Guantanamo Judge Issues Rare Witness Order

Though Spath disqualified five of Ary's legal advisers, Gill complained that some of the staff had remained involved in al-Nashiri's case. The defense outlines this allegation in a renewed motion to dismiss the charges against al-Nashiri for continued unlawful meddling.

"Disqualified members of the convening authority's staff - including those that this commission specifically barred by name - have knowingly and willfully defied this commission," the motion states. "They have continued to direct the decision-making process relevant to this case, both directly and through subterfuge."

But prosecutors have countered that the defense allegations are focused on a two-week period of transition between the new convening authority and the outgoing crew.

"The defense's allegations that the disqualified legal advisors and staff continued to act in this case are wildly overstated and, at times, simply wrong," the prosecution said in its response to the defense motion for dismissal.

Al-Nashiri's capital defender Richard Kammen questioned one of the disqualified legal advisers, Mark Toole, on Monday afternoon.

Toole said he was aware that Gill, who he described as "glum" and a "poor employee," had complained about "people" talking about the al-Nashiri case in front of him, but insisted that he did not deal with any issues related to the case following Spath's order.

Ripples for Trial of Accused 9/11 Plotters

Gill's testimony exposed for the second time in less than one week confusion about the rules governing the subpoena power of military commissions at Guantanamo.

At an Oct. 12 hearing, Jay Connell, lead attorney for accused 9/11 plotter Ammar al-Baluchi, raised a similar issue concerning the military commission's ability to compel witnesses to come to Guantanamo in the future to testify.

Whereas the military commissions can compel witnesses for testimony by video teleconference, Pentagon regulations say the commissions cannot force witnesses to come to Guantanamo.

"A civilian may not be compelled by subpoena to leave the United States and travel to a foreign country; therefore, a subpoena issued to a civilian to testify at Guantanamo Bay may not be enforced in the United States," regulation 13-5 b states.

Connell had argued Wednesday that the commission actually does have the authority to compel witnesses. The Military Commissions Act states that the process "shall be similar to that which the courts of the United States having criminal jurisdiction may lawfully issue." Citing precedent, Connell said the law requires live witnesses, not virtual witnesses.

The secretary of defense "got it wrong" with regulation 13-5 b, he said, while Congress got it right with the Military Commissions Act. Connell asserted that the Pentagon regulations are "structurally unconstitutional."

Connell and military judge Army Col. James Pohl engaged in a hearty back and forth about how to enforce a foreign subpoena.

"Is the U.S. Marshals Service going to go pick him or her up and put him on a plane and come with him to Guantanamo," Pohl asked.

Connell suggested the Marshals Service would have the authority to do that.

Chief prosecutor Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins urged Pohl to refrain from ruling on the matter now, suggesting that it is more appropriate to wait until there is an actual and particular witness to compel. He reminded the court that the five accused 9/11 plotters are "alien unprivileged enemy belligerents" who are being appropriately and lawfully held.

"They're getting compulsory process under that statute," Martins said. "They have many recourses within the process, and they can seek to get that particular witness that you're mentioning. Once we tee it up in a very precise way, we are confident that this structure is giving every bit of that right to the accused."

Failure to resolve this issue last week led Connell to voice his frustration at a Friday press conference.

"After 4 1/2 years when do we get to know what the rules are?" he asked.

Martins responded to the comments during his own press conference, defending the rules presented in the 2009 Military Commission Act as clear and constitutional.

"There's a very clear procedure authorized by an act of Congress that was duly exercising its powers under some very important Supreme Court cases," Martins said. "Not liking the rules is not the same thing as the rules lacking authority."

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit