Meister, Ronald - Interview master file / Witness to Guantanamo / Duke Digital Repository

Interviewer

And good morning.

0:06

-

Morning.

0:07

Interviewer

We are very grateful to you

0:07

for participating in the Witness to Guantanamo project.

0:09

We invite you to speak of your experiences

0:13

and involvement in Guantanamo Bay issues.

0:15

We are hoping to provide you

0:18

with an opportunity to tell your story in your own words.

0:20

We are creating an archive of stories,

0:24

so people in America and around the world

0:26

will have a better understanding of what happened.

0:29

Future generations wants to know

0:33

what happened in Guantanamo,

0:35

by telling you a story you're contributing to history.

0:37

We appreciate your willingness to be with us today.

0:40

And if you would like to take a break at any time

0:43

please let us know.

0:45

And if you do say something you'd like us to remove,

0:46

if you'd let us know, we can remove any time.

0:49

And we'd like to begin by asking your name

0:51

and your hometown, your date of birth and age,

0:54

and then we'll go further into background.

0:58

-

I'm Ron Meister, I live in Westchester County in New York.

1:02

I'm 69 years old, and I practice law

1:05

at the law firm of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman

1:08

in New York City.

1:11

Interviewer

And could you give us your birth day please?

1:12

-

The actual date?

1:14

Interviewer

Yeah.

1:15

-

March 19.

1:16

-

Of what year?

1:17

-

1947.

Interviewer

Okay, and can you tell us a bit

1:19

about your education and background

1:22

before you came to this firm just so...

1:24

-

I'm a graduate of public high school on Long Island.

1:27

I went to Yale College as an undergraduate

1:30

in the law school.

1:33

After a law school, I was an officer

1:34

and the Judge Advocate General's Corps

1:38

in the United States navy on active duty for four years.

1:39

After which I came back to New York

1:43

and have been in private practice ever since.

1:45

Interviewer

And with anything interesting,

1:49

particularly when you work in the navy

1:52

that as a judge advocate that might help inform

1:54

what we're talking about today?

1:57

-

Well, I was fortunate enough

1:59

to be able to do criminal work in the navy,

2:01

mostly criminal defense work

2:05

and then for a year and a half as a military judge.

2:07

So I got to see how the system worked.

2:10

I got to see the kinds of people

2:12

who got involved in the military justice system.

2:14

I got to see the kind of people

2:17

who prosecuted offenses in the military justice system,

2:19

and learned about the mindset of the people

2:24

who were doing various jobs in the military,

2:31

which I think has helped me in representing clients

2:35

and doing other military justice work ever since.

2:38

Interviewer

Well, before we talk about the navy nurse,

2:41

can you tell us a little bit about

2:43

briefly some of the other military cases you handled?

2:46

Just so we have a little depth.

2:48

-

When I was in the service,

2:51

I represented hundreds of sailors, occasionally officers.

2:53

The most common offenses were

2:59

what in the civilian world would be misdemeanor offenses,

3:01

unauthorized absence, disobedience of orders,

3:05

disobedience of order is obviously not as civilian crime,

3:07

disrespect, petty larcenies, assaults.

3:13

On occasional more serious case,

3:18

I represented a defendant who was charged with sabotage

3:20

and

3:25

those were the general run of cases.

3:27

There were drug cases as well.

3:30

There was a charge of a prison riot.

3:32

So a gamut of cases

3:36

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

3:38

Interviewer

And as a judge,

3:41

did you oversee those same kinds of--

3:42

-

Same kinds of cases.

3:44

I was a special court martial judge,

3:45

and that meant that our court at that time had jurisdiction

3:48

to impose sentences up to six months of imprisonment.

3:52

Interviewer

And when you went into private practice

3:57

did you begin by representing naval officers

3:59

or naval personnel?

4:03

-

I haven't done,

4:04

that's never been the principle portion

4:06

of my private practice,

4:08

but along the way I've been involved

4:10

in some substantial military justice cases.

4:12

I worked with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund

4:16

and the ACLU and the New York City Bar Association

4:22

in a challenge to the military death penalty.

4:26

The constitutionality of the military death penalty

4:30

was put an issue after the Supreme Court

4:32

issued a landmark decision called Furman against Georgia

4:35

which changed the rules for procedures in military cases.

4:38

And these groups challenged the militaries procedures

4:43

under the standards that the Supreme Court

4:48

had enumerated in Furman.

4:50

And ultimately prevailed and the military death penalty

4:53

as it was then structured was found to be unconstitutional.

4:56

So I had that case,

5:03

I have represented

5:06

some service members on long-term complex

5:10

unauthorized absence cases that represented a sailor

5:16

who was a petty officer actually

5:19

who was charged with an unauthorized absence of 13 years.

5:23

And during his time away made a great success of himself.

5:30

I went to a professional school,

5:36

became a practicing medical professional

5:38

and all that time had hanging over him

5:41

the prospect that if he were picked up on a traffic stop

5:44

for a broken taillight, someone would run a check

5:49

and find that he had a military detainer on him.

5:52

And because he was not a US citizen

5:56

he was at risk of deportation.

5:58

He was from Vietnam.

6:00

And we were able to return him successfully to the navy

6:03

and get him a discharge under honorable conditions.

6:07

Interviewer

How long ago was that?

6:12

-

That must been eight to 10 years ago.

6:14

Interviewer

So how do people find you?

6:18

How do they know that you'd be good

6:19

at representing people into--

6:22

-

On military cases?

6:24

-

Yeah.

6:25

-

I don't always know

the answer to that.

6:26

I'm active in an organization called

6:27

the National Institute of Military Justice,

6:29

which has a website and it has some presence generally.

6:32

So people who poke around on the internet

6:36

can find that organization.

6:40

They can find its officers.

6:41

I have over the years, developed some contacts

6:44

in the military who will refer matters to me.

6:49

And often enough people will just say,

6:53

I found your name on the internet.

6:56

I looked for a military lawyer.

6:57

I saw that your name came up.

7:00

I'm in New York, I want someone in New York,

7:02

will you do this for me?

7:05

Interviewer

Do you do them pro bono,

7:07

or do you get paid for them, or both?

7:08

-

Some of each.

7:10

Obviously the death penalty case was a pro bono case.

7:11

The unauthorized absence case was not.

7:16

This recent case that I've been involved in

7:19

on behalf of a navy nurses, is a pro bono case.

7:22

I do a fair number of

7:26

discharge upgrade cases.

7:31

People who got less than an ideal discharge

7:34

and who find that for employment reasons,

7:37

for psychological reasons,

7:41

for reasons of correcting the record,

7:42

they want their discharge upgraded.

7:45

I represent them in those proceedings.

7:48

Those are generally traditional fee paying cases.

7:50

Interviewer

Do you do those in other than navy places?

7:55

-

All branches to the service, yes.

