat and Pacific Northwest oak to create uniquely Northwest single malts.
At Westland Distillery, long before your eyes get a chance to take in the handsome tasting room decked out in exposed wood, your nose is greeted with a sweet and malty aroma signifying that you are indeed in the right place.
It was there that I met with Westland's Master Distiller Matt Hofmann. We stood in the middle of a wide open room lined on two sides with marked and branded barrels - a single malt temple of sorts - and a red Westland flag hung from the tall ceiling.
It was still early in the morning and the room was dark, save for the rows of twinkle lights strung from the ceiling, but just because the distillery wasn't open to customers, didn't mean it was quiet. The copper stills in the room next door were humming away while technicians took readings and watched over the distillation process. We walked into a room lined with dozens of small bottles filled with varying shades of amber spirits. It's in that room, isolated from noise, smell and other outside influences and senses, that Westland's crucial blending work happens.
"We don't really consider ourselves a craft distillery," Master Distiller Matt Hofmann says, careful not to lump Westland in the same category as the other newcomers...and for good reason.
When Washington legislators eased regulations in 2012 to allow the creation of craft distilleries, the state was almost immediately flooded with new and aspiring startup distilleries all angling for their piece of the pie. Some have already gone out of business, others have had some degree of success, but only a handful have made such an impact with patrons in and outside the Evergreen state as Westland.
To achieve this, Westland has relied on all that is distinctly Northwest to create their spirits. The distillers take advantage of Washington's unique natural characteristics, like Skagit Valley grains, Washington State peat and Pacific Northwest oak, to craft a whiskey and the barrels for aging that whiskey. The whiskey itself is aged at a rack house in the cold and moist coastal climes of Hoquiam.
Hoffman calls it Washington's "cultural terroir" and it's no doubt not only helped Westland establish the Northwest as a new bed of single malts, but also establish the entire category of American single malts too. Cheers!
There is no one right way to appreciate whiskey. But for the thoughtful analysis of what's in the glass, the folks at Westland do follow a rigorous routine. Here are a few tips from their Master Blender to help you get the most of out of every dram.
The right glass can improve a whiskey greatly. A tulip-shaped glass like these from Glencairn Crystal work to concentrate the aromas and reveal a whiskey's full array of nuance. Fill it to the widest point in the glass and you're ready to begin.
The one common mistake in first nosing a whiskey is to take one large breath like you would with wine. Given the significantly higher level of alcohol in whiskey as compared to wine, you want to be careful to take a slower approach. Don't stick your nose all the way into the glass. Instead, take several short whiffs from closer to the rim.
Similar to nosing, you want to take a measured approach to tasting whiskey. Take a small sip first and move it around your tongue and mouth. This will help your palate acclimate to the alcohol level. From there, take sips as you normally would, making sure to allow some air to come in. Let the whiskey coat your tongue and mouth before swallowing.
Adding water will change the chemistry and proof of the whiskey, and as a result, its flavor. Serious maltheads prefer their whiskey at Cask Strength (the alcohol level of the final matured spirit taken right from the cask) just like the Huckberry Exclusive cask. Adding water—just a few drops at a time—allows you to explore the whiskey at various strengths, revealing different flavors and ultimately letting you decide how you like it best.
Andy Bokanev is a photographer based in Seattle, WA. He can often be found on two wheels, at a coffee shop, or at an airport.


text:
Q: Datediff to find difference in break time I have a query that pulls runs a function to grab employee punch in information.  It pulls the time segments, combines them for the specific day, and they runs a check to see
1) who did not take a break that day
2) who took a break less than 30 minutes
The first part of this works correctly.  It displays the 7 people for the week who did not take a break (all have a break of 0 minutes).  However, it does not display the one user who ONLY took a 22 minute break.  I believe what is happening, is it's not fully combining all the time clock information for the specific day.  It's only combining the information for those who did NOT take a break. Any help?
My Query is:
    SELECT        lEmployeeID, NUM_Hours, CASE WHEN tmp.Break_Time_Minutes < 0 THEN 0 ELSE Break_Time_Minutes END AS Break_Time_Minutes,
                         CASE WHEN tmp.Break_Time_Minutes < 0 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END AS SkippedBreak, sFirstName, sLastName, TotalHours
FROM            (SELECT        employee.lEmployeeID, employee.sFirstName, employee.sLastName, employee.TotalHours, ROUND(SUM(DATEDIFF(second, employee.dtTimeIn,
                                                    employee.dtTimeOut) / 60.0 / 60.0), 1) AS NUM_Hours, DATEDIFF(mi, MIN(employee.dtTimeOut), MAX(employee.dtTimeIn)) AS Break_Time_Minutes
                          FROM            dbo.fTimeCard(@StartDate, @EndDate, @DeptList, @iActive, @EmployeeList) AS employee LEFT OUTER JOIN
                                                    Employees AS e ON employee.lEmployeeID = e.lEmployeeID
                          WHERE        (employee.TotalHours >= 0) AND (employee.DID IS NOT NULL) OR
                                                    (employee.DID IS NOT NULL) AND (employee.dtTimeOut IS NULL)
                          GROUP BY employee.lEmployeeID, employee.sLastName, employee.sFirstName, employee.TotalHours, CAST(employee.dtTimeIn AS Datetime)) AS tmp
WHERE        (NUM_Hours > 6) AND (Break_Time_Minutes < 30)

