Interviewer: Good Afternoon. - Good afternoon. Interviewer: We are very grateful to you for participating in the Witness to Guantanamo project. I invite you to speak of your experiences and involvement with former detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are hoping to provide you with an opportunity to tell your story in your own words. We are creating an archive of stories so that people in America and around the world will have a better understanding of what Guantanamo Bay was about. If you want to take a break, let us know. And if there's something you say that you realize you shouldn't have said, we can remove it if you let us know. - Okay, fine. Interviewer: Okay, we'd like to begin by asking you your name, and a little bit about your background. The date of birth and where you went to school and the kind of work you did. Just as for history, 50 years from now, people- - Okay, so I'm William Bourdon, date of birth, 14 August, 1956. I have three kids, triplets, 22 years old. I studied in Paris. I start by being graduate of Political Sciences Institute. My parents dreamed that I could become a high civil servant. But they wish it so much that I refuse. And then I continue study law, and I became a lawyer 37 years ago. Quite quickly I set my own independent law firm after practicing in a very prominent and well-known criminal law firm and then corporate business law firm, because I wanted to see how lawyers have to deal with money issues. And of course, part of my job has been dedicated to international criminal law, international criminal justice, human rights. Until 2000, I multiplied monitoring missions in various parts of the world as general secretary of the International Federation of Human Rights. I launch here in Paris the first proceeding based on universal jurisdiction, tried to catch the arbitrators from Serbia, from Nigeria, from Rwanda, and I set a new NGO named SHERPA dedicated to the victims of economical crime. Oh, I wrote a couple of books. Interviewer: And how did you get involved in Guantanamo? How did that happen? - It's my friends Jacque Dupree who very tragically died recently after a very cruel lung disease. Got in touch with me and say, "Look, I've been in touch with the families and we don't know each other but you could bring your legal expertise in international public and criminal law, to help me extradite guys from Guantanamo and contemplate various legal initiatives So we did the job. Interviewer: When is that? - In 2001, beginning of 2002 Interviewer: Did you know anything about Guantanamo? - Of course, as citizen, as human rights lawyers. Of course, at that time everybody participate with various meetings, legal studies and the way in which Bush Administration intended to pass by all the international treaty, blah, blah, blah. So I was familiar with the situation. So I got in touch with a family. We used French government to help us. We provoke various meetings with civil servant was supposed to have visited a client in Guantanamo bay. And in 2002 had the idea to lodge a criminal complaint for illegal confinement. It was a very, very long battle. Prosecutors at time did not conceive the idea that French judge could ask to US agent to be accountable for what they did in Guantanamo. But at the end, despite this very shy and archaic conception of a old obligation our Supreme court called a session for January, 2005, rule a decision principle issue, which it was said there are a French victims, international public law make accountable old foreign publications. Visa is a French judge. So this route to opening of investigation which has been followed by many judge because it was the duration of the proceedings. There were of course, substitution of (indistinct). For the moment. We are not exactly in a situation of blockage. But the blockage essentially come from the obstinate refusal of US administration. Bush, Obama Administration, to execute the letter of rogatory issued by the French judge. I think most of the country accept to cooperate but US do not cooperate when there is a risk if the corporation could increase the risk of accountability of one of their public agent. So this is a philosophy of US administration since many many years, and not only is it to not cooperate, but do not could be a minimum of courtesy answer to French authorities. So no possibility for the judge to question witnesses or suspect in US. So we asked to the judge two years ago to send a subpoena to General Miller. And we foster our request by providing our very clear and convincing legal opinion coming from prominent US law teachers, juries, et cetera. So it was extremely convincing. Nobody could doubt of the crucial essential role of General Miller. And he was so efficient that he was promoted to Abu Ghraib. So it's shows it did the job very well. And, but the judge, was it a guy judge? How could I say? She has not modern conception of what are now the obligation and the duty of a judge. The duty of a judge is of your international crime is obviously to consider as it was considered basically by Supreme Court, 2005 that there are no more legal obstacles to prosecute foreign civil or military agent. That's all, full stop, but she told me "Mr Bourdon, it's not my conception. I know that I'm in minority, but it's not my conception." And I say to her, "You're not on the minority but you're absolutely marginal." So we win before