7:58

Interviewer

So could you give us some background

8:00

into how the navy nurse found you

8:01

and some background on his story,

8:03

so that people who don't know the story can learn it.

8:05

-

I was approached by a retired army general

8:09

who had been in touch with the navy nurse

8:15

and who had been involved in issues of professional ethics

8:19

and how that interacts with military orders.

8:26

And I believe he made some inquiries which came to--

8:30

-

He is?

8:35

-

Mutual acquaintance,

this general.

8:37

-

Okay.

-

Who made some inquiries to people

8:39

who are acquaintances of mine.

8:42

And they suggested this might be something I would do.

8:45

I had done Guantanamo work in the past.

8:48

I've been to Guantanamo

8:52

and I wrote briefs in several of the Supreme Court cases

8:54

that dealt with rights of detainees.

8:59

So it's possible that my name was known from those as well.

9:01

Those by the way are other pro bono matters that I have done

9:05

in the military, not for clients,

9:09

but as amicus friend at the court briefs.

9:11

Interviewer

Maybe we should go into that

9:15

before we go back to the nurse, just so we get that.

9:16

If you could just tell us what exactly you were involved

9:19

in Guantanamo issues and why you went to Guantanamo.

9:22

-

I went to Guantanamo

9:26

under the auspices of

9:29

the National Institute of Military Justice

9:30

to observe commission hearings.

9:32

The government has allowed NGOs

9:36

to send representatives to observe

9:40

on the theory that

9:43

while publicity is a desirable thing

9:47

no private citizen can just get on a plane

9:54

and fly to Guantanamo and say, let me into the courtroom.

9:57

So they developed this procedure

10:01

that allows various NGOs to go.

10:02

And the National Institute of Military Justice, NIMJ,

10:05

has a strong record of sending observers.

10:08

It's a program that I coordinate

10:12

to observe these commissions.

10:14

And I figured if I was gonna be sending people down there,

10:16

I ought to go myself and see what it was like.

10:19

It's a very strange out of body experience to go down there.

10:22

Interviewer

Why?

10:28

-

Because Guantanamo is such a strange place.

10:29

I've said it's a place that has all the charm

10:36

of a military base

10:41

with a maximum security prison superimposed

10:43

on the top of it.

10:46

And it is

10:48

not like any place I've ever been.

10:54

I've been on a lot of military bases.

10:57

It's obviously very, very heavy security.

10:58

It's very hot.

11:02

They're the most impressive iguanas

11:03

you've ever seen in your life.

11:05

We are ferried around by keepers

11:08

and the representatives of the various groups

11:13

have to travel together,

11:16

make up your mind, where do you wanna go for dinner?

11:18

What do you wanna do in the evening?

11:22

The entertainment possibilities are not extensive.

11:23

And in fact, the single most impressive piece of advocacy

11:27

I did while I was down there,

11:33

was the night that all of the other observers

11:34

wanted to watch a Michael Jackson movie.

11:37

And I couldn't bear the thought of sitting outside

11:39

in a 100 degree heat under the mosquitoes

11:42

and watching Michael Jackson.

11:44

So I persuaded our handler

11:46

to allow me to go back to the tent.

11:48

Interviewer

What year is this?

11:51

-

This is again, probably about six to eight years ago.

11:53

Interviewer

And when you said you were

11:59

on an amicus piece, in what cases were you involved?

12:01

-

The first case that went to the Supreme Court

12:05

on the rights of detainees,

12:07

specifically in that case their rights

12:11

to avail themselves of some law

12:15

because the government chose Guantanamo as a location

12:19

largely on the mistaken impression as it turned out

12:23

that it was a black hole for law that no law applied,

12:27

no international law, no domestic laws,

12:33

certainly not Cuban law.

12:36

And the first case that tested that,

12:38

that it got to the Supreme Court

12:41

it's a case called Rasul against Bush or Rasul Al-Odah,

12:43

I believe there were two named plaintiffs in the case.

12:50

And I participated in the preparation of a brief

12:53

on behalf of NIMJ in support of the proposition

12:58

that law applied.

13:03

There were two subsequent rounds of litigation

13:07

in the Supreme Court.

13:12

The second I believe the name plaintiff was Boumediene.

13:14

And the third was,

13:20

it is Hamdan.

13:25

I may have the cases reversed, Hamdan may have been--

13:27

-

One maybe came first.

13:29

-

The second.

And those cases tested the applicability of statutes

13:30

that had been passed to govern the law.

13:38

Once it had been decided that there was law,

13:42

Congress gave some attention, some of it laudable,

13:46

some of it regrettable to what that law would be

13:51

and how the commissions would be run.

13:55

And two of those cases, again, went to the Supreme Court,

13:57

Hamdan and Boumediene.

14:01

And we wrote briefs in those cases as well.

14:03

Interviewer

Did you get any pushback

14:06

in the early days when you took on their brief for Rasul?

14:08

-

I personally did not, my firm was extremely supportive.

14:13

My firm was very generous with allowing me to do this.

14:17

And we have a tradition at Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman

14:21

that allows people to do this work.

14:24

We have colleague of mine has done some very,

14:25

a lot of the death penalty work.

14:28

And

14:32

we got into this at a time when the initial resistance

14:35

that some law firms met to representing terrorists,

14:41

or accused terrorists, or detainees

14:45

who weren't even accused of being terrorists.

14:48

We, I think entered the field after that.

14:53

And after it was regarded as acceptable for law firms

14:57

to be doing this work,

15:02

you may know that at the very beginning,

15:03

I believe the National Council of Defense Lawyers

15:07

debated whether or not they should participate,

15:12

whether they should supply lawyers,

15:15

whether the system was so corrupt

15:17

that they didn't wanted no part of it.

15:19

And I believe they ultimately decided

15:21

that they would participate.

15:23

And some of the bigger firms

15:25

who very commendably got involved

15:28

had some client resistance to it.

15:30

I've never found that here.

15:34

Interviewer

Okay.

15:36

Okay, well then with that understanding of background,

15:38

let's go back to how you were contacted

15:40

by the general on behalf of the nurse.

15:43

-

Called me and said,

15:46

"We have an issue that has arisen

15:51

"over force-feeding of detainees.

15:54

"And there is a nurse who

15:57

"declined to participate in the force-feeding

16:03

"and has been subjected to a world of trouble

16:06

"by the Guantanamo authorities,

16:13

"has been kicked off the island

16:14

"and is facing potential criminal charges.

16:17

"Is this something you would assist him?"

16:20

Interviewer

Could you give us a little bit,

16:24

even though people might understand of what that means

16:26

in terms of refusing to force feed?

16:29

Just so--

16:33

-

Yes.

There have over the years in Guantanamo

16:35

been varying numbers of detainees,

16:38

first of all, detainees is a term that I dislike.

16:44

It does describe people who are held at Guantanamo,

16:48

but it's sort of carries with it the context of people

16:53

who were stuck in line at the Motor Vehicle Bureau,

16:56

or otherwise held up at a toll booth or something.