A: Formatting the query helps me understand it.
The problem seems to be in the calculation of the break time.  How are both of these calculations accurate?
         ROUND(SUM(DATEDIFF(second, employee.dtTimeIn,
                            employee.dtTimeOut) / 60.0 / 60.0), 1) AS NUM_Hours,
         DATEDIFF(mi, MIN(employee.dtTimeIn), MAX(employee.dtTimeOut)
                 ) AS Break_Time_Minutes

The second is calculating the break time as the minimum of the time in and the max of the time out.  Presumably, this is the total time the employee is there.
Perhaps you mean:
      MIN(DATEDIFF(mi, employee.dtTimeIn, employee.dtTimeOut)
         ) AS Break_Time_Minutes

The full formatted query is:
SELECT lEmployeeID, NUM_Hours,
       (CASE WHEN tmp.Break_Time_Minutes < 0 THEN 0 ELSE Break_Time_Minutes
        END) AS Break_Time_Minutes,
       (CASE WHEN tmp.Break_Time_Minutes < 0 THEN 1 ELSE 0
        END) AS SkippedBreak,
       sFirstName, sLastName, TotalHours
FROM (SELECT employee.lEmployeeID, employee.sFirstName, employee.sLastName,
             employee.TotalHours,
             ROUND(SUM(DATEDIFF(second, employee.dtTimeIn,
                                employee.dtTimeOut) / 60.0 / 60.0), 1) AS NUM_Hours,
             DATEDIFF(mi, MIN(employee.dtTimeIn), MAX(employee.dtTimeOut)
                     ) AS Break_Time_Minutes
      FROM dbo.fTimeCard(@StartDate, @EndDate, @DeptList, @iActive, @EmployeeList
                        ) employee LEFT OUTER JOIN
           Employees e
           ON employee.lEmployeeID = e.lEmployeeID
      WHERE (employee.TotalHours >= 0) AND (employee.DID IS NOT NULL) OR
            (employee.DID IS NOT NULL) AND (employee.dtTimeOut IS NULL)
      GROUP BY employee.lEmployeeID, employee.sLastName, employee.sFirstName,
               employee.TotalHours, CAST(employee.dtTimeIn AS Datetime)
     ) tmp
WHERE (NUM_Hours > 6) AND (Break_Time_Minutes < 30)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Proces s Pussy Riot je trestní řízení se třemi členkami punkové skupiny Pussy Riot v souvislosti s jejich účastí na akci v chrámě Krista Spasitele, která se konala 21. února 2012, a které byly obviněny ze spáchání zločinu, který je uvedený ve druhé části paragrafu 213 Výtržnictví v trestním zákoníku Ruské federace.

Historie
19. února 2012 v Bogojavlenském chrámu v Jelochově (Moskva) a 21. února v chrámu Krista Spasitele členky skupiny Pussy Riot provedly akci, kterou skupina označila za punkovou modlitbu "Bohorodičko, vyžeň Putina!" Z materiálů, které byly pořízeny při vystoupení, vytvořily video a umístily ho na Youtube.
26. února 2012 bylo po účastnicích skupiny vyhlášeno pátrání kvůli tomu, že byly obviněny z výtržnictví.
3. března 2012 byly uvězněny domnělé účastnice skupiny a to: Naděžda Tolokonnikova a Maria Aljochina a 16. března Jekatěrina Samucevič.
V době, kdy byly uvězněny, dívky nepotvrdily své členství ve skupině Pussy Riot, ale při soudním jednání a ve svém závěrečném stanovisku už to nepopíraly.
30. července 2012 bylo v budově Chamovníčeského oblastního soudu Moskvy zahájeno projednání podle skutkové podstaty.
17. srpna 2012 Marina Syrová, která je soudkyně Chamovníčeského oblastního soudu Moskvy, oznámila třem obviněným členkám skupiny rozsudek. Naděžda Tolokonnikova, Maria Aljochina a Jekatěrina Samucevič byly odsouzeny ke dvěma rokům v "kolonii všeobecného režimu" (Jedná s o nápravné zařízení, kam se posílají poprvé odsouzení vězni a pachatelé méně závažných trestných činů.)
Odvolání proti rozsudku podaly k Moskevskému městskému soudu.
Podle údajů vyšetřování, které bylo provedeno ruskou sledovací agenturou News Effector, bylo vynesení odsuzujícího rozsudku bezprecedentní podle reakcí ve světě a podle ohlasů na události v Rusku za několik posledních let. O procesu s Pussy Riot psalo 86% světových médií.
12. září 2012 Dmitrij Anatolovič Medveděv, který byl v té době předseda vlády Ruské federace, sdělil, že trest odsouzení musí být podmíněný.
7. října 2012, což byly 3 dny před projednáním odvolání Moskevským městským soudem, Vladimir Putin, prezident Ruska, veřejně podpořil rozsudek trestu odnětí svobody, který byl vynesen v srpnu.
Odvolání bylo projednáno v Moskevském městském soudě 10. října 2012. Rozsudek Chamovničeského soudu byl ponechán beze změn pro Tolokonnikovou a Aljochinu a pro Samucevič byl trest pozměněn na podmíněný, Samucevič byla osvobozena v soudní síni. Rozsudek nabyl právní moci.
Podle Federální služby výkonu trestu byla Tolokonnikova ve výkonu trestu v ženské věznici IK-14 Parca v Zubovo-Poljanské oblasti, která se nachází v republice Mordvinsko, v říjnu 2012 ji přemístili do IK-2 v Alatyre v Čuvašské republice a poté do Krasnojarského kraje.
Aljochina byla ve výkonu trestu v ženské věznici IK-28 v Bereznikách v Permském kraji, v srpnu 2013 ji přemístili do IK-2 v Nižnegorodské oblasti.
Mezinárodní organizace pro lidská práva "Mezinárodní amnestie" označila uvězněné za politické vězně.
23. prosince 2013 Tolokonnikova a Aljochina byly propuštěny na svobodu díky amnestii, která proběhla na počest 20. výročí ústavy Ruské federace.