the court two years ago order to the judge to send the supreme to Miller, which of course did not come. So the next battle will be to take from the court to issue an order to the judge, to proceed to the interview of prominent witnesses. These witnesses attended a press conference here in Paris a couple of months ago supported by various European human rights organization. You know, I think was there, but the judge refused to interview this prominent witnesses. Some of them are eye witnesses. We want to participate to disclose of the truth. Second goal could be to convince a court to order to the judge to issue an international warrant against Miller. This would be difficult, not impossible but difficult because some of the judges say, "I cannot do anything as long as the US administration did not cooperate". And of course, if you say, if it's your stand it means that you accept to be the stage of the cynicism of a certain parts, which is of course not admissible. And of course we would. So in turn with the help of our friends in Berlin Issah Shar, a friend. Andrez Schuller from Caltech our very good friend. We seem to ask to the, to the judge and then to the court to set a Supreme not only to be liable to other more graduate, more prominent individually, in channel of common responsibility Of course. Why not? One day try to obtain from the court to send a subpoena to Bush. He has no more immunity. So this is (indistinct) jurisprudence. So why not? We think about it. Interviewer: Are you surprised that the US was so resistant? - No, I can not be surprised because the endurance in this attitude in all criminal cases, which could involve one of their agent that's a dogma, that's all. Interviewer: Could you go back a little bit and how you got to represent the man you help get them out of Guantanamo when you took over, who did you represent? - Mourad Benchellali. Nizar Sassi Interviewer: (indistinct) - No. Interviewer: Brahim - No, we represent a guy, I don't remember his name. He was a poor little (indistinct) seller. We receive him when he was extradited from Guantanamo bay and he was not prosecuted by the auditorium judge here the French Secret Services release him. So the very moving dinner with him just arrived from us. And then he disappear. I think he flew back in Great Britain knowing Pakistan don't have any use for him. But I want to insist, I want to come back on the proceeding pending still pending presenting his base and the crime of illegal confinement and torture, and bad treatments because we provide to the judge with a lot of translation documents, many legal expertise, medical expertise not medical expertise of our client, but which are in the center of a new, this new idea of blanc, white tortures. I used to say, you can be tortured without any visible damages and it was accepted by the prosecutor. So, so this year, next year will be years of new frontier that is to send to try to get indictment of one of these guys. Yeah. Interviewer: You talked about psychological torture. - Yeah, there was some expertise, medical expertise which were provoked by the anti-terrorist judge. So judge indicted Nizar, Mourad for conspiracy with the goal of capital terrorist act which was absolutely foul. And the conclusion of this, these two medical expertise are very clear, they endure endless psychological damages. Oh, you can imagine another conclusion, It's impossible. Interviewer: When Obama became president you think he was going to close Guantanamo? - I was interviewed with that exact time and I said various French radio and to (indistinct) learning that he was awarded a Peace Nobel Prize, but perhaps it was a little premature, he wasn't able to close down. Guantanamo Bay but it was his willingness. I like very much Obama. I think he's a great, great man with ambiguities with contradiction, but he's a great great man. Republican plays so nasty cynical demagogic roles. I think it was a main obstacle. Interviewer: Would you like to bring him in as a witness, Obama in your lawsuit? - No, I don't. There were no reasons to envisage that my philosophy my professional philosophy is not to be cool is to be efficient. Interviewer: And when you took those cases, did you think that you'd have a chance to get them out? - I'm not the liberator of the guy. It's not me does a release but I do think that in huge French Administration to your US Administration to put an end to the detention, of course we participate to a power relation which facilitates the decision finally taken to to put them in the plane. Cause that was a deal between both countries. I'm not aware of the, of all the background of the deal. Interviewer: Were you surprised they were put in prison when they came back to France? - I was surprised that not, I was surprised because I do think there's a disparity in obstinately repeated every bit since many years it's a fight was empty and it was not factually empty, but it was empty as far as there were absolutely no elements which could demonstrates that either Nizar or Mourad are there any intention to endorse any kind of terrorist project. Okay. It was immaturate, it was childish. It was a naive attitude. They were young. They never took plane. They were manipulated. I demonstrated by Mourad brother. They live in different, quite boring and not really political life. And they've been seduced by this, you know tropical fancy mysterious, travel. And