- Good afternoon and welcome to the closing
al Nashiri Military Commissions
Press Conference for October 2016.
I'd like to remind everyone to remove any badges
and silence any electronic devices.
Today, we'll hear first from the prosecution
then defense, and close with victim family members.
I'd ask participants to begin with their first
and last name, their position,
and provide a few brief opening remarks.
Following remarks, we'll open the floor to questions.
With that, I'll--
- Thank you Brigadier General Mark Martins.
I'm the chief prosecutor of Military Commissions.
Family members of the fallen, comrades of the fallen.
Let me just begin by saying our hearts go out to you.
We'll be here however long it takes.
The accused is presumed innocent unless
and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The charges are only accusations.
Pretty full three days.
Some seven hours of testimony
for three defense witnesses
on a renewed motion of unlawful influence.
Some several other motions that we've summarized
the contents of in the statement that I provided you.
With that, let me open it up for questions.
- [Carol] Carol Rosenberg with the Miami Herald, General.
I understand that yesterday or the day before you named
a special prosecutor to look into defense handling
of classified information in seven of the cases,
in the cases handling seven defendants.
What's that about?
- I can confirm, Carol, that I detailed
to additional special prosecutors.
We can give you that detail in memo.
I'm able to give you my detailing memos
before they're posted, but I'll be happy
to provide that you.
But that's all I'm able to talk about.
- [Carol] So I think when you give it to me,
it's gonna say that one of them
was a former prosecutor in the 9/11 case.
- Yes, one of them was, yeah.
- [Carol] Is that not a problem?
- No, no, I mean there's problems coming back across
a wall in a different direction,
but there's not a problem with that approach.
- [Carol] I'll keep going.
My other question is, we saw a first test seems
to be successful of the authority
of a military commissions judge
to reach into the United States, order US marshals to
compel a witness to a BTC site.
Are you able to explain at all the mechanics of it?
Your office provides him with the
warrant filled out.
He signs it and then what happens?
- Carol, I'm not gonna go into the mechanics
of how a warrant is served,
and how the US Marshal Service does its job.
I think Lieutenant Colonel Henderson
had provided you the regulation
of tribune military commission provisions
that describe the procedural aspects
of subpoenas being issued
and travel funding being provided and so forth.
And I think I'll leave it at that.
- [Carol] But there's no requirement
to go to a civilian court to execute that?
The reason I'm asking is there was some discussion
as you recall--
- No, there is not.
I mean, we have the judge has the authority
to issue a warrant of attachment on probable cause
that there is no excuse for someone being absent
when directed to appear.
The statutory site is
10 USC 949 Juliet.
Which gives the commissions the process
that is provided in courts martial as well.
As in article 65 Mike,
we have the very same, similar provision
in the Uniform Code of Military Justice
which allows our military courts
to avail themselves of compulsory process
in the states and it shall run
to wherever compulsory process runs.
And that is the authority.
So Congress has put that in a statute.
In the very same statute, Congress authorizes
the Secretary of Defense.
This is 949 J, alpha.
Gives the secretary of defense every clear authority
to issue rules to implement that.
And he's done so.
And you can see those in the rule for military commissions
and in the, which gave me subpoena power
in rule 703 which I issued a subpoena.
Judge said he wanted to hear this witness's testimony.
He had ruled that it was relevant and necessary.
It was a defense witness.
And we sought to ensure that the testimony was provided.
So, but that's about all I can tell you.
Britt.
- [Brittany] Brittany again, the Courthouse News.
We heard this week several complaints from the defense.
The lack of equivalency between the processes here
in which you'd find in in article III court.
And I was wondering if you could address
that from your perspective.
- Well, I think we're providing this accused
all of his rights under a statute.
The comparisons are not unexpected
but we're providing
a fair trial.
We'll be here for as long as it takes to do that.
Seven hours of testimony, all defense witnesses.
And although I don't wake up in the morning
to look into the resourcing of the defense,
not my job, but we do represent
the US government in these proceedings.
So when challenged, and when there are allegations
of inequitable resourcing or not being able
to get witnesses or testimony or evidence.
When those things come up written,
then we have an obligation to look into it and respond.
And we can provide you some of the pleadings
where that has come up in this case and others.
And you can see the resourcing.
These defense teams in this system
are very well resourced.
And the law is being complied with.
There's a sharply, adversarial system to test it.
We have an obligation to the American people
to not to just squander its funds.
And we've gotta make sure that what is coming
before this commission which right now is a judge alone
is non-cumulative, relevant, truly helpful information.
