Cameraman: Okay, we're rolling. 

Interviewer: Okay, good afternoon. 

- Good afternoon. 

Interviewer: We are very grateful to you for participating in the Witness to Guantanamo Project. We'd like you to speak of your experiences and involvement with detainees who were held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We're 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 you and others have experienced and observed. Future generations must know what happened at Guantanamo and by telling your story, you're contributing to history. We appreciate your courage and willingness to speak with us. 

- Thank you. 

Interviewer: If any time during the interview you'd like to take a break, please let us know. 

- Okay. 

Interviewer: And if there's anything you say that you'd rather retract, just let us know and we can retract it. 

- That's fine. 

Interviewer: And I would like to begin with just some basic background information on who you are. 

- Sure. And before we even do that, I'd just like to let you know that the opinions I will express are my opinions, they do not represent the Department of Defense, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Air Force Reserves or any government agency. 

Interviewer: Wonderful, good, thank you. 

- You're welcome. 

Interviewer: And so, your name? 

- My name's Yvonne Bradley. 

Interviewer: And your marital status? 

- I'm single. 

Interviewer: And education? 

- Went to law school in Philadelphia, St. George University in Philadelphia and went to law school at Notre Dame Law School in South Bend, Indiana. 

Interviewer: And your current place of residence? 

- I'm stationed, right now, at McGuire Air Force Base, but I still live outside of Philadelphia. 

- Your current occupation then? 

- I'm an attorney. 

Interviewer: And what exactly do you do in the military? 

- I'm what you call JAG officer, I'm a lawyer. Just to answer, judge advocate general, just a fancy word for the way the military titles attorneys. 

Interviewer: Could you first describe how you entered the military and then how that led to you going to Guantanamo? 

- Well, I been in for nearly 20 years, so, but 20 years ago after I got out of law school, one of the things I wanted to do was to travel and practice law, didn't think I could do that with a regular law firm and knew that the military would offer me that opportunity, so I went into the military program, the JAG program, was first stationed at Travis Air Force Base in San Francisco and then had the opportunity to do some defense work when I was at Travis, I love doing defense work. From there, I was stationed at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii and after six years, I got out, came back home to Philadelphia, a practice in Philadelphia, worked for the Federal Defenders Office in their Capital Habeas Unit, representing individuals in Philadelphia and throughout the state of Pennsylvania, actually, who were on death row. And then, did that for six years. After six years of working with the Capital Defense Habeas Unit, I then went on my own, hung up my own shingles, did criminal defense, family law, a variety of different law cases that would come into the office and it was there, working on my own, that a notice went out asking for attorneys and even when I got out, back up a little, even when I got out of the military after six years, I did go into the reserves, I was what we call a weekend warrior, still a JAG weekend warrior, and there was a request for attorneys to volunteer, do some volunteer work to represent individuals at Guantanamo Bay. 

Interviewer: What year was this? 

- This was about 2005. I think the notice came in about spring 2005, it was a email notice saying they were just looking for attorneys or JAGS who may be interested in doing work in Guantanamo Bay. I knew about Guantanamo from the news, from what I read about Guantanamo. 

Interviewer: What did you know about Guantanamo? 

- Very little, as I've turned out to find out, truly what was happening in Guantanamo, unfortunately. Pretty much what I knew, I knew there was a prison there, at the time, I was being told it was the worst of the worst, individuals being held at Guantanamo Bay, that individuals who were involved in 9/11 or killing Americans or wanting to do really bad things to individuals were being held at Guantanamo and that we were gonna hold them and give them fair, full and fair trials and I've heard about the situation with James Yee, Captain Yee, at the time. So, I had heard things through the media, through newspapers, through those sources about Guantanamo. End up happening once I got to Guantanamo- 

Interviewer: Before you get there, so you volunteered when this came out? 

- Yes. 

Interviewer: And were you afraid at all before you went there? Were you in fear that, if you said these are the worst of the worst, that you'd think these are gonna be really awful people that you were gonna be defending? 

- Well, I thought, my background of representing people on death row, I was representing the worst of the worst, people had already been convicted of killing people, serial killers, I represented people who were, you know, probably really the worst of the worst. So in some sense, I did not fear in that way, but that were terrorists, I realized, you know, were terrorists, yes I did have some concern for my safety when, and representing a terrorist, what that would mean. I thought more of representing someone who was a terrorist that was subjecting myself and my family to possible repercussions from a terrorist more than anything else. 

Interviewer: Why did you volunteer if you were gonna represent people who could be a danger to you and your family. 

- It was a, just the challenge because I'm a defense attorney and it was a challenge of knowing something historical was happening at Guantanamo Bay, understanding at the same time that everyone needs full and proper representation, so I think it was that defense attorney part of me that wanted to step out and represent individuals at Guantanamo Bay. And I don't even think I thought about the terrorist part of it so much until the first time I had to go down and meet my client, I don't think it really clicked on that I was representing a terrorist, I thought I was representing, doing my duty to my country, helping my country, serving my country and being, using my defense skills in a positive way on the so-called war on terror. 

Interviewer: Did you know who you'd be representing before you flew down? 

- I did. In the spring of 2005 when the notice went out, I kind of, I did debate whether or not to volunteer to get involved and decided that I would. In November of 2005, I get a call from the Chief Defense Counsel stating that I had been selected. By that time, I had almost forgot I had even threw my name in the hat. This had been several months later when I was finally informed that I had been selected. And I remember the first conversation I had with the Chief Defense Counsel and he said, "I have the perfect case for you," he said, "I want you to represent a individual by the name of Binyam Mohamed." And one of the reasons why he thought Mr. Mohamed's case would be a perfect case for me to have was that Clive Stafford Smith, who was my co-counsel on Mr. Mohamed's case, had also done capital cases out of the South and probably other places in the U.S. So, with me having a background in representing individuals in death row and Clive having the same background, he thought the two of us would make a good team in representing Mr. Mohamed. 

- Was Mr. Mohamed a capital case that they put both of you on? 

- At one point, I think they were looking at some of those early individuals that they were going to try as capital cases and Mr. Mohamed's case was one of the first, there was 10 people they were gonna try as one of the first 10 cases and I think there was talk about, perhaps, those individuals in those first 10 cases of detainees they were gonna try, possibly, in a capital case. So I think that was played in the background of why I was selected as counsel for Mr. Mohamed and why the Chief Defense Counsel thought Clive and I would make a pretty good team in representing his best interest. 

Interviewer: So then, what happened next after they told you you were gonna be coming out to Guantanamo? 

- Well, that was very interesting because that was in November of 2005, by December 2005, I found myself flying down to Guantanamo. In fact, the day after Christmas. Because once Clive realized that military CASA had been appointed to the case, he thought it was extremely important that we go down and meet the client right away. Now I'm thinking, "Right away, it's the holiday season, we can wait until January," Clive was like, "We need to go and see him as soon as possible." So, the 26th of December, I'm flying down to Florida to meet Clive for the first time. I had heard of Clive, I had seen Clive at a conference, but I had never met him one on one and so, I remember, we met down in a hotel in Florida, at a Ramada Inn, I think it was, I'm not quite sure, and I remember meeting him and for the first time, trying to discuss Binyam's case. Even prior to that, he had sent me a list of the other charges and the evidence that he had because he had met Binyam in the spring, early on, and so, he knew a lot more about the case than I did at the time. But I still recall when Clive had originally faxed me over and/or emailed me over the charge sheet and the evidence he had. I remember reading through the charge sheet and just laughing because I thought this was a joke. I'm reading through these charges, I am waiting for, you know, who did he murder? What mass destruction did he cause? I'm waiting for a war crime and all I see is this one long conspiracy and everyone's name that you could connect at that time to allege Al-Qaeda organization was on the charge sheet, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Bin Laden, Richard Reid, I'm like, "This is like a fraternity," it just, it made no sense to me. And I read, and then at the very end, the thing that got me in reading the charge sheet, at the very end it said, "And he was apprehended at Karachi Airport going back to London." And after reading this complex conspiracy and not seeing a real crime and seeing that he was picked up at the airport, I'm going... I remember either emailing Clive or calling Clive and saying, "Clive, I don't think you sent me everything because this doesn't make sense." "Where is the crime and what do you mean he was at the airport going back to London?" "Because right now, what you've given me doesn't state a criminal activity that's a war crime." And Clive's like, "That's it, that's the evidence against the government." And I was like, "Okay, this is gonna be a very interesting case." So, to go back to when I first met Clive in Florida at the hotel, the first time that we met, we talked a little bit about the case and that whole approach of how we're gonna go and see Mr. Mohamed. And I guess it was really at that point when I start thinking, "I'm gonna go really see a real terrorist." And, I mean, that's what I'm thinking in the back of my mind, I'm thinking, "Wow, you know, from what you read in the newspaper how these people put planes into buildings, how these people just want to kill Americans, how they just, you know," you just get this vision of vicious individuals. And this is from someone who had represented people who were really convicted of crimes. And I remember the first time going to see Mr. Mohamed, I, at that particular time, I'm kind of embarrassed to say this now, I was really scared to go in to meet him. And I had no reason to be scared and given my background, given my criminal background, given that I've sat face to face with people who were convicted of crimes, but I remember walking in there and thinking, "Wow, I'm scared to what you can even say to this individual." And I think it was at that point when I start putting together, after meeting Mr. Mohamed and seeing him, seeing his demeanor and looking into his eyes and seeing his body language, that he was probably more scared of me than I was of him and- 

Interviewer: What demeanor did you see? 

