Click on the image to enlarge. (Illustration: Manya Gupta)

The detention operation at the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has been a lighting rod for criticism since the first enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere touched down there nearly 10 years ago.

But US involvement in this isolated corner of Cuba dates back a lot further than the opening of the notorious prison camp.

Anchor Lisa Mullins speaks with Harvard University professor Jonathan Hansen about his book “Guantánamo: An American History.” The book details America’s centuries-long fascination with Cuba, from the Founding Fathers plans to expand US commerce via control of Guantanamo Bay to today’s notorious prison for enemy combatants.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins : I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. The detention facility at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has been the lightening rod for criticism since the first captured enemy combatants touched down there. That was nearly a decade ago, but the US involvement in this isolated corner of Cuba dates back much further than that and there’s a lot more to the base than a high profile military prison. Harvard University professor Jonathan Hansen offers this lesser known fact: Guantanamo is a rich nature preserve.

Jonathan Hansen: There’s an irony to this great nature preserve that is Guantanamo Bay in which that is most of us can’t go to most of those places because there’s all sorts of unexploded ordnance and, in fact, people say that from time to time they hear explosions and everyone says, “So what was that? Was that a Cuban trying to make their way to the base?” And more often it was a deer, so if you have a nature preserve in which not even the deer are safe then you have to wonder how much of a nature preserve is it really, but it truly is a spectacular place just to visit and, as I say, the bird life is remarkable.

Mullins: A remarkable bird life at Guantanamo is just part of the narrative Jonathan Hansen weaves in his book “Guantanamo: An American History”. Hansen describes how Americas interest in Cuba and Guantanamo Bay in particular dates back to the 1700s. He says the founding fathers beleived that if the United States wanted to become a global trading powerhouse, it needed to control access to the Caribbean Sea and the biggest passage into the Caribbean happens to flow through Guantanamo Bay.

Hansen: We seized the bay from Spain in the opening salvo of the Spanish-American war. We retained the bay during the US occupation of Cuba between 1898 and 1902 and then we forced Cuba to lease us the bay as part of the notorious Platt Amendment the brought formal occupation of Cuba to an end in 1902.

Mullins: Does the United States now pay rent on Guantanamo Bay?

Hansen: So we paid rent on Guantanamo Bay for a while, a laughable little amount.

Mullins: It’s like a dollar a year wasn’t it?

Hansen: It was more than that. I think it was two hundred dollars a year, but Fidel Castro famously has stopped cashing the checks because he thinks that it’s an offense.

Mullins: You know, there’s so much history there and you go into great detail in the book which is fascinating, but in pushing forward, after Nine Eleven, Guantanamo Bay was not the the logical, in fact far from the logical place for a US prison camp or for Afghan detainees.

Hansen: Right, so the Bush administration set it’s eyes Guantanamo in about, starting about December 2001.

Mullins: They knew we were going to have prisoners that we had to put someplace, but they were looking where else? Guam and…

Hansen: They knew they had prisoners, so they were looking at Guam, they were looking at some other areas in the Pacific, for instance, other atolls, they were thinking about keeping them on ship board, they were thinking about keeping them in Afghanistan, though Afghanistan was not stable then and so they looked at Guantanamo because in the 1990s the US had detained up to 85,000 Cubans and Haitians behind barbed wire at Guantanamo under the same justification that Guantanamo was sovereign territory of Cubans hence US constitutional protections, in this case, do process the rightful council did not apply. So they thought, “Maybe we could use Guantanamo again.” The thing is there were people at Guantanamo who thought that this would be a disastrous place to have a detention facility.

Mullins: People who worked there?

Hansen: Mainly a public works officer, of someone who had, in fact, had been in Military Intelligence himself and who knew, as Americans don’t like to admit, that Guantanamo was actually, though it’s a great place to have anchorage, it makes a disastrous naval base in the sense that it is surrounded by Cuban highland and Cubans were able to photograph every single thing that happened there.

Mullins: Every visitor that comes in. You were photographed when you were there.

Hansen: Everything that happened at Guantanamo Bay. I was photographed at Guantanamo Bay and the people getting off the planes to come look at Guantanamo as a potential site were photographed. At Guantanamo Bay the detainees were later photographed getting off the bay, so those factors mitigated against putting the prison there in the words of the public works officer, but also Guantanamo is sort of a strange place. The major airfield which is used now is on the so called “Leeward Point” which is across from the main base and across from now where we hold, that housed Guantanamo Prison, so there’s a transportation problem. Not only that, but the most remarkable thing Guantanamo Bay in my mind is that Guantanamo Bay is an American suburb full of up to say ten to twelve thousand American civilians now and to transport the detainees around the base, say to move them now from the prison itself to the courthouse, you have to take them right through the main streets of the neighborhood.

Mullins: Which has what?

Hansen: They consist of everything that a suburb would consist of. It consists of neighborhoods, of schools, of supermarkets, of administrative headquarters. This is really ironic because if you think about one the main arguments that’s preventing Barrack Obama from moving these detainees to the United States is that it would be unsafe to have these so called terrorists in American cities, in towns and here you have one town that’s literally ripped in half by the movement of these prisoners every time they have to go from the prison to courthouse.

Mullins: But it’s not here.

Hansen: But it’s not here. Right. It’s in Cuba and it’s on an island.

Mullins: Well, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary at the time said that Guantanamo Bay was the least worst place. Was it just that it was not here in the United States? I mean what made it the least worst place and therefore suitable for a prison camp?

