A panel discussion featuring Mohamedou Ould Slahi and his counsel, Nancy Hollander & Theresa Duncan, moderated by NACDL Fourth Amendment Center Director and Guantánamo Observer Jumana Musa. Introductory remarks by NACDL President (2020-2021) Christopher W. Adams.

May we comply with a requirement to submit confidential attorney-client communications for review by a “Privilege Team” composed of law enforcement and intelligence officers without judicial oversight, and the provisions barring us from communicating on certain topics with our clients, whether or not those topics are directly related to our representation, consistent with our ethical obligations?

Given the restrictions placed on civilian defense counsel, what are a criminal defense attorney’s duties to the client before a Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay under Military Order of November 13, 2001, “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism,” 66 F.R. 57833 (Nov. 16, 2001), and its implementing instructions issued April 30, 2003?

This month Greg Bowes reviews Tortured Justice: Guantanamo Bay by Richard Kammen.

Release Draft Commission Rules For Public Comment, Experts Say - Washington, DC (April 7, 2010) – This week, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joined a group including eight other organizations and prominent scholars calling for more transparency and a period for public comment regarding the release of the 2010 Manual for Military Commissions by the Department of Defense.

As a new round of military commission trials takes shape at Guantanamo Bay, an important piece of unfinished business is revision of the Manual for Military Commissions. The 2010 Manual will spell out the specifics of proceedings under the Military Commissions Act of 2009. The Department of Defense has been working on this revision for some time but has not made a draft available for public comment, even though doing so is the norm for both federal court and court-martial rule making. An opportunity for public comment may produce improvements in the final text.

This month Jon M. Sands reviews Don’t Forget Us Here: Lost and Found at Guantánamo by Mansoor Adayfi in collaboration with Antonio Aiello.

In light of Attorney General Holder’s April 4, 2011, announcement regarding the prosecution of the alleged planners and co-conspirators of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the undersigned organizations request that the Department of Defense open the process for issuing regulations for the military commissions to allow meaningful pre-promulgation public participation. Certainly, future commissions will result in intensive public scrutiny of the system. Therefore, the Department should uphold the President's promise of openness in government by reforming the military commission rulemaking process.

Thank you for your letters to Secretary Panetta dated July 5, 2011 and October 3, 2011, concerning military commission proceedings and related issues of access by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The Department of Defense is committed to making military commission proceedings transparent and accessible to the public, consistent with protecting national security, the safety of individuals, and the rights of the accused. … Recently, we have been working to improve public access to military commission proceedings and materials.

We strongly urge you to veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA) — if the conference bill, which is being negotiated now, impedes your ability to close Guantanamo. Specifically, we urge you to veto the NDAA conference bill if it restricts the Executive Branch's authority to transfer detainees for repatriation or resettlement in foreign countries or for prosecution in federal criminal court. … We urge you to veto the NDAA if any of these restrictions are included in the final bill sent to you by Congress.

Statement of Members of the Human Rights and Secruity Coalition before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Our coalition seeks to ensure that the United States’ national security policies abide by its human rights obligations. It does so by promoting transparency, accountability, and oversight in furtherance of our collective human security.

The undersigned civil liberties and human rights organizations write regarding the Periodic Review Boards (PRBs) for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that the Department of Defense has announced will commence shortly. …should the administration proceed with PRBs, we encourage you to take appropriate steps to ensure the PRBs, as established by Presidential Executive Order 13567, have the required processes in place for meaningful review of a detainee’s detention status at Guantanamo.

The undersigned human rights, civil liberties, and religious organizations strongly urge you to oppose any additional restrictions on the authority of the Secretary of Defense to order the overseas transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to foreign countries. ... Congress should not reverse course when the overseas transfer provisions have only recently taken effect and the Departments of Defense and State are working towards carrying out transfers.

NACDL urges this Court to grant Petitioners' motions challenging the Government's Memorandum of Understanding Governing Continued Contact Between Counsel/Translator and Detainee Following Termination of the [Guantánamo] Detainee's Habeas Case. NACDL also encourages this Court to hold that Judge Hogan's Protective Order continues to apply to Petitioners, and that the Government may not condition Petitioners' access to counsel on counsel's submission to the new MOU.

We are writing to follow up on the letter we sent in July concerning the logistical difficulties that in the past have prevented us from adequately performing our role as nongovernmental organizations authorized to observe military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. To date, we have not received a response to our letter. … While we are encouraged that the commission may be expanding access to the commissions for some individuals and media, this new venue would not address any of the NGO observers' concerns about the commissions' lack of transparency, as set forth in our earlier letter.