CHIEF PROSECUTOR MARK MARTINS
REMARKS AT GUANTANAMO BAY
19 AUGUST 2017
Good evening. We were honored to be joined this past week by family members of a
U.S. service member and U.S. civilian who were killed in Afghanistan in 2003. Jane Nelson,
and Jordan and Jillian Dennis are the mother and siblings of Private Jerod Dennis, who died of
wounds sustained in battle near Shkin. Cheri Carlson is the widow of William “Chief” Carlson.
Chief Carlson also died in battle near Shkin later in 2003. This past Wednesday, the Military
Commission convened to try the charges against Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi completed its thirteenth
pre-trial session to resolve legal and evidentiary issues. Abd al Hadi is charged with committing
serious violations of the law of war 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 killed or injured U.S. and coalition service members and
civilians, while also destroying property.
The charges against Abd al Hadi 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.
The Commission met for one day on the record, on Monday, 14 August. During that
session, the Commission heard arguments in several motions that had been on the docket. At the
end of Monday’s open session, the Commission held a Rule for Military Commission (R.M.C.)
806 closed session to hear arguments on motions for which both sides requested the Commission
hold a closed session.
Also this week, the Military Judge served in a different role as the Deposition Officer for
a R.M.C. 702 deposition of Ahmed al Darbi, a cooperating witness in the case who was
previously convicted at a military commission in 2013 for offenses under the Military
Commissions Act. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Prosecution conducted direct examination
of Mr. al Darbi to preserve his relevant testimony in the Hadi case. Cross-examination by Hadi’s
defense counsel is scheduled to occur in October. Mr. al Darbi’s sentencing proceeding is
scheduled for 7-9 September 2017.
As I noted earlier, the Commission addressed several motions, hearing a portion of oral
argument for all three motions in open session and a portion of oral argument for two of the three
same motions in closed session.
•

Appellate Exhibit 70CCC is a Defense Motion to Compel Discovery of Unredacted
Statements of Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al-Darbi. The Military Judge heard
oral arguments in open and closed session for this motion. The Military Judge took
the matters under advisement and subsequently issued an interim order on 17 August
2017.
1

 •

Appellate Exhibit 70FFF is a Defense Motion to Compel Discovery of Undisclosed
Statements of Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al-Darbi. The Military Judge heard
oral argument in open and closed session related to this motion. He then took the
matter under advisement.

•

Appellate Exhibit 91 is a Defense Motion to Compel a Personal Laptop Computer for
the Accused’s Use. The government opposed this motion. The Military Judge heard
oral argument and took the matter under advisement.

•

Although Appellate Exhibit 85, a Defense Motion to Dismiss the Charges Because
Congress Lacks the Constitutional Power to Limit the Jurisdiction of Law-of-War
Military Commissions to Non-Citizens, was originally on the docket, the Military
Judge deferred consideration of this motion at the defense’s request. The Military
Judge also informed the parties that he was removing the motion from the docket
until the defense affirmatively requested it be considered again.

In addition to matters taken up during the open and closed sessions and the deposition,
the Military Judge issued several orders this past week, all having to do with the Appellate
Exhibit 70 series, which relates to the deposition of Mr. al-Darbi.
The closed session held on 14 August 2017 lasted 21 minutes. Thus, of the approximately
2.3 hours of sessions over the past week, approximately 15 percent were closed. This percentage
will decrease when the Commission releases the transcript of the closed session, excising only
classified information. To date, the Hadi Commission has held two closed sessions totaling 39
minutes. Total closure comprising these two closed sessions amounts to about 1.64 percent of the
almost 40 hours of proceedings to date. This means that even for a pre-trial process involving
several challenges and other matters implicating classified information, approximately 98.36
percent of that process has been open to the public. Again, this percentage will increase when the
Commission releases transcripts from other closed sessions. Moreover, the government is
committed to ensuring that all of its evidence presented in the case- in-chief at trial will be in
open court.
Proceedings in the Coming Week in United States v Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al.
On Monday, 21 August 2017, the Commission convened to try Khalid Shaikh
Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul
Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi will hold another series of pre-trial
sessions without panel members present. These five Accused stand charged with plotting
the attacks of September 11th, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 persons. I
emphasize, as I did in the context of Hadi al Iraqi, that the charges against the Accused are
only allegations. The Accused are 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

