Key 9/11 Suspect To Be Tried In New York

[Gold9472]

How Did Alleged 9/11 Mastermind KSM Dye His Beard Red?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...-his-beard-red

By Adam Serwer
Thu May. 10, 2012 9:13 AM PDT

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's beard is top secret.

You're not supposed to be able to tell when someone has been using Just For Men, but the average graying man's bathroom isn't as well surveilled as a high-security cell at Guantanamo Bay. So when the alleged chief plotter behind the 9/11 attacks appeared at Guantanamo Bay's military commission last Saturday with his beard dyed red, it raised a question:

How did KSM get (probably henna-based) beard dye while locked up in one of the world's most secure facilities?

Reporters covering the 9/11 trials wondered about KSM's ability to obtain hair care products. But, it turns out, this is a classified matter. The Defense Department says that Guantanamo Bay officials are "aware" of how KSM obtained the dye, but they're not spilling the beans. And Mohammed's defense attorney, David Nevin, says he isn't allowed to talk about it.

"I have an idea about that, but unfortunately I can't talk about it because it bears on conditions of confinement, and that's one of the areas that's treated as top secret," Nevin says. "It's frustrating, there's so many of these things that do not implicate national security in the slightest."

Security at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is extremely tight, and high-value detainees like KSM are held in even more restrictive "SuperMax" conditions at the facility's secretive Camp 7. Reporters aren't allowed to tour that part of the facility, and the camp itself was a secret until 2007.

One US official told Mother Jones about three possible ways KSM might have gotten his hands on the henna. The detainee could have gotten the dye from a lawyer, but because Nevin can't talk about his client's grooming, that's hard to confirm. Family or friends could have sent KSM the dye and had it delivered by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which occasionally visits the camp. It's also possible, although less likely, that KSM could have made the dye from materials already available at the camp.

As for why KSM dyed his beard? Former State Department counterterrorism adviser Will McCants says that KSM is probably trying to emphasize his commitment to Islam. KSM grew his long, flowing beard only after he was imprisoned at Guantanamo—previous photographs show him with a trim beard or a thick mustache.

"KSM is following the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, who recommended dyeing a grey beard red," McCants says, calling it "a sign of devotion, particularly after looking like Ron Jeremy all those years."

But how did KSM go from the porn-star look to more of a Gimli? Apparently, it would damage national security if we knew.

[Gold9472]

Husband of 9/11 victim goes to Gitmo to spare plotters from death sentence

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...I5AXI6TaD7TI/0

By JOSH MARGOLIN
Last Updated: 7:08 AM, May 14, 2012
Posted: 12:57 AM, May 14, 2012

The husband of a woman killed on 9/11 went to Guantanamo Bay on a shocking secret mission — to try to save the lives of the al-Qaeda monsters who planned the murder.

Blake Allison — one of 10 relatives of victims to win a lottery for tickets to the arraignment of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his evil accomplices — had told people he was making the trip because “I wanted to see the faces of the people accused of murdering my wife.’’

But while there, the 62-year-old wine-company executive held a clandestine meeting with the terrorists’ lawyers, in which he offered to testify against putting their clients to death.

A vocal critic of capital punishment, Allison wants to convince the US government to spare the lives of KSM and his minions even if a military commission convicts them of a slew of death-penalty charges.

“The public needs to know there are family members out there who do not hold the view that these men should be put to death,� Allison told The Post.

“We can’t kill our way to a peaceful tomorrow.�

Allison’s 48-year-old wife, Anna, was a software consultant on her way to visit a client in Los Angeles when her plane, American Airlines Flight 11, was smashed into World Trade Center Tower 1 on Sept. 11, 2001.

In a lengthy conversation from his home in New Hampshire, Allison explained his controversial view — one he admits is not shared by his late wife’s relatives or by the other family members of victims he met at Guantanamo.

“My opposition to the death penalty does not say I don’t want the people who killed my wife and [the other 911 victims] brought to account for their crimes,� he said.

“But for me, opposition to the death penalty is not situational. Just because I was hurt very badly and personally does not, in my mind, give me the go-ahead to take a life.�

He said that “9/11 was a particularly egregious and appalling crime,� but added, “I just think it’s wrong to take a life.�

Allison, who has remarried, is under no illusion that the terrorists have reformed — and would not gladly kill more Americans.

