CHIEF PROSECUTOR MARK MARTINS
REMARKS AT GUANTANAMO BAY
14 NOVEMBER 2016
Good evening. Last week we observed Veterans Day, a day to remember, honor, and
thank all military Veterans for their defense of our Nation. We also recognized the spouses and
families of our Veterans; although often unnoticed, their sacrifices, too, are enormous—and we
appreciate them beyond what any holiday of remembrance can alone convey.
Tomorrow the Military Commission convened to try the charges against Abd al Hadi alIraqi will begin its ninth pre-trial session without panel members present. Abd al Hadi is charged
with committing serious violations of the law of war by conspiring with and leading others, as a
senior member of al Qaeda, in a series of unlawful attacks and other offenses in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and elsewhere from 2001 to 2006. These attacks and other offenses allegedly caused
death and injury to U.S. and coalition service members and civilians.
The charges against Abd al Hadi mentioned in these remarks are only allegations. The
Accused is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Matters under consideration by a military commission in this or any other particular case are
authoritatively dealt with by the presiding Judge. Any comments addressing systemic issues that
are the subject of frequent questions by interested observers should always be understood to
defer to specific judicial rulings, if applicable. Although I will not comment on the specifics of
any motions pending before a military commission, I will provide background for this week’s pretrial sessions.
Since the last sessions on the record in this case, the Chief Judge of the Military
Commissions Trial Judiciary detailed a new military trial judge. On October 27th, Chief Judge
Pohl detailed Colonel Peter S. Rubin, United States Marine Corps, to replace Captain J. K. Waits,
United States Navy, effective on November 1, 2016. See AE 1A. Judge Rubin’s military
biography can be found in Appellate Exhibit 10A. Under Rule for Military Commissions 902,
each party is permitted to question the military judge before the judge formally determines
whether any ground for his disqualification exists. Judges may preside over military courtsmartial and military commissions only if their impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned.
Thus, no military judge may have personal knowledge of any disputed evidentiary facts. Nor may
a judge preside over a case in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, or in which he has
previously acted in any capacity, such as accusing officer, counsel, legal officer, staff judge
advocate, or convening authority.
This round of pre-trial sessions is scheduled to occur over the next two days. The
Docketing Order is Appellate Exhibit 63. The Commission has indicated its intent to hear
argument from the parties on two motions. See AE 63. The parties have fully briefed these
motions. The first motion scheduled for argument is a defense motion requesting the military
1

 judge issue an order requiring recording and verbatim transcription of every conference held
pursuant to Rule for Military Commissions 802. See AE 59. Rule for Military Commissions 802
permits “[c]onferences between the military judge and counsel [to] be held when necessary before
or during trial. See R.M.C. 802(a) discussion. “The purpose of such conference is to inform the
military judge of anticipated issues and to expeditiously resolve matters on which the parties can
agree, not to litigate or decide contested issues.” Id. Just this past Thursday, the defense
submitted a motion to withdraw AE59 without prejudice, meaning the defense would be free to
raise this issue again at a future point. The government opposes withdrawal without prejudice.
The second motion scheduled for argument is a defense motion requesting the military judge issue
an order to compel the government to allow Abd al Hadi’s defense counsel to provide him with a
laptop with word processing, video editing, and other software for his use during trial. See AE 62.
To date, the parties have briefed in writing 46 substantive motions and have orally argued
14 motions. Of the 46 motions briefed, 15 have been mooted, dismissed, or withdrawn; 24 have
been ruled on by the judge; and an additional 16 have been submitted and are pending a decision.
The parties have filed four declarations. The government has provided 46,830 pages of discovery
to the defense. Again, this information is not meant to convey that justice can be distilled into
numbers, but it is helpful in demonstrating the diligence and effort going into bringing this case to
trial.
*

*

*

*

We thank the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and government
civilians of Joint Base Andrews, Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and Naval Station Guantanamo
Bay for their continuing support to these proceedings in the coming week.

2