Trestní řízení

Zahájení trestního řízení
26. února 2012 v souvislosti s incidentem, který se stal v chrámě Krista Spasitele, bylo po účastnicích skupiny vyhlášeno pátrání.
Podle sdělení BFM.ru (obchodní portál), bylo později proti těm samým podezřelým zahájeno trestní řízení, které bylo vyloučeno do samostatného trestního řízení týkajícího se obvinění z podněcování nenávisti nebo nepřátelství (paragraf 282 trestního zákoníku Rf), které bylo předáno Vyšetřovacímu výboru Ruska. Ale podle slov advokáta poškozených Sergeje Štyna se nic takového nestalo (i když si myslí, že bylo třeba to udělat).
Podle hlavního redaktora "Ruského zpravodajství" Sergeje Dorenko, který byl vyslýchán v době vyšetřování, byl pro vyšetřování členek skupiny vytvořen mezirezortní štáb, který byl pod kontrolou druhého, jehož konkretizaci Dorenko považuje za nevhodnou.
Advokát Marii Aljochiny, Nikolaj Polozov považuje proces za politicky motivovaný, protože se k němu osobně vyjádřil Vladimir Putin, a v písních je Putin zmiňován v negativním kontextu. Domnívá se, že právě tímto vyšetřováním se zabývá vyšetřovací skupina, která má okolo 20 detektivů.
Adovokát Naděždy Tolokonnikové, Mark Fejgin, si myslí, že na zahájení procesu má zájem vláda a některé části Patriarchátu.
Členky skupiny potvrzují, že ví o četných telefonátech patriarchátu vedoucímu hlavního odboru vnitřních záležitostí Moskvy generálu Kolokolcevu s požadavkem zahájit trestní řízení.
Hudebník Jurij Ševčuk, který vystupoval proti trestnímu pronásledování skupiny, zkritizoval výběr data 26. února 2012, které vyšlo na Estomihi (neděle před popeleční středou), prohlásil, že to je v rozporu s pravoslavím.

Soudní proces s Tolokonnikovou, Aljochinou a Samucevič

Vězení a soudní vazba
3. března 2012 byly zadrženy Naděžda Tolokonnikova (22) a Maria Aljochina (23), které jsou podle verze vyšetřování členky skupiny a byly nejdříve poslány na Odbor vnitřních věcí centrálního administrativního okruhu Moskvy a potom do Petrovky.
Zadržené vyhlásily hladovku, požadovaly tím zrušení uvěznění a oznámily: "Naďa Tolokonnikova a Máša Aljochina jsou matky malých dětí, po výsleších vyhlásily hladovku jako protest proti uvěznění a kontrole procesu premiérem" (funkci v té době zastával V. V. Putin). Řekly také, že nemají žádný vztah k Pussy Riot a že se neúčastnily punkové modlitby.
5. března Taganský soud v Moskvě potvrdil trest uvěznění dvou pravděpodobných účastnic do 24. dubna.
Vězeňkyně se nepřiznaly a odmítají spolupracovat ve vyšetřování.
12. března 2012 vyšetřování vzneslo oficiální obvinění Naděždě Tolokonnikové a Marii Aljochině ze spáchání zločinu uvedeném ve 2. části paragrafu 213 (výtržnictví spáchané skupinou osob) trestního zákoníku Ruska.
14. března Moskevský městský soud nevyslyšel stížnosti Tolokonnikové a Aljochiny ohledně uvěznění.
Po stání obě hladovku přerušily, protože by to jinak podle slov uvězněných do 24. nevydržely.
16. března Taganský soud v Moskvě nechal zavřít do 24. dubna 2012 třetí pravděpodobnou členku Pussy Riot Jekatěrinu Samucevič.