16:59

These are prisoners,

17:03

and many of them are not charged with crimes.

17:05

Some of them are deemed too dangerous to release.

17:12

Some of them are cleared for release,

17:16

but the government has found no place to send them,

17:20

no place they would take them.

17:22

And as a way of protesting

17:25

because there's very limited opportunity

17:27

for these detainee prisoners to protest the conditions

17:33

when some of them have been there for a decade

17:38

without charges,

17:40

they can't pick it,

17:43

they can't petition to their Congressmen.

17:45

So some of them have adopted,

17:51

they have decided to go on more or less a hunger strike.

17:54

And I say more or less

17:59

because there appears to be some instances

18:00

where detainees had some food supplies in their cells.

18:04

There is very little evidence

18:11

that they were trying to kill themselves,

18:13

but they

18:18

would skip meals.

18:21

And the authorities of Guantanamo

18:23

eventually adopted a protocol,

18:26

which was largely of their own making,

18:28

although somewhat informed by other prison authorities

18:32

that if you missed a certain number of meals

18:37

or if you fell below a certain percentage

18:43

of what someone deemed your ideal body weight

18:46

then you could be force-fed.

18:50

The standards themselves are not without controversy.

18:53

Someone wrote into brief that

18:57

if the standards of ideal body weight

18:59

were actually applied in real life,

19:01

then James Madison and Mahatma Gandhi

19:04

and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have to be force-fed.

19:06

The

19:12

decision that the military made

19:14

was

19:20

I suspect out of fear that someone might die.

19:22

That would be a bad thing,

19:29

not only for the detaining and the detainees family,

19:32

but for the authorities.

19:35

And also that it would stimulate more protests.

19:38

And the term asymmetrical warfare was used to describe this.

19:43

It's really, I find a very unpleasant term.

19:50

It refers to people who have none of the weapons

19:56

that you have

19:58

doing something else

20:01

to fight back.

20:04

And the asymmetry comes from the fact that

20:06

you have all the weapons and they have none of them.

20:08

Well,

20:12

so there were periods where there were more hunger strikers

20:15

and there were periods

20:19

when there were fewer hunger strikers.

20:20

And the reactions of the authorities

20:22

have differed over time.

20:27

One of the difficulties and the administration at Guantanamo

20:28

is that the people who run things shuttle in and out

20:32

like military people everywhere.

20:37

You were assigned for a period of time

20:41

and you do your job, try to do your job

20:42

and then you're transferred somewhere else.

20:45

So the rules have been somewhat inconsistent.

20:47

These force-feeding protocols were eventually developed.

20:50

The mechanisms of the force-feeding

20:56

have become harsher over time,

20:58

so that the force feedings are done

21:01

with the use of what are called five-point restraint chairs

21:04

which have the detainee prisoners

21:09

strapped down, immobilized

21:13

and fed through a nasal gastric tube.

21:16

And

21:19

there have been some more or less protests

21:22

by lawyers for the detainees as to the actual methods,

21:31

is the tube too big?

21:38

Are the detainee caused to bleed

21:42

or suffer other medical injury?

21:47

There are also what are called forcible cell extractions

21:51

in which with a degree of force,

21:54

the detainees are removed from their cells

21:58

for the force-feeding.

22:00

Now, one of the detainees, a man by the name of Diab,

22:02

brought a lawsuit in the United States district court

22:10

in the District of Columbia

22:12

which he was able to do only because of the results

22:13

of the Supreme Court decision in Rasul,

22:15

in which he sued to stop force-feeding.

22:20

The case was before Judge Gladys Kessler

22:26

in the district court.

22:28

Judge Kessler first ruled

22:29

that she had no power to rule on this issue.

22:30

The case was appealed to the District of Columbia

22:33

Court of Appeals which reversed her on that issue

22:35

and said, yes, you do.

22:38

Judge Kessler wrote some opinions

22:40

in which she criticized harshly

22:45

the force-feeding as causing discomfort

22:48

and being painful and being very unpleasant.

22:51

During the course of that litigation, in his testimony,

22:56

Mr. Diab disclosed that there was a nurse

23:03

who refused to do it, to do the force-feeding.

23:09

Didn't know the nurse's name,

23:13

he wouldn't know the nurse's name

23:15

because any identification tags of the troops are obscured.

23:16

He gave a physical description of the nurse.

23:23

And once it became a subject of public knowledge

23:27

that there was a nurse who turned out to be the nurse

23:35

that I had represented over these years,

23:39

I believe that the authorities felt

23:43

they had to do something about it.

23:45

And that's when he was sent back to his prior duty station

23:46

and it was recommended that he be prosecuted.

23:53

Interviewer

For what crime?

24:00

-

I believe the recommendation was for dereliction of duty.

24:03

Interviewer

So before we go into what that means,

24:09

just as an understanding,

24:11

so you're saying until it became public,

24:13

the military left him alone allowed him not to force-feed,

24:16

allowed him not to participate--

24:20

-

I believe that is the case,

24:21

he was principally assigned other duties.

24:22

Let me mention a couple of things that may be of interest.

24:26

The prisoners that were being forced-fed

24:29

under this program at least,

24:33

were not the high risk detainees

24:35

who were before the military commissions,

24:39

not the 9/11 detainees,

24:44

not any of the USS Cole defendants.

24:46

These were, I believe mostly or maybe entirely prisoners

24:51

who had been cleared for release

24:56

and not charged with any crimes.

24:58

There was a period of time

25:01

when the authorities

25:05

recognized

25:10

health professionals' objections to force-feeding.

25:16

So under one of the commandance of the base at Guantanamo,

25:19

the practice was that physicians were asked

25:26

before they were transferred to Guantanamo

25:29

whether they would

25:32

participate in force-feeding.

25:35

And if they said, no, they weren't transferred there.

25:37

There was also, I believe at a somewhat different time,

25:40

a practice that nurses who were already at Guantanamo

25:44

who expressed objections to force-feeding

25:50

were excused from doing it and were assigned other duties.

25:52

Those policies appear to have been changed

25:57

to the extent there were policies at all

26:02

and things weren't decided ad hoc.

26:05

So either because of a change in policy,

26:08

or because of the publicity attended to Diab's testimony,

26:12

or something else,

26:19

my client was sent back to his regular prior duty station

26:21

and it was recommended that he be charged criminally.

26:28

Interviewer

Do you know what year that occurred

26:34

when he was removed from his position (indistinct)?

26:36

-

I believe, it must have been two years ago.

26:41

Interviewer

And that would be 2014.

26:45

-

I believe so, that's right.

26:48

Interviewer

And do you know how long he had refused

26:50

before this became public?

26:53

-

It's a short period of time.

26:58

-

A week, a month?

26:59

-

Certainly, no more than a month

27:05

and probably a matter of a week or two.