After staring at the fiendish faces of KSM, Ramzi bin al Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Mustafa al-Hawsawi and KSM nephew Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Allison said he is certain they have “no apparent remorse and would do it again.�

Still, he said, “I’ve been opposed to the death penalty for decades, before my wife was murdered on 9/11.

“I’m still opposed to it.�

He said he spoke to other family members at Guantanamo and came to realize he was alone in his view.

“I know they’re sincere in their beliefs,� he said.

“They want what they perceive as justice for their loved ones. I would never tell anybody in my position what they should feel.�

The defense lawyers were pleased, but probably not terribly surprised to see him.

Allison had previously testified on behalf of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — the so-called 20th hijacker — who had faced the death penalty but was sentenced to a life term, which he’s serving in the Supermax prison in Colorado.

Allison said his hourlong meeting with the defense lawyers took place May 4, the day before the terror thugs were arraigned.

He quoted one of the attorneys as telling him, “We want you to understand now that there are probably going to be some things we do that are really going to upset you. But believe me, we are not doing anything with the intention of hurting you.’’

He believes they were alerting him to the “gamesmanship involved in their courtroom tactics.�

He singled out defense attorney Cheryl Borman, who dressed in traditional Muslim garb, leaving only her face uncovered, and who asked that all women in the courtroom be ordered to dress modestly for the sake of the five defendants.

“She looked like the angel of death, this black shrouded figure, as she got up and walked up and back in the courtroom,� Allison recalled.

KSM and his cohorts employed a variety of tactics to turn the proceedings into a circus.

They refused to wear earphones so they could hear an Arabic translation of the hearing. Then they would not respond to questions from the judge or even cooperate with their attorneys.

They shouted out, stood up, bowed down and prayed.

In a particularly sick and tasteless gesture, bin Attash made a paper airplane and interrupted the session by resting it on a microphone.

He later ticked off the judge by tearing off his shirt to show scars he said he suffered in beatings from guards at Gitmo.

All the while, their lawyers questioned the judge’s credentials and the validity of the military commission, and kept bringing up accusations of torture.

But none of that kept Allison from wanting to help.

He said his opposition to execution is rooted in his Episcopalian faith.

“When Martin Luther was being asked to recant by the hierarchy of the Roman church for all his Protestant actions, he said, ‘Here I stand. I can’t do otherwise.’

“That’s the way I feel. First and foremost, I don’t think it’s right to take a life. It’s grounded in my religious faith. The New Testament is very clear about this.�

Allison also said he is not convinced that the military-commission system is a legitimate way of trying accused terrorists.

He said he would have been more comfortable if the men were put on trial in a federal courthouse, as President Obama originally proposed.

“I’m going to try to keep an open mind about this process. I’m very skeptical about this. I know there have been changes to the commission but I’m going to keep an open mind,� he said.

Allison said he also worries whether military prosecutors will carry out a pledge to keep out all evidence obtained through torture.

“Can the prosecutors credibly say that their evidence remains free of taint?� he asked.

[Gold9472]

US officials sought for Guantanamo Sept. 11 trial

http://www.wqow.com/story/18429667/u...-sept-11-trial

Posted: May 15, 2012 6:48 PM EDT Updated: May 15, 2012 6:48 PM EDT

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - Defense lawyers in the Sept. 11 case at Guantanamo are asking a military judge to order testimony from senior U.S. government officials in a motion to dismiss charges.

Navy Cmdr. Walter Ruiz says the motion filed with the military tribunal requests testimony at the U.S. base in Cuba from eight top officials in the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

Ruiz declines to name the officials, and the motion has not been released pending a security review.

The filing was disclosed on a Pentagon website Tuesday.

The motion was filed on behalf of three of the five men charged with helping carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. It seeks to dismiss charges because of what the defense calls improper political interference.

[Gold9472]

Justice and the 9/11 defendants
A military tribunal is not the best way to demonstrate America's commitment to the rule of law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...0,969251.story

May 17, 2012

When Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced in 2009 that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other accused Sept. 11 conspirators would be tried in a civilian federal court, we said that his decision "makes an eloquent statement about the Obama administration's determination to avenge the victims of terrorism within the rule of law." But the five never made it to civilian court; instead, thanks to domestic politics, they are being tried for murder and other charges before a military commission in Guantanamo Bay.

The commission is not, as some of its detractors assert, a kangaroo court rigged to guarantee the conviction and execution of the defendants. But both substantively and symbolically, it is an unacceptable alternative to a civilian trial of the kind that has successfully convicted other terrorists.