Hansen: Well the major argument, beside the fact that it was in Cuba, that it was highly defense-able and maybe one of, the most defense-able place in the world right now because South-East Cuba is very isolated. Anyway, we have this base, it’s been ours about which Cuba has nothing to say, especially since the rise of Castro. So it’s extremely, I say, and symbolic I think that’s very nice and also it is this place where, as I’ve said, US, Cuban Law, and International Law are thought not to apply and John Yoo, the man worked in George Bush’s Office of Legal Council, insisted that despite the fact that courts had flirted with extending constitutional protections to Guantanamo, he insisted that that would not be the case this time, so that’s the main reason. It was a place where they could do whatever they wanted.

Mullins: So Jonathan, if that’s the case then why is that you think the current detention operation at Guantanamo should remain open.

Hansen: What I have argued is that over the last ten years, humans rights lawyers, excellent journalists have introduced a modicum of transparency and habeas corpus constitutional protection at Guantanamo Bay and that it might be better to keep the detainees in a place where you have that than in other places where we have none of that.

Mullins: Historian Jonathan Hansen, professor at Harvard University. The book is called “Guantanamo: An American History”. Nice to talk to you.

Hansen: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Hi I am Marco Werman. This is The World. President Obama vowed to shut down the US military prison at Guantanamo. That was almost two years ago. And Mr. Obama has yet to find a way to fulfill that pledge. Today he suffered another setback. The Senate approved a bill that would ban the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US for trial and incarceration. Now what has officials say they’re preparing an executive order that would formalize the detainees’ indefinite detention without trial while setting up a system for periodic reviews of their cases? Lieutenant Colonel David Frakt is the US air force reserve JAG corps. He’s defending Guantanamo detainee Mohammed Jawad. Frakt says the executive order might bring about an improvement for the detainees.

DAVID FRAKT: What’s important about this new review process is that at least as it has been reported the detainees will be entitled to a council to a system in the process. And that did not exist in the earlier combatant status review tribunal administrative review board process. And I think that’s a major improvement.

WERMAN: Some people have said this draft order is equivalent of a parole board for prisoners. Is that accurate for [xx]?

FRAKT: Well it does have some of those features. What we have focused on before was was this person an unlawful combatant at the time that they were captured? And that may have been in 2001-2002-2003. And it does very little look at is there a continued basis to hold them now. And so this hearing process may say well we were lawfully holding them in our opinion but is there a good reason to hold them? Perhaps they have renounced terrorism, or they have cooperated, or conditions have changed in their home country and we’re comfortable that could release them without concern of them rejoining the fight. So in that sense it does have some parole board like features.

WERMAN: So are we going to hear them what some of those good reasons are for holding these detainees?

FRAKT: I would hope that we would. This is a large question that remains regarding these 48 individuals that allegedly are too dangerous to release but cannot be tried for any crimes. And I have always wondered and asked how can that be? Is it we cannot try them because they never committed any crimes, or we can’t try them because the evidence of their crimes was obtained through torture and coercion. We really don’t know. So this will be an opportunity to put to the test the government’s claim that these people really are too dangerous to release, yet somehow cannot be tried.

WERMAN: I’m just wondering, I mean many civil liberty groups have been vocal in the criticisms of this draft executive order. Do you feel like we are heading to this kind of new space where there are two worlds where people can get charged and some people won’t get charged?

FRAKT: Well, my primary criticism of this is that it may lend of a near of legality and legitimacy to indefinite detentions that may not be well founded under international law. There clearly is a right to detain people and not to charge them that are captured in an armed conflict that are enemy combatants. But what about people who have some affiliation with some terrorist group, that are picked up outside of an active theater of war? For a lot of civil libertarians there’s concern that we’re importing a military detention model into what really should be a criminal justice process.

WERMAN: You know, president Obama pledged to change things at Guantanamo. Do you think what we’re seeing now is just a kind of a fine tuning of the same policy basically as the Bush administration?

FRAKT: Yes. I mean it is an improvement. Conditions at Guantanamo have improved for the detainees and there has been an effort to make Guantanamo comply with domestic and international law rather than simply declaring it to be a law free zone. Yet, the underline policy of holding suspected enemy terrorists forever remains the same.

WERMAN: Lieutenant colonel David Frakt defended Guantanamo detainee Mohammad Jawad. He is a professor at the Barry University School of Law in Orlando. Thanks very much.

FRAKT: You’re welcome.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Profile of Ahmed Ghailani
• Closing Guantanamo

(Photo: Katy Clark)

“The alternative to any payments made would have been protracted and extremely expensive litigation in an uncertain legal environment.” He added that it wasn’t clear that the government would be able to defends its security and intelligence agencies without compromising national security.

British authorities, including the head of the country’s spy agency MI6, have been saying for weeks that Britain doesn’t torture or condone torture or turn a blind eye to it. So why pay the compensation? John Walker, a former head of Defense Intelligence, said the paying the settlement makes it see as if British authorities were, in fact, complicit: “Which is very strange only a month after the head of MI6 stood up in public and assured the nation that we did not partake in torture,” he added. “I think those two things are seemingly incompatible.”

As part of the settlement, the government does not admit guilt, and the former detainees do not have to drop their allegations. Still, Peter Goldsmith, who was attorney general in Tony Blair’s government, said it was the right move to pay.

“I think the most important part of this settlement is that it now clears the way for the public inquiry into these allegations of torture and complicity to torture which has already been announced,” he said. “The Government has made sure that the claims are settled so that they can now get on with the public inquiry and we can get to the bottom of these allegations.”

What remains to be seen is whether the payouts will have any impact on other Guantanamo-related litigation. Former detainee Mamdouh Habib, an Australian, is suing his government for alleged collusion in torture. His lawyer, Clive Evatt, said today’s announcement is a positive sign for his client.
“If the British government is prepared to pay out a certain amount of money to their citizens who have exactly the same identical case as Mr. Habib, then I suppose one could point to that in assessing damages in Mr. Habib’s case.” He added that it’s a psychological boost for his client to know that prisoners in a similar situation have settled for what appears to be a substantial sum of money.