27:07

Interviewer

And from your experience at that time frame

27:11

he was probably the only one who had refused.

27:16

-

We don't know of anyone else who refused, before or since,

27:19

but we wouldn't know since.

27:24

Interviewer

All right, and even before you wouldn't know

27:26

unless that person went in public, right?

27:30

Or would you--

27:32

-

I think that's right.

Although I have no reason to believe from anything

27:34

my client told me that anyone else had refused.

27:36

Interviewer

And did he know when he went down

27:41

to Guantanamo that he would be given

27:43

that position, that role?

27:45

-

I think, I don't know if he was aware that

27:47

it would be required, but he indeed actually participated

27:51

in some force-feeding when he was first there.

27:54

And it was only when he saw what it involved

27:58

and when he had time to reflect upon it

28:01

and time to reflect upon the nursing ethics

28:05

that he had been taught at the nursing school

28:09

to which the navy had sent him to learn how to be a nurse

28:11

that he felt he could not do it.

28:15

I should explain--

28:17

-

Yeah.

28:18

-

A bit about him.

This is an officer

28:20

who was originally enlisted member

28:24

in the United States navy,

28:29

served in submarines for a decade.

28:30

I should tell you from my own personal experience

28:36

that the navy generally takes only the cream of the crop

28:39

and assigns them to submarines.

28:45

Submarines and aircraft carriers

28:48

generally get the top-notch people to serve on them

28:49

for obvious reasons,

28:56

because of the importance of the mission.

28:57

After he was in the navy for a decade,

28:59

navy felt on the basis of his superior record

29:04

that he was officer material

29:08

and they sent him to nursing school.

29:11

He studied in nursing school

29:15

and he studied how to be a nurse.

29:16

He studied nursing ethics.

29:18

He graduated from nursing school.

29:20

He got his commission as an ensign in the navy

29:22

as an officer.

29:27

And he began being a navy nurse

29:28

which he did for another seven or so years

29:32

before he volunteered to go to Guantanamo.

29:38

So when all of this difficulty arose,

29:43

he was a veteran of 18 years active duty.

29:48

Interviewer

So he was in his 40s?

29:54

-

Probably, maybe a little less than that.

29:59

I think he was pretty young when he went in.

30:01

Now what's the significance of 18 years?

30:04

Significance of 18 years

30:06

is that 18 years is close to 20 years,

30:08

the time you can retire.

30:11

Navy pensions, military pensions do not vest in any way

30:13

until retirement at 20 years,

30:18

or retirement under some other circumstances

30:21

like a disability retirement.

30:23

So if he were to be forced out of the navy

30:26

with 18 years or 19 years or 19 1/2 years

30:31

not only would his veteran's benefits be at stake,

30:36

everybody who serves under honorable conditions

30:42

regardless of length has veterans benefits,

30:45

but his entire pension

30:49

accumulated over all those years would be gone.

30:51

So this is a matter of considerable professional

30:55

and financial consequence for him.

30:59

Interviewer

He obviously was aware of that

31:02

when he made his decision.

31:04

-

Must have been.

31:06

Interviewer

Could you explain to us what

31:07

nursing ethics are

31:11

as he's taught in the military or maybe--

31:12

-

Well, as they affect this case,

31:15

the principle that is most important

31:19

is that the nurses

31:21

obligation is to the patient.

31:27

And the patient's consent

31:31

where the patient is in a condition to consent is paramount

31:33

and the obligation to do no harm,

31:37

which is an obligation of all health professionals

31:41

applies to him.

31:44

So that as it affects this issue,

31:47

questions relating to

31:52

consent,

31:57

the patient's wishes,

32:00

and the reason for the procedure

32:02

are all of great significance.

32:06

So where the force-feeding,

32:09

it matters whether the force feeding is for a health reason,

32:12

for a disciplinary reason, for deterrence reason,

32:16

it helps whether the patient,

32:20

and you can see how this analysis changes

32:24

the instant that you start referring

32:27

to a prisoner as a patient,

32:29

once the patient's

32:33

desires and need for force-feeding become an issue,

32:39

that's something that the nurse needs to know.

32:43

Otherwise you could have no automobile mechanic

32:47

doing this job.

32:49

And there is unanimity among professional nursing

32:51

and medical organizations

32:58

and a huge consensus of international law

33:00

that force-feeding is either never permissible,

33:07

or is permissible only under conditions

33:14

that were not present here.

33:17

So the World Health Organization

33:19

issued what's called its Declaration of Malta.

33:21

The World Health Organization

33:26

is an international organization

33:27

of over a 100 national health organizations

33:28

including the American Medical Association.

33:32

And they concluded that force-feeding is never acceptable.

33:36

The American Nurses Association has made eminently clear

33:40

that force-feeding under circumstances

33:46

such as this is improper.

33:48

American Medical Association has come to that conclusion.

33:50

Physicians for Human Rights, which is an advocacy group

33:54

has firmly taken that position.

33:58

And very notably, after these events took place

34:02

involving our nurse,

34:07

the United States Department of Defense Health Board

34:10

which is an advisory body to advise the DOD

34:14

on health practices has issued a report

34:19

after studying the issue and studying this very case

34:23

that procedures must be developed

34:27

to allow objecting professionals to opt out.

34:30

So there really is no fuzziness

34:36

about the ethical issues in this case.

34:41

Now, how does that interact

34:46

with the standard requirement of a bang orders?

34:49

This is not a simple question.

34:53

And there are obviously the authorities at Guantanamo

34:55

under a great deal of pressure

35:01

to do an impossibly difficult job

35:03

who

35:08

take issue with people say,

35:10

I'm not gonna do what you're telling me

35:12

'cause the military is based on it,

35:14

has to be based on people giving orders

35:17

and other people obeying those orders.

35:21

What gives you, Mr. Nurse, the right to decide

35:24

that this is contrary to professional ethics?

35:28

I made the decisions and I tell you what to do.

35:30

And it takes a tremendous amount of courage to say,

35:35

no, I don't think that's right.

35:41

Remember you sent me to nursing school.

35:44

I learned these things.

35:47

You wanted me to learn these things.

35:49

You didn't send me to nursing school

35:51

and say forget everything that they teach you

35:52

in the ethics classes.

35:53

So I feel that these rules apply under all circumstances

35:55

in peace and more, in the military and in civilian life.

36:01

I can't do it.

36:05

Now, one of the things that has been a theme here is that

36:06

my client who has never gone public with his identity

36:13

has never made an effort to encourage others

36:19

to do what he did to do anything

36:23

but decide what they think is right.

36:26

Hasn't been in touch

36:30

with other health professionals in Guantanamo.

36:31

Is as loyal to the navy that has served

36:35

for now over 19 years, as he can be.

36:39

Is as patriotic

36:44

as he can be

36:47

and is not a crusader.