And not just spend money.
But there's, if that threshold is met,
and it's not a high threshold if it relates to the case.
The information, the evidence testimony
is gonna be produced.
And we're very committed to doing that.
- [Woman] We have other questions?
- Any other questions?
- [Carol] General, Carol Rosenberg with the Miami Herald.
This is the last time this case will be heard
before the national elections.
Should anything that,
would the outcome of those national elections
have any impact here?
- We are doing our duty, Carol.
And we're gonna continue to do it.
And follow the law and the facts wherever they lead.
Apply the Military Commissions Act, so.
That is out of our consideration entirely.
We do plan to come down here.
We've got several more sessions before the end of the year.
- [Woman] In this case?
- Oh, in this case, we're in December, yeah.
But we're here a couple more times
before the end of the year.
Any other questions?
- [Loree] So it, there we go.
Hi General, Loree Lewis, Talk Media News.
I'm wondering if you can,
I know you went into plenty of detail actually during
the hearing about this,
but talk to us a little bit more, perhaps in layman terms
about why you think you shouldn't
have passed tabs 3 and 10 to the defense.
- Well, I Loree, I'm not gonna litigate here a motion.
I mean, you have the transcript and the record.
I can say generally that the standard
for producing information
and particularly government information
is relevance and necessity.
And or material to the preparation of the defense
which isn't something that's gonna give
the defense something that would change
the quantum of proof in their favor.
And maybe not be immediately relevant itself,
but lead to relevant evidence.
And our job is to defend
the people of the United States to represent the government
and to ask that the rules be applied.
There are judgment calls in this area.
Trial judge has very important powers
in determining and making rulings on relevance.
Very important discretions that we understand.
We respect, but the people
and the government are entitled
to zealous representation as well.
And government information is not an open book.
People of the United States cannot allow us
to open up its information,
the government's information.
And so we ask in all of these things
that the rules be applied.
And we seek to ensure that they are.
But we, you know, we obviously respect
the rulings of the judge.
- [Carol] I'm gonna ask one more follow up, sir,
on this special prosecutor.
You appoint them, they work for you.
But they don't answer to you.
Who do they answer to?
- Well Carol is talking about a process
that in the case of United States versus
Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and four co-defendants.
We have set up a special
review team.
It's a special trial council that I detail
to wall off the regular trial teams
from information that may wind up getting
into privilege attorney-client privilege
from the defense.
So I've detailed several of them.
There's a protocol by which I can communicate with them.
With someone who is monitoring the wall
making sure that, you know,
they can attest to the fact that we have never gotten
into anything that's privileged.
But there is a need for government council to communicate.
And I am, I remain the chief prosecutor.
We've got a set trial strategy.
We've got to ensure that the coordination
of the government's case in this matter
is full and complete with
while still respecting the privilege.
So this is a pretty common protocol used in
law firms and lawyering in prosecution.
And so we're respecting those protocols.
The movement of someone
outside the wall
to where they may be in a position
where they might see something that's privileged,
requires them to no longer ever be part
of the trial team that you are then protecting.
And so that type of,
that direction can happen.
The other cannot, obviously.
Because the purpose of the law would be frustrated.
- [Carol] But I may be wrong, but I thought
the special prosecutor was looking
at all seven active case--
- Yeah.
- [Carol] Prosecutions.
- I have detailed them in the 9/11 case
and in the other two as well.
And that's all I'm gonna say on it, Carol, okay?
But I do want you to be aware
of the fact that I've detailed them.
And that the purpose is specifically
to ensure we respect the attorney-client privilege.
And that we don't get into,
that there's no possibility that the prosecutors
are privy to
attorney-client information.
And that's the purpose.
- [Carol] I know you don't wanna talk about this
and I understand why.
Does this mean Mr. Campoamor-Sanchez will now
have some sort of relationship to the
Hadi al Iraqi and--
- I did not detail Mr. Campoamor-Sanchez to the Hadi team.
I'll make sure you can see the detailing memos, okay?
I haven't detailed Mr. Campoamor-Sanchez to the Hadi team.
But there I did detail a couple of individuals
to the Hadi prosecution
as special trial council
with specific instructions not to communicate
with the regular trial council
on any matters.
- [Carol] And also on this case today?
- What's that?
- [Carol] And also this one, yeah?
- And also this case, yeah.
- [Carol] So it's the two people assigned
to take a look at with the--
- Well I'm not gonna, Carol, let me just stop there.
