Key 9/11 Suspect To Be Tried In New York

[Gold9472]

9/11 hearings to focus on secrecy, transparency

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/15/491...n-secrecy.html

By CAROL ROSENBERG
The Miami Herald
Published: Monday, Oct. 15, 2012 - 1:00 am

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- The five men accused of plotting the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were in the custody of the CIA for up to four years before they were brought here for detention and trial. But exactly where the CIA held them and what was done to them there is a state secret at the military court in which they are charged with war crimes.

In 2008, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then head of the CIA, told Congress that the alleged mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was waterboarded. Hayden didn't say where or how or whether anything else was done to Mohammed in an attempt to get him to give up al-Qaida's secrets.

"The government wants to kill Mr. Mohammed. They want to extinguish the last eyewitness to his torture so that he can never speak about it," Mohammed's defense attorney, David Nevin, told reporters in May after a 13-hour arraignment.

Just how much the world can know - and how much their lawyers can learn - about the years Mohammed and the other four men spent in the CIA prison network will be front and center this week at pretrial hearings. The government argues that whatever the men say about their time in the so-called "black sites" is Top Secret, classified at the highest levels.

The hearings start Monday and run all week, and will cover a range of issues from whether the prison camps can compel the men to attend their own trials to whether they can wear paramilitary attire to court. They were scheduled for August but delayed by Tropical Storm Isaac.

None of the men are particularly sympathetic characters.

Soon after Mohammed got to Guantanamo from the prison network where, the CIA's own declassified documents disclose, he was waterboarded 183 times, the U.S.-educated, Pakistani-born man bragged to a military panel that he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks from "A to Z."

His four accused accomplices allegedly trained, funded and arranged travel for the 19 hijackers that killed nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field in the worst terror attack on U.S. soil. At their May arraignment, they refused to answer the judge's questions.

Now this week, Army Col. James Pohl, the judge, will hear arguments from lawyers on how much the world can hear - and how much their own defense lawyers can discuss with the accused - of what happened to them during their years in CIA custody.

The chief war crimes prosecutor, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, says the court is as transparent as the agencies that control the classifications allow. Meaning, if the CIA has declared something a secret, the government's Pentagon prosecution team is bound to keep that secret.

Information is classified "to safeguard genuine sources and methods of intelligence gathering that can protect against future attack," the general told an audience in London last month as part of a periodic speaking meant to quell criticism of the war court.

The government can't close proceedings, he said, to shield the United States from embarrassment or to cover up that a law was broken.

Defense lawyers oppose the idea that anything the accused say is "presumptively classified." They say the prison camps rules imposed on their work means that, as Nevin put it, attorney and captive are forbidden to discuss between themselves anything from what Mohammed says the CIA did to him to his "historical perspective on jihad." Nevin called the war court system "a rigged game."

They are likewise gagged from discussing publicly even the most mundane aspect of what the captives tell them.

"Everything is presumptively Top Secret. So if my client had a tuna fish sandwich for lunch, I couldn't tell you that," Cheryl Bormann, defense lawyer for alleged al-Qaida lieutenant Walid bin Attash, told reporters after the May proceedings.

The others accused in the case are Mohammed's nephew, Ammar al Baluchi, 34, like his uncle a Pakistani citizen; Ramzi bin al Shibh, 40, like bin Attash, 34, a Yemeni described in the charge sheets as willing deputies to Mohammed and Mustafa al Hawsawi, 44, a Saudi man who allegedly helped move the money that financed the hijackers' travel to the United States.

All were captured in Pakistan in 2002 and 2003 and hidden for years from the International Red Cross, whose mandate is to monitor treatment of prisoners around the globe. In 2006, President George W. Bush had these men moved to Guantanamo for trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that it is "Orwellian," preposterous for the U.S. government to subject the men to the detention regime and then say they can't talk publicly in court about what happened to them. Everyone but the accused was a willing participant in this chapter of U.S. history, yet they find themselves with the same gag order as most government employees with top secret clearances.