Defense lawyers aren’t the only ones pleased with the British government’s settlement. Analysts say say there has also been much crowing on Jihadi websites. Download MP3

• BBC coverage
• From the archives: Katy Clark’s Guantanamo coverage on The World (2002-2009)
• Katy Clark’s Guantanamo photos (2007)

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

David Frakt: This announcement is really in stark contrast to what the United States has done regarding victims of the war on terror.

Lisa Mullins: David Frakt teaches criminal law at Barry University School of Law in Orlando, Florida. He represented Gitmo detainee Mohammed Jawad, who was released last year.

Frakt: It’s just a very sharp contrast to see that Great Britain has decided to settle this, to acknowledge that there was wrongdoing, that there was suffering. Whereas here in the United States, even where we have people who clearly were innocent – there were cases of mistaken identity. There was a Canadian citizen who was rendered and tortured; and there’s no real doubt about the facts. But nevertheless we have refused to even consider compensation. And under international law, we do have an obligation to provide redress for the victims of torture and so far we are not fulfilling that.

Mullins: But what could the redress be now? I mean you’re talking about sort of a British-style agreement or settlement, or something quite different? Because the culpability is quite different.

Frakt: Right, well, it would probably require congressional legislation and authorization of funds. And I just think that there is no political will to do something like that right now.

Mullins: If we talk about, you know, in terms of setting aside money, and there’s one particular detainee who, under this British agreement, will get 1.6 million dollars – If we’re talking about financial issues, certainly there is a problem in terms of finances, both in the U.K. and here in the United States. So is that what accounts for the lack of political will? Because the game board seems pretty even there.

Frakt: Well, I just think there is a perception that the detainees who are released are not really innocent; that somehow the U.S. just couldn’t prove it. There’s still skepticism about mistreatment of detainees because the government has so successfully blocked information being released about what really went on. So

Mullins: Let me just stop you there. Why is the perception different here from in Britain, then?

Frakt: If you look at Great Britain, they’ve had a full-scale, very open inquiry into British complicity, and public hearings. And I think there’s a lot of outrage in Great Britain over what was done in Great Britain’s name, to cooperate with the United States. And many people there feel that their complicity with the U.S. made them a target, such as for the London subway bombings. While, whereas here in the United States, since we have not had a successful attack since 9/11, a lot of people are really supportive of the policies that they feel have kept them safe. Although I would argue that it simply has pushed terrorism abroad.

Mullins: Could you bring us home to your own work as having represented one of the Afghan detainees, Mohammed Jawad?

Frakt: Yes. Mohammed Jawad was declared to be not an enemy combatant, to be wrongfully held at Guantanamo, and by order of a writ of habeas corpus, from a federal judge, he was ordered released in August of 2009, after nearly seven years at Guantanamo. I no longer represent him. My job was to get him out of Guantanamo. But one of my co-counsel has retired from the military and is representing him as a civilian attorney, and has sought compensation for the nearly seven years that he spent wrongfully at Guantanamo, and for the specific acts of abuse, arguably rising to the level of torture, that he experienced, including sleep deprivation, and beatings, and so forth. And at this point there is simply no remedy available for Mohammad Jawad and others like him in the U.S. courts. So what we are doing is, after shattering people’s lives and in Mohammed’s case he spent basically his high school and college years in Guantanamo. And releasing him without any effort to rehabilitate him; without any social services; without any compensation; without so much as an apology. That does not enhance the United States’ reputation in the international community for being a fair-minded and respecting human rights.

Mullins: David Frakt teaches at Barry University School of Law in Orlando, Florida. He is a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve JAG corps, and represented Gitmo detainee Mohammed Jawad. Thanks very much.

Frakt: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

It’s one of only 6 African teams competing in the soccer tournament. The country we want you to name extends into the Sahara Desert.

And it’s the only Muslim majority country competing in South Africa. The game against the US is a big deal for the Desert Foxes.

One player said: “This game could change our lives and give us memories we’ll always have.”

And here’s something you may not know. This match will be watched with great interest by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay:

“I mean they talk about all day long about who played about how they scored that goal and this goal and this player that player making those who are not watching want to watch.”

We’ll hear more about Guantanamo detainees tuning in to the World Cup.

So this World Cup game coming up tomorrow is a big deal in Guantanamo…. Why ?

US versus Algeria. Algeria is the answer to our Geo Quiz.

Alexandra Gutierrez is a reporter based on Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. Listen to the interview:

Download MP3

• Closing Guantanamo
• Katy Clark’s Guantanamo stories

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  The Obama administration is still reviewing its options as to where to try key terrorism suspects, and that includes alleged 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  Plans to try him at a federal court in New York generated a lot of opposition, and that’s kept alive the option of military trials.  Guantanamo could be the venue.  The suspects are already there, and the legal system to try them is ready to go, as The World’s Katy Clark reports.

KATY CLARK: Former President George W. Bush signed orders back in 2006 setting up military tribunals for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo.  In doing so, Mr. Bush was adapting a long established system of military commissions to a modern threat.  Still, critics charged that the commissions were a lesser form of justice than either civilian or other military courts.  President Obama seemed to agree, and shortly after taking office he suspended the military tribunals and launched a review.  Realizing, though, that the commissions might be a necessary option, President Obama signed his own version of the Military Commissions Act last fall.  Navy Captain John Murphy is Chief Prosecutor in the Military Commissions office at the Pentagon.  One of the biggest changes under President Obama, he says, is limits on the type of evidence that can now be admitted.

