Key 9/11 Suspect To Be Tried In New York

9/11 hearings to focus on secrecy, transparency

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/15/4911770/911-hearings-to-focus-on-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.
 
September 11 mastermind back in US military court

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.48a13d603883115f2e07106e77e273aa.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.
 
Statement from the Chief Prosecutor Regarding This Week’s Hearing in the 9/11 Case

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/10/...regarding-this-weeks-hearing-in-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.​
 
ACLU and media challenge transparency of 9/11 trial

http://rt.com/usa/news/aclu-guantanamo-mohammed-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.
 
Accused 9/11 planners won't have to appear for court hearing, judge rules

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Accused_911_planners_wont_have_to_appear_in_court_for_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.
 
9/11 accused back at Guantanamo war court

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/15/3868390/911-accused-back-at-guantanamo.html#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.
 
Judge: 9/11 mastermind can wear camo

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82469.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.
 
Alleged 9/11 mastermind: America killed more people than hijackers did

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/17/us-usa-guantanamo-idUSBRE89G1EJ20121017

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

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...ys-u-s-tortured-in-name-of-national-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.
 
Judge in 9/11 case weighs whether Constitution applies at Guantanamo

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guantanamobre89h1gp-20121018,0,3335461.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.
 
U.S. seeks more secrecy in 9/11 case
Prosecutors ask the military judge at Guantanamo Bay for more restrictions against the public release of sensitive material in the Sept. 11 investigation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-trial-20121019,0,1354544.story

By Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times
October 18, 2012, 5:25 p.m.

FT. MEADE, Md. — Government prosecutors in the Sept. 11 conspiracy case broadened their request for secrecy Thursday by asking for more restrictions against the public release of sensitive law enforcement material collected in the sweeping investigation into the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Edward Ryan, a Justice Department prosecutor, said the government was prepared to turn over more than 200,000 separate documents to defense lawyers as part of the legal discovery process, but asked the military commission judge to bar the public release of much of that material to protect secret law enforcement investigative techniques and information about clandestine terrorist activities.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, charged with masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks, is on trial with four other suspected Al Qaeda operatives.

"This is an extraordinary matter," Ryan said, describing the period of more than an hour between the first plane striking the World Trade Center in New York and the fourth plane slamming into a field in Pennsylvania.

"In 102 minutes, thousands of police officers and FBI agents began working on one case. Almost every agent in the country was involved in some way. This generated a huge investigation, probably the largest in the nation. It produced an enormous amount of material," Ryan said.

That material, he said, includes "911 calls from individuals trapped inside the burning towers to people who may have rented rooms or mail boxes to Mohamed Atta or one of the other hijackers." Atta, one of the engineers of the hijackings, piloted one of the passenger jets into the World Trade Center.

Other materials, Ryan said, deal with "military operations that are sensitive" and the "names of suspected terrorists and the strategies they used to communicate with one another, their operational nicknames and code words."

Ryan, speaking at a hearing held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, added that similar restrictions were imposed in the federal court trials of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker who was sentenced to life in prison, and Oklahoma City federal building bomber Timothy J. McVeigh, who was executed.

Ryan said that once the materials are handed over to the defense in the discovery phase of the case, the government does not want many of them made public in court filings or testimony, or released to the public in other ways.

"Discovery," he said, "is not a public process. It's not a source of open public access."

Defense attorneys asked for some modifications, especially the government's request that the five defendants not be allowed to see any of the sensitive or classified material.

"This is a capital case," said David Nevin, attorney for the lead defendant, Mohammed. "His life is literally at stake. And it's not fair for any part of the case to be kept secret from him. Mr. Mohammed should be permitted to see everything."

Cheryl Bormann, attorney for Walid bin Attash, an alleged Al Qaeda training camp steward, agreed. "My client has the right to see the information the government is going to use to seek his death," she said.

Judge James L. Pohl, an Army colonel, said he would rule later in the matter.

On Wednesday, prosecutors urged the judge to issue a protective order against the use of different classified national security material in the case, but lawyers for the defendants said the order would hamstring them in mounting a vigorous defense. The judge took that matter under advisement as well.

Also charged with conspiracy and terrorism are Ramzi Binalshibh, the alleged plot cell manager, and suspected Al Qaeda financiers Mustafa Ahmed Hawsawi and Ammar al Baluchi, aka Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.