Attorneys for 14 media organizations, who like the ACLU will argue for openness at the court this week, argue that the public has a compelling interest in the case, as well as a constitutional right to access. If the judge closes portions, the so-called "press objectors" argue in their brief, he must explain in exacting detail what aspect of national security he is protecting.

(They are: ABC Inc., The Associated Press, Bloomberg News, CBS Broadcasting Inc., Fox News Network, The Miami Herald and its parent McClatchy Co., National Public Radio, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Reuters, Tribune Company, the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.)

Judge Pohl is hearing dozens of motions during the hearings, and may be able to act more swiftly and easily on some than others.

On the topic of attorney-client conversations, he has already over-ruled the prison camps commander in the capital case against a former CIA captive, Abd al Rahim Nashiri, accused of the October USS Cole bombing that killed 17 U.S. sailors. And he has said he has the power to do so.

He has not said in court that he believes he has the authority to declassify information the government still stamps Top Secret - including details that have already leaked into the public about the captives four-year detour to Guantanamo during the George W. Bush years.

[Gold9472]

September 11 mastermind back in US military court

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...6e77e273aa.681

(AFP) – 1 hour ago

US NAVAL BASE AT GUANTANAMO, Cuba — Hearings for the self-proclaimed September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants got under way on Monday at Guantanamo Bay ahead of their trial.

It was a second appearance for him at the special tribunal known as military commissions on the US naval base.

Mohammed and four alleged co-plotters face the death penalty if convicted for the attacks on the United States 11 years ago that left 2,976 people dead.

With prosecutors refusing to reveal information deemed classified and holding parts of the debates behind closed doors, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) rights group and 14 media groups have urged complete transparency.

At issue are the torture and abuse the five men said they suffered at the hands of US authorities, and the classified status that President Barack Obama's administration says covers details of the suspects' treatment, citing national security concerns.

[Gold9472]

Statement from the Chief Prosecutor Regarding This Week’s Hearing in the 9/11 Case

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/10/s...-the-911-case/

By Wells Bennett
Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Brigadier General Mark Martins, the Chief Prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo, has released this statement regarding this week’s motions hearing in United States v. Mohammed et al. His remarks follow below.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi stand charged with Attacking Civilians, Attacking Civilian Objects, Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Destruction of Property in Violation of the Law of War, Hijacking or Hazarding a Vessel or Aircraft, Terrorism, and Conspiracy in connection with the attacks on our nation on September 11, 2001. These attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,976 persons.

We acknowledge the desire for justice under the rule of law felt by so many who are observing these proceedings, including the survivors and victim family members for whom fair, open, and accountable trials are worth the effort, however long they may take. In addition to those who will observe from stateside viewing sites, some family members of victims traveled here to witness the proceedings. We welcome them and appreciate what this week means to them.

We also welcome those in the media and non-governmental organizations who traveled here to attend the sessions. Through you and through closed-circuit transmission, the public observes and better understands the legal issues in dispute.

In sessions without panel members, the judge considers various pre-trial legal matters the parties have raised in court filings. The law in all U.S. courts requires that such matters be addressed and that the disposition of each issue be placed on the record. This methodical and adversarial process is the same in a federal district court before seating a civilian jury and in a court-martial before assembling the members.

The military judge’s order providing the sequence of the motions is available on the military-commissions website (Appellate Exhibit 59I), as are all of the parties’ pleadings for the issues that the Commission will consider. The Commission released to the public the pleadings that the parties will argue this week. Observers of commissions have noted that publicly releasing these pleadings as soon as possible prior to the hearings promotes wider understanding of the proceedings. The government has also made available binders containing written copies of all the pleadings to the media and non-governmental organizations attending the sessions in Guantanamo. Many government officials and employees continue to work hard to implement the policies and practices necessary for transparency.

The motions to be taken up this week raise issues involving the production and protection of discovery, the presence of the accused, and public access to the Commission’s proceedings. Review of the briefs and attendance at oral arguments in the coming week by members of the media will enable you to hear all sides of these motions and thus fulfill your professional obligation to avoid reporting only one perspective of any contested issue. Such diligence is important. Although there are some issues on which the government and counsel for the accused agree, there are also areas of disagreement. The facts and legal rationale of each matter will be duly considered by the judge, but there is also great benefit in your independent consideration and, through you, in consideration by the wider public that is interested in this significant trial.