JOHN MURPHY:  “There can be no torture, obviously.  That was true in the previous statute as well.  But no cruel, inhumane or degrading evidence or evidence obtained in that manner can be introduced.”

CLARK: Also any statements introduced in trial now have to be voluntary, rather than merely reliable.  And when it comes to hearsay evidence, the burden is now on the party who offers it, to prove its reliability.  Captain Murphy says defendants also have greater freedom to select their own military lawyers under the revamped Military Commissions Act or MCA.

MURPHY: “I think that the new MCA that is currently in effect is an improvement over our prior law, and I believe it represents fair justice.  We’re ready to move forward, when we’re directed by our leadership to prosecute cases under that statute.”

CLARK: But not all lawyers are as enthusiastic as Captain Murphy is to see the military commissions resume.  Law Professor Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University has represented several Guantanamo detainees.  He says it remains unclear to him what the government means when it says no cruel, inhumane or degrading evidence or evidence obtained in that manner will be allowed.  Denbeaux wonders if that includes evidence obtained after a detainee has been deprived of sleep for several days.

MARK DENBEAUX:  “Now, I think you could argue evidence after 48 hours of being kept awake with loud noises and strobe lights isn’t reliable.  But the standard here also is – is it humane?  Are courts gonna say keeping people awake for 24 hours are inhumane?  Fourteen hours?  Eighteen hours?  The questions here can’t be solved by saying we’re not only not allowing in torture.  We’re also not allowing inhumanely obtained evidence.”

CLARK: Captain John Murphy says it’s up to the judge to determine what’s admissible, based on what Murphy describes as ‘the totality of the circumstances’.

MURPHY:  “I would also add, too, that prosecutors make their own decisions before we ever offer evidence.  And within my office, if we make a determination that a statement or other evidence is likely to be excluded under those rules, that is, that it’s cruel, inhumane, degrading or torture or not voluntarily provided, then we’re not gonna offer it.”

CLARK: Still, other legal experts interviewed for this story say that no matter what changes the Obama administration makes, the military commissions at Guantanamo are flawed beyond repair.

JOHN HUTSON:  “For me, there’s absolutely no question that the best place to try terrorists is in federal court.”

CLARK: John Hutson served as Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy from 1997 to 2000.  He’s now Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire.

HUTSON:  “Let’s say that you came here from Mars.  And you were told that we have some really, really bad guys that we want to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.  And we’ve got two judicial systems that we have to choose between.  One of them, it successfully prosecuted 200 cases since September 11^th, ’01, and most of those guys are still in prison.  It has experienced judges and prosecutors and court personnel.  And it clearly complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.  That’s one system.”

CLARK: Hutson describes the other system as having tried just three cases since 9/11.  Two of the defendants pleaded guilty and are now free.  The third didn’t participate and was found guilty in absentia.

HUTSON: “Which one would you select?  To me, that’s just a no brainer.”

CLARK: Captain John Murphy of the Military Commissions Office has heard such arguments before and shrugs them off.  He maintains there’s no better law team than his to handle terrorism cases.  Captain Murphy adds that one of the reasons why the Office of Military Commissions has only held three trials at Guantanamo so far is because proceedings have been on hold there for the past year.  The Office of Military Commissions is now preparing three more cases.  Preliminary hearings at Guantanamo are expected to resume later this month.  The next trial is set to begin in July.  For The World, this is Katy Clark.

MARCO WERMAN:  The Obama administration is still reviewing its options as to where to try key terrorism suspects, and that includes alleged 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  Plans to try him at a federal court in New York generated a lot of opposition, and that’s kept alive the option of military trials.  Guantanamo could be the venue.  The suspects are already there, and the legal system to try them is ready to go, as The World’s Katy Clark reports.

KATY CLARK: Former President George W. Bush signed orders back in 2006 setting up military tribunals for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo.  In doing so, Mr. Bush was adapting a long established system of military commissions to a modern threat.  Still, critics charged that the commissions were a lesser form of justice than either civilian or other military courts.  President Obama seemed to agree, and shortly after taking office he suspended the military tribunals and launched a review.  Realizing, though, that the commissions might be a necessary option, President Obama signed his own version of the Military Commissions Act last fall.  Navy Captain John Murphy is Chief Prosecutor in the Military Commissions office at the Pentagon.  One of the biggest changes under President Obama, he says, is limits on the type of evidence that can now be admitted.

JOHN MURPHY:  “There can be no torture, obviously.  That was true in the previous statute as well.  But no cruel, inhumane or degrading evidence or evidence obtained in that manner can be introduced.”

CLARK: Also any statements introduced in trial now have to be voluntary, rather than merely reliable.  And when it comes to hearsay evidence, the burden is now on the party who offers it, to prove its reliability.  Captain Murphy says defendants also have greater freedom to select their own military lawyers under the revamped Military Commissions Act or MCA.

MURPHY: “I think that the new MCA that is currently in effect is an improvement over our prior law, and I believe it represents fair justice.  We’re ready to move forward, when we’re directed by our leadership to prosecute cases under that statute.”

CLARK: But not all lawyers are as enthusiastic as Captain Murphy is to see the military commissions resume.  Law Professor Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University has represented several Guantanamo detainees.  He says it remains unclear to him what the government means when it says no cruel, inhumane or degrading evidence or evidence obtained in that manner will be allowed.  Denbeaux wonders if that includes evidence obtained after a detainee has been deprived of sleep for several days.

MARK DENBEAUX:  “Now, I think you could argue evidence after 48 hours of being kept awake with loud noises and strobe lights isn’t reliable.  But the standard here also is – is it humane?  Are courts gonna say keeping people awake for 24 hours are inhumane?  Fourteen hours?  Eighteen hours?  The questions here can’t be solved by saying we’re not only not allowing in torture.  We’re also not allowing inhumanely obtained evidence.”