36:50

And

36:56

whether or not that has affected

37:00

the navy's ultimate decisions in his case,

37:04

it's something that I would very much like to know

37:08

but don't know.

37:11

Interviewer

Well, let's go through the process

37:14

and understand what did happen to him in their local place.

37:16

-

Yes.

37:19

-

So when the military removed him from the position

37:20

and the next step was they then sent him

37:24

off the basis that would happen--

37:26

-

Yes.

37:27

And he was followed by a disciplinary report

37:29

in which the commandant at Guantanamo

37:34

recommended criminal charges against him.

37:38

Now to give you a full picture

37:42

there were other charges that accompany this,

37:45

which were unrelated to the force-feeding.

37:49

Now,

37:53

I have learned

37:56

over a career of fighting

38:00

within the military and outside the military

38:03

that it is extremely common to tack on

38:05

what in the technical term

38:13

would be called chickenshit charges

38:16

to the real matter and issue.

38:20

So the charges that were set up against him,

38:24

or recommended to be brought against him

38:27

included

38:28

using profanity,

38:31

allowing a detainee to have honey in his cell,

38:36

which was a very common practice

38:45

and some other charges of a similar degree of seriousness.

38:47

The most ridiculous of which of course,

38:54

was that he swore at an enlistment.

38:56

I do not think there would be many naval officers left,

39:00

if all of those who swore an enlistment

39:04

we're discharged or prosecuted.

39:07

And then this package of charges

39:10

was sent to the commanding officer at his new duty station

39:12

which was also his old duty station in New England.

39:18

-

It's also--

39:20

-

His old duty station

in New England.

39:22

-

Okay.

-

He had gone from New England to Guantanamo, was send back.

39:23

And the commanding officer at his base in New England

39:26

was faced with the question of what to do.

39:32

And the initial decision was to take him to a procedure

39:36

which is under Article 15

39:40

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,

39:42

which is technically called nonjudicial punishment.

39:44

It's kind of a funny term,

39:47

which in the navy is also known as Captain's Mast,

39:49

dating to the good old days of Captain Bligh

39:52

when he would have the sailors up at the mast

39:55

onboard the bounty and order them keel hauled.

39:58

And in the army sometimes called Office Hours.

40:02

And

40:05

one of the rights that an accused, the defendant has

40:10

under the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice

40:13

is to refuse Captain's Mast

40:16

which puts the commanding officer

40:19

to the choice of bringing the charges to a court martial,

40:21

which is judicial punishment,

40:27

just as mast is nonjudicial punishment,

40:29

could still send you to a period of confinement,

40:32

which is technically called correctional custody

40:35

instead of confinement,

40:37

but it's not much of a difference up to 30 days,

40:38

and more significantly puts your whole career at risk.

40:43

So,

40:49

our officer refused Captain's Mast.

40:52

They

40:58

command in New England, had this decision to make,

41:01

do I take this to a criminal court or do I let it go?

41:05

It was at that point that I became involved in the case.

41:12

I went to New England

41:17

and met with the commanding officer.

41:19

I met with the commanding officer's legal advisor.

41:22

I got the feeling that they took their responsibilities

41:26

very seriously,

41:30

but they were also a bit wary

41:32

of having a civilian lawyer show up

41:38

and talk to them about what they should do.

41:41

I met with them.

41:47

They informed me at that meeting

41:50

that they had decided not to refer the charges

41:57

to a court martial,

42:00

whether the fear of Ron Meister coming to new to Newport

42:04

was the deciding factor, I seriously doubt,

42:06

I think they've made a decision

42:08

wholly apart from any involvement that I had.

42:10

In any event that was the good news.

42:13

The bad news was they were initiating a procedure

42:15

to discharge him from the navy,

42:20

which after, at that point, 18, 18 1/2 years

42:25

was a very serious matter.

42:29

So we moved to step two of this hydro headed monster

42:32

that's coming out to eat him, first, being criminal charges,

42:37

second being possible dismissal from the service.

42:40

That is a formal procedure that has rules,

42:49

that has the opportunity to respond.

42:53

That gets us what the formal charges are,

42:56

what the basis is for this

43:00

what's it's called the show cause proceeding,

43:02

you have to show cause

43:04

that you should remain in the service.

43:05

And we did put together a defense.

43:08

And the defense included not only the nurse's own statement,

43:13

but--

43:19

-

Statement saying?

-

Why he did what he did and why he felt it was improper.

43:22

And why in light of his entire commendable naval career

43:28

he should not be forced out.

43:35

Now, we, by this time

43:38

had been in contact with the ANA,

43:41

American Nurses Association,

43:46

the AMA,

43:47

Physicians for Human Rights,

43:50

all of whom were very supportive and wrote their own letters

43:52

which we included in the package,

44:00

which also included

44:02

to the extent there is an international legal consensus,

44:04

Declaration of Malta

44:07

and other writings,

44:09

because this matter has been the focus

44:12

of some professional attention in professional journals

44:13

like the New England Journal of Medicine and elsewhere.

44:16

we included these in the package.

44:19

We also had some letters of support

44:22

from people he had served with in the navy.

44:27

And we were facing,

44:31

in hearing you have the opportunity

44:34

to have a formal hearing.

44:36

About this time, the American Nurses Association,

44:42

which was in the course of what they called

44:48

its year of ethics

44:51

conferred upon this nurse it's Year of Ethics award.

44:54

And

45:02

because we had never disclosed his identity,

45:06

he did not attend the national conference of the ANA

45:10

at which the award was presented.

45:14

It was presented to me,

45:16

that is I accepted on his behalf.

45:17

I went down there and it was in Washington

45:20

and they had a little ceremony

45:24

and quite nice fairly heavy metal award trophy,

45:26

which I hope he'll be able to show with pride

45:35

to his children and his grandchildren.

45:37

And we were able to include that fact in our package.

45:40

The navy decided that

45:45

it wasn't necessary to go to a hearing.

45:51

And on the basis of the written submissions,

45:53

they were just continuing the show clause proceeding

45:56

allowing to let him to remain in.

45:59

Well,

46:02

we thought good, now he's got his 19 years in.

46:05

This is behind him and go back to work.

46:10

And I say, go back to work

46:14

because during this interim period,

46:15

his security clearance had been suspended.

46:21

Why?

46:26

Because,

46:28

but as a result, he had no access to the computers

46:32

that were an essential part of his work.

46:37

So he couldn't even look at patient records

46:40

and he was reduced to doing such menial tasks

46:44

as calling up sailors and saying, come in for your physical.

46:49

So now the show cause proceeding is terminated

46:56

and his own commanding officer in New England,

47:04

the one who at first was very cautious meeting with me

47:10

and deciding what to do,

47:18

sent an extremely supportive letter to the people

47:23

who decide about the security clearance

47:27

and said, "You've now dismissed all the charges against him.

47:29

"You're not trying to get rid of him.

47:33

"He's a valuable member of my operation.