I will comment briefly on three broader issues regarding reformed military commissions.

First is the legal concept of relevance. The parties have the right to present evidence that is “relevant and necessary.� They have no right to present irrelevant matters. The party seeking to present a matter as evidence, including witness testimony, must demonstrate that the matter is both relevant and necessary. Permitting parties to present matters that are irrelevant would unduly burden society in an intrusive and costly way. That is just as true in federal courts and courts-martial as it is in military commissions.

Evidence is relevant and necessary where it contributes to a party’s presentation of the case in some positive way on a matter in issue. For example, with respect to a charge of Terrorism under the Military Commissions Act of 2009, the elements of that offense include (1) intentionally killing or inflicting great bodily harm on one or more protected persons or engaging in an act that evinces a wanton disregard for human life and (2) doing so in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct. So evidence, like witness testimony, that contributes to one side or the other’s presentation of the case on whether the accused intentionally killed protected persons would be relevant and necessary. Similarly, evidence showing that the killing was done in a manner calculated to intimidate the civilian population would be relevant and necessary.

The same standard applies to affirmative defenses. For example, in military commissions, if the accused can show that he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, these facts could support an affirmative defense. So evidence tending to contribute to the accused’s presentation of the case on the question of his mental capacity would be relevant and necessary.

Put another way, the focus of the trial is, as it should be, on the guilt or innocence of an accused on the charges alleged. All information that may tend to exculpate an accused, including classified information, must be provided to the defense in discovery so that the accused has the opportunity to challenge the case against him.

I reiterate that the law clearly holds that no statement obtained as a result of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment will be admissible as evidence against an accused. And any assertion that the Military Commissions Act of 2009 expressly permits the admissibility of so-called “derivative evidence� obtained as a result of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is false. The Military Commissions Act of 2009 safeguards against the admission of such evidence through the totality-of-the-circumstances test and the “voluntariness� determination under section 948r. And any new information uncovered about post-capture treatment will be made known to the appropriate authorities tasked with investigating allegations regarding the accused’s treatment. However, there may be instances where post-capture treatment is not relevant to the alleged charges.

Some have complained that the rule of relevance will be applied to assure that no evidence of an accused’s post-capture treatment will be heard in their cases. This is false. Defense counsel could offer evidence of post-capture treatment that may be relevant and necessary to the consideration of whether statements made to authorities were voluntary. Were an accused to be convicted, evidence of post-capture treatment could mitigate the offense and thus be relevant and necessary to the determination of a just sentence. These are just two examples in which a military commission will not shrink from examining post-capture treatment that is relevant and necessary to the matters before it.

I emphasize that the charges before a military commission are only allegations and that an accused is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second, as most of you are aware, some defense counsel asked the Commission to delay this week’s hearings, contending that environmental conditions rendered their office space uninhabitable. The government takes concerns regarding the habitability of all working spaces seriously. In response to the defense’s concerns, qualified officials from the Industrial Hygiene Department of the U.S. Naval Hospital Guantanamo Bay assessed the buildings in question. The Joint Task Force Preventive Medicine Department also conducted a rodent survey. Following the assessments, the office space was certified as habitable, and the buildings were cleared for resumption of normal working operations. The government provided the Commission and the defense the memoranda and reports regarding the hygiene assessment and the rodent survey. And just last Friday, after having examined the assessments, the Commission denied the defense motion to delay this week’s hearings (Appellate Exhibit 82H).

The focus of the trial can thus remain, as it should, on the guilt or innocence of the accused and not on counsel accommodations. Again, while taking seriously the genuine needs of counsel to fulfill their professional responsibilities, the quality of justice is not determined by physical trappings.

Finally, as you may know, I have previously described the categories of criticisms levied against reformed military commissions. These criticisms can be summarized by six “Uns�: that military commissions are unfair, unsettled, unknown, unbounded, unnecessary, and un- American. Recently, we heard a seventh “Un�—that entirely apart from fairness considerations or any of the other “Uns,� reformed military commissions are unpopular and therefore doomed to futility or purposelessness.