CLARK: Captain John Murphy says it’s up to the judge to determine what’s admissible, based on what Murphy describes as ‘the totality of the circumstances’.

MURPHY:  “I would also add, too, that prosecutors make their own decisions before we ever offer evidence.  And within my office, if we make a determination that a statement or other evidence is likely to be excluded under those rules, that is, that it’s cruel, inhumane, degrading or torture or not voluntarily provided, then we’re not gonna offer it.”

CLARK: Still, other legal experts interviewed for this story say that no matter what changes the Obama administration makes, the military commissions at Guantanamo are flawed beyond repair.

JOHN HUTSON:  “For me, there’s absolutely no question that the best place to try terrorists is in federal court.”

CLARK: John Hutson served as Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy from 1997 to 2000.  He’s now Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire.

HUTSON:  “Let’s say that you came here from Mars.  And you were told that we have some really, really bad guys that we want to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.  And we’ve got two judicial systems that we have to choose between.  One of them, it successfully prosecuted 200 cases since September 11^th, ’01, and most of those guys are still in prison.  It has experienced judges and prosecutors and court personnel.  And it clearly complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.  That’s one system.”

CLARK: Hutson describes the other system as having tried just three cases since 9/11.  Two of the defendants pleaded guilty and are now free.  The third didn’t participate and was found guilty in absentia.

HUTSON: “Which one would you select?  To me, that’s just a no brainer.”

CLARK: Captain John Murphy of the Military Commissions Office has heard such arguments before and shrugs them off.  He maintains there’s no better law team than his to handle terrorism cases.  Captain Murphy adds that one of the reasons why the Office of Military Commissions has only held three trials at Guantanamo so far is because proceedings have been on hold there for the past year.  The Office of Military Commissions is now preparing three more cases.  Preliminary hearings at Guantanamo are expected to resume later this month.  The next trial is set to begin in July.  For The World, this is Katy Clark.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: New questions are being raised about the deaths of three Guantanamo prisoners in 2006.  The U.S. Military said the three detainees took their own lives after taking part in a hunger strike.  But an article by Attorney Scott Horton released this week by Harper’s Magazine says the prisoners didn’t commit suicide. The article suggests the three men were tortured and murdered at a secret facility.  Scott Horton says the official account of how the prisoners died is problematic.

SCOTT HORTON: The official story is that they took a great amount of cloth and formed mannequins and put them in their beds so as to deceive guards, that they took more cloth and put it over the walls so that the video cameras could not see them. Then they bound their feet with cloth. They tied their hands together with cloth.

WERMAN: They themselves, the detainees, tied their feet and hands together with cloth?
HORTON: Each individually in his own cell far apart from any other detainees. Then they stuffed cloth down their mouth past the point of involuntary gagging.  Then they placed masks over the face to hold that cloth in place. Then they fashioned a noose. They hooked up the noose at the top of a eight-foot wire mesh wall. Then they climbed up while hands and feet were bound, they climbed up on top of a wash basin inserted their heads into the noose, tightened the noose and then jumped off the wash basin so as to asphyxiate themselves.  And that the three prisoners did this simultaneously.

WERMAN: Yeah, physically suicide does seem a problematic proposal here.  Who gave you an alternative account of what happened, and what did they tell you?

HORTON: Well, the alternative account comes from four different soldiers from a Maryland Military Intelligence unit who were manning the guard that evening.  And what they tell us is that three prisoners were taken from this cell block and taken that evening between 7:00 and 8:00 o’clock to a black site facility located about a mile away from Camp Delta.  And they never appeared to have returned alive.  The Sergeant of the Guard that evening was so concerned about this very unusual activity that he went to the outermost perimeter check point to see exactly where this van was taking these prisoners. And he said it took them to Camp No, which was a secret facility a black site.

WERMAN: Now, that perimeter guard you spoke of he’s Sergeant Hickman, is that right?

HORTON: Yes, actually there are four of them but I’d say the core part of the narrative comes from Staff Sergeant Joe Hickman.
WERMAN: Now the former Commander at GITMO’s Camp America denies your account, Colonel Michael Bumgarner appears to have sent an email to the Associated Press saying, “This blatant misrepresentation of the truth infuriates me.  I don’t know who Sergeant Hickman is, but he is only trying to be a spotlight ranger.  He knows nothing about what transpired in Camp One or our medical facility.  I do.  I was there.” So, Scott Horton, why isn’t Sergeant Hickman speaking out on the front pages today?

HORTON: I think you’re going to hear from Sergeant Hickman within the next 24 hours and in great detail.  In fact, Colonel Bumgarner has a very severe problem here because either he told a lie to the Associated Press or he told a lie to the criminal investigators from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, whom he furnished a sworn statement in which he states, “I was not at the camp the evening of 09 June ’06.”

WERMAN: And yet the Justice Department says it has investigated these claims.  It says Hickman’s conclusions appear to be unsupported. So how do you know the Justice Department under President Bush and President Obama didn’t in fact carry out an investigation and find the evidence of murder lacking?

HORTON: I interviewed independently all the witnesses they contacted and interviewed about the Justice Department’s investigation from which it’s completely clear that the Justice Department was engaged in the process of checking off the box so as to be able to suggest to the public that they had done something.  When, in fact, they had done nothing.  The clearest evidence of this comes when after Congressional inquiry the Justice Department lawyer heading the investigation, who by the way, was also a lawyer involved in the preparation of at least one of the major torture memoranda, told the attorney for Sergeant Hickman that the investigation was over. And we know at that time, she and her team had not contacted the principal corroborating witnesses.