Okay, I've given you what I can give you.
We'll get you copies of the detailing memo.
In the front.
Thank you and again would like at the end
of two weeks hearing sessions that less than two weeks ago
we were thinking Hurricane Matthew.
Nothing was gonna happen.
Maybe we would have to put off the whole month, et cetera.
But because of some extraordinary work
and some of these folks are right here in this room.
I saw them with, you know, sleep deprived looks
and stares about a week ago.
Tremendous work, folks.
Very much appreciated, thank you.
- Me at this conferences Lieutenant Commander
Jennifer Pollio who is our detailed military council.
Also present is Brigadier General John Baker
who's the chief defense council.
So like I start so many of these what you've seen
is sort of a typical week
of litigation in Guantanamo.
In which virtually everything
that was heard would be something
that would never come up
in a United States district court.
In federal court, you wouldn't have any issues
of unlawful influence.
The method of production of witnesses
is completely different.
Far less,
there's far fewer steps.
I'd venture to say that in my experience,
if an issue of ex parte communications
with a court came up in federal court
you wouldn't have had essentially
over the course of two hearings.
I don't know how many total hours it would have been.
I think a federal judge
would have cut to the issue far, far more rapidly
and resolved it far more quickly.
And so that's really the ongoing issue.
And I know this is frustrating for people
to hear us continually criticize the system
but the system is so at variance from what would happen
even in a court martial or an article III court.
That we do have an obligation to point out though
is deficiencies especially sense
under the law of this case,
the DC Circuit has required us to preserve
for appellate review, whenever that may be.
Probably realistical
2022 or 2023 or later.
You know any conceivable issue.
So I know that there's sort of constant barrage
of criticism that's frustrating to people.
But unfortunately that is the circumstances we're in.
With that, I'm happy to answer any questions
that any of you might have.
- [Carol] Carol Rosenberg with the Miami Herald.
So when you say that you think the appellate phase
could start in 2022 or 2023,
you're saying that's when the trial will be done?
- Well, we filed something in
the DC Circuit two weeks ago in which we suggested
that the mechanics of the,
'cause the whole process is so cumbersome
that the appellate, the appeal would get to them
in 2022 or I think we may have even suggested 2024.
In our view clearly, the trial
is not gonna begin next year.
We have hearings scheduled all next year.
And I think we only have five sessions.
Maybe a total of eight or nine weeks.
I think there's some things over the horizon
that I think it is unlikely that
a trial can begin in 2018.
Maybe 2019.
But there are so many unanswered questions
that need to be resolved
before you can begin the trial.
It becomes hard to really visualize.
Everything in this process is, as you know,
because you're so experienced here,
it takes longer rather than shorter.
And so there's just issue after issue
after issue after issue.
And just, becomes it comes to mind,
and again, I'm sure people are tired
of hearing me talk about federal court,
but in a federal court, you know,
the jury pool comes from a random selection
of people picked by a neutral government official.
And just sort of picked at random out of a wheel.
Here, the jury pool is selected
by the same official or a group of officials
that decided the case should be a death penalty case
and who really are an arm of the prosecution.
And so how the mechanics of those people are selected,
how that will come to be, who they will be,
whether it'll be a real cross section
of the five military branches, that's gonna be a huge issue.
And everything that happens here just,
the litigation partially 'cause it's here
and partially because of the procedures
is just incredibly cumbersome, so.
It's hard to see how a trial begins
earlier than 2019.
And there's some things over the horizon
that could even make that problematic.
- [Brittany] Brittany again, Courthouse News.
Can you just briefly talk about some of the other issues
that are gonna need to be resolved before a trial can start?
- Well, the main issue that's sort of
will be ideally begin to be addressed next year
is the discovery arising
from the CIA black sites.
Which has taken two and a half years
from the time it was ordered to be produced.
And that alone is, you know,
just an extraordinary thing to say.
It's also extraordinary to have to say
because when the case was first filed,
General Martin's in 2011,
said to the commission when the judge said,
"When can you be ready for trial?"
He said, "February of 2012."
Which we know now it was just frivolous.
Well, the history of this is that the, you know,
the production
is extraordinarily contentious
and has led to nothing but more litigation.
And so as we learned this week,
Judge Spath, the end of September received 20,
approximately 20,000 classified documents
that he has to review and approve.
And to the extent that he might order modifications,
then those have to go back to the OCA,
the Original Classification Authority,
to see if they approve that.
And as he said in September,
that is a process that seems
to take longer rather than shorter.