- I mean, you could look at him and he was just looking at me as like, "What is this all about?" "Who are you?" Because he had no idea who I was. And I'm coming in telling him, and he had no choice, I'm coming in telling him, "I'm your attorney," and he's trying to figure out, "Are you really my attorney?" "Is this a," because one of the things I heard that they were doing at Guantanamo was after attorneys would meet with certain clients or that individuals would go in, I don't know who they were, saying they were attorneys, trying to get detainees to confess or open up or make admissions, so part of, I think, probably that was going through his process is, "What kind of trick is this?" "Is this real?" Because in Guantanamo, it's Alice in Wonderland, you don't know what's real, you don't know what's, it's absolutely madness. But, I mean, I didn't understand that at the time, so I could see in his eyes, just, like, bewilderment of "Who are you?" He knew who Clive was and I think one of the things that happened in that meeting with Clive introducing him to me, in fact, before I even went in, Clive went in before me because we were scared for me to walk in there and him trying to figure out, "Who is this individual?" So, Clive did go in and meet with him in the afternoon, in the morning and try to tell him, "There's an attorney who's been appointed to your case, I've talked with her," how it would help him to try to put him at ease. But even with Clive going in there, and I came in there, I made sure I didn't dress in my military uniform the first time 'cause I thought that that would be important because all of the people who he stated abused him was somehow a part of either wearing uniforms, saying they're a part of the military of some nature, on a daily basis, the way they were getting treated, they were all a part of the military, so I thought, psychologically, I don't want to walk in there in a uniform. So, when I walked in with, in my civilian clothes, I could still see in Binyam that, really, even though Clive had already explained to him, "Is this a game?" And one of the things that happened, I think it started making distrust Clive 'cause now he has to think, "Is this part of some kind of trick?" "Is this part of some kind of deceit?" So, I think instead of accepting me right away, it started to make him start wondering, "What is this all about?" But his whole body language, and as I said, given my experience, I have represented people before, so you learn to read tone, body language, demeanor, everything that Binyam was giving me during that three or four hours I met with him the first time, Clive was asking most of the questions, I was just really looking and listening to Binyam, watching him, everything struck me as, "This is nonsense." So I walk into the cell thinking, "Oh my God, this guy's a terrorist, I'm not gonna give him any information, he's probably gonna get something out to do something against me or my family," I walk in there with that type of attitude, I walked out saying, "This is total nonsense." Almost angry because I realized for the first time that whatever I knew about Guantanamo, whatever I read about Guantanamo, whatever information they had about Binyam was likely not true. And that was the first time when it just hit me, like, wow, how fear and propaganda can make such a difference on how people understand things. And I was probably more mad coming out of that cell with Binyam than I was scared when I first went in to meet the client. 

Interviewer: So, I'm hearing you, it sounds like your instincts made the entire change in you, you just, from just by meeting this man, you decided everything is a fraud. 

- Yes and that was based just, I mean, at that point, I had been practicing law for at least 15-16 years, and I had been in many prison, federal prisons and you learn to survive, I think, to be a good defense attorney of representing people on that level of reading people. Because, and I'm not naive, I walked into many prisons of people sitting on death row and the first thing they tell you, "I didn't do it," and you've already read the case file, you already seen the evidence, you read through the transcript, you're going, "Yes, I know, I know the story already, you didn't do it," so I wasn't, I didn't go in there naive, like, "I'm getting tricked by some so-called terrorist," I went in there as a person, very seasoned attorney who has represented individuals from all, from anywhere from marijuana possession to serial killers and I was able to sit there right then going, "This isn't, this is not clicking, this goes through every experience I have," and even if he was, his, there wasn't even enough on the charge sheet when I first read it to make me think this is a war crime, let alone after meeting the client and listening to him and what was happened to realize what we're being told wasn't the full truth, it was what, I think, people wanted us to hear to justify the current political situation. 

Interviewer: So when you left there, what happened next? 

- When I left that day, when I left Binyam's cell, I had to go do some soul searching myself. I mean, to some extent, it rocked my faith in my government, it rocked my faith in what I was sent down there to do. But it also gave me the determination that I was gonna represent this individual fully, zealously because I thought what was about to take place down in Guantanamo was a travesty of justice. And I figured if this happened to my client, those other 10 individuals were probably pretty much in the same situation. So, it was really part of my charge, both as a defense attorney, but on a personal level, as well, of what I was gonna do representing my government, I knew our government and the JAG Corps was more, was above this, that we wouldn't stoop to this level. So, I mean, it really rocked the foundation of many things that I believed in and thought that we represented in that short period of a time. But then there was also that confusion, too, it's like, "Am I over-reading this?" "Maybe he's that good and I'm just being fooled." Really, you get torn back and forth between "Do I believe what my, I'm believing deep inside or am I just reading this wrong?" Yeah, I had to do a lot of soul searching 'cause there was confusion with me because you do go back and forth. You go in fearful, you come out mad, you come out thinking, "Am I the crazy one where maybe I'm reading this wrong?" It really does make you think about what this was all about. 

Interviewer: Did you have anyone to talk to? 

- Clive was like, the thing is, Clive was the only one I really could talk to 'cause now you have attorney-client privileges that you have to protect. I wasn't even telling my friends, my friends thought I was being really mysterious because I wasn't telling them I was involved in Guantanamo. I feel like Guantanamo was almost the same, even worse than when I was in capital cases. When I used to do capital cases, I didn't tell a lot of people what I would do because death penalty and the death sentence capital cases, people have very strong opinions whether or not, you know, you should execute someone or not. So I learned not to really tell people what to do because I didn't want to get into this debate about whether it was right for capital punishment, I had better things to do with my life than have these debates. And Guantanamo became that ten times more that I didn't tell anyone what I was doing, just because I didn't want to get into that conflict, particularly when I was having conflict in myself about Guantanamo. So, I really didn't have too many people to talk to, so a lot of the conversation, you know, Clive and I, from the legal scale, but from talking to someone about my concerns about it, it was a very limited circle, pretty much in the defense community. And that was even hard, too, because it was only a small number of us and the charge sheet, many of the first 10 individuals who were tried, they were, been named in each others' charge sheets, so now you have these co-conspirators and co-defendants, so you really can't talk to other people's attorneys, so you don violate any ethical violations and that became another entire issue later on at a hearing that I almost got locked up when we had some ethical disputes about the organization, how the Office of Military Commission Defense was even set up, but that's a different story. 

Interviewer: We'll get to that, yeah. So, could you then take us to after you left that day and did you go back the next day or? 