Prodloužení soudní vazby
Na začátku dubna 2012 vyšetřovatelé oznámili požadavek na prodloužení soudní vazby Marie Aljochiny, Naděždy Tolokonnikové a Jekatěriny Samucevič, proti čemuž vystoupil vedoucí Rady práv člověka prezidenta Ruska.
Dne 19. dubna 2012 Taganský oblastní soud v Moskvě vynesl rozsudek na prodloužení vazby ještě o dva měsíce, což bylo do 24. června 2012. Lhůta soudní vazby Naděždy Tolokonikové a Marii Aljochiny.
Elena Alexejevna Ivanova, která vynesla rozsudek soudu, souhlasila s důvody vyšetřovatele Arťoma Rančenkova, že zadržené by mohly zmizet nebo být napadeny nepřáteli.
Dne 23. dubna ta samá soudkyně byla napadena na pracovišti. Podle verze vyšetřování, asi v 11 hodin dopoledne vpadl do její kanceláře Andrej Borodin (36) a vyhrožoval jí sekerou, požadoval osvobození členek skupiny Pussy Riot.
Napadení soudkyně nepřineslo žádné změny v případu. Elena Ivanova se postavila na odpor, útočník byl zadržen soudním vykonavatelem, bylo proti němu zahájeno trestní řízení, byl obviněn z ohrožení na životě osoby činné v soudnictví (paragraf 295 trestní zákoník Ruské federace). Andrej Borodin vysvětlil svůj skutek jako nespokojenost s justičním systémem.
Uvězněné členky Pussy Riot řekly, že neznají A. Borodina a nikdy ho neviděly.
Následně se Andrej Borodin přiznal k nepříčetnosti. Podle závěru ústavní soudně-psychiatrické expertízy Borodin trpí chronickým rozvrácením psychiky a nebyl schopen si uvědomit charakter svého chování.
Nikolaji Polozovi, který je jedním z advokátů tohoto procesu, vyhrožovali na internetu, že bude potrestán, díky čemuž podal oznámení na prokuraturu.
Dne 20. června 2012 Natalja Konovalova, soudkyně Taganského soudu v Moskvě, vyhověla požadavku vyšetřujícího na prodloužení lhůty soudní vazby členkám skupiny Pussy Riot do 24. července. Obviněné vyhlásily hladovku v soudní síni jako protest proti nespravedlivému vyšetřování.
Dne 9. července 2012 bylo podáno odvolání Moskevskému městskému soudu proti prodloužení lhůty trvání soudní vazby. Více než 50 lidí se chtělo zaručit za uvězněné, k procesu byly připojeny záruky těch, kteří se osobně účastnili stání, mezi nimi byl šéfredaktor "Novoj gazety" Dmitrij Muratov, spoluvlastník "Novoj gazety" Alexandr Lebeděv, režisér Vlaimír Mirzoev se svou manželkou a další.
Soud nevyhověl stížnosti advokátů a uznal nejnovější prodloužení uvěznění zákonným. Naděžda Tolokonnikova a Maria Aljochina ukončily hladovku 10. července ze zdravotních důvodů.
Jekatěrina Samucevič ukončila hladovku 13. července.
Dne 20. července na stání Chamovničeského oblastního soudu v Moskvě soudkyně Marina Syrova během předběžných slyšení vyhověla žádosti vyšetřovatele a vynesla rozsudek na prodloužení doby trvání soudní vazby všech uvězněných členek Pussy Riot o 6 měsíců, což bylo do 12. ledna 2013.

Podmínky zadržení
3. března 2012 s odvoláním na advokáta zadržených bylo oznámeno, že Naděžda Tolokonnikova, Maria Aljochina a Jekatěrina Samucevič se nacházejí ve vazbě číslo 6 v Moskvě v Pečatnikách, jsou podrobeny psychologickému nátlaku, které podle advokátů spočívá v jejich neustálém kamerování.
Na začátku května 2012 dvě uvězněné dostaly důtku. Podle advokátů byla Jekatěrina Samucevič potrestána za špatně oblečenou deku a Naděžda Tolokonnikova za přítomnost papíru se zápiskami v cele.
Přibližně od 15. do 20. května vyhlásila Jekatěrina Samucevič hladovku, protestovala tím proti soudní vazbě a tlaku, který byl na ni vyvíjen spoluvězeňkyněmi. Následně byla přemístěna do samostatné cely.

Maria Aljochina
Maria Vladimirovna Aljochina (* 6.7.1988) byla v době uvěznění studentkou 4. ročníku Institutu žurnalistiky a literární tvorby, měla pětiletého syna.
Maria se od prosince 2008 účastnila akcí Greenpeace na záchranu přírodní rezervace Bolšoj utriš a v letech 2009-2010 na záchranu jezera Bajkal a Chimkinského lesa.
Maria je aktivním dobrovolníkem dobročinného meziregionálního mládežnického veřejného hnutí Danilovci, které podporuje pravoslavné mládežnické iniciativy ve jménu svatého kněze Daniila, vedla dobrovolnické tvůrčí a rozvojové hodiny s pacienty Dětské psychiatrické nemocnice č.6 v Moskvě.