Binalshibh and Hawsawi chose not to attend the pretrial hearing. The proceedings are being telecast via a secure video link to Ft. Meade.
 
Navy to go after rats, mold in Gitmo legal offices

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57536137/navy-to-go-after-rats-mold-in-gitmo-legal-offices/

10/19/2012

Legal offices that are so contaminated with mold and rat droppings that lawyers in the Sept. 11 terrorism trial have been getting sick will get a full clean-up and be evaluated by safety experts, a military official said Thursday.

A "comprehensive" cleaning of the offices, which are primarily used by defense teams in the Guantanamo Bay tribunals, will begin by the end of the month and be finished in time for a hearing scheduled in December, said Army Capt. Michael Lebowitz, one of the prosecutors in the case of five prisoners charged in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"It's almost like a fresh start," Lebowitz told the case judge, who has been fielding complaints about the offices this week while presiding over a pretrial hearing at the U.S. base in Cuba.

The issue of the contaminated offices has repeatedly interrupted progress on more than two dozen pretrial motions this week. Defense lawyers had sought to postpone the hearing outright, which would have further delayed a case that has been plagued by delays.

A base official declared the offices unsafe in September because of mold and other problems, then the space was declared safe several weeks later after a cleaning. But lawyers distributed photos this week showing the walls and air conditioning units coated with mildew and mold as well as floors littered with what appear to be mouse and rat droppings. Pictures also showed a dead crab and lizard, both common at the tropical base on the Caribbean Sea.

It is more than just aesthetics, lawyers said. Since late 2011, several members of the Sept. 11 defense team have suffered from fatigue and respiratory and eye ailments after trips to Guantanamo Bay.

"Each time I travel to Guantanamo Bay I suffer from increased respiratory and eye problems that have landed me in the Guantanamo emergency room," said Cheryl Bormann, a lawyer for Walid Bin Attash, who is one of the five men charged with planning and aiding the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Legal office space, which must meet security requirements because the attorneys and their staff handle classified evidence, is in short supply at Guantanamo. The defense teams were forced to cram into a much smaller work space while preparing for the weeklong hearing, which has dealt largely with disputes over the rules for gathering evidence in a trial that is likely more than a year away.

Bormann told the judge she welcomed the military's proposal for a major clean-up and an evaluation by outside health experts. "We want it fixed and we want it fixed right," she said.

The judge, Army Col. James Pohl, had appeared to grow frustrated at the continuing complaints and welcomed a step that he hoped would resolve the issue. "Obviously, if it doesn't, I'll hear," he said.

Among the five men facing charges that include terrorism and murder is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has previously told authorities that he was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mohammed, who delivered a five-minute lecture Wednesday denouncing the U.S. for killing "millions" in the name of national security, stayed silent during Thursday's court session.

The judge heard arguments on defense motions to change rules for gathering evidence and calling witnesses that defense lawyers said will make it impossible to fairly defend their clients, who could get the death penalty if convicted. Among their complaints is that the rules would prevent defendants from seeing some of the classified evidence against them.

"This is a capital case. His life is literally at stake in it," said David Nevin, the lawyer for the lead defendant. "Mr. Mohammed should be able to see everything."

The defense and prosecution also sparred over the question of the extent to which the U.S. Constitution applies to the prisoners charged in special tribunals for wartime offenses.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the base in Cuba, because it is under U.S. control, is generally covered by the Constitution except when circumstances are deemed "impracticable and anomalous" and cannot be enforced.

The defense has asked the judge to issue an advisory opinion setting out to what extent the Constitution applies to the proceedings since some of their challenges will raise constitutional issues. The prosecution said it is too early to make such a finding.

Pohl did not rule on the issue and the hearing was to continue Friday.
 
Defense wants 9/11 trial televised globally from Guantanamo

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...sh-guantanamo-war-crimes-court-military-judge

October 19, 2012 | Jane Sutton | Reuters

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - The death penalty trial of five Guantanamo prisoners accused of plotting the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States is so important that it should be televised globally, defense lawyers argued on Friday.

The issue of televising the proceedings was discussed on the final day of a week-long pretrial hearing for the alleged mastermind of the hijacked plane attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four co-defendants accused of providing money, training and travel assistance to the hijackers.

"If these proceedings are fair, why is the government afraid to let the world watch?" asked Marine Major William Hennessy, a U.S. military lawyer defending Walid Bin Attash, a Yemeni accused of training two of the hijackers at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

"The government admits that these are historic proceedings," Hennessy added even as the military judge in the case sounded skeptical about televising the trial and the prosecution said the trial should not become "reality TV."

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has sole authority to authorize the broadcast of the trials. A Pentagon spokesman said that no one has formally asked him to do so.

The five defendants, who could face execution if convicted of charges that include murder and terrorism, skipped Friday's session after the judge declined their request for a recess on the Muslim holy day.

Currently, the public can watch closed-circuit broadcasts of the Guantanamo war crimes court proceedings only at a 200-seat theater at Fort Meade, a U.S. Army base in Maryland.

Closed-circuit viewing sites at a handful of other military bases in the eastern United States are restricted to relatives of the 2,976 people killed in the September 11 attacks and to the firefighters, police officers and other emergency responders who gave aid and searched for victims at the crash sites in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

In hearings at the remote U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, lawyers for some of the defendants asked the judge to open those viewing sites to the general public, which the judge declined to do. Lawyers for other defendants said the trial should be televised globally to anyone who wants to watch.

Hennessy, the defense lawyer, acknowledged that the rules give the defense secretary sole authority to decide whether to televise the trials, but suggested the judge could make the decision in the interests of ensuring the accused get a fair trial.

The judge, U.S. Army Colonel James Pohl, did not immediately rule on the request but seemed skeptical.

"I can look at any rule, any statute, and say 'I wouldn't have done it that way.' Is that what you want a judge to do, really?" he asked Hennessy. "I would have to conclude that the lack of public television means the accused is getting an unfair trial?"

'NOT REALITY TV'
The prosecution said federal court trials in the United States are never televised.

"This is a court of justice. It is not reality TV," said the chief prosecutor, Army Brigadier General Mark Martins, adding that people's behavior sometimes changes for the worse when cameras are present.

The prosecution said the right to an open trial provided by the U.S. Constitution has been satisfied by the Fort Meade viewing site, and that no one who wanted to watch the hearings there has been turned away.

Officials at Fort Meade have said during previous hearings that only a few dozen people turned up to watch, and that most of them were journalists or lawyers assigned to other Guantanamo cases.

During the week-long hearing, the judge had been scheduled to hear a defense request to compel testimony from a former CIA official about the agency's interrogation of the defendants at secret overseas prisons where they claim they were tortured.

That was delayed until the next session, tentatively set to begin on December 3, pending resolution of a dispute about the rules that govern defense requests for witnesses.

The defense lawyers say the deck is stacked against them because the prosecution is allowed to decide whether the witnesses and experts requested by the defense are relevant and necessary.

The judge gets the final say in the matter, but the defense lawyers say the system forces them to reveal their trial strategy, tipping off the other side in what is an adversarial process.

Prosecutor Clay Trivett said that if the prosecutors know what testimony the defense is seeking, they can sometimes stipulate to the facts in question, eliminating the expense of bringing a witness to the Guantanamo base.

Trivett also said, "There's no right to surprise on either side."
 
Pre-Trial Hearings for 9/11 Plotters End With Few Decisions

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ings-for-911-plotters-end-with-few-decisions/

Oct 20, 2012 6:00am

FORT MEADE, Md. — A week’s worth of pre-trial motions hearings for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 plotters at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, demonstrated just how complex and long the trial will be.

Over the week, attorneys argued over issues as basic as whether the Constitution applies to the military commissions process and how much evidence should remain classified. They even discussed a health issue defense attorneys claimed to face as they worked in areas contaminated by rat feces and mold.

The hearings also saw a diatribe by Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who accused the United States of having killed millions more people than the thousands that were killed on 9/11.

In the end, very few rulings were handed down as just more than half the anticipated 25 motions were actually presented before Col. James Pohl, the presiding judge in the case. Pohl deferred decisions on some of the more substantive motions.

Mohammed and his fellow defendants, Walid bin Atash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, aka Ammar al Baluchi, face the death penalty if convicted by the military commission being held at Guantanamo.

Early in the week, Col. Pohl ruled in favor of two defense motions that impacted the flavor of the proceedings for the rest of the week. On Monday, he ruled the five 9/11 defendants could choose not to appear at the rest of the week’s hearings. He instituted a format where they would be asked daily whether they wanted to appear or not.

When Pohl asked the defendants if they completely understood the new system, he received positive responses. However, they were puzzled when Pohl asked if they understood that the trial could proceed even if they escaped from U.S. custody.

Aziz Ali said he understood, then joked, “I will make sure to leave them notes.”

Mohammed agreed as well, but criticized the court’s legitimacy, saying, ”Yes, but I don’t think there’s any justice in this court.”

Their responses marked a complete turnaround from their arraignment in May, when they ignored Pohl and turned a routine hearing into a 13-hour affair.

Given the opportunity, three of the five defendants opted not to appear for the hearings. Mohammed decided not to attend just before the start of a hearing and, instead, watched it on a TV monitor in a nearby holding cell.

The number of defendants attending the hearings varied from day to day. By Friday, none chose to attend. Defense attorney Cheryl Bormann later told reporters that the five had not attended “because today is the Muslim holy day of prayer.”

On Tuesday, Mohammed won the right to wear a camouflage hunting vest over his white robes after his attorneys argued he had worn camouflage as a mujahedeen fighter in Afghanistan and Bosnia. Prosecutors argued there was no correlation between those experiences and his status at the military tribunal as an enemy combatant. Pohl ruled that as long as he was not wearing U.S. military camouflage Mohammed could wear the vest, and the following day Mohammed began sporting the vest to the hearings.

Later that afternoon, Mohammed was allowed to speak after he made a surprise request to address the courtroom. He then launched into a 10-minute diatribe against the proceedings.

“When the government feels sad for the death or killing of 3,000 people who were killed on Sept. 11, we also should feel sorry that the American government, who is represented by [lead prosecutor] Gen. Martins and others, have killed thousands of people – millions,” said Mohammed.

He advised Pohl not to be “affected by the crocodile tears. Because your blood is not made of gold and ours is made out of water.”

Pohl responded by saying he would no longer allow the defendants to make personal remarks during the case.

Defense attorneys and prosecutors spent much of the rest of the week engaging in long, deeply legal arguments about how the trial would actually take place. Yet to be decided by Pohl are weighty issues including how much of the Constitution applies to the military commissions, whether witness identities should remain classified and how much access to witnesses the defense should have.

Government prosecutors also want to impose a “protective order” that would prevent the revelation of any classified details about what the defendants may have experienced during their interrogations by the CIA. The order would even mark as classified the thoughts and memories the defendants have about their interrogations. The order also requires a 40-second delay in the audio feed so even spectators in the courtroom at Guantanamo cannot hear any details of the CIA’s program that might be uttered.

Several times, defense attorneys criticized prosecutors for making what they deemed unrealistic and contradictory requests for how the trial should take place.

It now appears that the trial will not start in May 2013, the placeholder date set by Pohl at the arraignment earlier this year. Closing the week’s hearings, Pohl told attorneys to prepare for weekly hearings every other month.

At a post-hearing news conference, defense attorney Bormann told reporters, “I would be shocked if we are on trial in 2013.”

Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, the lead prosecutor, acknowledged the slow pace of the proceedings and agreed he did not see a trial in 2013.

“We know people are impatient with the pace of proceedings,” Martins said.

That likely is particularly true for the families of the 9/11 victims.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Al Acquaviva whose son, Paul Acquaviva, was killed in the attack on the World Trade Center. As he watched the proceedings in person, Acquaviva criticized Pohl for the slow pace.

The next round of pre-trial motions hearings are scheduled to begin Dec. 3.
 
9/11 trial: Did US have improper influence? Lawyer asks judge for help
A defense lawyer in the 9/11 war crimes trial tells a judge that a top prosecutor, asked if there had been improper influence by Defense Department or administration officials, refused to answer at least 25 times.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...improper-influence-Lawyer-asks-judge-for-help

By Warren Richey, Staff writer / October 19, 2012

A defense lawyer in the 9/11 war crimes tribunal at Guantánamo told a military judge on Friday that the former chief prosecutor for military commissions refused at least 25 times to answer his questions about whether there had been any improper influence from senior Defense Department or Obama administration officials in bringing war crimes charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others.

The lawyer, US Navy Cmdr. Walter Ruiz, said he interviewed Navy Capt. John Murphy while trying to investigate the possibility that senior government officials attempted to exert pressure in the case.

Captain Murphy invoked a special privilege against answering questions dealing with internal government deliberations, Commander Ruiz said. He invoked it 25 to 30 times, Ruiz said.

“One of the things I asked was who else was in the room,” he said.

Ruiz said he asked Murphy if he had contact with the general counsel of the Defense Department. “They raised the privilege on those issues” as well, Ruiz added.

The comments came on the last of five days of pretrial hearings designed to iron out pending legal issues in advance of the expected war crimes tribunal at Guantánamo. No trial date has been set.

Command influence is a thorny issue in military courts given the fact that all parties in the court – the judge, the jury, the prosecutors, and many of the defense lawyers – all work for the Department of Defense and function within a chain of command. Ruiz was asking the judge, US Army Col. James Pohl, to intervene on his behalf to help him investigate the improper influence claim.

Defense lawyers have filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges against Mohammed and his four co-defendants because they claim that public statements by President Bush, President Obama, and other senior government officials have made it impossible for the defendants to receive a fair trial.

Government lawyers opposed the defense motion, denying that the case has been tainted by command influence. They suggest that defense lawyers have no evidence of wrongdoing.

“The defense is not entitled to go on a fishing expedition,” said Army Major Robert McGovern, a member of the prosecution team.

Judge Pohl did not rule on the issue.

Also on Friday, defense lawyers asked Judge Pohl to permit greater public access to close-circuit broadcasts of the Guantánamo proceedings. The defense even asked that the video-feed from Guantánamo be provided to broadcast companies such as C-Span to transmit nationwide.

Government lawyers argued against the proposals. They said the current system offering public and media access to a video-feed at Fort Meade, Md., satisfied constitutional requirements of public access.

“The government’s position is that the First Amendment right to access is not absolute,” Navy Lt. Kiersten Korczynki told the court.

“The standard is whether the media and the public have the ability to observe the proceedings and report on what was observed,” she said.

“There is no evidence that any members of media or public have been excluded from sites in the United State,” she added.

The day-long Friday session capped off a week in which the court heard argument in more than 20 legal motions. The judge set another week-long session for pretrial motions during the week of Dec. 7. He told counsel that he planned to hold similar week-long sessions at Guantánamo once every two months until the underlying issues are resolved and the case is set for trial.

Earlier in the week, Judge Pohl ruled that the five defendants must be given an opportunity each day to waive their right to be present at the hearings. On Friday, all five defendants decided not to attend.

The judge also ruled earlier that the defendants were free to decide what type of clothing to wear during courtroom appearances. The ruling opened the door for the defendants to don camouflage clothing, including the kind of military field jacket favored by some Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan.

Shortly after that decision, Mohammed appeared in the hearing room in a camouflage hunting vest worn over his white tunic.

The commander of the detention camp at the US Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had earlier barred the defendants from wearing camouflage clothing out of concern that they might try to use military-style jackets to convey to military jurors and trial spectators that they are lawful combatants rather than terrorists.

Judge Pohl did not address the potential communicative impact of a defendant’s clothing choice.

The judge has yet to issue decisions on the most weighty issues discussed during the week. They include whether he will approve a government-proposed protective order concerning the handling of classified information. Defense lawyers argued that the order sought to treat their client’s first-hand knowledge of the CIA’s secret rendition, detention and interrogation program as Top Secret information.

They said it was akin to the government seeking to exert control over their client’s thoughts.

The judge is also considering whether the defendants should enjoy a presumption that full constitutional protections will apply in the military commission proceeding at Guantánamo. Prosecutors argued that the judge should wait until an actual issue arises in the case that requires the judge to decide whether a specific constitutional right should or should not apply to a specific defendant.

Mohammed and his co-defendants – Walid Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Al-Hawsawi – are charged with committing war crimes by plotting with others to hijack four commercial aircraft and fly them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. The attacks left nearly 3,000 people dead.

All five defendants face a potential death sentence if convicted.

In addition to reporters at Guantánamo, members of the media monitored the hearing via a video feed at Fort Meade, Md.
 
How 9/11 'mastermind' got an orange beard at Gitmo

http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/wires.international/354baea6-www.wgme.com.shtml

October 23, 2012 16:08 GMT

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) -- The Pentagon has given a partial explanation to a Guantanamo mystery: How the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks managed to dye his beard.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's bushy grey beard has been colored a rusty orange during court appearances. Spectators had assumed he used henna, which is used by some Muslims as a hair dye.