So I don't know how long it takes to read 20,
to really read 20,000 pages.
But if that process is done by June
to where we get it, I'll be impressed.
Well, if we don't get it 'til June,
we have to read it, we have to digest it.
We have to review it, we have to meld it
with other information we already have.
And so all of a sudden now, you're not really,
you're into fall before we can even begin
to start discussing it and I mean it
just sort of escalates from there.
Once we have all that,
to one of the things we'll be litigating
is a motion to suppress al Nashiri's
so-called clean team statement.
That will be extraordinarily complicated litigation.
Because it involves an issue that has never
been litigated in an American court.
To what degree will the courts
tolerate evidence derived from torture?
And that's never been litigated in an American court before.
So, you know all of this is extraordinary, cutting-edge
and extraordinarily complicated.
But again, this is Guantanamo.
And that means it's also extraordinarily
cumbersome and slow moving.
- [Loree] So, are you satisfied
that the binder contained emails
about parking spaces and posting pleadings
and is there an apology that your supposed to--
- Well, the two things we were provided,
certainly one pertained to parking spaces.
The other pertained to other information
which we're melding together with information that we have.
And I don't know that I would be quite as sanguine
as General Martin's was about how innocuous it was.
I will say, however, that
it is amazing to me that given the fact
that he thinks it is innocuous,
that we spent however many hours we spent fighting over it.
I mean, that's just stunning to me.
But as everyone says,
everyone has their own litigation strategy.
That's certainly fine.
- [Carol] Carol Rosenberg with Miami Herald.
What can you tell us about this special prosecutor
that's apparently been put on your case?
We can tell you that they have entered a special appearance
and I expect at some point
we will be filing pleadings challenging that,
but beyond that, I'm really not
in the position to discuss it.
Partially because I've been busy
and really haven't read much of the material.
I have a sense of what it is.
But also, it's not something
that I can really discuss publicly.
- [Carol] So challenging the notion of their creation
or challenging whatever it is they're looking for?
Or is it too early?
- At this juncture, I think where the initial challenge is
to the very process whether you can even,
whether the General Martin's even has
the authority to name special prosecutors.
I haven't looked at it.
I hear rumors and based on who they are,
there may be challenges to them personally
whether they're really is neutral
and detached as it's represented.
But again, we've been busy this week.
- [Woman] You happen to be
(background noise drowns out Carol)
- Well, ideally, because the whole point of the wall
is that you have people who are outside the wall
and you wanna make sure that they
are really, really outside the wall.
I mean, I heard General Martin's
conversation and my experience is that this
is actually quite an unusual thing in federal court.
I won't say it never happens, but it's highly unusual.
And there have been numerous instances
where the wall has been breached.
And so what that wall looks like, how it's enforced,
you know, how this plays out if you even get there is,
these are huge, huge issues.
- [Carol] I know you're still studying it
but I guess generally, is this something
that the council need to hire council for over?
- Do we need to hire our own?
- [Carol] The lawyer?
- No, I don't have any reason to believe that's the case.
No.
(people chattering)
No and Mr. Gill's busy this week, so.
- [Carol] That was my other last question I think.
What did Mr. Gill's testimony demonstrate today?
- Well in our view, it demonstrated that
for a period of time,
that at least some people
who were disqualified by Judge Spath's order
were making an effort to continue
to influence the process.
I think that
the things the then Lieutenant Commander Gill did
in making a fuss probably
to the extent that they may have ended that, those problems.
I think he's responsible for that.
And I think he deserves far more credit
than he's being given.
But it certainly demonstrated, we think it demonstrated
really again, when you compare it with
the testimony of the two witnesses, other two witnesses
we were allowed to present,
there's tension in their versions
that is I think significant.
And I think at least as we review the evidence,
it looks like there was an effort
to avoid or undermine Judge Spath's ruling.
- [Woman] Do have any more questions?
- [Loree] Hi, Loree Lewis, Talk Media News.
Sir, we heard that, Rick, we heard that your client
was sick during a portion of these hearings.
And he also has requested a sleep over in this area
so that he doesn't get sick on those drives over.
Can you update us on how your client is doing where he's at?
- Well, yeah, thank you.
He was ill yesterday.
And he you know left court
in the middle of the morning.
When he returned in the afternoon, you know.
He was feeling better.
Obviously he was there all day today.
He was quite tired by the end of the day.
As Judge Spath indicated,
ideally, we'll be hearing evidence
the next time we're here in December.