47:36

"Everything he's done in the navy

47:40

"before he went to Guantanamo was of the highest caliber.

47:42

"Give him back a security clearance, give me back my nurse."

47:46

And I'm talking to my client and say,

47:52

well, now you'll get that and you can go back to work.

47:56

One of the impressive things about this whole procedure is

48:01

he never lost sight of what his professional goals

48:06

and responsibilities were.

48:12

And he said to me, one time,

48:13

"All of this has made me even prouder to be a nurse."

48:15

So lo and behold,

48:22

the response to the commanding officer's request

48:24

to restore his security clearance

48:27

is a note from the Department of Defense,

48:30

not the Department of Navy, Department of Defense,

48:34

we're gonna revoke his security clearance permanently.

48:37

Not only are we not gonna restore it

48:39

we're gonna revoke it permanently.

48:42

Now, what does the revocation of security clearance

48:43

mean to naval officer?

48:45

It means the end of your career.

48:46

You need a security clearance to do your job.

48:49

So this is a head number three in the Hydra

48:54

that comes to assault us.

48:58

And

49:00

this too has this procedural rules.

49:03

And this two gives us an opportunity

49:05

to make a written submission.

49:07

And then the Department of Defense needs to decide

49:09

are we taking this to a hearing

49:12

in which case all the evidence would put on the record,

49:13

we'll have witnesses, we'll have testimony.

49:15

And we put together a package for the Department of Defense,

49:19

similar to the package that we put together for the navy

49:26

with regard to the show cause proceeding.

49:29

Only this time, we have two endorsements on our response,

49:33

our response like everything else

49:40

goes through the chain of command.

49:42

And as it goes through the chain of command,

49:44

it goes through our local commanding officer,

49:45

it goes through the navy medical people

49:47

and then up to the Department of Defense

49:50

security clearance people.

49:52

And along the way, each of those people

49:55

has the opportunity to write an endorsement

49:58

which is, do I agree with this?

50:01

Do I disagree with this?

50:03

Do I have anything to add?

50:04

His commanding officer, as I said, the one who was wary

50:06

when he first came back from Guantanamo,

50:10

writes us a nice endorsement saying,

50:13

"I agree with him

50:17

"that he should have his clearance restored.

50:19

"I've read through the investigation.

50:23

"I read through the witness statements.

50:24

"I have no reason to believe he's disloyal.

50:26

"I have every reason to believe he's a good naval officer

50:29

"and a good nurse, give him back his clearance."

50:32

Then it goes up to the sergeant general of the navy.

50:36

And the sergeant general of the navy writes endorsement

50:40

that makes the commanding officers endorsement

50:44

look like mashed potatoes.

50:48

Says, "This is a loyal officer.

50:49

"His loss would be a loss to navy medicine,

50:53

"give him back his clearance."

50:58

So we feel with the nurses on commanding officer

51:01

and the head medical officer in the navy,

51:06

supporting his position

51:10

that we are in as positive a posture as we can

51:17

when the people in Washington, the Department of Defense

51:22

make the decision whether to take them to a hearing.

51:24

And as it transpired, that's what happened.

51:28

They said, "You don't have to come to a hearing.

51:33

"We're dismissing this proceeding,

51:35

"but we warn you you do anything else bad,

51:39

"we're gonna get you."

51:42

So at this moment, he has 19 years five months in the navy,

51:44

he's back doing his job in New England.

51:52

He has put in his papers for retirement

51:55

and we are hoping that the Hydra doesn't have a fourth head.

51:59

Interviewer

So his security clearance

52:06

is no longer suspended,

52:09

he has returned.

52:10

-

Correct.

Interviewer

And do you know why

52:11

the Department of Defense got involved?

52:12

-

The Department of Defense assumed the responsibility

52:15

of all of the services on security clearance matters.

52:19

The navy used to have its own clearance procedure

52:24

and at least has regard to adjudicating clearances,

52:27

I think also has to issue in clearances.

52:31

The umbrella organization that made the decisions

52:34

was called DoN CAF,

52:38

Department of the Navy Consolidated Adjudications Facility.

52:41

DoN CAF, and I believe the equivalent entities

52:45

in the other branches of service

52:51

were all consolidated under the Department of Defense

52:54

and have become DoD CAF,

52:57

the Department of Defense

52:59

Consolidated Adjudications Facility.

53:00

So they were the people who would do this.

53:04

It was no longer I think, a navy decision

53:09

on the security clearance.

53:12

Interviewer

And going back,

53:20

had you not challenged the temporary security clearance

53:22

the Department of Defense wouldn't have been involved,

53:25

you could have just continued doing phone calls

53:29

until his time was up.

53:32

-

I don't know if they would have taken any other action,

53:34

that's correct, it would have been an absurd circumstance

53:36

to take this trained nurse that you sent to nursing school

53:41

whose skills had never been in doubt

53:45

and make him a telephone dispatcher for another year.

53:47

Someone may have felt that this is intolerable

53:54

if he doesn't have his clearance

53:56

for a certain period of time, he's got to go.

53:57

Interviewer

And why do you think

54:01

the chief medical officer of the navy got involved?

54:03

Did you speak to him or did--

54:05

-

I did not.

54:07

He got involved because he was in the chain of command

54:09

and it was on his plate to write an endorsement.

54:12

Why he felt what he did,

54:15

I like to think that the package of materials

54:18

we put together was persuasive.

54:20

I like to think that the fact that

54:24

the nurse had gained the confidence

54:27

or regained the confidence of his commanding officer

54:29

was persuasive.

54:31

I like to think that the groundswell of support

54:34

of professional organizations,

54:40

that presumably means something to the sergeant general,

54:41

the AMA, the ANA,

54:46

the World Medical Association,

54:49

the International Committee of the Red Cross,

54:51

means something to the sergeant general.

54:55

And I like to think that

55:00

he realized that this was the right thing to do.

55:01

And she was.

55:05

Interviewer

Were you surprised by the end result?

55:07

-

I can't say I was surprised or not surprised.

55:13

Always we're very helpful.

55:18

There's a degree of irrationality in the military.

55:23

There's a degree of adherence

55:30

to customer procedures and orders,

55:33

and it's not always possible to forecast what would happen.

55:38

A lot of people have a lot at stake in this issue

55:47

and who knows whose influence is gonna prevail

55:52

and whose views are gonna prevail.

55:56

And we're just delighted that in this case

55:58

after almost two years of anguish,

56:04

the decision was the right one.

56:08

Interviewer

Did he have a naval attorney as well

56:11

or a JAG--

56:13

-

No.

No, if he had gone to the formal hearing on his clearance

56:16

he would have been entitled to an appointed counsel.

56:22

I conferred with various active duty JAG officers

56:26

along the way.

56:31

And I had intended if we were going to a hearing

56:33

to obtain the support of an active duty JAG officer,

56:38

but no, we did this without their help.