Jekatěrina Samucevič
Jekatěrina Stanislavovna Samucevič (9.8.1982) pracovala po ukončení Moskevského energetického institutu jako programátorka v obranném koncernu Morinformsistěma-Agat, po odchodu z koncernu pokračovala v práci programátorky na volné noze.
V roce 2009 dokončila Moskevskou školu fotografie a multimédií Rodčenko.

Naděžda Tolokonnikova
Naděžda Andrejevna Tolokonnikova se narodila (7.11.1989) v Norilsku.
Je vdaná za Petra Verzilova.
Jejich dceři Gere byly v době jejího uvěznění čtyři roky.
Oba manželé jsou bývalými členy skupiny Vojna. Účastnili se většiny akcí Vojny, včetně skandální akce ve Státním biologickém muzeu K. A. Timirjazeva v roce 2008, v roce 2010 vypustili šváby v budově taganského soudu a účastnili se též akce, jež se stala držitelem prémie Inovace - šlo o nakreselení mužského údu na Litejný most, který se nachází naproti budově tajné služby FSB.
To se podle názoru advokáta Nikolaje Polozova mohlo stát příčinou předpojatosti při posuzování žaloby na uvěznění stejnou soudkyní v Moskevském městském soudě dne 14. 4. 2012.

Advokáti vězeňkyň
Marii Aljochinu obhajoval advokát Nikolaj Polozov, Jekatěrinu Samucevič obhajovala Violetta Volkova a Naděždu Tolokonnikovou obhajoval Mark Fejgin.

Poškození
Poškozenými podle trestního řízení o Punkové modlitbě Pussy Riot v chrámě Krista Spasitele byli uznáni strážníci chrámu, kteří podle svědků přišli dříve. Jednalo se o spolupracovníky soukromé bezpečnostní firmy Kolokol-A, (C.N.Bejoglazov, S.A.Šilina, další- celkem 8 lidí). Podle verze vyšetřovatelů jim byla způsobena morální újma.

Advokáti poškozených
Jednoho z poškozených strážníků chrámu (který vyprovodil účastnice punkové modlitby z chrámu) obhajuje advokát JUDr. Profesor Michail Kuzněcov, druhý advokát poškozených je Sergej Štin.

Předběžné řízení
Na počátku vedl vyšetřování skupiny vyšetřovatel Arťom Rančenkov, v roce 2012 ho vystřídal Michail Charkov.
Jak uvedla Viletta Volkova, která byla advokátkou Jekatěriny Samucevič, 24. dubna zjistila, že skupina odborníků, která nenašla v činnosti členek Pussy Riot ani motivy nenávisti nebo nepřátelství k jakýmkoli sociálním skupinám a ani výzvy k protiprávním činnostem, byla uvězněna. Také podle ní měl vyšetřující tento znalecký posudek ještě 2. dubna u sebe, avšak 19. dubna při soudu kvůli prodloužení vazby nebyl posudek přiložen k procesu.
26. dubna tisková služba Ministerstva vnitra Moskvy oznámila, že k procesu je vyhotovena expertíza videa s vystoupením Pussy Riot, které bylo vloženo na internet a expertíza jeho vlivu na společnost.
18. května advokát Nikolaj Polozov řekl, že žádné vyšetřování se zadrženými se neprovádí a proces se prakticky nehne z místa.
Psychologicky-psychiatrická expertíza uznala všechny tři zadržené plně příčetnými.
Podle advokátů bylo předběžné vyšetřování zahájeno 4. června 2012, a dodatečně k už prováděné expertíze byly uskutečněny ještě dvě, přičemž jedna z nich, která byla provedena GUP Centrem informačně analytických technologií potvrdila první vyšetřování a neodhalila motivy podněcování k nenávisti nebo náboženské nesnášenlivosti, ale třetí expertíza, která byla prováděna od 14. do 23. května experty Vsevolodem Trojickym, Igorem Ponkinem a Věrou Abramenkovou objevila známky podněcování k náboženské nenávisti a motivy náboženské nenávisti.
Závěry poslední expertízy advokát Mark Fejgin nazývá absurdními, věnuje pozornost tomu, že expertíza byla prováděna ve spěchu, a byla založena na analýze zveřejněného videa a komentářů k němu a ne na analýze činnosti podezřelých v chrámu.
Advokát jednoho z poškozených, Michail Kuzněcov, prohlašuje, že první dvě expertízy se vztahovaly k samostatnému řízení procesu obvinění uvězněných členek Pussy Riot a ještě se týkaly podněcování nenávisti nebo nepřátelství (paragraf 282 Trestní zákoník Ruské federace) a třetí stanovila právě existenci motivů religiozní a sociální nenávisti nebo nepřátelství ve výtržnictví, které spáchaly (tyto motivy je nutné dokázat, aby výtržnická činnost měla strukturu trestního přestupku podle paragrafu 213, trestní zákoník Rf)
Podle advokátů, tři z pověřovatelů vyslýchali podezřelé jen jednou za celou dobu vyšetřování, další vyšetřování s nimi se neprovádělo.