Concerning what I anticipate will be
the government's objections to him staying
at the ELC during hearings.
And that'll be flushed out and litigated.
I mean, everything that happens here,
I mean let me just,
and when you look at Nashiri or you look at any
of the five 9/11 people or any
of the other high value detainees
you cannot escape the fact that all
of these people spent years and years
in CIA custody where they were subjected
to really horrendous and brutal torture.
And so, so much of things that seem
perhaps trivial in the context
to observers really has great, quite a bit of significance
when you really understand the history
and the lack of medical care that
the inmates are receiving in Guantanamo.
The lack of medical care to deal with
in Mr. Nashiri's case, the complex PTSD
from which he unquestionably suffers.
- [Loree] Will he be able to testify in public?
- Will he be able, you know.
In what circumstances, I mean?
- [Loree] Well, one of the witnesses you like
to call in that motion is--
- Oh, you know, we'll see.
I mean it certainly,
if this goes forward, I'm sure there will be occasions
when he testifies and I suspect for something like this
there would be sort of a limitation
on what he was allowed to talk about.
And you know presumably the prosecutors
if they chose to cross examine him
would respect that limitation
so as to not open the door to any classified information.
Although that door is pretty close to the surface
in most of these cases, so.
But again those are battles
that will be fought over the next year or so.
- [Carol] Is it your intention
to have him testify on this motion?
To stay at Camp Justice in open session?
- Well, again because of the sort of way this works,
you have to list your witnesses well in advance
and one of the potential witnesses is Mr. al Nashiri.
Am I absolutely guaranteeing
that he would testify if there's a hearing?
No.
If there's other ways to present the evidence
without subjecting him to
the rigors of testifying,
at this point, although ultimately, I expect that he will.
You know, we'll see.
It depends on whether we get medical records, what other,
I mean again, because we have no power in this process.
We can't just subpoena witnesses.
And so we don't know what, as we're here today.
What witnesses we'll be allowed to have, if any.
And so, who knows?
Yeah?
- [Loree] Something, Loree Lewis, Talk Media News,
something else that you mentioned today at the top
was that you said your client is concerned
that guards were pitting inmates against each other.
Can you offer any additional details on that?
- Well, I mean, not really other than
again, one of the, there's.
He was quite frustrated about some of the things
that appear to be going on in the camp.
And it's his feeling that things
may be going on behind the scenes
where the administration or the guards
are sort of getting one person to pick on another.
It's a little, I don't know
that I should really discuss it publicly,
but it's something that
there's something going there
that's particularly frustrating to him now.
Going once, going twice.
Thank you all very much.
See you on the plane home.
- Karen Loftus, and I'm the Director
of the Victim Witness Assistance Program
for the Office of Military Commissions.
I have the honor today to introduce to you
Master Chief Paul Abney who served honorably
in the United States Navy for 30 years
and retired in 2007.
He was stationed onboard the Cole at the time of the attack.
- All right.
I chose to come over here today despite
the fact the rest of our group had chose not to
just because I felt compelled to make some statements.
Specifically from my background in the Navy.
My background onboard the ship
from January '98 until February of 2001.
And just as the court process
and how things go are going there
and I mean one of the things
for the family members and victims
that we struggle with, that we sit in the back of the room,
here Mr. Kammen wore his
kangaroo lapel pin and called this a kangaroo court.
It is quite frustrating.
And I think downright disrespectful
for every member in uniform
that would be before a court martial system.
If they were involved in the same war crimes
that this gentleman is allegedly accused of.
And so our country has given him additional rights
that bring him closer to a federal court system
with this blended Military Commission Act.
That we never hear Mr. Kammen compare
it a court martial system.
It's constantly to the federal court system.
Well, he gave up his federal court system rights
that he never really had
when he committed an act of war.
And this alleged act of war I think brings him into,
what I would think as a military court martial system,
we've given him additional
much more leeway by adding in this blended system
that is in the Military Commission Act
than any military member would have
including those military members
that are on the defense panel.
And like I said, I think it's disrespectful
to even those that stand
on the defense team for Mr. al Nashiri.
And that's basically my first,
the other thing that has to do
with the constant drumming up of
Mr. al Nashiri's PTSD.
There are members of our crew that suffer PTSD
from the explosion (sniffles)
and for the three weeks they stood
and kept their ship afloat in Aden Harbor.
There was some excruciating scenes that they saw.
Removing bodies from behind bulkheads.
I'm not gonna go into excruciating detail
'cause I wanna spare the families that.