The purpose is clear. The work is worthy. The Congress of the United States, representing the sovereign will of the American people, has repeatedly demonstrated strong support for these military-commission trials. Similarly, two Presidents of the United States, elected by the American people, have signed successive acts regarding military commissions into law. It is increasingly clear that military commissions have an important, albeit narrow, function within United States national security and justice institutions. The suggestion that they are unpopular thus merits one or more “Uns� in reply: unsupportable, and in any event unauthoritative as an expression of the people’s will in a constitutional democracy.

In closing, I would like to recognize the daily professionalism of the Coastguardsmen, Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

[Gold9472]

ACLU and media challenge transparency of 9/11 trial

http://rt.com/usa/news/aclu-guantana...ammed-911-494/

Published: 15 October, 2012, 20:15

As legal proceedings move forward for five Guantanamo Bay prisoners charged with roles in the September 11 terrorist attacks, the US government wants the court to censor their testimonies in a move civil liberties lawyers condemn as “chilling."

Prosecutors in the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Gitmo inmates accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks have asked a US military judge to consider a protective order that, if approved, would delay any courtroom discussions by as long as 40-seconds to ensure that no classified information is made available to the media or others.

By doing such, prosecutors claim top-secret details about harsh interrogation techniques and special tactics enforced on the prisoners will be kept from the public and press, a necessity they say in the name of ensuring national security.

"Each of the accused is in the unique position of having had access to classified intelligence sources and methods," the prosecution says in court filings obtained by the Associated Press. "The government, like the defense, must protect that classified information from disclosure."

This position outraged the ACLU and some members of the media, including the AP, who are now demanding in court that the government act more transparent in their prosecution.

"What we are challenging is the censorship of the defendant's testimony based on their personal knowledge of the government's torture and detention of them," ACLU attorney Hina Shamsi tells the AP, adding that her opinion is the prosecution’s suggestions would "classify the defendants own knowledge, thoughts and experience.�

"It's a truly extraordinary and chilling proposal that the government is asking the court to accept," Shamsi says.

Attorneys for the defense say the result could be much more damming that just risking disclosure, though, as it will censor prisoners from going public about any mistreatment and torture they were subjected to while under years of CIA-sanctioned detention.

"It's a way in which the government can hide what it did to these men during the period of detention by the CIA," Army Capt. Jason Wright, a Pentagon-appointed attorney for Mohammed, tells the AP. "I think we need to bring the truth to the light of day on these issues."

If the court agrees to accept the proposal, details about “advanced interrogation technique� forced onto prisoners, such as the drowning-simulation act known as water-boarding, could be kept from ever escaping the courtroom. Inmate testimonies would be subjected to nearly a one-minute delay, allowing the government to stop the disclosure of any details they may wish to remain under lock-and-key. And while this order has been proposed under the guise of national security, defense attorneys argue that it’s being brought up to keep the truth about years of torture from ever being brought up.

To KTRK News, Capt. Wright suggested he was adamant about bringing all facts regarding his client’s detention to the court and stressed that it has a major role how the rest of the case will move forward, whether or not the government approves.

"Torture matters because, quite frankly, America is better than this," Wright tells the network. "Other counsel has explained the legal relevance as to why it's important for this case, why it's part of the mitigation case, why we have an obligation as defense attorneys to tell the history of our clients."

Mohammed has previously confessed to military officials that he planned the September 11 attacks against America “from A to Z� and has admitted to being involved in dozens of other terrorist plots. He was arraigned on May 5, 2012 on charges that include terrorism, conspiracy and 2,976 counts of murder, along with co-defendants Ramzi Binalshibh, Walid bin Attash, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali.

[Gold9472]

Accused 9/11 planners won't have to appear for court hearing, judge rules

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Accu...r_hearing.html

Monday October 15, 2012, 5:01 PM

The five men accused of planning 9/11 don’t have to appear in court during pre-trial hearings this week, a military judge has ruled.