- I think we met with Binyam two or three times, I don't remember. That first meeting just stands out so much in my mind, just because of the emotional back and forth I went on the case. I think we might've met with him probably the next day or two and I think Clive had other clients there that he also met, but during that first time period when I met Mr. Mohamed, I allowed Clive to do most of the speaking and I just was pretty much trying to take notes, also trying to put Binyam at ease. I must've met with him the second day because I think the next time I went back, I had to be in uniform and this was the other, Guantanamo was full with silly absolute rules that, I couldn't even write the nonsense in there on a bad, not that I do drugs at all, but even if I did drugs and had a bad trip, I couldn't write half the rules that they came up with at Guantanamo. And one of the rules was that as new defense counsel, military defense counsel, you had, you were allowed one time to go in to meet your client without your uniform on to try to set up the rapport, as if, you know, one time without your uniform is gonna set up any rapport. I saw Binyam's reaction the first time I went in there without a uniform and just say, "I'm your defense counsel" and, but the rule was you could go, the military defense counsel can go in one meeting, one time without uniform, after that, you had to wear your uniform. So, the next time, 'cause I would've liked to ease it in because I think, psychologically, here again, for the detainee, the people who are holding him, the people who are either mistreating him or treating him kindly, his whole situation is with the military, people wearing uniform. So I thought it was very important for counsel, as long as counsel felt it was comfortable to be in uniform, to try to make that separation because you are representing these individuals, not to be in uniform. But, no, we don't make those type of rules, you had to go with the uniform. So, I think I even told Binyam after our first meeting, "Next time you see me, I will be in uniform," just to help him to understand that. So, I do believe now, looking back on it, I must've met with him the next day and I walked in there in the uniform, which I'm quite sure he then is thinking, "What nonsense are you guys playing with me now?" "Are you really a attorney?" "Is this part of some kind of, are you, just want me, get me to make admissions?" You could just read it on his body language, he had no idea what was going on. 

Interviewer: When you came to Guantanamo, did you get a chance to observe the prison system at all or anything beside just going to the unit where you met Binyam? 

- Well, I remember the very first time, and I had been to many prisons before and I know how prisons work, I think one of the things that struck me on the prison system was just the way that counsel was treated. No man used to, as an attorney, would go into a prison, federal prison, state prison, that attorneys are treated as attorneys. There's a sense of trust that you will follow the rules of the facility, your items aren't looking, are not looked through, 

- Inspected. 

- inspected, as they were at Guantanamo and I just felt, this was my personal opinion, that we were treated as if we were part of the, as if I was an enemy. I had to say, at times, "I'm in uniform, I'm one of you," I just didn't like the tone and the feel, you could feel the distrust and I wasn't used to, when I went into a prison, having my papers searched through, so the first time that happened, I'm going, "You can't do that," I'm thinking that, I don't know if I said that out loud, and I think Clive was really good because he kind of prepared me for a couple of things, which I'd have been shocked, both as an officer in the military, to be treated as if you have to go through my inspection, as if I'm gonna sneak in a file to this individual, I carry the same type of security clearance as you, I had to go to top security clearance, I've been in the military for a number of years, I'm an officer, so I felt a level of betrayal, of distrust that you would think I would do anything that would jeopardize, even national security, of representing my client. So, the whole system down there, I thought was askewed to establish distrust in defense attorneys, establishing trust between defense attorneys and detainees. When your client ask you for certain things, you could say, "Hey, I can't bring a, we gotta wait for a spork to be brought in because they think, if I bring you a stirrer from McDonald's, you're gonna form some kind of weapon and," I mean, it just became madness when looking at the system. 

Interviewer: Did you say the papers you brought in had to be inspected before you could bring them into your meeting? Is that what you're saying? 

- Yes, they had to be inspected before, they had to be inspected after. And when I say inspected, normally, I've been to prisons where you might have to go through a metal detector or they might just open up the case, courtesy type of thing, but at Guantanamo, I mean, they would go page by page and they would do this. I'm saying, "You can't read my documents," "We're not reading, we're scanning them." I'm like, and, but they would take pages out and they would put it aside, I'm like, "Why are you taking that page aside?" "Uh, there's um," I don't, I can't remember what the word that they would use, but it was something on there that I couldn't bring in, I'm like, "How do you know there's something on that paper I can't bring in if you're not reading it?" "Oh, we're not reading, we're just scanning it." "But you're just, you're doing something that you're identifying the paper." And in the particular situation, it had a I.D. number from another client on it and I think it was even documents that my client had written me about certain things. I said, "You can't do that, that's an attorney-client privilege, they're privileged documents, you cannot sit this aside." But they would do that, they would go through page by page, going like this, reading through, telling me, "We're not reading, we're just scanning it." And, contraband, that was the word that they would use that, you know, if you brought anything in, they would call it contraband. 

Interviewer: Who was they? Who were these people? 

- The guards. And I don't take it on the guards, the guards were following the standard operation procedures that they were given. But anything that you brought in was subject to full inspection, even down to if you brought in a sandwich from McDonald's, they would go through and they'd make a list, one Big Mac, one soda, french fries, I'm going, "Okay, guys." And it became ridiculous at times. 

Interviewer: Go on. 

- No, I was gonna recall another time of, another example of contraband. And this happened in 2006 right after the suicides and it was coincidence. The suicides happened on the weekend in which I was, Binyam had two hearings in 206, he had a hearing in April and then that April hearing led to a hearing in June in 2006 and it was on a Monday, I don't remember what particular day on Monday, but that Saturday, it was a Friday or Saturday, they had the suicides. And when they had the suicides, of course they canceled Binyam's meeting. And I had my own theory of why they canceled the hearing, his hearing, and I think part of what, they didn't want the press and the media down in Guantanamo after these suicides, which they would've had with Binyam's hearing coming up. In fact, they had some press who came in early and they quickly isolated them and got them off of Guantanamo. When they canceled Binyam's hearing, they never told Binyam what happened, they just came in, they took boxes out of his cell. In fact, during this time period, we learned they took boxes from all the detainees, they took all their materials. So, one day when they come in and they take Binyam's boxes, he's think they're taking his items for a hearing, but they don't tell him they're taking them, they're seizing everything because of these suicides 'cause then they're out trying to figure out who, why these suicides happened. They don't tell Binyam his hearing is canceled, so he sits there all day Monday waiting for them to come for a hearing that, so he's thinking now, we're holding these hearings without him, I later figure out, he thinks we're holding this hearing without him, we betrayed him, this is another establishment of distrust the system put in to these attorney-client relationships. I can't get down there until about July, so when I come down there in July, I realize I've only met this individual a few times, he still doesn't trust me, I need to explain to him what happened. So I go out to the BBC, which I figure he's a UK resident, he's a, you know, British resident, I go to a source that he knows, the BBC, so he knows I'm not telling the truth, to let him know why I couldn't come down there for a month, about the suicides. I don't think the BBC's giving out national security information, so I try to bring in the newspapers to show Binyam, "Hey, this is what happened, this is why I wasn't here," because he's not gonna take my word for it, I figured that if you see it from a third source, the BBC, perhaps you'll understand what happened, why I couldn't come down here for a period of time. I go in, they're inspecting my paper, I'm not hiding anything, it's all in there in my paperwork, and they come across the newspaper article, you would think I was carrying in weapons of mass destruction. Next thing I know, "You have contraband, we don't know what to do, you can't go in," they're calling the legal office, there were guards coming, I'm going, they're reading this paper, I'm like, "It's from the British BBC, it's to explain to my client why I wasn't here." "Ma'am, do you know what you can cause by bringing this in?" I'm like, "They don't know about the deaths here?" "This has been a month." "You can't bring this, they can't know this type of information." And I said, "Well, okay, I won't bring it in, just hold it, hold onto it and I'll take the article with me when I come out." "We can't give this to you back, this is being seized, this is contraband." And I'm thinking, "What are you talking about?" And it was examples of that nature. So of course, when I go in and see Binyam, I'm trying to explain to him that, you know, I can't even say the word suicide, I can't even say these deaths happened, so I'm tippy toeing around, trying to explain to him why I haven't seen him in awhile without using the word there were suicides here. So suddenly he said, "Well, what about the three suicides that happened?" I'm going, "You know about the suicides?" "Well, yes, I know about the suicides." So now it makes me look foolish because he's thinking I'm not being honest with him, but I'm being told I can't tell you about the suicides because that might be a national security concern if you know about the suicides, and so, we had this whole conversation about the suicides. And he doesn't think they're suicides, but I'm thinking, "How much of this can I even engage in?" I'm trying to establish a working relationship, a trusting relationship and I can't even talk about basic facts. And I know he's testing me as much as I'm trying to establish a relationship with him. And that was the continued type of madness when we talk about this so-called prison system of Guantanamo and how it was so different from the real world. I mean, I couldn't even ever imagine, talk to any of my clients that I ever represented, to go in and say, "You can't talk about something that's important to the client or explain to him why you weren't here or why his hearing was," I mean, how do you explain to someone that the hearing was canceled without telling them it's based on the suicides? And I can't talk about the suicides. It was that type of madness. 

