GTMO HEARINGS GIVEN CLEARANCE TO ONLY FIVE LEFTIST GROUPS

Judicial Watch, Inc. has issued the following disturbing but not surprising report. Only Five "watchdog" organizations are allowed in the hearings at Guantanamo Bay. As stated in a letter of appeal JW sent to the Chief of Staff for the OSD, strongly objecting to the Department of Defense's new exclusion policy:

The designation of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Bar Association as essentially "permanent observers" to Commission proceedings is not appropriate.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. LETTER IN ITS ENTIRETY

Pentagon Gives Leftist Groups Prime Spots at GTMO Trials If you've been reading my Weekly Updates for a while, you know that Judicial Watch has been extremely active monitoring terrorist military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, JW staff has been on the ground at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO), on no less than 12 occasions to monitor key proceedings there, including the 2008 arraignment of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the 2011 arraignment of USS Cole bomber Bad al-Rahim al-Nassir and a number of KSM motion hearings in 2012 and 2013.  In fact, one of our attorneys, Ramona Cotca, has been there all this week.  Unfortunately, our regular participation may be about to change.

 

As first reported by our own blogger Irene Garcia: "In a startling about-face, the Obama administration is restricting exclusive access to Military Commission hearings in Guantanamo Bay to five leftist human rights groups that openly advocate for the terrorist defendants." In an official memorandum, issued on August 19, 2013, the Office of the Secretary of Defense listed the criteria by which organizations were selected for the privilege of monitoring GTMO proceedings. They must have a "stated mission to advance human rights through advocacy and respect for the law."

Here's the punch line. Take a look at the list of the five pre-approved leftist "non-governmental organizations" that will be given exclusive seats at the table for GTMO military commission proceedings: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Bar Association. Do you see any "rule of law" organizations on this list? I do not. Perhaps hoping to head-off any accusations of political favoritism, the OSD indicated in its original memo that the policy change was absolutely necessary due to"logistical limitations." But that still doesn't explain why all of the organizations they selected are radically left of center. And this is precisely the point I made in a letter of appeal sent to the Chief of Staff for the OSD, strongly objecting to the Department of Defense's new exclusion policy: I am writing to object in the strongest terms to your August 19, 2013 Non-Government Organization (NGO) Observer Selection Policy to observe commission proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). The designation of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Bar Association as essentially "permanent observers" to Commission proceedings is not appropriate. These groups represent a narrow, extreme ideological view on terrorist detainee issues. These groups, which have been highly critical of the Office of Commissions and GTMO advocate policies at odds with views held by the vast majority of American citizens, whose tax dollars fund the operation of the Office of Commissions and GTMO. As you may well know, in some instances, persons affiliated with the five NGOs have served as legal counsel or political advocates for the terrorist detainees held at GTMO." I close the letter asking OSD to rescind the policy. Failing that, I appeal to OSD to at least reinstate Judicial Watch to the list of permitted observers so that a full range of views on terrorist detainee issues are represented. "Your proposed system could have the effect of freezing out any alternative voices from the NGO community, specifically those voices that have not served as legal and political advocates for terrorist detainees." You might be able to guess the type of response that came back. On September 3, 2013, I received a cut-and-pasted letter ripped from the original August 19 memo. The letter, sent under the signature of Military Commission Chief of Staff Michael Quinn, denies our request and reiterates that the five NGOs "were selected due to their ability to reach an international audience, their experience with international human rights in criminal trials and their stated mission to advance human rights through advocacy and respect for the law."   Of course, Judicial Watch fits all those criteria. Quinn ends by expressing appreciation for "Judicial Watch's interest in the conduct of military commissions" and invites JW to watch proceedings on closed-circuit television at Fort Meade, Maryland, if we don't make the cut for a trip to GTMO.   The Pentagon has yet to provide any response to our concern that they are giving five permanent "observer" seats to what in effect is the defense bar for terrorists.  Again, we're the only conservative organization that has, at great expense, participated as observers in these proceedings.  And now we've been told that we may not be invited to future 9/11 terrorist criminal proceedings there.    Let me boil this down. President Obama has stated on a number of occasions that he intends to shut GTMO down. He said it during his first presidential campaign. He said it again the day he took office. And he said it again as recently as May 2013.  Thus far, public opposition to the notion of releasing terrorists into the courts or onto the streets altogether, has prevented Obama from fulfilling this promise. In order to build his case, he needs to control the messaging coming out of the GTMO proceedings and persuade the public to adopt his anti-GTMO stance. The way to do that is to simply cherry-pick a group of "friendlies" to "monitor" and report on what takes place. It's as simple as that. This administration has demonstrated time and time again hostility to alternative viewpoints. And this is just another in a long line of examples. Judicial Watch will continue to protest this new policy while continuing our work to bring fairness and objectivity and, yes, "respect for the rule of law" to the efforts to monitor GTMO.  And we intend to do it live, not on television.