WERMAN: Now, this happened on President George W. Bush’s watch, but what was the role, what is the role played by President Obama’s Administration and how does that square with his promise a year ago to close Guantanamo?

HORTON: Well, not just his promise a year ago to close Guantanamo, but also the speech he delivered in Oslo, Norway accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.  He gave a solemn undertaking in giving that speech that the United States would embrace and uphold the value of the Geneva Conventions.  Of course, what we’re talking about here is the death of prisoners in war time.  The fundamental purpose of those conventions is to protect these prisoners. And that protection occurs not just by the rules in place at the facilities, but also by the investigation and punishment of people who wrongfully harm them.

WERMAN: You believe there’s full knowledge of this episode at the White House itself?

HORTON: I am not able to say exactly how high up people were briefed about this. Harper’s Magazine has learned that Attorney General Eric Holder was asked this last weekend if he knew about this investigation and its conclusion and he declined to discuss that.

WERMAN: Scott Horton’s article in Harper’s Magazine is called, “The Guantanamo Suicides:  A Camp Delta Sergeant Blows the Whistle.”  Scott Horton, thanks very much for speaking with us.

HORTON: Great to be with you.

WERMAN: We asked the Justice Department to comment on Scott Horton’s story.  Department spokesperson Laura Sweeney gave us this statement:  “The Department took this matter very seriously.  A number of Department attorneys and agents extensively and thoroughly reviewed the allegations and found no evidence of wrongdoing.”   We also asked the Pentagon and the White House to comment but neither got back to us by airtime.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Katy’s update from Guantanamo (Jan 6)
• Katy’s previous Guantanamo coverage on The World
• FAQ on closing Guantanamo

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

JEB SHARP: I’m Jeb Sharp and this is The World. When Barack Obama became president he promised to shut down the US prison at Guantanamo Bay within one year. He’s going to miss the deadline. In fact the closure of Guantanamo has become even more difficult since Christmas day. That’s when a man who studied in Yemen allegedly attempted to blow up a US airliner. The White House then suspended the repatriation of Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo. Those Yemenis account for about half the prison’s population. In a moment we’ll speak with a top Yemeni diplomat about the terror threat from his country. But first we turn to the world’s Katy Clark for an update on Guantanamo. She’s just returned from her third trip to the facility since August 2002. So Katy I guess the question is what’s new there?

KATY CLARK: Well you get the sense that it’s no longer this high risk interrogation operation but more of a babysitting operation right now.

SHARP: How so?

CLARK: Well I mean maybe that’s exaggerating things a little bit but one of the starkest examples of that was in our tour of Camp 5 which is one of the maximum security prisons that have been built there over time. One of the cell blocks that they walk us down on our tour used to have an interrogation room in the first room of that cell block and now it’s a TV lounge with a refrigerator and detainees goes in there one at a time. And although they still have a shackle around one of their legs they can watch movies and get drinks out of the fridge and sit on this cushy couch. I mean it was weird to see that.

SHARP: Any other sort of really striking changes or developments?

CLARK: Well they take art classes now. They take language classes now. And that sort of underscores the sense that it’s not such a dangerous place anymore. The people being held there maybe are not so dangerous as they used to be. And one of the things that does seem to be different down there as well as the effort that is being made to have the guards and the detainees get along a little better than they have in the past. One of the individuals that I met down there is a fellow, a US military contractor, who was introduced simply as Zack – we didn’t get his real name or his full name.

SHARP: You mean it was withheld.

CLARK: Yeah the name was withheld for security reasons. And he is a Muslim-American who is employed as a cultural advisor at Guantanamo. He’s been there since September 2006. He’s only recently started talking to reporters. And his job he says is to work to teach and educate everybody who interacts with detainees about the detainees’ culture and religion. And it was really interesting the way he described his job. I want to play a bit of an interview that I did with him there. And it starts with how he says he helps newly arrived guards.

ZACK: I show them you know. They pray five times a day. This is how it’s performed you know so if you’re knocking on the cell door and you see the person doing all the movements you know that’s done do not knock the door. Wait until that one person is done praying because you know he’s not going to answer you. All these little things you know I was able to teach you know and you know we have new people all the time here you know so I’m always continuing to teach everyone who works on the blocks about all these things.

CLARK: How do they detainees here view what you do? It seems as if they might look at you as the enemy.

ZACK: It’s not an easy job. It’s a difficult job because some they call me you know traitor, some they call me enemy of guard you know. Some you know because I was able to learn you know which group of detainees want to talk to me. Which one want to sit down man to man and do business you know.

CLARK: You talk about some of the games that were played early on. For instance … .

ZACK: Some of the games that were played you know it’s happened to me you know when I first came here you know. One detainee says a guard stepped on the Koran and urinated on it. I said okay.

CLARK: A story that was reported.

ZACK: A story that was reported. And he said come on down and see it with your own eyes. So I go down there you know. And I say to the detainee where is it? And my eye contact with the detainee says where is the footprint? The boot prints? You know boot prints are not easy to remove you know because once they go it’s not the [INDISCERNIBLE]. I dusted it off. I said okay then where is the urine. Smell it. I’m smelling you know. I’m not smelling it. But I’m not arguing also because my job is to listen and take in whatever I’m hearing and not argue. And I was saying where is the urine. He said look at it. So here is the book. Here’s the edge of the book. And it was exactly half a circle. You give me one human being that can urinate that uniformly. See you’re laughing. I did not laugh for the detainee or nothing. I said here is another copy but I went to another detainee who was more religious leader you know and I said guys this is what this person did so quit it.

CLARK: What kind of response did you get? I mean where they like kids who were caught in a lie?