The decision came near the end of the first day of hearings attended by Wayne couple Tom and Josephine Acquaviva, who traveled to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to see the men accused of killing their son, Paul Acquaviva.

U.S. Army Col. James Pohl’s ruling means that Monday may have been their only chance. The Acquavivas got their first look at the five al Qaida plotters Monday morning. But the alleged terrorists didn’t look back.

“I wish one of them would turn around and look at me,� Tom Acquaviva said, standing at the back of a high-security courtroom in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “I would show them this picture.�

Around their necks the Acquavivas were wearing chains holding a large photo of Paul Acquaviva on the day he graduated from Rutgers University. He was 29 on Sept. 11, 2001, one of thousands killed in the World Trade Center.

In their first appearance since being arraigned on war crimes in May, the five detainees, including self-professed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, appeared reserved and attentive. They all spoke briefly, some in English, when the judge explained to them their rights after ruling they were not compelled to attend.

“Yes, but I don’t think there’s any justice in this court,� Mohammed said through his translator when the judge asked if he understand his rights. It was the first time Mohammed made a substantive comment since he was indicted in May.

Pohl granted the motion by the defendants to be able to skip the daily hearings, expected to run through Friday, as long as the defendants sign a waiver each day certifying that they understand their rights. One defendant, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, got a few laughs after the judge asked him if he understood that the trial against him would continue in the event that he escaped.

“Yes, I’ll be sure to leave some notes,� Ali said in English, prompting a smile from the judge and laughs from the courtroom.

Ali also mentioned “problems� he has had communicating his wishes to prison guards after the judge explained that detainees need to inform prison guards if they change their minds after deciding not to attend a session.

“If I ask for the watch commander, he refuses to have him come to me,� Ali said in English.

It was a stark contrast to their arraignment in May on charges that include terrorism and murder. At that earlier session, one prisoner was briefly restrained, the men refused to listen to the court translation system headphones, they ignored the judge and two stood up to pray at one point.

To be decided this week are about two dozen preliminary legal issues required to move the case toward an eventual trial, likely at least a year away.

Media and about 10 family members of victims, including the Acquavivas, watched the morning pre-trial hearings through Plexi-glass in an adjacent room at the back of the court, with a delayed audio feed.

The main items on the week’s agenda are broad security rules for the war crimes tribunal, including measures to prevent the accused from publicly revealing what happened to them in the CIA’s secret network of overseas prisons.

[Gold9472]

9/11 accused back at Guantanamo war court

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/15...#storylink=cpy

By CAROL ROSENBERG
The Miami Herald

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- All five men accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks sat quietly at the Pentagon war court on Monday as lawyers launched into a week of pre-trial hearings - a stark contrast to a chaotic May 5 arraignment.

The judge, Army Col. James Pohl, set out an ambitious 25-motion roster for the week, and lawyers began haggling over legal issues that would set the stage for their eventual death-penalty trial, likely years from now.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the accused mastermind, appeared in traditional white garb topped with a black vest and white turban. not the paramilitary style uniform that the prison camps commander had prohibited.

His beard was once again red, apparently from henna, as he sat quietly at the defense table. It was unclear to what degree he was following the proceedings. His four alleged co-conspirators in the 2001 al-Qaida terror attacks sat quietly behind him.

The hearings are the first since the 13-hour May 5 arraignment in which the accused refused to cooperate. They sat mum in court as the judge advised them of their rights to defense lawyers, and refused to either don headsets piping in Arabic-English translation or answer the judge's questions.

For Monday's session, the Pentagon had installed a workaround: speakers clamped below each defendant's table that broadcast the simultaneous translation. A Defense Department official could not immediately say how much the new technology had cost at the $12 million expeditionary legal compound.

This week's hearings were delayed four times: first by the execution of a man in Idaho because Mohammed's lawyer, Boise attorney David Nevin, was defending that man. Then the judge agreed to postpone the hearings until after Ramadan.

The court participants were assembled at Guantanamo in August. But a computer outage at the courthouse complex derailed the proceedings by a day, then the Pentagon evacuated the compound back to Washington, D.C., because Tropical Storm Isaac had formed in the Caribbean.