Interviewer: Do you think your discussions with him were being heard by the military? 

- Oh, no doubt about it. There's nothing about Guantanamo that I would trust. I wouldn't, it would not surprise me that if every single interview I did with Mr. Mohamed was recorded and taped in some fashion. I kind of joke with my family, my sister, in particular, that if I ever ran for political office, I'm quite sure some tape somewhere from conversations I had with Mr. Mohamed will somehow surface in some nature, so I tell her I can never run for political office 'cause I'm quite sure the tapes are out there. I mean, they would tell us they weren't, that the camera was just running, not the audio end, but just the video for our own safety and security, even though the client is bolted to the floor, I don't know what he could possibly do to me being bolted to the floor, but for my safety I guess, you know, they had to be at least a audio view, but they weren't supposed to be taped, but I don't, I personally don't believe that there, that was the only thing that was running, I think that it was probably audio and video tapes. 

Interviewer: Had you heard other stories like your own from other lawyers, even if you couldn't talk about particular factors of Mohamed, had you heard from other attorneys of similar situations where they were so frustrated in their representations or in that they couldn't be totally candid with their client because they were under restrictions? 

- On the military side, yes. I mean, I think probably on the civilian side, as well. I mean, we were told we couldn't talk about current events, we were told that we can't talk about sporting events, you could only talk about your case. I mean, and 90% of the time, the client already knew about certain things and most of the times they would ask you questions to test you to see if you would tell them the truth. So in the back of your head you're like, "Okay, I need to talk about this because all this stuff is important," but at the same time, I'm being told you can't talk about certain things. But as long as you can kind of crux it somehow in your client's case, which then everything became crux somehow, your client's case because it became a game of cat and mouse of I need to do ethically as an attorney to represent my client, I don't represent the Air Force at this time or the Department of Justice as a defense attorney, I have ethical duty to represent my client and do what I need to do to do that the best that I can. So, a lot of times I think a lot of attorneys were being frustrated and I think it was designed to frustrate the attorneys, designed to frustrate the relationships between the detainee and client in the way that the rules were set up. And some of it, I don't know was just plain incompetence or whether it was by design. I know there was one attorney, military attorney, he said, "You know, part of this is probably more incompetent than by design," but at times, it was hard to tell where that line was being drawn because a lot of it really focused on just an insanity of trying to represent an individual with these rules and policies that were in place. So I think it frustrated everyone. And you would hear stories of, I mean, after awhile, it just became, we would just, you would just have to laugh at it because it just became, you know, what's the most craziest story? And every time you thought you reached the bottom, there was always a new bottom. 

Interviewer: Did you say that you couldn't talk about sports events? 

- You weren't supposed to talk about anything that was a current event. So, I remember the World Cup, I guess this was the '06 World Cup, and a lot of them were soccer fans and here I am trying to still build rapport and my client's asking me, so you know, he knew about the World Cup, how countries were doing and I'm thinking, "Okay, how can I kind of, how does this fit into your case if we talk about the World Cup?" And but, back of my mind, it felt, everything I did was within the realm of the case of building rapport, that's part of representing a client. So, if talking about the World Cup is gonna help bring down those walls so I can talk about other more crucial issues, then I'm gonna talk about the World Cup and if anyone asks me, "Why are you talking about the World Cup?" I'm gonna say because in order for me to be able to represent my client, bring down the walls, talk about more essential issues, that rapport has to be there. Yeah, you, and depending who you talked to that day, you would get different responses. I mean, there was one occasion where, one of the requirements in the military for females is that when you're in uniform, your hair has to be above your collar line, so that means you have to wear bobby pins in or hair bands. And I had hair bands and now, I had been down to Guantanamo a good dozen time with hair band in my hair, I come to the gate and, you know, you get wand and everything, and I wouldn't wear bobby pins, I would normally just wear rubber hair bands to hold up my hair. And the guard was going through my bag 'cause he went through your bag, they rubbed, put, opened up every single part of your bag, put their hand in the bag, make sure you didn't, weren't carrying files and, I guess to give to your client to try and escape from Guantanamo, and he comes across a little hair band, a black hair band and he's looking at it like, "Oh my God, another weapons of mass destruction" and he looks to the other guard, the senior guard and said, "What do I do with this?" And I say to him, "It's a hair band." He says, "You can't carry this in, it's contraband." I'm going, and I made the mistake 'cause I wasn't thinking, I think I grabbed it from him 'cause I was just gonna put it in my hair, like, if I can't carry it in in my bag, I'll just put it in my hair, he says, "You can't take that in." So, I take it out of my hair and I give it back to him, I said, "But I have others in my hair." And now he's confused, he's like, so, at that point, there was a JAG officer from the legal office there, he's looking over at her as if, "Okay, what do I do?" And I said, "Okay, I can take the rest of them out of my hair, but then I'll be out of regulation 'cause my hair's gonna fall down below my collar, so either I can be out of uniform or I can keep the bands in my hair." The JAG officer says to him, "Ask her how many she has in her hair and make sure she brings the same number of hair bands out." So, I look at her, I look at him and he asked, "How many do you have in your hair?" I don't know how many I have in my hair, I wasn't counting my hair band that morning, so I said, "About two or three." So, he said, "Okay," so he writes two or three down. That evening when I go out, they ask me, "How many hair bands do you still have in your hair?" I said, "About two or three," as if I'm gonna take a hair band out and leave it with my client. I don't know what he would do with it, he doesn't have any hair, maybe tie up the front of his beard with it, I don't know. It was that type of nonsense that you dealt with all the time. So we would come back with different stories all the time of whose story could be the last story? 

Interviewer: So, can you take this further as to do you finally get to a trial with Mohamed or do you, is there something between your first visit and the trial that you want to share? 

- Yes, after I met Mr. Mohamed, I probably met with him about one or two other times in preparation for a hearing in April 2006. And prior to this April hearing, Clive had brought to my attention that he thought there was some ethical problems with the, in which the way the Office of Military Commissions was established because we had, all the attorneys pretty much worked in the same small office in D.C., at least six of the 10, if I have the numbers correct, of the first 10 detainees they were gonna try were named in each others' charge sheet and on the way that the office was set up, the chief defense attorney had a privilege with each of the other 10 attorneys, so we were trying to point out to individuals, this is gonna cause ethical problems, particularly for anyone who wants to cut a deal with the government and they have to now testify against anyone else, for all the attorneys to represent, to be in the small same office, will probably be a ethical conflict. And so, we knew we had to raise a ethical, the ethical issue in the office. And so we had a hearing in April of 2006 and we knew this hearing was coming up and one of the issues we were gonna raise was the ethical concerns we had with the way the Office of Military Commissions was set up, the fact that all these individuals were co-conspirators, or co-conspirators in this big conspiracy, 'cause everyone was charged with this conspiracy of being part of Al-Qaeda, of knowing Bin Laden, knowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, all being in the same safe house, it was absolutely madness. And meanwhile, you have attorneys in the office because we're all learning the ropes of this, of talking. So, and I feel bad because I was in the office because once we identified the ethical issue, I had to show that this was an actual conflict because attorneys in the office were talking about their clients, what you talk about your client, if it's gonna help my client, I have to go in and talk to my client about "I know this." I mean, it was gonna be a absolute nightmare. And some attorneys talked a little bit more freer than others about their clients. I had one attorney come in and said, and said to me, "I know your client is a bad guy 'cause my client already told me your client's a bad guy, my client, you know, he's a innocent individual," and I'm going, "Why are you sitting here telling me this?" "Your client is particularly named in my client's charge sheet and I know my client is named in your client's charge sheet, us having this conversation, we're probably crossing all these ethical lines." So, I was keeping a notebook of all these conversations that were happening in the office to establish later on at the hearing how this potential ethical violations, how anything I could say to the Chief Defense Counsel, you know, he's representing, has a privilege to all 10 of the other attorneys in the office, this is gonna be a ethical nightmare of a conflict of interest. So when we go into the April 2006 hearing, I had met Mr. Mohamed two or three times, we told him about the ethical issue and so it was one of the first things I knew we would have to raise at the April 2006 hearing. Now, that hearing was designed not to hear my ethical issue, it was really designed to, just to get his guilty plea on the book, it was more of a pretrial type of hearing. However, what end up happening was at that April 2006 hearing, when I tried to raise the ethical issue, the, I think they were called presiding judges at the time, I'm not sure if they were just called judges at the time or presiding officer, I think they were called presiding officer, the PO, I think, is what they were known as, pretty much the judge, when I tried to raise the ethical issue in front of the judge, he just didn't want to hear it. He was like, you know, "Major Bradley," I was a major at the time, he said, "Major Bradley, I know you believe you have a ethical violation, but I'm not gonna really hear this issue at the time," 'cause he believed it was more in my head that there was a ethical violation when I'm trying to say, "No, this is, like, a motion, I'm letting you know there's a ethical violation, a ethical problem with the office and until this ethical situation gets resolved, I don't think I can represent Mr. Mohamed." And he clearly did not want to hear this. So, as I said, that April hearing was just to be let's get through the script, which Clive was really surprised about 'cause there's actually script of what you say or what the defense counsel says, what the prosecution says, what the judge says, and so, you're supposed to go line by line down this script. And this isn't on the script that you've raised these issues about there's a ethical concern in the structure of the office. So I think the judge did not want to hear it at the time because all he wants to do is get the guilty plea on the record and now you have counsel saying, military counsel, by rules, detainee has to be represented by military defense counsel and now you have a military defense counsel saying, "Hey, I'm not sure if he has counsel because I'm not sure ethically if I can represent this individual 'til we have a ruling on what I believe is a ethical violation." And the judge's response to that, instead of saying, "Well let's hear your argument on it," he tells, he says, "Major Bradley, I'm giving you an order that you will represent Mr. Mohamed." And I'm saying, "I don't think you ordering me is gonna resolve what may be an ethical concern that I'm trying to raise with the court." And he made it very clear, you know, emphasizing my title, "Major, you understand what a order is and you know you violate a order at your own peril." Soon as I heard those words, I knew, wow, he's just gonna force me on, not based on ruling or anything, but based on a military order from the bench, we are in a courtroom, so if we're gonna run this in a judicial fashion, you could say, "You could find me in contempt of court if you think I'm pushing the court too far or you can make a ruling and rule against me," but to say you're just ordering me, and he said, "I'm a colonel, you're a major" type of thing, "You know what a order is," that's when I realize I'm between a rock and a hard place. And at that point, you know, Clive wisely took a recess and told the judge we need to discuss what we're gonna do next. 