The commission's proceedings began inauspiciously when the defendants refused to enter pleas and staged a silent protest against the legitimacy of the tribunal. Defense lawyers have complained that they are being restricted in talking with clients about their treatment by CIA interrogators, and the ACLU is challenging a "protective order" proposed by the government that would treat the defendants' statements about their interrogation as "presumptively classified" and thus subject to censorship.

There is no guarantee that the defendants wouldn't behave in a similarly obstructive way in a civilian trial. Nor would the prosecutors in a federal court be prevented from asking the judge to withhold classified information. And civil libertarians who see the prosecution of the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind and his confederates as an opportunity to ventilate the CIA's use of waterboarding and other abusive interrogation methods might find a civilian judge just as reluctant as a military one to put the CIA on trial.

That said, the differences between the two kinds of proceedings are important. The current military system, revised by Congress in 2009, is more credible than the commissions unilaterally established by theGeorge W. Bushadministration. It requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, prohibits double jeopardy and, most important, bars the admission of evidence obtained as the result of torture or "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." (Mohammed was repeatedly waterboarded.) Yet in other respects it is less protective of defendants than a civilian trial. While evidence resulting from torture is inadmissible and confessions are required to be voluntary, critics say other sorts of "coerced" statements — particularly from third parties — could be allowed. The commission system is also more accepting of hearsay evidence.

As important as these particular defects is the fact that the trial of the Sept. 11 defendants is taking place under the aegis of the same military that is imprisoning them, and which has held them without successfully putting them on trial for almost a decade. Regardless of improvements in the commission system since the Bush administration, it simply doesn't afford the defendants the gold standard of American justice. If Mohammed were sentenced to death after a civilian trial, the United States could point to the fact that it had provided full due process even to someone who murdered nearly 3,000 innocent people. It can't credibly make that claim about a military commission. And while, understandably, the families of Sept. 11 victims might not care about international opinion, the Obama administration recognized that it was in this country's interest — especially after revelations about torture and the imprisonment of accused terrorists at "black sites" — for Mohammed and the others to receive a trial that was not only fair but perceived to be fair.

That is not going to happen. Much of the blame belongs to Congress, which effectively thwarted the administration's original plan for a civilian trial by barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. But the administration also committed errors. In announcing that the trial would be held in New York City, Holder provoked a backlash from residents and public officials who feared the city would again become a target for terrorists. It would have been politically wiser if the administration had proposed a civilian trial at a more remote and protected site. Later, after the hardening of opposition to a civilian trial anywhere, the president decided not to expend political capital pressing for his original plan.

A civilian trial for Mohammed and the others would have dramatized Obama's commitment at the beginning of his administration to depart decisively from Bush administration policies in the war against terrorism. The president should have fought harder for his original vision of justice.

[Gold9472]

Guantanamo tribunal weighs separate 9/11 trials

http://india.nydailynews.com/newsart...te-9-11-trials

Saturday, May 19th 2012, 03:48 AM

A special US military tribunal at Guantanamo is weighing whether to hold separate trials for five accused plotters of the September 11 attacks, a defense lawyer said.

The men, who are being held at Guantanamo Bay, were formally charged earlier this month with crimes that include murder and terrorism. They face the death penalty if convicted for their roles in the Al-Qaeda attacks that claimed 2,976 lives in New York, Washington and Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

"The Guantanamo Bay military commission issued an unusual order for the prosecution to show cause why defendants in the 9/11 case should not be severed," James Connell, who represents Pakistani defendant Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, said in a statement.

"Prosecutors generally favor a joint trial because it makes their case easier."

Connell said he requested the testimony of the man who ran the CIA's interrogation program at black sites for the tribunal's next session in June.

Jose Rodriguez has acknowledged that his team "went to the border of legality" in interrogating Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 2001 attacks.

Mohammed, a Kuwait-born Pakistani, was subjected 183 times to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding during the three years he was held at secret CIA prisons after his 2003 capture in Pakistan. He was eventually transferred to Guantanamo in 2006.

"Mr Rodriguez has important information on that topic and there is no good reason the government should prohibit him from testifying," Connell said. "The government is using every available tactic to suppress evidence of torture."

Three of the lawyers for the accused plotters have requested that eight "top officials" from the administrations of President Barack Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush also take the stand, said Commander Walter Ruiz, who represents Mustapha al-Hawsawi of Saudi Arabia.