ZACK: Yes, yes, yes. You know it’s something you know nobody’s going to admit you know. I mean another … . I mean just their ideology and their thinking you know just makes them believe you know. Like another example they’ll say as well it says in the Koran kill Americans. I looked at the kid – not kid you know just a guy – anybody younger than me is kid you know. You know and I said you know, okay no problem and just [INDISCERNIBLE] to somebody else, I said, can you show me where it says that? Maybe you know all these years I have not been able to find it you know. No he means this and he means that. So there’s always that game and manipulation and using religion as a weapon.

CLARK: That’s Zack, the US Defense Department’s cultural advisor down at Guantanamo Bay.

SHARP: He sounds like an interesting character. What was his background before he went to Guantanamo?

CLARK: He is Muslim-American. He said he’s of Jordanian descent and he had worked for the US military in Iraq back in 2003 as an interpreter and he sees this as just a continuation of this work. And it was interesting because I asked him if he had any concerns at some point in the job that he has had interacting very closely with the detainees, if he fears for his safety at some point when these men are released from Guantanamo if they might seek him out, which has been a common fear of the guards there. Some would describe it as a paranoia even. And he said if it happens it happens. I can’t really do anything about it. But I’m not going to let them kill me easily.

SHARP: Katy thank you.

CLARK: You’re welcome.

SHARP: The World’s Katy Clark just back from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Katy’s previous Guantanamo coverage on The World
• FAQ on closing Guantanamo

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: The would-be bomber on the Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit reportedly got his explosives and training in Yemen. That’s focused a lot of attention on the country. Yesterday the Obama Administration announced it’s suspending the repatriation of several detainees from Yemen currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The reason given is the deteriorating security situation in their home country.  The World’s Katy Clark is in Guantanamo.  Katy, just how many detainees will be affected by this decision?

KATY CLARK: Well, it’s tough to say. I mean, they won’t go into details about specifics. I was under the impression that fewer than 200 detainees are being held here. A good half of those were to be released to Yemen. Now, I’ve heard various numbers that maybe it was 75, maybe it was as many of 91, but they are in a holding pattern right now. So that’s a good size of the population still being held here.

WERMAN: Have you had a chance to speak with any of the detainees?

CLARK: No, that’s never an option here. They are kept very much for their own privacy reasons away from reporters whenever reporters come here.  So basically what I know about what’s going on with them is what I am told from the guards, from the people in charge of the mission here. And we’ve asked whether or not the current situation has people frustrated. People were getting ready to get on an airplane to go home or to go to Yemen anyway, or to go to somewhere else, and that that’s all been put on hold. But the guards say right now that they haven’t seen any overt frustration on the part of the detainees. Maybe it’s just, you know, that they’ve been waiting and waiting and waiting and this is just waiting some more.

WERMAN: How do the detainees know what’s going on? Do they have access to newspapers or radio?

CLARK: They do and that’s actually one of the changes that I’ve been seeing since my previous trips here. They have access to three newspapers in different languages. They have access to satellite television. Some of the detainees could watch television 20 hours a day if they wanted to so they could be following the news. They also get news bulletins posted in their recreation areas, but it seems to be that the newspapers and the satellite TVs, they’re really keeping them plugged in.

WERMAN: If they are in this limbo state for right now, is there any sense of what will happen to these detainees instead of repatriation to Yemen?

CLARK: No, nobody seems to know and every time you ask that question here, people say, “Our job is just to make sure things run smoothly here. Any of those types of decisions are happening in Washington and we’re just waiting word on that.”

WERMAN: The World’s Katy Clark speaking with us from the U.S. Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Thank you very much, Katy.

CLARK: My pleasure, Marco.

WERMAN: By the way, when Katy Clark says prisoners are not allowed to give interviews for privacy reasons, this is in fact in accordance with the policies of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Geneva Conventions prohibit prisoners of war being paraded or subject to public humiliation. There’s no outright ban on media interviews, but according to the ICRC, it’s better to discourage interviews since it’s impossible to tell if a prisoner is being forced to say things.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Law professor Mark Denbeaux on archiving Guantanamo cases
• Katy Clark’s Guantanamo coverage (2002-2009)

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Guantanamo’s detainee population is now down to 223. In the past few years, several hundred men have already been released.  A few more have been cleared for release, and are expected to be sent overseas soon for resettlement.  For some former detainees, life after Guantanamo is a huge challenge.  The World’s Katy Clark reports.

KATY CLARK: It was quite a sight.  Four former detainees frolicking in the Atlantic Ocean off the Coast of Bermuda this past summer.  It gave the impression that life post-detention might be pretty sweet, but that’s not necessarily the norm.  Take the case of Sami Al-Haj, who was on assignment as a cameraman with Al-Jazeera when he was captured in Pakistan in late 2001.  He was held for more than six years as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo.  During his detention he says he was beaten and sexually assaulted.  Then May 2008, Al-Haj was released and returned to his native Sudan.  He was never charged with a crime.  Yet Al-Haj told Iranian-based Press T.V. that more than a year after his release he remains “A misfit” at home.

AL-HAJ: Still, my son doesn’t deal with me as a normal father, and even my wife and our close family like sister, brother, and even our friend is keeping away from me because they doesn’t want to want to put themselves in trouble and I lost many friends.

CLARK: What Al-Haj is experiencing is part of what Eric Stover calls the Guantanamo Stigma, something that haunts some of the more than 500 freed detainees.   Stover is a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley.  He spent last year interviewing 62 men once held at Guantanamo.  He says many of them said they were ostracized by their own families and communities after their release.

ERIC STOVER: We heard of cases in many countries where former detainees were trying to find work but unable to do so.  You know, they were away, and a three or four years hole in resume, and if they said they were in US custody, they often didn’t get the jobs they were seeking.  We found that in fact six of the 62 former detainees only six had actually found meaningful employment.