Interviewer: Had you ever heard of a situation where a judge will order a JAG or anybody else in the courtroom in a, similar to what you just described? 

- I had never been in that type of situation, I've never known, normally what would happen, I mean, and I've done plenty of court marshals, I've been in plenty of courtrooms, normally, a judge would make a ruling and they'll make negative rulings and make sure they put negative facts all over the record to cover themselves, and from a judicial point and from a litigation point, to make sure that they make a ruling and then once you have the ruling, you know, you press on. Now you have a issue for appeal if you think the ruling is wrong. But the fact was I was surprised because he wasn't even making a ruling, he pretty much said, "I know you think you have a ethical issue, but we're pressing on and we're pressing on by me ordering you to press on versus making a ruling." Now, I would've understood very well if the judge had said to me, "Okay, I read your motion, I'm denying your motion and you will represent Mr. Mohamed 'cause I don't think there's a ethical issue here," that'd have been a different story, but that's not what happened here. What happened was he did not want to hear the ethical issue and I had a 20 page opinion from the top ethics professor in Pennsylvania. My bar was beautiful, my bar, when I went to my Bar Association about this issue, they were the one who told me I needed to get a expert on opinion, which I did, I actually initially paid for the expert out of my own pocket, but I thought that was important for us to go in there at least prepared with an opinion, with a 20 page opinion stating all the problems in the structure of the Office of Military Commissions defense with these co-conspirators being represented by these 10 attorneys all working, most of them working in the same office, all working for the same boss who had privileges with each of these attorneys and each, most of these individuals being specifically named in each others' charge sheet. So it was very clear, I think, there was a ethical issue, I don't think they wanted to do with it and the way for them to deal with it was to ignore it and just, as attorneys, think we're soldiers, yes, sir, salute and march to whatever that you stated. 

Interviewer: Is his order in the record? Will that be recorded that he gives you an order? 

- Yes, it's all in the record. I go back and I read that transcript now and part of me wanted to laugh, part of me wants to cry, it's almost comical that the whole transcript of what happened on that hearing on the sixth of April. 

Interviewer: Can someone appeal an order like that? 

- It could possibly be a interlocutory appeal and I don't think the system at Guantanamo was set up to even, at the time when they had the first hearings, they didn't even a appellate, they had a appellate process sort of written in policy, but there was no one sitting on any appellate board at the time 'cause I don't think they had even bothered to set up in the actual individuals who were appointed in the appellate system, so it would've caused all sorts of havoc if they allowed us to take a interlocutory appeal on the issue. 

Interviewer: Okay, well let's go then forward when you took a break with Clive, what happened there? 

- Well, once I realized that the judge was giving me a order and the way that he stated that, you know, I would violate the order at my own peril, Clive, as I said, wisely realized what was going on, that this was about to be a railroad, that we needed to take a recess. So he asked the court for a recess and during that recess, I think that we asked for, like, a 15 minute recess, and I didn't realize how quickly 15 minutes could go and it was pretty much madness as to what was gonna happen next. We pulled both the Pennsylvania rules of responsibility, we pulled the Air Force rules and we're looking at the rules to be able to present to the judge that this was a conflict, if you look at the professional rules, both for the state and the Air Force, there was a conflict here and I had to follow the Pennsylvania rules because I was a Pennsylvania attorney. But that, as I said, that, those 15 minutes went really quick and then, I think it was Clive who suggested, "You might have to go in there and raise your Fifth Amendment rights if he's gonna force you on and you think there's a ethical problem," because at this time you're in the heat of the battle, this isn't going the way I thought it would go, I thought the judge would at least take it under advisement, give me a ruling, I realized that's not the way it's going, we have 15 minutes to try to resolve what's gonna happen, and I think bottom line was if he pressed on to say that I would have represent Mr. Mohamed, I felt that it was truly a ethical concern, that I was violating my state bar's ethical rules, I would have to go in there and plead the Fifth Amendment. We call them Article 31s in the military, but I think I went in as just, we would have to plead the Fifth Amendment because I knew individual would understand what the Fifth Amendment was, people wouldn't understand what Article 31 rights are, which are the same as the Fifth Amendment in the military. So when we come back from the recess, the judge comes back and he starts asking me questions and I tell him, I state to him initially, you know, I do not represent Mr. Mohamed, the ethical rule and the ethical concern I raised has not been ruled upon, so if the judge is gonna ask, if this court's gonna ask me any other questions, I'll have to raise my Fifth Amendment rights. And I think you could hear, probably, in the audience a gasp, like (gasp), counsel raised her Fifth Amendment rights in a court. And I think it through the judge off because he looked at me and he said, "Major Bradley, I think you're misunderstanding the use of the Fifth Amendment" and I'm like, "No, I understand the use very well because I'm not gonna commit what I think is ethical violation of representing my client when you have not ruled," I didn't say this to him, but that's what I'm thinking, "When you have not ruled on my, on the issue, on the motion." So, he continues to proceed with the hearing. And now he's proceeding with the hearing with me raising my Fifth Amendment rights, with Clive and Joe Margulies, who were co-counsel on the case at the time, they weren't counsel because they had been established earlier, they were just representing him as legal advisors, but they were not his attorneys, nor did they have to be his attorneys, he could have legal advisors without having attorneys because the rules only require military defense counsels, so the only defense counsel Binyam had in the courtroom that day was myself. So as soon as I raised my Fifth Amendment rights, Binyam was without counsel, which I don't think the judge realized when he continued on. He continued on with the trial, he continued on with this script, so he and the prosecution are going back and forth with their script, reading their script and every time they would come to where defense counsel, they had to ask the defense counsel, I would remind the court, I said, "I'm raising my Fifth Amendment rights, I'm not answering any questions," and he would just skip on with that part of the script and he and the defense, the prosecutor would go back and read their part of the script and they would finally get to the part where Binyam has to plea. And I'm looking at him like, "How are you gonna accept a plea when the individual is without counsel?" And Clive's trying to, you know, be diplomatic and remind the court, "Binyam's without counsel, you know, there's no way you can really take his plea, he's without counsel." They ignored Clive's very diplomatic way of trying to, you know, get the court to recognize you are going down a slippery slope here of forcing this individual to take a plea when there's no counsel representing him in the room. But, I mean, they pushed through with it. I mean, Binyam's, poor Binyam's sitting there thinking, "What is this nonsense?" "I don't have an attorney?" "This one's pleading the fifth, these two, you know, are only legal advisors, I don't even want them at the table," which the judge forced them at the table, I'll have to tell you about that, as well. But, they end up taking a not guilty plea because no one, at this point, no one's representing Binyam, Binyam's not talking, I'm not talking, I'm raising my Fifth Amendment rights every time the judge asks me a question and it was just absolute madness and. 