He declined to name the individuals in question but noted they were from the "highest levels of the government."

[Gold9472]

Judge in 9/11 case at Guantanamo weighs splitting up defendants and holding multiple trials

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...bZU_story.html

By Associated Press, Published: May 18

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A military judge is considering whether to split off one or more of the defendants and hold separate trials for five Guantanamo Bay prisoners charged in the Sept. 11 attacks, a lawyer for one of the men said Friday.

The judge, Army Col. James Pohl, proposed the change in a written order in part because of the difficulty trying to schedule hearings for five defendants and multiple lawyers at the U.S. base in Cuba, said James Connell, a civilian attorney for defendant Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali.

Pohl also questioned whether one trial for all five defendants would create a conflict with evidence that could help one defendant while hurting another, Connell said.

The judge’s order is sealed. As part of the order, the prosecution was ordered to show cause why the cases should not be severed.

The Pentagon will not release the order until it has passed through a security review, said Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a spokesman for the Guantanamo military commissions.

“There are some very specific ethical constraints that prohibit the prosecution from litigating cases in the press,� Breasseale said.

Previously, Connell had said he wanted his client’s case severed from that of the others, who include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks, and the prosecution wanted them all tried together. Both sides are barred by the rules from disclosing their wishes at this point and will be filing legal motions by the end of the month.

The five men were arraigned together on May 5 on charges that include murder and terrorism. They could be sentenced to death if convicted. The next pretrial hearing in the case is scheduled for June but lawyers for several defendants have requested a postponement.

[Gold9472]

Accused 9/11 planners might get separate Guantánamo trials
The judge in the legal proceeding against five men accused of having roles in the 9/11 terror attacks is considering whether to separate the trials.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/2...might-get.html

By CAROL ROSENBERG
crosenberg@miamiherald.com

Scheduling conflicts and legal issues might be reasons to split up the military trial of the five Guantánamo men accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks, the Army colonel presiding at the case wrote in a court order made public Monday.

Judge James L. Pohl instructed the 9/11 prosecutors to answer him by Thursday on whether separate military juries should hear the death penalty terror trials of alleged mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four accused co-conspirators.

Military and Justice Department prosecutors have been preparing a joint prosecution for years. During the Bush administration, the Pentagon built a special courthouse at Guantánamo capable of trying up to six defendants before a single jury.

Now the judge has asked the prosecutors whether they want to stick with that plan. In his order, written last week but held under seal until Monday, the judge wrote that he envisioned potential conflicts at the death penalty phase of the trial, if the men are convicted.

As of Monday afternoon, the prosecutors were preparing their response, said Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Pentagon spokesman.

But, “joint trials of alleged co-conspirators are often the best way to ensure a network’s entire conduct is properly and fully considered,� Breasseale said.

The judge’s two-page order made no mention of the chaotic arraignment of the men May 5, a Saturday hearing that stretched across 13 hours in part because the five men staged choreographed protests in the court. Each man refused to answer the judge’s questions and accepted each offer of three prayer breaks in the daylong hearing.

Rather, the issue is coming to a head now because the judge had set June 12-15 for the next hearings in the case.

Defense lawyers for some of the men have sought delays, citing conflicts. Notably, Mohammed’s lawyer, David Nevin, has to be in Boise, Idaho, at that time — if not seeking clemency from the governor then attending the execution of another client. He’s Richard A. Leavitt, convicted of the July 1984 murder and sexual mutilation of a Blackfoot, Idaho, woman, and scheduled to die by lethal injection June 12.

Had all five of the accused agreed to a delay, the issue might have been averted at this early stage of the case, at least a year before the actual trial.

But Navy Cmdr. Walter Ruiz, defending Saudi Mustafa Hawsawi, said his client wanted the hearing June 12 and did not waive a so-called speedy trial clock requirement in the case.

At the May 5 arraignment, Ruiz had pressed the judge to tackle several fundamental pre-trial motions, notably early challenges to the legitimacy of the case itself as well as a long-festering issue on the prison camp’s reviewing mail between the attorneys and their clients. Pohl said those motions would be taken up June 15.

In his order to the prosecutors, the judge did not instruct them on whether they should consider five separate trials for the men or smaller joint prosecutions. He gave the defense lawyers a May 31 deadline to weigh in on whether they want separate trials.

The timeline casts doubt on whether he would still seek to hold a joint hearing the week of June 12.

