Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld exposed the injustices of the military commissions at
Guantanamo. Now his career is on the line.
(Mother Jones) For an Army officer, criticizing the
military commissions at Guantanamo as a perversion of justice probably isn't
the best career move. That goes double if you also happen to be a former top
military prosecutor at Gitmo. That's why Lt. Colonel Darrel Vandeveld, a US
army reservist with nearly 20 years of service under his belt, fears the worst
when a military promotion board renders its decision in his case this week.
Theoretically, the military brass
reviewing his record could reward his distinguished service-to which
various
awards and commendations attest-and bump him up to full-bird colonel.
Or, they
could derail his military career. Vandeveld has reason to believe the
board may
attempt the latter-forcing into retirement the officer who, in a July
2009
congressional hearing [pdf
[1]], declared that "the military
commission system is broken beyond repair."
The road to that hearing room led
through Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and, finally, the US detention center
at
Guantanamo Bay, where from May 2007 to September 2008 Vandeveld served
as a
military lawyer. In civilian life, Vandeveld was a senior prosecutor in
the
district attorney's office in Erie County, Pennsylvania (he's now the
county's
chief public defender). He arrived at Gitmo a "true believer," eager
to do his part in the war on terror. At one point, according to
Vandeveld, he
was the lead prosecutor on one-third of the cases the Office of Military
Commissions was preparing to take to trial-but all it took was one to
throw his
life and belief system into turmoil.
Vandeveld had been assigned to
prosecute Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan detainee accused of lobbing a
grenade
through the window of a Jeep carrying two Special Forces soldiers and
their
interpreter near Kabul. When Jawad was taken into custody in December
2002, he
was just a teenager-and he'd been in Gitmo for about five years before
Vandeveld inherited the case. As Vandeveld recalled in congressional
testimony
last summer, "To me, the case appeared to be as simple as the street
crimes I had prosecuted by the dozens in civilian life, and seemed
likely to
produce a quick, clean conviction, and an unmarred early victory for the
prosecution, vindicating the concept of the Guantanamo Military
Commissions."
But Vandeveld soon learned that the
case wasn't straightforward at all. For one, he discovered that the
evidence
against Jawad and other clients was in utter disarray, "scattered
throughout an incomprehensible labyrinth of databases" and "strewn
throughout the prosecution offices in desk drawers, bookcases packed
with
vaguely labeled plastic containers, or even simply piled on the tops of
desks
vacated by prosecutors who had departed the Commissions for other
assignments." He also began to uncover information that gave him grave
doubts not just about the Jawad case, but about the entire military
commissions
system.
"Gathering the evidence against
Mr. Jawad was like looking into Pandora's box," he testified. "I
uncovered a confession obtained through torture, two suicide attempts by
the
accused, abusive interrogations, the withholding of exculpatory evidence
from
the defense, judicial incompetence, and ugly attempts to cover up the
failures
of an irretrievably broken system."
Vandeveld ultimately became the seventh
military prosecutor since 2004 to resign from the commissions over
ethical
qualms. In a strange turn of events, he was called to testify as a
witness for
the defense during a pre-trial hearing in Jawad's case. Vandeveld, a
devout
Catholic, saw it as a confession of sorts. He went on to file a declaration
in support of Jawad's petition [2] for habeas corpus, which was
ultimately granted by a federal judge last summer. Jawad was
subsequently
released from Gitmo.
In July 2009, Vandeveld testified
before a House judiciary subcommittee, providing a withering indictment
of the
commissions system. Not long after that, according to Vandeveld's
lawyer,
Jeffrey Del Fuoco, Vandeveld received his first negative performance
evaluation-just in time for the promotion review process that would
decide the
future of Vandeveld's military career. "The performance evaluation was
the
only negative evaluation he's ever received," he says, adding, "We
just think this is the Army's way of rubbing his nose in the dirt." In
the
military, such a blemish could be a career-ender, especially for more
senior
officers. "It pretty much is an end-of-the line-type document for
you," says Del Fuoco, himself a retired Army reserves colonel.
When he chose to resign, Vandeveld had
ample reason to fear retribution. There was some precedent, he noted in a
September 2008 declaration filed in the Jawad case. "Other officers who
have displeased the powers that be have been subject to treatment that
in my
opinion was retaliatory in nature." He raised the example of Air Force
Col. Morris Davis, who for two years served as the chief prosecutor in
the
Office of Military Commissions. In October 2007, Davis resigned due to
his
belief that he "couldn't ensure full, fair and open trials" under the
existing system. Davis was subsequently denied a commendation-informed
by a
fellow officer that his service "has not been honorable." Later still,
his outspoken criticism of the military commissions got him fired as a
division
chief at the Congressional Research Service, where Davis worked after
retiring
from the military.
Lt. Colonel David Frakt, the Air Force
reservist who served as one of Jawad's lawyers, praises Vandeveld as an
officer
of the "highest ethics and integrity." He believes Vandeveld's
superiors have worked to "sabotage" his chances of promotion and
sully his name by, among other things, forcing him to undergo a mental
health
evaluation after he submitted his resignation. "This was a real
campaign," he says, "and some of it was visible, and some of it was
behind closed doors within the Army."
Vandeveld's resignation and outspoken
criticism of the military commissions, says Frakt, have done much to
raise
awareness about the inequities of the justice system at Gitmo-and about
issues
of detainee abuse and the use of coerced testimony. His story, Frakt
says, is
part of a broader narrative: "This is a battle for the hearts and minds
of
Americans over Guantanamo. It would be a shame if Colonel Vandeveld was a
victim."
By Daniel
Schulman | Mon
May. 31, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
|