GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - The trial run is over for military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, where the government is being challenged over its choice of panel members. Defense lawyers argue their links to the war on terror may disqualify some from judging suspected terrorists.
At the heart of the challenges is the friendship between the presiding officer, Army Col. Peter E. Brownback, and the retired general in charge of appointing members to the military commissions, the first such proceedings since World War II.
Others under challenge are a Marine commander who lost a reservist working as a firefighter in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States; a Marine who put together the list of Guantanamo-bound detainees from Afghanistan; an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was an intelligence officer in charge of capturing suspects in Afghanistan; and an alternate who acknowledged calling the Guantanamo prisoners "terrorists."
Brownback's frustration was evident as he repeatedly hunched over his desk and buried his forehead in his hands while defense attorneys bombarded him with a steady stream of challenges at preliminary hearings that began at the end of August.
"It's like a card house," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City. "It's just a matter of time before everything will fall apart."
The first trial is scheduled in December for Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi, Osama bin Laden's associate and alleged al-Qaida paymaster.
Commissions spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Susan McGarvey said only three members are needed for a trial, so retired Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., the appointing authority, could disqualify three of the five panel members and one alternate.
The U.S. government has said the challenges will play out and people will eventually realize the military trials are fair.
"I think the commissions will be viewed with great interest, and over time, people will realize how full and fair they truly are," McGarvey said.
A difficult task will be deciding whether to disqualify Brownback, who attended Altenburg's son's wedding and spoke at his retirement roast. Brownback's wife also worked in Altenburg's office.
The only member not being challenged is an Air Force colonel who armed drone planes with Hellfire missiles and was praised for his "fantastic results tracking and killing Taliban."
The information was revealed during hearings for four men charged with war crimes. The panel was chosen from a pool of about 100 military officers.
The next preliminary hearing is scheduled Oct. 4, when al Qosi's attorney, Air Force Lt. Col. Sharon Shaffer, is expected to bring new challenges when she questions panel members.
Other concerns Altenburg will have to tackle include complaints that Brownback is the only member with legal experience, as well as criticism over the lack of defense resources and questions over the accuracy of court translators.
During the hearing for Salim Ahmed Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, a translator had to be replaced because the defendant could not understand the translator's Arabic.
At the hearing for Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulayman al Bahlul - a 36-year-old Yemeni accused of crafting propaganda for al-Qaida - several words he spoke were mistranslated, according to Arabic-speaking journalists and a translator for another charged Guantanamo prisoner.
A total of 585 men accused of links to Afghanistan's fallen Taliban regime or the al-Qaida terror network are being held at the U.S. outpost. Until the initial challenges are decided in November, trial dates will be tentative for the four men, some of whom have been held for nearly three years.
Nine more prisoners - some allegedly associated with the Sept. 11 attacks - are expected to be charged in coming weeks, according to Army Col. Robert L. Swann, the government's chief prosecutor in the military commissions.
"America has to live up to its promise by providing fair trials," said Kevin Barry, director of the privately funded National Institute of Military Justice in Alexandria, Va. "If the structure is already seen as flawed and the panel responsible for putting the trials on is seen as having an interest in the cases, then we're worse off than if we started over."
Sound Off...What do you think?
Join the discussion.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.