Mohammed, 47, and his alleged accomplices got to Guantanamo in 2006 from years of interrogation in the CIA's secret prison network where, CIA declassified documents disclose, he was waterboarded 183 times. Once here, the U.S.-educated, Pakistani-born Mohammed bragged to a military panel that he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks from "A to Z."

His four co-defendants allegedly trained, funded and arranged travel for the 19 hijackers that killed nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field in the worst terror attack on U.S. soil.

[Gold9472]

Judge: 9/11 mastermind can wear camo

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...69.html?hp=l13

By BOBBY CERVANTES | 10/16/12 3:23 PM EDT

The alleged 9/11 mastermind can wear a camouflage hunting vest in the courtroom, a military judge ruled Tuesday.

Attorneys for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is accused with four others of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks, won the pretrial motion as his trial by a military tribunal is set to get underway.

“He wanted to wear the same type of uniform he wore while fighting for the U.S.-supported Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and in Bosnia,� military defense attorney Army Captain Jason Wright said in a statement.

According to ABC News, prosecutors said there was no connection between Mohammad’s choice to wear camouflage before his arrest and wearing it now as an enemy combatant.

[Gold9472]

Alleged 9/11 mastermind: America killed more people than hijackers did

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89G1EJ20121017

By Jane Sutton
GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba | Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:28pm EDT

(Reuters) - - The alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks told the Guantanamo courtroom on Wednesday that the U.S. government had killed many more people in the name of national security than he is accused of killing.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was allowed to address the court at a pretrial hearing focused on security classification rules for evidence that will be used in his trial on charges of orchestrating the hijacked plane attacks that killed 2,976 people.

"When the government feels sad for the death or the killing of 3,000 people who were killed on September 11, we also should feel sorry that the American government that was represented by (the chief prosecutor) and others have killed thousands of people, millions," said Mohammed, who wore a military-style camouflage vest to the courtroom.

He accused the United States of using an elastic definition of national security, comparable to the way dictators bend the law to justify their acts.

"Many can kill people under the name of national security, and to torture people under the name of national security, and to detain children under the name of national security, underage children," he said in Arabic through an English interpreter.

"The president can take someone and throw him into the sea under the name of national security and so he can also legislate the assassinations under the name of national security for the American citizens," he said in an apparent reference to the U.S. killing and burial at sea of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the U.S. use of drone strikes against U.S. citizens accused of conspiring with al Qaeda.

He advised the court against "getting affected by the crocodile tears" and said, "Your blood is not made out of gold and ours is made out of water. We are all human beings."

The judge, Army Colonel James Pohl, gave Mohammed permission to speak and did not interrupt him, but said he would not hear any further personal comments from the defendants.

Mohammed's lecture to the court came during a week of pretrial hearings at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba for him and four other captives accused of recruiting, funding and training the hijackers.

He did not indicate why he wore a camouflage vest, but his wardrobe choice suggested he might try to invoke protections reserved for soldiers.

Pohl had ruled on Tuesday that the defendants could wear what they want to court, so long as it did not pose a security risk or include any part of a U.S. military uniform like those worn by their guards.

Mohammed's lawyers had argued that he should be allowed to wear a woodland-patterned camouflage vest to court because he wore one as part of a U.S.-armed mujahideen force fighting against Russian troops that occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s.

"Mr. Mohammed has previously distinguished himself on the battlefield by wearing a military-style vest or clothing. He did it in Afghanistan for the U.S. government during that proxy war, he did it in Bosnia and he has a right to do it in this courtroom," his defense attorney, Army Captain Jason Wright, argued on Tuesday.

The United States is trying Mohammed and the other alleged al Qaeda captives as unlawful belligerents who are not entitled to the combat immunity granted to soldiers who kill in battle.

They could face the death penalty if convicted of charges that include conspiring with al Qaeda, attacking civilians and civilian targets, murder in violation of the laws of war, destruction of property, hijacking and terrorism.

Under the Geneva Conventions, one of the things that separate soldiers from unlawful belligerents is the wearing of uniforms that distinguish them from civilians. Soldiers must also follow a clear command structure, carry arms openly and adhere to the laws of war.