56:44

Interviewer

Can we go back, I know you said it,

56:48

but it's important to me

56:49

just to understand exactly what flipped in him?

56:52

And you said he did participate but initially

56:55

and then all of a sudden he decided no more.

56:57

-

It's a matter that I'm not sure

57:02

he's ever fully articulated to me.

57:05

He

57:08

saw I'm sure the harshness of the procedure.

57:11

He saw that there was not the slightest attempt

57:15

to obtain consent.

57:18

He recalled that his training

57:23

showed him that this was wrong.

57:31

It's like so many things we do in life.

57:34

We take an easy path.

57:36

Someone says you do it.

57:40

Someone that you're trained to obey says you do it

57:41

and you do it.

57:48

Partner in a law firm comes to an associate and says,

57:50

oh when you go to court,

57:54

I don't think you can talk about this,

57:57

or just take this money we got in cash

58:02

and find a place for it.

58:06

And then the associates is,

58:08

what am I gonna do?

58:11

I'm not suggesting this is in my personal experience--

58:13

-

No, I get, yeah.

58:15

-

But,

you're trained to follow those instructions.

58:18

And when your job visit peril,

58:21

there is a very powerful force on you to do it.

58:24

And then you go home and you sleep and you think

58:28

and you try to more calmly

58:31

evaluate what you're doing.

58:37

And he got to that point and he said he can't do it.

58:40

-

And do you think he has any regrets

58:45

about this whole process?

58:48

-

I don't really wanna answer

58:51

that question for him.

58:52

-

Okay.

-

I think that his statement that has made him prouder

58:53

to be a nurse is a powerful indication

58:57

that he is convinced he did the right thing.

59:01

And he's had and has been sustained by the support

59:04

of some wonderful people at wonderful organizations.

59:10

It's been an education for me to see how organizations

59:14

like Physicians for Human Rights

59:18

and American Nurses Association,

59:21

operate and how they stick to their principles.

59:23

And that was something that in the dark times

59:27

was very helpful to him.

59:32

Interviewer

Were they solicited by you or by others,

59:35

or did they hear about it from the media?

59:37

-

I don't recall.

59:44

I think that

59:49

some of the folks who were initially aware of the case

59:54

may have put me in touch with Physicians for Human Rights,

59:57

which in turn contacted the other organizations.

1:00:00

Certainly the World Medical Association

1:00:05

and it's sticklers to Malta

1:00:09

and its establishment of these principles

1:00:10

regarding force-feeding was long before,

1:00:12

had nothing to do with our case.

1:00:14

But,

1:00:17

it was an effort that involved more than me.

1:00:22

Interviewer

I have a couple more questions

1:00:27

that I'm not sure we have much more unless you wanna have,

1:00:28

but I don't know the procedure very well.

1:00:30

I know a little bit about military procedures,

1:00:33

but why would someone

1:00:35

and why did he in particular refuse a Captain's Mast?

1:00:37

What's the thinking behind that?

1:00:40

-

A conviction of Captain's Mast

1:00:49

could lead to directly to that show cause proceeding.

1:00:51

So in a proceeding where you have fewer rights,

1:00:57

you don't have the right to counsel.

1:01:01

Although sometimes counsel can attend.

1:01:03

It's much less formal.

1:01:06

It's your own commanding officer who's doing it.

1:01:08

It's not a theory list, an impartial panel of officers.

1:01:11

So it's much easier for the command to say,

1:01:16

I think that the stakes are not so high.

1:01:21

Yes, I find you guilty of this and you're demoted.

1:01:23

You lose some pay, but then the real consequences

1:01:28

they use that to try to get you out.

1:01:32

So you want the adjudication

1:01:35

to be in a proceeding that is more formal

1:01:40

where you have more rights,

1:01:44

where you're gonna have a lawyer speaking up on your behalf.

1:01:46

So you're willing to bear the risk

1:01:51

that the consequences would be more severe if you lose

1:01:52

in return for a better chance of a favorable outcome.

1:01:56

Interviewer

And he made this decision on his own,

1:01:59

you weren't present for that?

1:02:01

-

I wasn't involved in that decision.

1:02:03

And I suspect he did have some advice, but not for me.

1:02:05

Now, I would have given him the same advice.

1:02:11

-

You were.

1:02:13

-

Yeah.

Interviewer

Even though that would

1:02:14

insult his commanding officer, right?

1:02:15

'Cause you're kind of saying to the commanding officer,

1:02:17

I don't trust you.

1:02:20

-

Well, but it's so commonly known

1:02:21

that you have a right to refuse Mast

1:02:25

that I don't think that that's a factor

1:02:27

unless you have a particularly sensitive commanding officer.

1:02:30

Interviewer

And just so the public would know,

1:02:34

why has he not wanted to reveal himself?

1:02:37

His name, his identity.

1:02:40

-

Well, as I said before, he's not a crusader.

1:02:42

You know the saying that

1:02:48

Dreyfus himself would probably not have been a dry facade.

1:02:50

He's a very loyal naval officer.

1:02:56

He's not interested in stirring up trouble.

1:03:02

He's not interested in telling other people

1:03:05

what they have to do.

1:03:06

And there was also a factor here,

1:03:08

I think that as a matter of defense strategy.

1:03:12

We didn't want to make him

1:03:19

a focal point of opposition,

1:03:22

a thorn in the side of his own command

1:03:27

or the people at Guantanamo,

1:03:33

but that's not why he did it.

1:03:36

He didn't do it

1:03:37

so much to establish a principle list

1:03:39

to do what he felt was right as a nurse.

1:03:42

Also let's face it,

1:03:46

active duty military people

1:03:50

are not generally in the position

1:03:52

of holding press conferences.

1:03:55

So I mean, you will see it,

1:03:57

Bob Bergdahl's lawyer has made public statements

1:04:00

and Captain Medina and Lieutenant Kelly's lawyers,

1:04:05

if you remember back that far

1:04:11

certainly were in the public eye.

1:04:13

F. Lee Bailey was certainly in the public eye.

1:04:14

(coughing) Pardon me.

1:04:17

So I didn't see how this would would work

1:04:19

because he would be deluged with requests

1:04:23

for statements, for press meetings.

1:04:29

And it would distract from his job.

1:04:32

Although if his job was only calling people

1:04:37

on the telephone, I don't know how much effect

1:04:40

that distraction would have,

1:04:42

but it would be, I think,

1:04:44

it would have been a terrible intrusion

1:04:45

on the whole process.

1:04:48

Interviewer

Did others reach out to him,

1:04:50

or do you think others were influenced by him

1:04:53

that he knew about, we haven't heard,

1:04:55

if there's anything you haven't heard?

1:04:58

-

Other health professionals?

1:05:00

Not that I'm aware of.

1:05:02

Obviously many, many journalists have reached for him

1:05:04

and we have turned them away

1:05:09

and I have spoken with them on occasion.