2

 interested observers should always be understood to defer to specific judicial rulings, if
applicable.
We are honored to have family members of the 9/11 Fallen with us here this week to
observe the proceedings. Gil and Vera Aronow are siblings to Richard Aronow, who was an
attorney with the New York Port Authority and who died on the 66th floor of the North
Tower. Richard was admired for his intellect and exceptional willingness to share his
knowledge and insights. Richard is also survived by his wife Laura Weinberg and their son
William. Meena and Neel Jerath are the widow and son, respectively, of Prem Nath Jerath, a
civil and structural engineer who survived the 1993 World Trade Center bombing but died in
the 9/11 attacks. Prem was on the 82nd floor of Tower I. He worked for the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey as a Senior Project Manager. Professor Ellen Judd is
accompanied by her brother, Brian Judd, and they are here in honor of Ellen’s spouse,
Christine Egan, a nurse practitioner and medical anthropologist/health researcher working in
the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada. She was visiting her brother,
Michael Egan, an insurance executive with Aon, whom Ellen and Brian are also here to
honor, on the morning of September 11th. Christine and Michael both lost their lives in the
World Trade Center. Robert and Ellen Ryan are the parents of Jonathan (“JR”) Ryan, a
married 32-year-old bond broker who died in the World Trade Center attack. In addition to
his parents, JR was survived by his wife Maria, his then-3 year-old daughter Autumn, and his
son Colin, who was born just weeks after that attack in October 2001.
We are also privileged to be joined by a survivor of the events described in the
charges before this Commission. Charles Kaczorowski, a Navy Vietnam veteran whose
many brushes with death included the 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks, is also
with us. Charlie was a Site supervisor at Ground Zero for recovery cleanup operations and
spent 2,274 hours contributing to that effort. Charlie is currently suffering from pulmonary
and bladder cancer. These guests observe the Commission pursuant to modern laws that
protect the interests of victims and their families. Their presence reminds us of what is at stake
in these proceedings.
Since the last proceedings on the record in May 2017, there have been a number of
court filings pertaining to a variety of issues. The Military Judge’s Docket Order lists 20
separate matters. The Docket Order can be found on the Military Commissions website
(www.mc.mil) at Appellate Exhibit 519. The docket lists seven defense motions to compel
production of various matters or information (Appellate Exhibits 336, 350O, 399, 444, 445,
498, and 517); two defense motions for leave to use International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC) documents (Appellate Exhibits 108-11 and 108-13); two defense motions to
dismiss—one alleging government intrusion into the attorney-client relationship (Appellate
Exhibit 373), and one alleging lack of personal jurisdiction due to the absence of hostilities
(Appellate Exhibit 502); one defense motion to abate the proceedings pending compliance
with Protective Order #1 (Appellate Exhibit 118); one defense motion to show cause why the
government, Joint Task Force camp commander, and guard force members should not be
held in contempt (Appellate Exhibit 152LL); two defense motions to permanently and
verifiably disable audio monitoring equipment capability in attorney-client meeting rooms
(Appellate Exhibit 133RR) to gain authority to use transport van photos (Appellate Exhibit
279D); one defense motion for a deposition of an interpreter formerly assigned to Accused
3

 Ramzi Binalshibh’s team (Appellate Exhibit 350C); one defense motion to recuse the
Military Judge and current prosecution team (Appellate Exhibit 425); and one defense
motion to suppress D-101, a joint public statement made by the accuseds when they were
acting as their own attorneys (pro se) (Appellate Exhibit 511).
There are two government motions on the Docket: a government motion to extend the
deadline to obtain classification review of materials ordered in Appellate Exhibit 396G
(SUP), the Supplement to Trial Conduct Order (Appellate Exhibit 396-1); and the
government’s renewed motion for a trial scheduling order (Appellate Exhibit 478).
On 7 April 2017, the Military Judge dismissed Charges III (Attacking Civilian
Property) and V (Destruction of Property in Violation of the Law of War) on the ground that
the five-year statute of limitations in Article 43 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
applied to these proceedings, and that such limitations period had expired before the United
States brought these two non-capital charges against the Accused. The government appealed
this ruling, which was overturned by the United States Court of Military Commission Review
(U.S.C.M.C.R.) on 29 June. The Military Judge promptly issued an order reinstating Charges
III and V.
In the week before the U.S.C.M.C.R.’s decision, counsel for Khalid Shaikh
Mohammad had filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit a petition for a writ of mandamus to recuse Judge Silliman from the U.S.C.M.C.R.
and, later, also to vacate the U.S.C.M.C.R.’s 29 June decision. A three-judge panel of the
Court of Appeals heard oral argument and, on 9 August, granted the petition, ordering
recusal of Judge Silliman and vacating the U.S.C.M.C.R.’s 29 June decision. Filings
associated with this litigation are available on the Military Commissions website at the
Appellate Exhibit 251 series, at U.S.C.M.C.R. Case Number 17-002, and at the D.C. Circuit,
Case Number 17-1156. The United States is studying the ruling and considering its options.
*

*

*

*

*

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.

4