Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Shake-Up at Gitmo: A Prosecutor Resigns, Citing 'Ethical Qualms' Over Suppressed Evidence

By Andy Worthington, AlterNet. Posted October 1, 2008.


A day after the controversial Gen. Thomas Hartmann is relocated, Lt. Col. Darell Vandeveld resigns, citing "slipshod" prosecutions.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Andy Worthington

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On September 24, Col. Lawrence Morris, the chief prosecutor of Guantánamo's Military Commission trial system, announced that Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, the prosecutor in the case of Mohamed Jawad (an Afghan -- and a teenager at the time of his capture -- who is accused of throwing a grenade at a jeep containing two U.S. soldiers and an Afghan translator), had asked to quit his assignment before his one-year contract expired.

Although Col. Morris attempted to explain that Lt. Col. Vandeveld was leaving "for personal reasons," the real reasons were spelled out in a statement issued by Vandeveld, in which (as the Associated Press explained) he wrote that "potentially exculpatory evidence" had "not been provided" due to a failure on the part of the "prosecutors and officers of the court." On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that he had stated, "My ethical qualms about continuing to serve as a prosecutor relate primarily to the procedures for affording defense counsel discovery. I am highly concerned, to the point that I believe I can no longer serve as a prosecutor at the Commissions, about the slipshod, uncertain 'procedure' for affording defense counsel discovery."

According to Michael Berrigan, the Commissions' deputy chief defense counsel, Vandeveld said that prosecutors knew that Jawad, who has always denied throwing the grenade, may have been drugged before the attack and that the Afghan Interior Ministry said that two other men had confessed to the same crime.

In his statement, Lt. Col. Vandeveld also wrote that he had wanted to offer Jawad a plea deal "that would allow him to receive rehabilitation after a short period of additional confinement," but that his commanding officers had disagreed. "As a juvenile at the time of capture," he wrote, "Jawad should have been segregated from the adult detainees, and some serious attempt made to rehabilitate him." He added, "I am bothered by the fact that this was not done."

Lt. Col. Vandeveld's departure -- and his reasons for leaving -- are another serious blow to the credibility of the Military Commissions, which were established by Dick Cheney and his close advisers in November 2001. In June 2006, they were ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, and although they were revived by Congress later that year in the much-criticized Military Commissions Act, they have never escaped accusations that they are a parody of justice, designed to secure convictions at all costs. Even so, Lt. Col. Vandevelt's profound criticisms of a system that imprisons juveniles instead of rehabilitating them, and that suppresses evidence relevant to the defense, is just part of a much darker narrative that has been unfolding for the last eighteen months.

The role of Brig. Gen. Hartmann

From this perspective, an even more significant event was the Pentagon's announcement, on September 19, that Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann had been removed from his post as legal adviser to the Convening Authority overseeing the Commission process, which, as the Washington Post recently explained, is "a Pentagon office that is required to exercise a neutral role in the commissions, overseeing but not dictating the work of prosecutors and allocating resources to both the prosecution and defense."

Hartmann, a reservist whose civilian job is chief counsel to the Connecticut-based Mxenergy Holdings Inc., became the legal adviser to the Convening Authority in July 2007, and was also required to "exercise a neutral role." According to the rules set up for the Commissions, he was "supposed to provide impartial advice" to the Convening Authority (retired judge Susan Crawford), and was also supposed to "make an independent and informed appraisal of the charges and evidence," to help Crawford "decide whether charges proposed by the prosecutors are sufficient to go to trial."

However, complaints arose almost as soon as Brig. Gen. Hartmann was appointed. Just two months after he took the job, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Col. Morris Davis, the Commissions' chief prosecutor, had filed a formal complaint alleging that Hartmann had "overstepped his mandate by interfering directly in cases." In a letter, Davis suggested that both he and Hartmann should resign "for the good of the process," adding, "If he believes in military commissions as strongly as I do, then let's do the right thing and both of us walk away before we do more harm."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: mohamed jawad, military commissions, military commission, guantánamo bay, col. lawrence morris, lt. col. darrel vandeveld

Andy Worthington is a writer and historian, and author of The Guantánamo Files.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nothing Has Changed in Forty Years
Posted by: johnjmccarthy on Oct 1, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id1.html

The US Government LIVES on withholding exculpatory evidence. Unfortunately for the government, the Supremes enacted a law of the land in 1963 called Brady v Maryland Law. In that ruling, which has been violated so many times it might just as well have not be enacted in the first place, the Supremes ruled that all exculpatory evidence MUST be provided to the defense. There were no if's and's or butt's about it.

Just look at the cointel prosecutions of twenty five years ago and the military justice 'system'.

Why do attorney's have such bad reputations?

We only have to look at the number of FBI agents prosecuted for dealing and working with the mafia, in Boston, for instance. Now that joker, Connely, is facing murder charges as well. And on it goes....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gitmo:now we are as Ugly as Israel
Posted by: weathered on Oct 1, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if that were even possible?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prosecutors
Posted by: Archie1954 on Oct 1, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In English Law countries the Crown prosecutors neither win nor lose a case they just present the facts. That is the only way I can see for a truly fair trial to proceed. It's too bad Americans haven't learned that. I really can't imagine why any other country would extradite accused persons to the US as they can't assure a fair trial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Change in APA policy
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 1, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's been a change at the American Psychological Association. Constant pressure from the rank-and-file members have forced the leadership to take a much stronger stance against psychologist participation in "interrogation" at Guantanamo and other places.

ARTICLE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

article long ,detailed and somewhat confusing
Posted by: whealeydj on Oct 1, 2008 10:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The important stuff is what has happened in the last month when everyone's attention has been focussed on Palin and DC elites bailing out NY elites with public money. also it feels like an add on article-- what happened to Davis on Oct 4-- the year should be given since it isnt Oct 4 yet I was confused whether it was a typ for sept 4 2008 or Oct 4 2007.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did Vandeveld Resign...
Posted by: bobtr900 on Oct 9, 2008 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...because he had an attack of conscience. OR, did he resign because he was afraid of being part of the Bush military conspiracy and he was afraid of being caught, someday.

In other words could this be the beginning of some fallout from the, hopefully, upcoming Obama win in the election. Is Vandeveld afraid of getting caught and wants to get while the getting is good. And might we see more of this, hopefully.

Mayhap, I have become cynical. But I do not trust anything our government does anymore. Especially when done by the pusillanimous Bushie Rethugs. Their fear is crippling and warping them, as well as destroying our democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]