when they arrive when Mourad was in one of the cabin, when Bernadete arrive he said to the judge, I thought it was Johnny Ali Deli. So it was Johnny of course it was a stupid idea. Of course it was critical idea. And they admitted that they made the wrong choice but when they understood what's going on they immediately wanted to go back. They tried to call their mother, but in France there is a very large conception of preparatory acts in order to commit a terrorist act. And many young Muslim have been in my view unfairly criminalized, unfairly convicted because they were at the right, not at the right moment not at the right place with the right guy. It doesn't mean that you are the trapeze for terrorism, that's out conception. You will observe that all the other European detainees when they flew back to Brittany, to Sweden, to Denmark not one of them has been detained. So it is a French exception. Interviewer: And how do you think France is doing today? What do you think about France today in terms of dealing with the US in terrorism? Are you still taking cases on terrorism today? - Yeah my old firm involved in various terrorist cases we wrote collectively here a book published three months ago dedicated to all the toxic consequences of state of urgency. This afternoon at six o'clock. I would be with other representative of (indistinct) as a lawyers in the office of Emmanuel Macron, our new president, to try to urge him to renounce to incorporate, you know, the common law, not in common law, you know, in our law, main provision extracted from state of urgency. So I think that we are in a crucial moment in France. It's very dangerous for democracy to substitute to the judicial control the administrative control, it's against all our tradition. I do not underestimate the difficulty and the complexity of the task of other states targeted by this new form of terrorists. But from 2015, after the awful attack in Paris it has been a very brutal excessively brutal shift and obviously new government has difficulty to not to continue to endorse this shift. And of course it's difficult when when you are lied to public opinion. When we've said that state of urgency was a better shield against terrorist threat, which is not, obviously everyone has seen this last two years, it did not prevent awful attack in France. So it start and all the of Parliamentary reports from prominent, policeman from secret services discretely said, "It's not useful. It's not efficient, it's up." And there are some toxic effects I have no time to detail them. So yes, we are involved. It's a very complex battle because to a certain extent French public opinion is traumatized as was legitimately of course, US public opinion after World Trade Center attack traumatized, and then WIC not to be taken in a stage by demagogical attitude of a politician Interviewer: In the 15 years since 9/11 or the 17 years, 16 years from 9/11, did you see your life change dramatically? Have you in your work in your life do you see things very differently than you did before 9/11? - In my professional life, no, I'm not exposed. I've been the witness yes, of a deterioration in the way, our respect to the rule, main principle I mean principle of fair trial or of rule of law, and especially the presumption of innocence. State of urgency institutionalize the logic of some sort of suspicious attitude. And so, especially with attitude, replace all the duty of the judge to bring proof, to bring pieces of evidence. So it's really a new trapeze is to catch people to put them in jail, to control where they live many kind of mechanisms of control supported only by (indistinct). We do that because it could be possible in case of there is a possibility is that this is a new preventive philosophy attitude. I do not deny that it can be necessary sometimes but if first, if you can justify a for minimum of clear in this of proximities which could be considered as dangerous. And second, if all of this is discussed by a judicial, before judicial judge contradictory with an access to the lawyer, but not in the secret of Cabinet of the Domestic Affairs Minister or one of the agents in province. Okay fine. Interviewer: Is there something you wanted to ask us? - No. Interviewer: And I have one more question then we can end. And that is, did you ever talk to American politicians or officials when you were representing people? - Yes, we made a travel with Jacque Dupree I think it was in 2003,4, in Washington we participate with a strange war demonstration in Washington with Vanessa Lacrave, very extraordinary lady. And we met some senators. Yes, if I remember. I think it was McCain or one of his assistant. Interviewer: So what progress in trying to represent- - Try to arrest them, stabilize them, and the way in which us administration, we refuse to hear the request from a French government to release a guy. Interviewer: And what was the reception, you got? - Very nice as usual in us. You're always nicely welcome. Even if it it's to receive a door on the face the more the door is on your face, and more you're rec ivied nicely. Interviewer: And nothing came from- - Nothing. Interviewer: Were you surprised that- - No. Interviewer: Okay, we, need a few, just a few seconds to shut down and thank you very much. - Good. When do you fly back? Interviewer: Tomorrow. Sound Guy: So we just all have to hold very quiet for about ten seconds.