[...Please Accept This Trading Links Invite...]…

Werneke, a federal public defender, is one of four from the Cleveland office representing men held at the U.S. military’s detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The office was recently assigned to represent the four men after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have a right to seek their freedom in federal court.
SOURCE: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/09/federal_public_defender_from_c.html
____________________________________

Anonymous2 – you misread my remarks, or I was less than clear. I’m well aware of the Bin Al-Shibh, 706 issues, and the problems associated with that litigation. I have been actively involved in GTMO issues since November of 2001, when the original Military Order creating the MC’s was issued. I helped coordinate the John Adams Project and have advised on a number of cases, e.g., Hicks, Hamdan, Khadr, Rasul [habeas], as well as all of the U.S. “enemy combatant” cases.

I certainly did not mean to convey the impression that as constituted [even after the MCA's amendments] that the actual “process” is working, clearly it’s not as the Bin Al-Shibh and Khadr cases graphically show.

Sir, I was aware that MAJ Fleener was activated prior to the passage of the MCA of 2006, however, I was referring only to capital cases referred post-MCA (I don’t believe al Bahlul was a capital case in 2005 but am certain it was not referred capital post-MCA — I invite correction on the case status in 2005). There is at least one current FPD in the OMC-Defense office who was mobilized by the Navy Reserve, however, he has not been detailed to a capital case.

Reference your post at 1:10 pm on 9 November:

“In response to Dew_Process:

Your assertion is incorrect that a FPD was activated for the Military Commission (MC) cases — they were not.”

Perhaps there is some confusion between yourself and Dew_Process concerning the various stages of the Military Commissions. On 3 November 2005, COL Sullivan, Chief Defense Counsel, detailed MAJ Tom Fleener as defense counsel for Al Bahlul. MAJ Fleener served as Al Bahlul’s defense counsel from that point on, thru several commission sessions in 2006, until the proceedings were stayed following the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan in June 2006.

MAJ Fleener was a USAR JA who was activated for the Military Commissions. Prior to his activation, he was a Federal Public Defender in Wyoming.

Peter E. Brownback III

Your assertion is incorrect that a FPD was activated for the Military Commission (MC) cases — they were not. There have been six cases referred capital in the MCs: the 9/11 five and US v al Nashiri (USS COLE case). Two military defense counsel were detailed to each case. The John Adams Project (a joint effort by the ACLU and NACDL) provided experienced trial defense lawyers (though some had zero capital experience) to assist with each trial team. Some of the JAP lawyers entered appearances and have been active in the litigation, however, other trial teams did not have much, if any, assistance or participation by civilian counsel. Regardless, the issue is that the assistance by “learned” counsel in some MC cases was gratuitously provided by the donors to the JAP — not by the Government (which, of course, has the constitutional requirement to ensure the accuseds have adequate representation/resources to mount a defense).

Also, the “sense of the Congress” in the MCA of 2009 was added after an exhaustive lobbying effort by the OMC, Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, and various NGOs to highlight this issue to the congressional staffs. The most important evidence was as follows:

Of the 12 requests for experts in the capital cases, the CA DENIED ALL OF THEM. This included, every mitigation specialists, investigators, and a mental health expert to the defense team after the MJ ordered a competency hearing to occur b/c the Govt acknowledged the accused had repeatedly been diagnosed by Govt physicians as suffering from a psychotic disorder.

More information about this topic can be found here:http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_090730.html
(click on the link to Colonel Masciola’s testimony).

I’m not, nor given the stats listed elsewhere about percentage of cases overturned in whole or part for IAC are apparently CAAF/Service Courts.

Not that we don’t have high quality folks who are smart and hard-working. We do. But capital defense is something you need experience doing. Just being really smart and going to a course or two isn’t enough.

In 2008, $100.00 from 1849 is worth:

$2,905.57 using the Consumer Price Index
$2,145.96 using the GDP deflator
$20,968.14 using the unskilled wage
$44,472.51 using the nominal GDP per capita
$602,883.04 using the relative share of GDP

While CA’s routinely deny experts simply on funding grounds for the defense, it never ceases to amaze me as to some of the “experts” that the government actually pays. But, again Military Judge’s also have a role to play here when CA’s deny funding or restrict funding.

The worst case scenario is going to be if a civilian counsel with zero military justice experience, gets retained….