Wright had argued that forbidding Mohammed from wearing military-style garb could undermine his presumption of innocence in the war crimes tribunal.

"The government has a burden to prove that this enemy prisoner of war is an unprivileged enemy belligerent," Wright said.

[Gold9472]

Accused 9/11 mastermind says U.S. tortured in name of national security

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...onal-security/

By Paul Courson

Accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asserted on Wednesday that the U.S. government sanctioned torture in the name of national security, and compared the scale of the terror attack that killed nearly 3,000 people to the "millions" he said have been killed by America's military.

"Many can kill people under the name of national security, and torture people under the name of national security," Mohammed said during a pretrial hearing at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"This is a resilient definition," he said in open court, as military censors stood ready to interrupt the video and audio.

"Every dictator can put on shoes to step on this definition, every law, every constitution, with this definition any can evade the rule and also go against it," he said.

He also compared the nearly 3,000 victims killed in the 9/11 hijack attacks in New York, Washington and western Pennsylvania to killings he blamed on the American military that he said number in the "millions."

Recommended: What not to wear: Gitmo edition

Mohammed at one point also indirectly referred to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who was killed in 2011 in a raid on his Pakistani compound by elite U.S. troops and his body buried at sea.

"I don't want to be long, but I can say the president can throw someone in the sea in the name of national security," Mohammed said.
Military judge Capt. James Pohl granted Mohammed the opportunity to speak.

But when the tone and substance of his remarks were clear, Pohl said he would not allow him or the other defendants in the case to make personal observations about the process.

Mohammed and four other men before the military court are accused of planning and executing the attack.

Pohl has been hearing oral arguments from attorneys representing the government and the defendants on a proposed protective order intended to establish rules over the handling of classified information before and during the trial.

Prosecutors want to keep from public view classified information and also unclassified materials that they consider detrimental to national security. That includes the suspects' knowledge of CIA interrogation methods.

Mohammed, known by his initials KSM, has confessed to organizing the attack, his confession could be called into question during trial.

A 2005 Justice Department memo - released by the Obama administration - revealed that he had been water-boarded in March 2003. The technique, which simulates drowning, has been called torture by Obama and others.

The trial is not expected to start until next summer.

[Gold9472]

Judge in 9/11 case weighs whether Constitution applies at Guantanamo

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,3335461.story

Jane Sutton Reuters
3:17 p.m. CDT, October 18, 2012

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - The Guantanamo tribunal judge should deal with constitutional challenges individually as they arise rather than make a blanket presumption the U.S. Constitution applies in the trial of five men accused of plotting the September 11 attacks, a U.S. prosecutor argued on Thursday.

The matter arose in a pretrial hearing for alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Pakistani, Yemeni and Saudi captives facing charges that could lead to their execution.

They are being tried at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in a tribunal system that Congress established to try non-U.S. citizens on terrorism charges.

Critics have long charged that the Guantanamo base in Cuba was chosen to hold such detainees mainly because former President George W. Bush's administration believed it would put them outside the reach of U.S. law.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that although they were non-citizens held outside the United States, Guantanamo prisoners had the constitutional "habeas corpus" right to challenge their detention in court and make the government show evidence for holding them.

It said the United States had "de facto sovereignty" because the Cuban base is entirely under U.S. control.

It did not address whether Guantanamo detainees had other rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to due process, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, or the right to confront accusers.

Lawyers defending the 9/11 suspects asked the judge, Army Colonel James Pohl, to issue an advisory opinion that the Constitution applied to the tribunals, except where the prosecution can prove that recognizing a particular right would be "impractical and anomalous."

Prosecutor Clay Trivett said that when Congress enacted the law underpinning the Guantanamo tribunals, it clearly did not intend for defendants to have all the rights they would have had if they were tried in the U.S. federal courts.

But he urged the judge to avoid a sweeping, generalized ruling, calling it premature.

"It's not fair to ask you for an advisory opinion on issues that may not arise," Trivett said. "We need to take this up issue by issue."

Pohl took the arguments under advisory, but did not indicate when he would rule.