Odsuzující rozsudek
4. června 2012 bylo oficiální obvinění oznámeno Marii Aljochině, která byla zadržena jako poslední ze tří vězeňkyň a předběžné vyšetřování bylo tímto ukončeno.
Všechny tři obvinili z výtržnictví s motivem náboženské nenávisti, které spáchala skupina lidí po předchozí domluvě. (2.část par. 213 Trestný zákoník Rf)
Část kopie odsuzujícího rozsudku vzneseného N. A. Tolokonnikové byla zveřejněna na blogu novinářky Olgy Bakušinské na webové stránce rádia Echo Moskvy a později byla celá zveřejněna v Novoj gazetě.
Členky Pussy Riot byly obviněny z nezákonného vniknutí do ohrazené části chrámu, kam podle vyšetřovatele mají povolení vstoupit pouze představitelé pravoslavného duchovenstva. To vzbudilo nepochopení protodiákona Andreje Kurajeva. Řekl, že církevní pravidla nezakazují veřejnosti vstupovat do prostoru před oltářem a že taková formulace obvinění je urážlivá pro Ruskou pravoslavnou církev.
Spolu s odsuzujícím rozsudkem byly advokátům zadržených poskytnuty výsledky třetí expertízy procesu punkové modlitby, která na rozdíl od předchozích dvou stanovila přítomnost motivů náboženské nenávisti v chování členek Pussy Riot.

Soudní proces
Podle advokáta N. Polozova, který se vyjádřil 4. června 2012, se soud kvůli procesu s Pussy Riot konal celkem pozdě, protože advokáti a další účastníci procesu museli důkladně prostudovat materiály, které jim byly předloženy po ukončení předběžného šetření.
Ale 4. července 2012 soudkyně Taganského soudu Moskvy Natalia Konovalova vyhověla požadavku vyšetřovatele, který uvedl, že obhajoba záměrně natahuje proces, rozhodla se omezit lhůtu, po kterou se obviněné a jejich obhájci mohou seznámit s materiály procesu z 9. července.
Obviněná Naděžda Tolokonnikova započala hladovku na protest proti takovému rozhodnutí, zanedlouho tak učinila také Jekatěrina Samucevič.
Obhajoba žádala soud o prodloužení lhůty na seznámení se s materiály do 1. září 2012 kvůli velkému objemu materiálů, které se týkaly procesu (7 dílů, průměrně 300 stran v každém) a v souvislosti se zákazem vytvoření fotokopií.
Podle V. Volkové, advokáti uvězněných členek skupiny podali žalobu k Evropskému soudu pro lidská práva kvůli tomu, že pracovníci vyšetřujících orgánů porušili několik článků Evropské ústavy týkající se práv člověka ve vztahu k zadržení.
Žalobu zaregistrovali. Datum jejího projednání není zatím známo, každé žalobě je uděleno prioritní pořadí. Podle N. Polozova podala obhajoba 2. července 2012 žalobu Generálnímu prokurátorovi
Ruska, Jiřímu Čajkovi, na několik přestupků, kterých se vyšetřující dopustili během procesu.
Také byl nachystán dopis Generálnímu tajemníkovi OSN Panu Gi Munovi s prosbou, aby se podíval na porušení práv člověka ve vztahu k uvězněným a aby prozkoumal proces u Mezinárodního soudu OSN.
11. července 2012 bylo vyšetřování ukončeno, odsuzující rozsudek byl předán kvůli potvrzení prokuratuře centrálně administrativního kraje Moskvy.
12. července prokuratura potvrdila závěr ve vztahu ke všem třem obviněným a předala trestní řízení Chamovničeskému soudu v Moskvě
Proces byl předán k posouzení soudkyni Marině Syrové, která stanovila datum předběžného slyšení na 20. července 2012.
Na předběžných slyšeních bylo přijato rozhodnutí o prodloužení vazby všem třem vězeňkyním do 12. ledna 2013, lhůta na seznámení se s procesem byla prodloužena do 27. července 2012 a projednání trestního řízení bylo stanoveno na 30. července 2012.
30. července 2012 na otevřeném zasedání Chamovničeského soudu v Moskvě bylo zahájeno projednání trestního řízení procesu.
Soudce Marina Syrová zamítla požadavek Marii Aljochiny, aby byl proces vrácen zpátky prokuratuře, dále zamítla požadavek obhajoby, aby byl k soudu vyzván jako svědek moskevský a ruský patriarcha Kiril a zamítla také to, aby se výslechů účastnili odborníci. Odvolání soudkyně, která podle názoru obhajoby, porušuje článek mezinárodní dohody a proces vede se záměrem odsoudit obžalované, bylo též zamítnuto.
Fotografický materiál a videozáznam výslechu poškozených, které byly pořízeny v soudní síni, byli v průběhu zasedání zakázány.
Prokurátor obvinil členky Pussy Riot ze spáchání vědomé a pečlivě naplánované akce s účelem urazit křesťanskou víru a potupit duchovní principy státu. A také navrhl, aby byli advokáti obviněných odvoláni kvůli neúctě k soudu.
Poškozená L. A. Sokologorskaja řekla, že tance v chrámu jí připomínaly ďábelské běsnění a chování členek skupiny jí způsobuje až do teď bolest na duši.
Zasedání soudu bylo zahájeno v 11:47 a skončilo ve 21:50, další zasedání bylo naplánováno na 10:00 31. července.
Advokát N. Polozové připustil, že obviněné pravděpodobně odsoudí ke třem rokům nepodmíněného vězení a rozdělí je do různých ženských věznic, kde pro ně existuje hrozba znásilnění nebo dokonce vraždy ze strany dalších vězeňkyň, jejichž silný negativní vztah k Pussy Riot je ovlivněn federálními televizními stanicemi.
Den před vynesením rozsudku (16. srpna 2012) byla na žádost Olgy Egorové, která je vedoucí Moskevského městského soudu, soudkyni poskytnuta ochranka.
Toto trestní řízení se stalo nejvýraznějším politickým procesem v Rusku za několik posledních let a stalo se skandálně slavným po celém světě.
Podporu obviněným v době procesu vyjádřili představitelé mnoha zemí, někteří i oficiálně a rozsudek byl okamžitě odsouzen oficiálními představiteli řady států.
V roce 2013 předsednictvo Moskevského městského soudu přijalo k posouzení žalobu advokátů na rozsudek účastnicím punkové skupiny. Vladimir Lukin, zmocněnec práv člověka v Rusku, podpořil požadavek obhajoby a také žádal o to, aby odsouzené zprostili viny.
Moskevský městský soud 20. března 2013 zamítl návrh na přezkoumání jeho rozhodnutí.