Interviewer: What were you thinking? 

- I'm thinking, at this point, I'm thinking, "How are you even proceeding with this when he doesn't have counsel?" I'm thinking, "Okay," and I could feel the judge getting more upset as this was going on because I'm not quite sure if he, again, pressed upon me his order, but at some point he must've said something again about he was really ordering me to represent Mr. Mohamed and the only thing I was pretty much saying at that point was, "I'm raising my Fifth Amendment rights," and I think there was, at one point, where he said to me, he said, "Well, you told me you were gonna represent Mr. Mohamed, " and I said, "Your Honor, that's not what I said," I said, "But you can go back in the transcript, I told you that I would speak on his behalf if necessary, but that Mr. Mohamed wanted to do a lot of, really wanted to represent himself," and we went through that whole issue about him representing himself. So I made it very clear, "I never told you I was representing Mr. Mohamed because we had this ethical issue." "I said I would answer some questions on his behalf, but I do not represent him." And I think that was the only kind of dialogue we had after the break, other than me saying, "I'm raising my Fifth Amendment rights." 

Interviewer: What happened then at the end of the hearing? 

- Well, what happened at some point is that I could tell the judge was getting upset and, from what I can recall, and he needed to take a recess and he said he was gonna take a 15 minute recess, and I figured at that point, what was gonna happen was that he was gonna go back and charge, and write up charges against me, at least, we have this mechanism in the military we call Article 15, it's a non-traditional punishment where you can have charges written up for you, it's just short of a court marshal. I'm thinking in my mind he's probably gonna give me a Article 15, a non-traditional punishment of some nature and draft up charges, I'm thinking that's what he's gonna do in those 15 minutes. So, when he took this abrupt recess, I'm thinking, "Okay, I'm gonna have charges up, written up against me." I'm not thinking court marshal, I'm thinking he's gonna do something more quick and, you know, Article 15 isn't as quick, it's not as formal as a court marshal. During that recess, I can hear members of the press thinking, "Oh my God, this JAG's gonna get," they really thought I was gonna get locked up, they thought that the NP's were gonna come, lock me up, take me away 'cause I was violating the judge order, I'm thinking, "I'm not violating his order, I'm just trying to represent my client, I'm trying not to violate any ethical principles, I'm trying to do what is right and people believe that I'm gonna get locked up." But I really thought, "Yes, they're probably gonna draft some charges of some nature," and I knew for me, this wasn't the best thing for me because I was gonna be meeting a promotion board in the next month and the last thing I needed in front of the promotion board, the fact that I had charges, you know, draft up against me or I had a Article 15 on the record just before I was gonna get promoted, which meant I wasn't gonna get promoted. But I really thought charges of some nature were gonna be drafted up against me. And that 15 minutes ended up being two hours. And I later found out afterwards, what happened was that the Pentagon was listening in at some point or I don't know if someone called back the Pentagon, but I think part of the rumor was that the Pentagon was listening in real time, understood there was this conflict and the last thing they wanted was these hearings that they're trying to make legitimate and seem like the real courts, that their JAG was being either charged or locked up or be thrown away in a brig for standing on some ethical principles that she was asking the court to try to resolve. So, when the judge came in two hours later, the first thing I thought he was gonna tell me, "Major Bradley, stand up," I thought he was gonna bring formal charges against me, but he sits there, almost 180 degree change in demeanor, saying, "Major Bradley, it seems to me that you really believe there's, you have a ethical violation and I'm gonna allow you time to properly present this issue before the court." And the first thing I'm thinking, "Why couldn't we done this four hours ago when I first brought the issue to you?" "We have to go through this whole chaotic conflict in open court of you pretty much ordering me and trying to force me to committing what I think is a ethical violation where we could've said, 'Well, I need you to raise it properly, I'll give you time to bring in your witnesses to hear this issue,'" but he sits there and says, "You know, we'll set the hearing at some time in June of coming in, providing me with evidence that you believe that there's a ethical violation with the structure of the Office of the Military Commissions." And it was just, he was absolutely reasonable. From before where he's ordering me and he's mad and he's trying to force me to move on without making a ruling, he now comes back with calmness, with reasonableness, with logic, you know, legal logic, saying, "Hey, let's have this hearing." I end up finding out that, and I didn't see this at the time, just before he took a recess that the bailiff came up to him and handed him a note and allegedly on that note was instructions telling him, "Calm this down, take a recess and let's kind of resolve this before this gets any further out of hand." And also, I didn't realize the extent of it until I was talking to one of the PA people, I think, for the Pentagon, who told me that he had went out during the hearing and called back the Pentagon and then said to the Pentagon that one of your JAGS is about to get arrested here in Guantanamo. So everyone in the press court, including the PA person for the Pentagon, really thought that I was gonna get handcuffed out of there and arrested because the hearing the entire day with the judge was extremely, extremely tense. We argued about everything. We argued about Binyam's clothing 'cause Binyam came in in orange because he wanted to come in in orange because it represented how he had been held for like five years at Guantanamo Bay. Because they really expected him to come in dressed in a suit and a tie and play this whole theatrical game with them and Binyam was like, "No, you've held me in chains in orange for years, so when I first make my appearance in the world, pretty much, I want to come in dressed as they have kept me in five years." Now, so when Binyam came in with orange, Binyam also asked to come in shackled, he said, "You have shackled me for the last four years, so when I present myself to the world, I don't want to play this theatrical game of I'm coming in with a suit and tie, I want to come in as I have been kept for four or five years." So, we had made the request for him to be shackled, of course, that wasn't gonna happen. They were appalled that I even asked the question. But I put on the record, "My client wants to come in here dressed in orange and shackled." So, he had on a orange shirt and we were in court for at least two hours before the judge asked me if I have read the rules on the dress code for the court and I was like, "Yes, I have," and he wanted to know why would I allow my client to come in in orange. I said, "Well, there's nothing in the rules that say he can't wear orange." He said, "Well, now, you realize what orange means," and I was like, "Okay, what color do you want him to come in?" I said, "Can he come in brown because," he said, "Well, orange is the color the detainees wear." I said, "Well, they also wear brown, they also wear white, so are you saying that he can't come in brown, orange or white?" "Because that's not in the rules." And that's where I think at one point Binyam spoke up and said, "Well, yeah, that's not in the rules, I mean, so, why can't I wear this?" "Now, is that a new policy?" POMs, they used to call them POMs, Presiding Officers Memorandums, so he said, "Is that a new POM that we're now creating that detainees can't come into court in orange, brown or white?" I mean, we fought over everything. There was one point where the judge said to me, he goes, something to the effect, "Is there something that's amusing you?" And I didn't know he was talking to me. He said, "Is there something amusing you?" And I almost turned around and looked behind me to see who he was talking to, but he was directing the question at me, and I was like, "No," and he said, "Well, why do you have that smirk on your face?" Now, I didn't realize I had a smirk on my face. I guess a part of me, I was probably standing there in bewilderment that this whole hearing was happening the way it was occurring, it was just Alice in Wonderland. 

Interviewer: So can you tell us then, after the hearing ended and the judge, you know, made 180 degree change, what happened after that? 

- Well, once he made that 180 degree change and he came in and said that he was gonna have us, allow the hearing, it was such a relief off my shoulder because I realized, "Okay, I'm not gonna get charges, he's actually gonna let us to put on a hearing," it was almost anticlimactic because all day it was just this level of elevated tension in the courtroom and when he came in it was almost like letting a vail out of- 

Interviewer: Did you go to the hearing then? 

- Well, no, well, the hearing was set in June and was set for a Monday in June. 