CLARK: Without jobs and the proper support networks, Stover says there’s little to stop these men from turning or in some cases returning to Jihad against the United States.  Joshua Colangelo-Bryan is a New York based attorney who represented six detainees.   All of them are now free.  He would like to see the United States and other governments do more to keep these guys on track.

JOSHUA COLANGELO-BRYAN: It certainly is in the interest of all reasonable people to have the Guantanamo detainees who were released integrate themselves back into their societies.  Where home countries have the capacity to provide support, be it psychological or material, they certainly should.

CLARK: The State Department has the job of facilitating transfers of released detainees to their home countries or to third countries, but it won’t say whether it does any more than that to help these men readjust.  Often the mental wounds former Guantanamo detainees carry with them re-open after their release.  Berkeley’s Eric Stover says one man now living in the Middle East whom he tried to interview, went into hiding during the week they were scheduled to talk.  Stover describes him as “the worst case scenario” of any of the former detainees he met.

STOVER: The family said that he had left the house without shoes and that this was happening quite often.  He just was completely disoriented and was in clear need of psychiatric care.

MOAZZEM BEGG:  Where is the welfare for the people who have been tortured? Where is the support system for people who have endured cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment?

CLARK: This is Moazzem Begg speaking at the launch of the Guantanamo Justice Center in London.  Begg and other former detainees created the center to help men like themselves who’ve been left traumatized by their experiences at Guantanamo. It’s not the kind of organization that will win plaudits in Washington, but its goals may just coincide with Washington’s so long as those goals focus on former detainees moving past their time in captivity and living peaceful lives.   For The World this is Katy Clark.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

KATY CLARK: I’m Katy Clark, and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. A federal judge today ruled that a Guantanamo detainee is being held illegally and should be released. The detainee’s name is Mohammed Jawad. He’s one of the youngest prisoners still at Guantanamo. He was reportedly just 17 back in 2002 when he was arrested in Afghanistan for allegedly throwing a grenade that wounded two US soldiers. Major David Frakt has been defending Jawad. He’s an Air Force lawyer with the Judge Advocate General corps.

DAVID FRAKT: Well we’re, we’re elated. You know it is the culmination of a lot of hard work. I think it’s a great victory for the rule of law. I never stopped believing that justice would ultimately prevail, in this case.

KATY CLARK: According to the judge’s order today, Jawad should be released and returned to Afghanistan by the end of August. But the Justice Department is pursuing a criminal investigation and may seek to bring him back for a criminal trial. Even so, David Frakt says, today’s ruling is important.

DAVID FRAKT: The significance of today’s ruling is that United states will no longer hold an innocent teenager who’s been wrongfully detained for nearly seven years, abused, tortured, and that he’ll be going home and reunited with his family and can get on with his life. So that’s a victory for justice and for the American way.

KATY CLARK: Mohammed Jawad’s case is just one of many that Mark Denbeaux is trying to document.

MARK DENBEAUX: There really is a question of what the true story of Guantanamo is and I think the details of it are more powerfully persuasive of what Guantanamo is than the generalizations that have been allowed by the government to date.

KATY CLARK: Denbeaux is a law professor at Seton Hall University. He’s also been defending a number of Guantanamo detainees. Together with fellow lawyer Jonathan Hafetz, he’s trying to create an archive of the legal documents, interviews and testimony related to the detainees at the U-S detention facility in Guantanamo. The materials they collect will include oral histories from the hundreds of defense lawyers who’ve worked on detainee cases.

MARK DENBEAUX: The lawyers are the depositories of a great deal of primary source, first person information. And all of us have become aware that there are many reasons to believe this will disappear. And the project will attempt first to preserve and protect the information that’s out there, and then to collect it. And one of the protection problems is that the government has asserted a right to destroy all of the secret documents that have been provided to us, upon the completion of the cases. So one of our problems is to make sure that all of the records are preserves as opposed to destroyed.

KATY CLARK: And you’re talking about lawyer’s notes and you’re going to the lawyers first because they’re the ones who’ve really had the most extensive conversations with the men being held at Guantanamo outside of the government?

MARK DENBEAUX: Well, they’re the only ones who have conversations with the men in Guantanamo. And the more significant thing is, the bizarre way in which the government has restricted our ability to get access to our notes, means that all of our notes are preserved in one big building, or one floor of a building outside Washington. Because many people don’t

understand that after we interview our clients in Guantanamo, we take our notes, then we have to give them to the government, and then the government sends them to this secure facility where we have to go there to look at them. And then they have also said, upon the completion of all the cases, all of these documents, the secret documents will be destroyed. And so, no one quite knows what that means, and our first goal, if you’re trying to collect documents, is to preserve them. And so, then one of the steps that we have to go through in the near future is some litigation to preserve the documents.

KATY CLARK: Now, you represent three men being held at Guantanamo. I’m wondering if by doing this you’re trying to make a case either for or against Guantanamo?

MARK DENBEAUX: Oh, I guess I couldn’t fairly claim I’m not trying to make a case against Guantanamo. But, you know, I am also an academic and I actually was motivated to a large extent by my watching how historical events disappear and get re-characterized. I’ve told many people I was in Selma, Alabama in 1965, and none of us knew that was important when we were there, everything about it became important after we disappeared, and everything was lost except the recordings of the activities of the, obviously the significant players. Here the lawyers are all aware that this is really an important event. We all have different political views and different perspectives, but everybody believes that the preservation of this material will be essential in allowing people other than ourselves to evaluate Guantanamo.

KATY CLARK: Mark Denbeaux directs the center for policy and research at Seaton Hall University’s school of law. Thank you so much.

MARK DENBEAUX: Thank you very much.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.