Objasnění Moskevského městského soudu
Podle objasnění předsedy svazu trestního řízení Moskevského městského soudu Larisi Poljakové a soudního zpravodaje Jurije Pasjunina, které následovalo po 11. říjnu 2012, mohly odsouzené dostat až 7 let vězení, ale to, že dvě ze tří odsouzených mají děti, soud považoval za polehčující okolnost.
Týkalo se to Jekatěriny Samucevič, které byl trest změněn na podmíněný, soudci vysvětlili, že její advokátka Irina Chrunova, která nově vstoupila do procesu, uvedla doplňující důvody, konkrétně upozornila soud na to, že Samucevič se nepodařilo dokončit započaté vystoupení v chrámě Krista Spasitele, a proto role Samucevič v punkové modlitbě byla bezvýznamná. Soud také zohlednil vztah Samucevič k procesu, v době projednávání kasace byla jediná, kdo se omluvil za to, jestli se skupina svou činností dotkla někoho z věřících, ubezpečila všechny, že akce byla politického charakteru nikoli religiózního.

Další podezřelé
Akce v chrámě Krista Spasitele se účastnilo několik lidí: 5 žen, které se natočily na kameru na kazatelně (ze kterých byly identifikovány a uvězněny tři) a pomocná skupina. Trestní řízení ve vztahu k dalším účastníkům akce bylo vyděleno do samostatného řízení, jejich totožnost dosud nebyla identifikována nebo nebyla zveřejněna.

Reference

Externí odkazy

Trestní procesy
Rusko v roce 2012
Dějiny ruského práva
Politické represe v Rusku

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Home / TechnoLawyer is Getting the Word Out About QdroDesk!
TechnoLawyer is Getting the Word Out About QdroDesk!
We have been recognized by TechnoLawyer as a HOT PRODUCT for family law attorneys, legal assistants, and their clients!
TechnoLawyer is a leader in providing the legal community with innovation that is worth integrating into your practice.


