Lawyer Walter Ruiz began his time in Guantánamo dressed in military uniform. American born in Colombia and trained in law at the University of Georgia, since 2009 he has led the defense of Mustafa al-Hawsawi, one of the five men facing the death penalty for his alleged participation in the attacks of 11- S. Specifically, he is accused of financing the kidnappers.
Ruiz has accumulated three decades of experience in state, federal and military courts, in which he has highlighted his successful defense of clients who avoided capital punishment. He entered the armed forces 28 years ago and arrived at Guantánamo as a Marine commander. After leading the case as a uniformed officer for the first few years, he left active duty and is now a reservist. Today, already in civilian clothes, he receives La Vanguardia at the press office of Camp Justice, in Guantánamo Bay.
Does it create conflict for you to defend an alleged planner of the most important attack in the history of your country?
He didn't in any case. First, because I arrived as a soldier and I had no other choice but to serve whatever was assigned to me. Second, because it is a moral obligation. If I were a doctor in an emergency room and someone arrived who was injured, my obligation would not be to judge why they arrived there, but to do what I could to save their life. In my career I have defended many people accused of terrible crimes, but their right to a defense is an essential pillar of democracy. At the same time, it's difficult, because I've had to see a lot of the evidence, I've met the victims and felt their suffering and their pain.
Do you think you have been able to give a fair defense to your client?
I don't think that was an adequate defense. The Military Commissions Act of 2009 gives less protection to the accused than he would have in a federal court. In addition, we have limited access to the classified information on which much of the Prosecution's evidence is based, as it must be approved by the Government. On the other hand, in Guantánamo it is very difficult to have consistent communications with Al-Hawsawi and access to witnesses is much more complicated than in the US. In addition, the fact that it is an isolated place makes it difficult for journalists to come and observe and be the eyes of the world, something that is necessary in any justice system.
The purpose of bringing the trial to Guantánamo is obvious: to evade US law. Nor does international law apply?
The Government takes the position that the Constitution is not applicable, but we defend that it should be. In terms of international law, the prosecution considers this to be a war tribunal, so we use the Geneva Convention. But we are very limited in using the law of Military Commissions.
For it to be a court-martial there must first be a war. However, on 9/11, the US had not declared it...
The US position is that we were indeed in a state of war, although it had not been declared, and there was authorization to use military force. To defend their position, they cite the attacks on the Kenyan embassy (1998) and the attack on the USS Cole (2000). We take the opposite position, and this is part of the legal conflict.
In his "war on terror", Bush authorized the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in 2002. Is torture still valid?
Even if the Government uses this euphemism to minimize what happened, I want to make it clear that it was torture. In the terms in which they happened between 2003 and 2006 they are not still present. What we have now is a different form of abuse, as they continue to be detained indefinitely and without trial.
What tortures has his client, Al-Hawsawi, detailed?
There are certain aspects that I can comment on, because they have been declassified, but not others, which maintain a darkness about what happened. In his case, he was tortured in one of the CIA's secret prisons. They hung him with chains from the ceiling, naked and in extremely cold temperatures. They threw ice water on him and subjected him to drowning. In Guantánamo, he was pushed against the walls, deprived of sleep and not allowed to sleep for more than four days in a row. And they often put him in a small box in isolation.
His client limped into the 50th preliminary hearing and when he arrived a cushion was left for him to sit on. Is it a consequence of torture?
We can't explain exactly what happened, because it remains classified. But we believe the correct term to refer to it is sexual abuse, understood as rectal penetration without medical reason or consent. He has had several operations to reconstruct part of his anus, which has made it difficult for him to sit and defecate.
To what extent can they use in their legal strategy evidence that there was torture?
First, to try to exclude evidence against him. We argue that this evidence cannot be used in a trial because the information provided by the subject must be voluntary. Also, to mitigate the penalty. If he is convicted, we will use the treatment he received to ask the military jury to reduce the sentence; he has already been punished in many ways.
He seems optimistic that one day the trial will begin, after more than a decade in the preliminary phase. To what do you attribute so many years of delay?
In addition to Guantánamo's own difficulties, no doubt because this is the most political case in the US. The defendants were captured between 2002 and 2003, and did not appear in court until 2008, without any legal assistance. When Obama was elected, he stopped it in order to take it to federal court in New York, setting off a bitter battle with Republicans, who blocked it in Congress. So in 2012 he returned to Guantánamo. More recently, when we were looking to reach an out-of-court settlement with the Government, the Republicans pushed and the President had to say that he would not support a negotiated resolution. All these years of blocking have been pure politics.