Defense attorneys for one of the accused, Ammar al Baluchi, had earlier argued unsuccessfully to a Pentagon official to have that case split off on grounds the allegations against Baluchi, Mohammed’s nephew, implicated him largely in money transfers not other aspects of the conspiracy.

Baluchi’s lawyer, James Connell III, described the order itself as “unusual because the military commission itself raised the issue of severance.�

Under the military commission formula for a death penalty trial, a panel of 12 or more U.S. military officers hears the case, renders a verdict and, in the event of a conviction, then decides punishment. Before they deliberate whether to impose the death penalty, lawyers for the men can bring in evidence on why they shouldn’t order an execution.

The judge wrote in his instruction to the prosecution to consider splitting up the trial that he “is concerned with the capital sentencing phase, if any, in this case. It is conceivable that the mitigation evidence for one accused could possibly be considered aggravation evidence for another.�

But Cheryl Bormann, defending an alleged trainer of the 9/11 hijackers, Walid bin Attash, said Monday she had not received sufficient court resources to know whether splitting the trial was in her client’s best interest.

Prosecutors had yet to turn over the evidence against her client, called discovery, she said. Plus, she said, seven months had passed and the Pentagon still had not yet granted a security clearance for her mitigation expert to meet with Bin Attash. He’s Tim Semmerling, who is similarly serving as a mitigation expert in the case of Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, accused of killing 13 people in a Nov. 5, 2009 shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas.

The judge, said Bormann, is “asking us for input before we have the tools for which we could actually analyze the situation and make a determination.�

[Gold9472]

Obama, Bush testimony sought in 9/11 case at Gitmo

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...07dddf065a0e5f

By BEN FOX, Associated Press – 3 hours ago

Defense lawyers in the Sept. 11 case at Guantanamo are seeking the testimony of former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama in a motion to dismiss charges, according to a legal motion released Wednesday.

Lawyers for three of the five defendants charged with planning and helping carry out the attacks say the charges should be dismissed because Bush, Obama and other top officials have made many statements that could influence potential jurors in their eventual trial before a special tribunal known as a military commission, according to the motion.

They have exerted what is known as "unlawful influence," over the case with such statements as calling the defendants "terrorists," and saying they must be brought to justice, the lawyers argue.

"Under these facts, it is impossible for any objective, disinterested observer, with knowledge of all the facts and circumstances, to believe these men can receive a fair trial by military commission," they wrote.

Also among those called to testify are Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has been active in detainee policy, as well as several Pentagon officials.

The motion was filed May 11 but was only just released on a Pentagon website following a security review. It will be up to the military judge to decide whether to call any of the witnesses to the stand at the U.S. base in Cuba and such an outcome would seem unlikely. The judge may just require written briefs in what is one of many pretrial motions pending in the case.

Prosecutors have not filed a response.

The five defendants, including the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were arraigned at Guantanamo on May 5 on charges that include terrorism and murder. They could get the death penalty if convicted.

The brief was submitted by the defense lawyers for three of the men: Ramzi Binalshibh of Yemen; Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi of Saudi Arabia; and Pakistani national Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali.

A prohibition on improper influence is an important tenet of the military justice system, intended to prevent higher ranking officers from attempting to sway a case being tried by people over whom they have command.

"For the past 10 years, through the administrations of two presidents, these accused have consistently been described as 'thugs,' 'murderers' and 'terrorists' who 'planned the 9/11 attacks' and must 'face justice,'" the lawyers wrote. "It can easily be understood by members of the public that this system of military commissions exists solely for the purpose of imposing a death sentence upon these accused."

[Gold9472]

Accused 9/11 planners want Obama, Bush to testify at Guantanamo trials

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/2...ant-obama.html

Carol Rosenberg | The Miami Herald

Defense attorneys seeking to derail the trial of five men accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks are asking a military judge to order President Barack Obama and former president George W. Bush, Vice President Joe Biden, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and Attorney General Eric Holder to testify at the Guantánamo war court.

At issue in the motion unsealed Wednesday evening at the Pentagon is whether accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators can get a fair capital murder terror trial from a military jury of 12 or more U.S. officers.

Attorneys for the accused argue they cannot, citing “widespread pretrial publicity that has included unending prejudicial statements from the highest public officials in the U.S. government.� They are asking the military judge, Army Col. James L. Pohl, to acknowledge the political influence in the process and, if not throw out the case entirely, “remove death as a potential sentence� — even before the case is presented to a jury at least a year from now.