1:05:12

But he's had many people who want to interview him

1:05:17

and want to write about him.

1:05:22

And he and I and consultation have decided

1:05:25

that that would not be a good idea for him.

1:05:30

Interviewer

And I know you've kinda said this before,

1:05:32

but just before we finish, why do you think others

1:05:35

haven't done what he's done standing up?

1:05:37

-

I can only speculate.

1:05:41

First of all, I don't know as a fact that no one else

1:05:42

has done what he's done.

1:05:45

I don't know if there's been any return

1:05:47

to the former policy of excusing nurses

1:05:49

or pre-screening physicians,

1:05:51

but it's not hard to imagine

1:05:54

why this is a difficult decision for anyone.

1:05:56

And I think the very fact

1:05:58

that he's been subjected to two years of anguish

1:05:59

over this is a strong deterrent to anyone else.

1:06:02

Whether the nurses there are looking to see

1:06:06

what the results are and acting accordingly,

1:06:09

don't want to jeopardize their own careers.

1:06:15

Just wanna get their time in and leave.

1:06:20

I can only speculate.

1:06:23

Interviewer

Do doctors also participate,

1:06:25

is what you said doctors can refuse to,

1:06:28

that is actually participating in these?

1:06:30

-

They supervise the force-feeding.

1:06:33

I believe they signed the orders

1:06:35

that nurses are supposed to carry out.

1:06:38

I don't think there are physicians present

1:06:40

when the actual force-feeding is done.

1:06:44

I could be wrong, but I don't think--

1:06:45

Interviewer

You have never observed forced-feeding?

1:06:46

-

I have not.

1:06:48

Interviewer

Will you thoughts,

1:06:51

looking back over these two years

1:06:52

something that you might've observed,

1:06:54

or the way you now think about the navy,

1:06:57

or anything that came to mind over these two years

1:07:01

that might be interesting for history?

1:07:03

-

I think that

1:07:09

there are a couple of things here that are interesting.

1:07:12

First is the development of a consensus

1:07:15

over

1:07:19

the rights of prisoners generally

1:07:21

has changed so dramatically

1:07:27

from the days that you alluded to before where

1:07:32

even if a lawyer were to think of supporting

1:07:36

a detainee, a person that Donald Rumsfeld

1:07:40

wrongfully referred to as the worst of the worst,

1:07:45

would be a terrible thing.

1:07:49

How can you help terrorists,

1:07:52

to a recognition that lawyers have through history

1:07:56

provided a defense for people

1:08:02

to vindicate whatever rights they have,

1:08:05

or in this case, even to establish what rights they have

1:08:07

to a point where certainly

1:08:11

the president of the United States says admittedly,

1:08:13

seven years ago, this is an abomination.

1:08:18

This place has to be closed down.

1:08:20

That's been interesting and it's helpful for people

1:08:24

to take a longer view of history.

1:08:28

And I'll give you an example,

1:08:33

in Rasul, the first Supreme Court case,

1:08:34

(coughs) excuse me,

1:08:37

we wrote an amicus brief.

1:08:40

There were quite a few amicus briefs,

1:08:42

virtually all of them on behalf of the detainees.

1:08:44

One of those amicus briefs

1:08:50

was submitted by a man named Fred Korematsu.

1:08:51

Fred Korematsu is the plaintiff

1:08:55

in a case called Korematsu against the United States,

1:08:56

which the Supreme Court decided during World War II

1:08:59

and held that, or immediately after,

1:09:04

I'm not certain, held that everything that was done

1:09:08

to detain Japanese citizens in United States was proper,

1:09:10

and such liberals as you go black on the Supreme Court

1:09:14

to the end of his life

1:09:19

felt that Korematsu was rightly decided.

1:09:20

Fred Korematsu with the help

1:09:23

of a Hofstra University law professor named Eric Freedman

1:09:25

wrote a brief, which said,

1:09:29

you got this wrong in World War I

1:09:34

and the Palmer Raids after World War I and the Red Scare.

1:09:38

You got this wrong in World War II

1:09:42

when you imprisoned loyal Japanese Americans.

1:09:46

You got this wrong after the Korean War

1:09:54

in the year of McCarthy.

1:09:56

Get it right this time.

1:10:00

And

1:10:03

in a way, the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul

1:10:07

and then its follow up decisions in Hamdan and Boumediene,

1:10:10

were a bit of a surprise

1:10:14

because

1:10:16

the war on terror was still very active

1:10:19

and Supreme Court tends not to do so well

1:10:25

under actual wartime conditions.

1:10:30

Although when the war is over and the risk

1:10:32

and the paranoia is reduced,

1:10:35

they may do a little better.

1:10:39

And yet they did this in the middle of it.

1:10:41

So I think that's a matter of great interest.

1:10:45

I thought the mobilization of professional organizations

1:10:48

including such a profoundly conservative organization,

1:10:53

the American Medical Association,

1:10:56

in support of the nurse here

1:10:58

was very interesting as a matter of social

1:11:01

and political history.

1:11:06

So those are some of the lessons that I've found useful.

1:11:09

Interviewer

I think I'm done,

1:11:15

except this is something that I didn't ask you

1:11:16

that you would be think of,

1:11:18

you might wanna share with the audience for history

1:11:19

so that maybe there's another part in asking you.

1:11:23

-

Just that, I think that

1:11:31

there are lawyers who sometimes don't always enjoy

1:11:36

the most favorable reputation,

1:11:42

who do good work and who do work when it's unpopular

1:11:45

and

1:11:50

take seriously their obligations to represent clients

1:11:54

and to improve the system of justice.

1:11:58

And that's something that we can be proud of.

1:12:02

And I must say again, I'm extremely grateful to this firm

1:12:05

for allowing me to spend the amount of time

1:12:09

that I did on this case without fee.

1:12:13

And that makes me very proud

1:12:16

and grateful.

1:12:21

-

For sure.

Did you have any hesitation in taking that case?

1:12:23

Did you, when you face warfare?

1:12:26

-

Not, philosophically,

1:12:28

I had some hesitation about the amount of effort

1:12:29

that would be involved and whether I was up to the job.

1:12:31

And

1:12:35

once I saw what was required, once I met the client,

1:12:39

once I saw what support there was,

1:12:45

once I saw that I was on the right side of history,

1:12:50

it became a lot easier to do.

1:12:53

Interviewer

Well, Johnny, did you have a question?

1:12:57

Johnny

Nope, That's it.

1:12:59

Interviewer

Well, we need 20 seconds of room tone

1:13:00

where we just sit here quietly,

1:13:03

Johnny has to capture the room tone

1:13:04

and then we can turn off the mick.

1:13:06

-

Sure.

1:13:07

-

Okay.

Johnny

We get (indistinct).

1:13:09

Very good.

1:13:23

-

That was good.

Meister, Ronald - Interview master file

Transcript

Item Info

Human Rights Archive

More Info & Options