But I can tell you that these crew members
had to endure this for a long period of time.
And not all of them could,
including standing watches down in dark spaces
that in 120 degree, there's no lights.
And you've got the food from the galley area
that has been decaying for three weeks.
I think if you go three days
and stick your head in the garbage can,
you can imagine what decaying food smells like.
And we stood watches in that condition.
As they continued to try to get members out of there.
Including, you know, all the folks that helped us.
The teams that came
from the Marine FAST company.
And came and stood watch that Friday night.
We had folks from the H&S Marlboro
that came and delivered us stuff
and several of the ships the next that Saturday
from the Donald Cook in the halls
that came over and gave support in the USS Camden.
Many of these people experienced some
of the same stuff as they came over
and provided us assistance, provided help to us.
So, the fact that
we talk about one member
and I understand, this is, you know.
We've gotta look at this in the human rights aspect,
but you also gotta understand that
anybody that puts themselves in a position
and I chose that during my military career from '77 to 2007
There are military members that have also chosen
to put themselves under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice which is a different justice system
than the article III court
that Mr. Kammen continues to speak of.
That is more applicable, the system that he should be trying
(mumbles) the country has a long history
of military tribunals and military commissions
that goes back to the start of this country.
Where members that were involved in war crimes
were processed under those types of war courts.
So to continue to sit here and call this a kangaroo court,
like I said, it's disrespectful to every member in uniform.
And I want him to understand that.
And there are many members who suffer
from PTSD besides his client.
And he needs to understand that.
And every time they cringe in the back of the room,
he needs to think about that.
Those are my main two points I just wanted to get across.
I mean, it's ironic that
as we are down here this time,
things that have happened this month happened in
you know, we've got ships getting shot at
in the same general area of where the Cole was bombed.
And I was just onboard several ships supporting the Navy.
I mean since I've been out for nine years,
I've been supporting the Navy.
I go out and I talk to these sailors all the time.
We need to continue a strong defense
and continue building up our defense
to be a strength throughout the country.
And I'll leave it at that.
Though I'm getting off topic now.
So let me just pause here and see if there's any questions.
- [Carol] Master Chief, it's Carol Rosenberg
with the Miami Herald.
- Hi Carol.
- [Carol] Hi.
I noticed this is your third visit
and I know this is hard for you.
- Yes.
- [Carol] Will you explain why you keep coming back?
- Okay, I'll tell you Carol.
I come down here because not everyone
of our crew members can make it down here.
Not every one of our family members can make it down here.
I think I'm actually filling the spot
of a family member this time because we try
to do two family members and two crew members
with when we work with Karen.
But I have a,
my job normally supports me
having the time off
and the ability to get down here
so the fact that I can make it down here
I feel it's very important that somebody represents
the families of the victims
of those that were killed during this
and the members of the crew that suffered through this.
We had 39 injured folks
and many more that were damaged
in various with different ways including PTSD.
I mean, one of our crew members died,
I'll save, I'm gonna save him the complications of PTSD.
That was their
Gokel, he lost a leg and then later died
right before the 10 year anniversary.
We've just passed 16 years and we're waiting
for this justice on this.
And despite what the Defense Council will tell you
about the blaming the government on this process.
I think if you really look at the record,
it's apparent majority of these motions
that are all Defense Council motions
that have dragged this case on and on and on and on.
And I think they're just trying
to drag it on until the base closes
and they can get their client out of here.
But that's my personal opinion.
- [Woman] Do you have any other questions?
Thank you Master.
- All right, thank you very much.
Did you?
(people chattering)
Okay.
- [Woman] Thank you.
Sir, do you think that--
- Huh?
- [Woman] Carol asked if why you came down this time.
Do you think that you're gonna keep coming back?
We were told that this trial might not even start you know,
for years and years and years in the future.
Is this something that you're gonna keep coming back to?
- I will be here until the day
the trial is settled.
So as long as I'm alive, I will continue to come down here
as long as there's a slot for me to fill.
I'll continue to come down here and see this thing through.
I was the other master chief onboard.
A short period of time in '99
I was the acting commander master chief
but these were, this was my crew.
So, yeah, I would like to see justice.
And I will continue to come down here as long as it takes.
Thank you.
And thank you for, you know, coming here reporting
on this and providing this stuff.
I did look at,
Loree and Brittany.
Your sites, and I appreciate some of the things
that I mentioned yesterday in talking to you
are in fact on your websites and you do report on them.
So not all the news agencies leave out some
of the things that are happening around the world.
Thank you.