“For the past 10 years, through the administrations of two presidents, these accused have consistently been described as ‘thugs,’ ‘murderers,’ and ‘terrorists’ who ‘planned the 9/11 attacks’ and must ‘face justice,’ � the lawyers argued.

“It can easily be understood by members of the public that this system of military commissions exists solely for the purpose of imposing a death sentence upon these accused.�

Unlawful command influence motions are not unusual at the Guantánamo war court, which Bush had set up within months of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Obama criticized them as a senator and candidate, then reformed them as president. At least one motion has succeeded in excluding a Pentagon official, a brigadier general, from involvement in a Bush-era case, after a military judge ruled the general was biased toward the prosecution and obtaining a conviction.

Attorneys filed notice of the motion last week. But it was only on Wednesday that the Pentagon finally made public the list of eight upper-echelon witnesses the lawyers for the alleged terrorists are asking the judge to compel to testify to bolster their argument.

A Pentagon spokesman did not have an immediate comment on whether the judge even had the authority to order testimony from the current or former commander in chief. Moreover, testimony at past commissions has not always been in person at the Guantánamo court, which has video-teleconferencing capabilities to hear witnesses from overseas.

Graham’s office said it would not be known until Thursday whether the senior Republican senator who has been influential in the creation of commissions had been told of the request, and whether he would voluntarily comply.

The defense lawyers also want the judge to compel testimony from the senior Pentagon official now responsible for oversight of the war court, retired Navy Vice Adm. Bruce MacDonald, whose title is convening authority for military commissions; Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s most senior lawyer; as well as the chief prosecutor, Army Brig Gen. Mark Martins.

One of the most damning quotes attributed to Obama in the 42-page motion — “Khalid Sheik Mohammed is going to meet justice and he’s going to meet his maker� — actually came from the lips of then-White House spokesman Robert Gibbs in remarks to CNN in January 2010. Gibbs is now an advisor to the re-election campaign.

Defense attorneys argue that Pohl, who is outranked by even the chief prosecutor on the case, “is duty-bound to ensure that the accused are afforded process that will guarantee them that a death sentence will not be imposed due to the passions and prejudices injected into the proceedings by the President of the United States, political appointees, or elected representatives.�

[Gold9472]

Prosecutors urge Guantanamo judge not to split up 9/11 trial

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012...amo-judge.html

By CAROL ROSENBERG — McClatchy Newspapers
Posted: 1:00am on May 24, 2012; Modified: 7:01pm on May 24, 2012

Pentagon prosecutors argued in a motion Thursday against splitting up the joint death-penalty prosecution at Guantanamo of the five men accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.

The chief war court judge, Army Col. James L. Pohl, sought the opinion last week after encountering scheduling conflicts for a motions hearing scheduled for June 12-15 at the U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba. It was to be the first hearing following the marathon, 13-hour May 5 arraignment of alleged mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged accomplices in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But the criminal defense attorney for Mohammed notified the court he cannot get to Cuba on June 12 because he's representing a convicted killer facing execution by lethal injection on that same day in Boise, Idaho.

Three other Sept. 11 defense teams agreed to the delay. But the attorney for a Saudi man charged in the conspiracy argued he was prepared to go forward with the June 12 hearing, creating a conundrum for the war court's so-called "speedy trial clock."

The 9/11 prosecutors wrote in a court filing Thursday that early scheduling conflicts did not necessitate splitting the five-man prosecution.

"Severance of this jointly referred capital commission would be an extraordinary action that should not be regarded by the military judge as 'appropriate relief' in these circumstances," the prosecution wrote, in an extract obtained by McClatchy Newspapers.

The filing itself was under seal undergoing a security review, which at the war court gives intelligence agencies up to 15 business days to scrub military commissions documents filed with the military commissions clerk.

The Pentagon spokesman for Guantanamo issues, Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, would not provide a comment on the prosecution position.

Prosecutors also argued in their brief that "no defense counsel or accused" had sought a speedy trial. Nor had any of the alleged Sept. 11 plotters "articulated any prejudice that any accused might suffer by proceeding jointly."

Rather, the prosecution wrote that the Pohl, as presiding judge, has the authority to delay the scheduled June 12-15 session "to accommodate reasonable scheduling issues of defense counsel." Or, they wrote, he could order the delay "in the interest of justice."