Interviewer: That was because of the suicides, it was postponed. 

- Correct, because of the suicides, it was postponed, that weekend the suicides occurred and the hearing was postponed. 

Interviewer: And was it ever held? 

- It was never held because after that was the Hamdan decision out of the Supreme Court that had ruled the, unconstitutional, the first set of commission hearings, so they had to revamp after that. Now, Mr. Mohamed was charged again under the new set of military commission statute that occurred in, I guess it was in October or later that year in '06 after the first set of commissions was ruled unconstitutional, he got charged again, but that kind of reset the calendar, so to speak, and we said the whole proceedings, that anything that happened prior to that was pretty much null and void to a large extent. 

Interviewer: And then you continued to represent him until he was released? 

- I did and that was a decision that I had made and I thought representing him was in the best interest of Mr. Mohamed. And I had several concerns because the other thing I saw with the commissions, there were a lot of attorneys jumping in and out. Originally, the way the attorneys would come in, they only had a one year commitment, which I thought is totally insane because it would take at least a year to try to get involved in this case to try to establish a rapport with the client. And so, I thought it was important for Mr. Mohamed that I try to be at least consistent, he has consistent counsel throughout. So, I made a obligation to myself, even though it wasn't required by the military, that I would try to represent him 'til the end or until they told me that they were gonna put new counsel on the case, so I continued to represent him. And I also knew with Mr. Mohamed, I felt that as difficult as it was for me to establish any rapport with him, and it took me months, if not years, to do so, that if another attorney walked in there and tried to establish the rapport, it probably wouldn't have been there or it would've taken a long time. So, I just felt my own sense of obligation in making sure that he tried to have one counsel throughout. 

Interviewer: And so you stayed with him until he was released at the end. 

- He was finally released in February 2009. 

Interviewer: And do you feel you developed a rapport with him by the time he left? 

- That's a really good question. I would say yes because to a certain extent, I think I was, I wouldn't say we were friends, I think I was the only lifeline, consistent lifeline, along with Clive, that he had, but really, how do you establish a relationship with someone who had been through what Mr. Mohamed had been through? I mean, psychologically, emotionally, it's, I think I established as close of a relationship as I could with him that I could allow under such tremendous and chaotic situation. And I don't really, in my opinion, think it was really possible for anyone, particularly in the military, to establish an attorney-client relationship with the individuals given the environment, given the situation in which these individuals are held. And I find, even in the best of times, even in the real world, 'cause I believe, I would call Guantanamo the Twilight Zone because that's really what it operated in, but even as a defense attorney, at some point, you're able to establish a relationship, sometimes you do, sometimes you don't, but there's other mechanisms that help establish that relationship with you and your client. Such as, they can read about attorney or read about who you are, either from families or friends or from other attorneys or they have some kind of touch with the media, some outside sources to help them to kind of put things in perspective. In Guantanamo, they didn't have that. So, Binyam could never know about me. For all he knew and many of these detainees knew, every time we went down there, this all could've been part of the same plot of what got them arrested or picked up in the first place and the game playing that always happened and it was never any way to check whether you were still in some kind of fantasy world, the CIA or the FBI or the DOD, or whether individuals were really representing your best interest and it was never any other means of trying to put that in perspective. And that's what, the thing that always drove me crazy with Guantanamo, among other things, was there was never any true way to establish an attorney-client relationship because it was such a, I don't know how to describe the environment, but it was such a toxic environment that you had no other support. You didn't have family support. All those other things that I realized 'cause I had to reflect on this, where my other clients who I represent can have some kind of outlet of trying to check, fact checked or get some kind of support of, you know, do I trust this person or not, is what this person's telling me true or not, what is the law? You had none of that. Because there was no law in Guantanamo. They were making up charges as they went, they were making up policies as they went, they were making up POMs as they went, things were never the same. And so when you have that constant chaotic environment, how do you establish an attorney relation, client relationship? You don't. And I think they use that to the, I don't think it was necessarily by design, but it got established and through that, they expect us to really to try these individuals and give them full and fair hearings? I mean, it was, it was chaotic. So no, I don't think, to a certain extent, as much as I think I could establish a relationship and a rapport with Mr. Mohamed, I think we achieved it, but to do it in a effective true way, I don't think it could ever be done. 

Interviewer: It couldn't be done by anyone? 

- I think it's difficult to have it really, I think more and more it could probably be done because I think the more they open up and allow detainees to understand really what's happening on the outside world and have more family support and those type of things, I think it will be easier to be done, but I don't think it truly can be done, given the environment because Guantanamo Bay is still in its Twilight, Twilight Zone operations. 

Interviewer: So, looking back, do you have some sense on what happened the last nine years about the rule of law in justice? 

- Well, I put it this way, I look at the rule of law at Guantanamo and it has changed and it allegedly changed for the better, but I don't think the rule of law changed, I think it's the package has changed because I think when we went to the military commissions the first time, there were no rule of law, I mean, there was no sense of justice, but they figure if they keep using the mantra, full and fair justice, we're giving these guys courts, that people will believe it. And even in '06 when the new Military Commission Act came in in '06, it was pretty much the same rules, but it was just in a different package and when you opened it up and you read it, it's like, "I read this before, it's the same thing we did before, but you just, I think you put a new package and said it's the Military Commission Acts of '06 and tweaked it here, I'm just supposed to believe that these things are really gonna be full and fair, they're not, it's pretty much the same rules." And I find that even today, it's new rules, but the package has changed, you open it up and it's the, you tweak it a little bit, but it's the same nonsense and that's just my opinion. I don't think, and it's, right now, we're so far down the, this is so chaotic, it's so messed up, even if you tried to start it from the beginning, you can't. And I think they used the same basic recipe and either add something or subtract something, but in the end, you get the same results, it's the definition of insanity. You know, you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results, you're not gonna get any different results in Guantanamo. The rule of law has been so broken, it was never really practiced down there and I don't think it's been practiced, I think, I probably shouldn't say this, but I'm gonna say it, I think the Omar Carter case was just travesty of justice. I'm glad for Omar that he took what was the best deal, but I think if you put that case in a real court with real rules that you don't get the result that you got. And I think that's an example of how I think this alleged rule of law in Guantanamo Bay is a farce. 

Interviewer: So, as a lawyer for 20 years before you went to Guantanamo, are you disappointed in the legal system and do you think it's gonna get better? 

- I'm disappointed in Guantanamo, I'm not, as far as the JAGs, I've been very proud of my JAG brothers and sisters because I see on both sides, both prosecutors and defense have tried to stand by the rule of law. And you have a situation where you've had prosecutors quit their posts because they realize the injustice. Now, you may have one prosecutor and you might say, you can look at the individual and say, well, maybe he had some personal issues, but when you have the second one and you have the third one, you have the fourth one, you have the chief prosecutor, you have another one who's one of the top prosecutors who's handling five or six of your top cases, when you have them all quit during different periods of time and they all, once they quit the office or resign, criticize the system, what more do you need? And we're not talking about some crazy defense attorneys, and even the defense attorneys, you're talking about in the military, you're talking about a relatively conservative number of individuals who probably supported the prior administration, the Bush Administration, so you're not talking about some left wing liberal radical from the '60 type of people, which I think they thought some of the maybe the civilian defense attorneys were, you're talking about military defense attorneys who are officers who have problems. But when you're talking about the prosecutors and you're talking about people that you trust to represent these individuals, and many of them came in there gung-ho thinking, "Okay, we're gonna put some terrorists away, we're gonna do it fairly, we're gonna get our fair trials," when you have those individuals quit one after another over a period of years, the system is broken, there is a problem and I don't think you can say it any louder and any clearer when you have that, when you have prosecutors, more than one, a good half dozen, leaving. And they are the ones who spoke up, so you know if you have that many people speaking up, you probably have many individuals just going through and saying, "I can't wait 'til I get out of this office, I just want to get this done with so I can put this behind," so you probably have other people behind the curtain, underneath the surface who probably felt the same way, but just didn't speak up. That should be a loud enough bell for America to wake up and say, "Wow, what is happening at Guantanamo that you would have prosecutors, you know, leave in the numbers that they have left?" 

Interviewer: Do you think Obama has noticed? 