text:
Ryan Murphy's Beautiful Stylized Choir Room
Eva Szilardi-Tierney December 3, 2019
Image source: Youtube
"Glee": who can forget the worldwide sensation that set the tone of the early 2010's for millions of teens and tweens? Besides having more iTunes-chart-topping covers than any other television show (sorry "The Voice"!), "Glee" also stands out as one of the most over-the-top, scathing, and beloved shows that television powerhouse Ryan Murphy (the creative force behind such shows as "American Horror Story", "Pose", and, most recently, "The Politician") has produced to date.
While the first two seasons of "Glee" were co-written by the shows co-creators—and Murphy-collaborators—Brad Falchuk and Ian Brennan, Murphy's signature snark shines through as perhaps the show's most distinctive voice. In "Glee"'s six season run Murphy played up and subverted high school tropes, provided an inexhaustible supply of self-critiquing rejoinders, and gave us more inexplicably lavishly produced musical numbers and truly bizarre wardrobe choices than seem possible. This, for me, is "Glee"'s best quality: Murphy's exaggeration and ironic self-awareness, a quality of his writing he describes as "baroque."
But while this sense of spectacle is a Ryan Murphy trademark, the set-up of "Glee" seems uniquely well-suited for Murphy's stylization. Murphy's approach takes archetypes and turns the volume up to eleven. Production-wise, he seeks shots with the most visual impact, the most potential for theatrical awe. In writing and in mood, Murphy wants the most drama, and as a show centered around a show choir of high school misfits, "Glee" was destined to be Murphy's star student. In other words, "Glee"'s inherently dramatic setup was the perfect stage for Murphy's stylization to function as a key plot device, rather than just a witty and visually pleasing show feature.
To start, any show set in high school presents writers with a delicious tray of clichés to play with and either subvert or uphold. To Murphy, who thrives on taking an established caricature, crystalizing it in the most cliched way possible, and then diving beneath its stereotyped veneer, high schools are a treasure trove of a setting. Just look at the characters on "The Politician": the protagonist, Payton, isn't just an overachieving privileged teen with presidential aspirations; he is an absurdly wealthy teen with a CV curated into sterility, completely at the mercy of his ambition. But the flipside of his endless, obsessive drive towards success is the depth of his emotional repression.
Deploying tropes to attain depth contrasts with the strategies of other high school dramas, such as the CW's comically melodramatic "Riverdale." While the Archie-comics-based characters on the show are perhaps the pinnacle of exaggerated cliché, it is amplification without an emotional payoff. When moody loner Jughead delivers a monologue about how he doesn't "want to fit in," every line is so picked over and trite that it alienates the audience; it feels more like satire than a genuine expression of pain. While this is entertaining, it does little to inspire a sense of relatability or empathy.
This is one problem with clichés: as useful as they are in serving as a recognizable template for different narratives, their standardization renders them emotionally flat. Specificity breeds poignancy, which can never happen if a character operates solely within an arc designed for genericism.
But this generalized quality is also what makes clichés so ubiquitous. Who among us wasn't raised on an idea of the jock, or the "bookish type," or sold on an idea of romantic love? And, eyes filled with the uncomplicated fulfillment that such tropes promise, who hasn't wished to become such a cliché?
This is the beauty of "Glee": crafting characters whose desire to achieve an impossible dream is reflected in (and enhances) their emotional depth. Take Finn Hudson, who starts the series as the classic popular quarterback dating the head cheerleader, but whose character arc is ultimately about searching for purpose after realizing he has failed at pursuing his high school dreams. Finn's failure to realize his dreams after high school begins his disintegration as a cliché; he can no longer rely on his ideas of manhood and success, ideas that have now failed him. This, in turn, reflects a very true to life experience of realizing that life isn't like the movies.
This destruction of cliché is achieved through the consistent exaggeration of the qualities that make him a cliché. Finn's lack of intelligence and dogged pursuit of externally-prescribed success is (sometimes) exaggerated to the point of satire. This signals to the audience two things: one, that the writers are aware of the cliché they are using and two, it makes Finn's disintegration as a cliché that much more jarring. When Finn looks around and realizes that high school is over, that being the star football player or 'making it' on Broadway aren't options for him, he has to flounder to figure out who he is outside of these things. And we, as the audience, have understood him so principally as this cliché that we feel just as devastated as he does when we realize how lost he is without this archetype anchoring him.
By thus using exaggerated cliché as a character device, the whole show becomes more dramatic. If a character's veneer is overly sculpted artifice, then the other side of their personality, their emotional side, holds just as much tension. Consider Santana Lopez, introduced as the quintessential hot, manipulative, and mean-spirited cheerleader, but who experiences deep internal conflict around her sexuality and being rejected by Britney, the best friend she is in love with. When Santana cries as she sings "Landslide" with Britney, we feel doubly for her, because we now understand this pain in the context of a generally very dramatic character. Because she is so intensely this character, her strife is also more intense.
This depth that subverting clichés creates is particularly significant for the portrayal of queer characters on "Glee". Though queer representation in television has come a long way, many representations continue to be dogged by negative stereotypes or else are not afforded the same depth that heterosexual, cisgender characters are. While there is no question that "Glee" engages queer stereotypes—in season one the openly gay Kurt's response to his father pointing out his aversion to watching sports is to splutter about the ugliness of the players' pants—it is typically so contrived as to clearly be a joke. When combined with the emotional complexity and relatively wide range of representation that "Glee" offers its queer characters, this use of cliché satirizes what we've come to expect from queer representation, rather than reinforcing it.
This hyper stylization mixed with hyper emotionality contributes to the overall melodrama of the show, a quality that is completely necessary in a television show about show choir. The show is centered around frequent, often semi or fully imaginary musical numbers that function as an emotional catharsis for the characters. For such numbers to feel in tandem with the rest of the show, the emotional stakes must constantly be set very high. For instance, when Mercedes sings Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You" the scene toggles between Mercedes performing the song alone on a stage, decked out in a sequined floor length gown, and in the glee choir room, singing directly to the boy she is saying goodbye to. For the show to earn the full emotional impact of Mercedes belting out her heartbreak alone onstage, the pain and betrayal that precipitated the song had to be devastating. Thus, Ryan Murphy's stylization fits perfectly.
"Glee" was the perfect landscape for Ryan Murphy's predilection towards stylization and drama, and as such created a show that was self-aware, heartfelt, and shockingly intense for a show that could have been a trite excuse to cover pop songs. As "Glee"'s ten year anniversary draws to a close, and Ryan Murphy signs the biggest television contract of all time, it feels only fitting to pay homage to one of Murphy's greatest accomplishments.
'The Phantom of the Opera': It's Not Love, It's Gross
Not So Angelic: A 'Charlie's Angels' Review
Coming Up Next (Or Not): TV's Orgasm Gap
Frankly, My Dear, You're Seeing Closed Captions