- I don't think anyone has noticed. I think everyone still wants to push through this and I don't understand why. I mean, and I think you had the JAG community, in general, having real concerns with how these commissions were done. I think a lot of this was probably done without the consent of the JAGs 'cause we're horrified by it because we believe in the rule of law, we abide by it. And one of the things I missed when I went and worked in the civilian world was working in the JAG community where I called gentlemen law, where you got the evidence where, you know, I had to worry about, you know, what was being hidden and what was gonna come out in court. Pretty much, you ran the courtroom the way I think law should be run, open, honest and fair. I mean, it wasn't perfect, nothing's perfect and when I got into the civilian world, I was like, "What, you didn't turn over evidence?" You know, "You got dirty cops?" "What is this?" You know, you're not used to that. So I think we pride ourselves. And then many people think, you know, military law is kangaroo law and it's the same thing as military intelligence, you know, you hear the joke, but it's law, I respect it, I was proud of, once I got out, I went back in, I'm still proud of the JAG Corps, I'm still proud, particularly, there's prosecutors who stepped out and did what they need to do because I think they were probably the ones who were probably hung out to dry more than anyone else. I had at least some cover because I was defense counsel, so I could speak out about the injustices. They, on the other hand, were supposed to support this, but they realized that they had a higher ethical duty to support the constitution, to support due process and I'm very proud of them for standing out because I know it's more difficult for them to take that stand, particularly if you're career military that you're putting your career on the line to do what is right and that's not always the easiest thing for individuals to do. 

Interviewer: Thanks for the inspiring. Is there something, Lou, do you have something? 

Lou: Do you have any relationship with Mr. Mohamed at this point? 

- No, I haven't seen Mr. Mohamed in some time. And we were, after he got out, we kind of stayed in touch and I think it's hard for him. I mean, the thing that I just, really hurts me so much is I don't think this man's life will ever be the same. I mean, there's no way his life, from what, the torture, the abuse that he went through. And I know there was a settlement just recently in Britain, in the UK, for the UK residents and UK citizens, but there's not enough money in the world, I mean, I don't know what the ultimate settlement amount is, but there's not enough money in the world that I think will ever make him whole and I don't think it's even possible. So, my heart goes out to him because I don't think his life will ever be the same again, given what he has gone through. But I'll tell you a touching story that I really liked and it just tells you the power of the human spirit of how two people who are supposed to be enemies, I'm the soldier, he's the alleged terrorist, how, you know, the world could just could take a 160 in the humanity of things. There was one time I visited Mr. Mohamed and he was on a hunger strike and during this hunger strike, I hate to see this, so I would always bring him food or Clive would always bring him food and try to persuade him to eat while we was there. But he was on this hunger strike and all he's talking about is food. Now, I'm trying not to talk about food just because I think that's cruel to a person on a hunger strike, to talk about food, but he's talking about food and he tells me that the best dish that he makes is a spaghetti and pasta dish and he's telling me that, you know, he cooks the best spaghetti and he's just going on, I'm like, "Binyam, why are you talking about food?" "You're on a hunger strike." And he said, you know, he says, "If I ever get out of here, I'll make you a spaghetti dinner," and I don't know what this was, this was way before he got out, but I was like, "Okay," I said, "Binyam we're gonna get you out of here one day, but I'm gonna hold you to that." I said, "You know what, you haven't paid me anything, but your payment to me will be a spaghetti dinner when you get out of Guantanamo." He gets out of Guantanamo in February of 2009 and, I think it was in February, I think I was still there, no, I think I went back in July, so he gets out in February, I go back in July of 2009 and I run into Binyam, we're talking- 

Interviewer: You went back to London? 

- I would go back to London. So he gets out in February of 2009, I go and visit him, I'd go back to London in July of 2009 and that's because Clive has his big birthday party every July, so that's why I went back in July, and I was there for about two weeks and I run into Binyam and he says, "Um, what are you doing, like, on a Wednesday night?" I said, "Oh, I'm not doing anything." He said, "Well, I want you to come over 'cause I want to have dinner with you." So, he had this dinner and it was him, another former detainee, Omar Deghayes, and I think it might've been another individual who was a former detainee, a couple people from Reprieve, which is Clive's organization, and Binyam has cooked me this spaghetti dinner. And I almost cried because he remembered a conversation we had like two or three years ago, and I was just kind of joking with him when I told him, "When I get you out, you owe me a spaghetti dinner," but he remembered it, he remembered that he told me about the spaghetti dinner, that he would fix me a spaghetti dinner. And throughout this dinner, he kept apologizing 'cause he didn't have, like, pasta noodles, he had, like, little short noodles and he was kind of upset that he didn't have, like, pasta because that's what he had promised me. I said, "Binyam," I said, "The fact that you made me this dinner is all the, you know, all I need." And it almost just, like, took my breath away. And it was those type of moments of that nature that makes you realize, you know, wow. That and I remember one other situation one time when I brought him, I would bring him, whenever Clive would come over or I would go to London, I would bring things back from London to kind of give him that remembrance of, you know, of being in the UK, and during one conversation, I had talked to him about how I like the Cadbury bars, but I only liked them from the UK 'cause I think chocolate tastes better over in the UK. But when I went to the UK, I bought him about four or five Cadbury bars and I told him my favorite was the fruit and nuts, and I had bought the fruit and nuts, but I bought them for him. And throughout this meeting, he was eating the Cadbury bars, but he put this one fruit and nut aside and I'm trying to figure out, "Binyam, why aren't you eating the fruit and nut?" And at the end, he said, "Oh, I'll eat it," and at the very end of the meeting, 'cause he couldn't keep anything with him, he gave me the bar back, he says, "Here, I want you to have this, this is for you." I said, "Binyam, no, I bought that for you." But he remembered from a conversation we had that I told him that one of my favorite candy bars were the Cadbury fruit and nuts and he set that aside to give back to me, so he could give it to me. And it's moments like that when you realize, wow, you know, that sense of humanity, that sense of, you know, the rapport, as I said, I don't think we fully connected, in some ways he'd trust me, but there's little things like that that I will hold onto and treasure of, you know, the good that came out of Guantanamo and our relationship there. 

Interviewer: So did you grow from that? From your experience in Guantanamo? 

- Grow? It changed me, it, in some senses, rocks your foundation on what people, well, that's a really good question, I mean, I don't know, I think I learned many lessons from it, I think the lessons were all connected in some way once we allow not fear and propaganda to rule our lives, where we can sit down and listen to people and that you gain a whole lot more through dialogue and conversation than you do by, you know, being at odds, at odds and ends with people. But I also learned that you just can't take anything at face value, I don't care whether it's your government telling you, I don't care if your best friend that tells you that certain things, you just have to learn the facts on your own because if you, sometimes you take things. As I walked into Guantanamo Bay believing these are the worst of the worst and this guy was a terrorist and I allowed that fear and that propaganda to color my perspective on what other facts was telling me, that I've learned that sometimes you have to question the source, no matter what the source is, and try to dig into what is the fact and what the truth is. 

Interviewer: You hear from many people about the humanity of it all and it's promising. 

- Yeah, and it is, but you have to cut through the nonsense. And the other thing that just amazed me of, Binyam never, talk about a rapport in our relationship, Binyam never told me anything that was, he didn't believe was true, was, he never lied to me, he never actively lied to me. But I, unfortunately, I can't say that every time I went to Guantanamo, I was lied to by some official, by some guard, by someone in the system, and it just haunted me. That struck me hard one day when I was just reflecting, like, every time I come down to Guantanamo, why can't anyone just be honest and, I mean, people tell you outright lies, you're like, "That's not true." But the alleged terrorist is the only one who's being honest with me. I thought, "How ironic is that?" The only person who's honest with me when half the time I'm down in Guantanamo is my client, everyone else, you know, sometimes I had to treat with a grain of salt of what I'm being told and I just thought, "That's just not right," it just didn't make sense. But it's the world of Guantanamo. 

Interviewer: Well, Lou, anything else? 

Lou: No, that's it. 

Interviewer: Is there anything else that you want to? 

- No, I think I've rambled enough. 

Lou: No, you weren't rambling at all. 

Interviewer: It was very wonderful. It was really a wonderful story. We have to take 20 seconds of room tone. 

- All right. 

Interviewer: So, Johnny will just do that before we close. 

Yvonne: Okay. 

Johnny: Again, room tone. End room tone. 

Yvonne: Ooh, it's warm in here. 

Interviewer: It was really expect...