A Pentagon spokesman says Mohammed used "natural means," such as juice from berries that he receives in his meals. Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale said Tuesday that Mohammed did not receive any "outside" means to color his beard.

Mohammed is kept under such heavy security that his lawyers can't even reveal routine conversations with their client.

He is charged with four other prisoners with aiding and planning the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
 
Guantánamo defense attorneys ask Panetta to order trial to be broadcast

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/01/3078362/guantanamo-defense-attorneys-ask.html

By CAROL ROSENBERG
[email protected]

Lawyers for the five alleged Sept. 11 conspirators wrote Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on Thursday, asking him to order the Pentagon to offer national TV broadcasts of their death-penalty tribunals at Guantánamo.

“This is the most significant criminal trial in the history of our country,” wrote nine military lawyers and four civilian defense lawyers.

“The only way to dispel the pervasive distrust of these proceedings, and the substantial damage to our country’s reputation, is to allow the entire country, and world, to observe the proceedings for themselves.”

The lawyers wrote the letter less than two weeks after they argued a motion before the 9/11 judge, Army Col. James L. Pohl, to authorize national broadcasts. Pohl has yet to rule, but he said he believed only Panetta has the authority to make that decision.

Currently, the public can watch pre-trial hearings in that case by getting to an auditorium at Fort Meade, an Army base in Maryland, or by applying to watch at Guantánamo as a journalist or legal observer.

Families of 9/11 victims get special segregated screening rooms in New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts. A division of the war court prosecutor’s office also administers lotteries to choose about a dozen family members of Sept. 11 victims they fly to the remote base to watch the proceedings in a court gallery.

Defense lawyers argued that the video feed should be provided freely to television outlets to broadcast as much as they choose.

Prosecutors replied that the war court at Guantánamo is modeled after court martial and federal criminal trial practice, which forbid TV broadcasts.

Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, the chief prosecutor, suggested broadcasts would harm the dignity of the proceedings. “This is a court of justice,” Martins said. “It is not reality TV.”

The alleged mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, used his Oct. 17th war court appearance to deliver a stinging critique of U.S. policy — “Your blood is not made of gold and ours is made of water,” he said — in what the judge said was the last time Mohammed would speak in court through his attorney.

Defense lawyers have said that the public might be surprised to realize how much of the proceedings will be held in closed session. They also want wider scrutiny on the hybrid nature of the proceedings that borrow from both military and civilian justice. The eventual jury will be chosen from a pool of U.S. military officers chosen from bases around the world by a senior Pentagon official and sent to Guantánamo.

“If these proceedings are fair, why is the government afraid to let the world watch?” Marine Corps Maj. William Hennessey argued in court last month for alleged al Qaida deputy Walid bin Attash, 34.
 
9/11 plotter wants case thrown out

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.fe67ba91b2ff9d18dedc867f0a7a7bce.251

(AFP) – WASHINGTON — One of the five men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks filed an appeal asking that the charges against him be dropped, after a court threw out the conviction of Osama bin Laden's ex-driver.

Saudi national Mustapha al-Hawsawi claimed he should benefit from the US appeals court ruling for Salim Hamdan, which said a law that listed material support for terrorism as a war crime could not apply to him retroactively.

Hawsawi's attorneys are requesting that charges be dropped if prosecutors cannot demonstrate that the alleged offenses were "recognized law of war violations" before Congress passed the 2006 Military Commissions Act.

The law defined as enemy combatants those who engaged in hostilities against the United States and authorized them to be tried in special military commissions held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in southern Cuba.

"The government must demonstrate that each offense for which the accused are charged in this case was a recognized law of war offense at the time of the alleged conduct, and that the charges were properly brought as such," Hawsawi's lawyer Walter Ruiz said in a statement.

Hawsawi faces charges for actions taken between May and September 2001.

The appeal, which was listed on the military commissions website, must be submitted to a Pentagon review before it can be published in full.

The next hearing for the five accused 9/11 plotters is set for December 3-7 at Guantanamo.

But James Connell -- attorney for Ammar al-Baluchi, the nephew of self-proclaimed September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- told AFP he has asked for a delay for personal reasons. The hearing could then take place from January 28-February 1.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, lawyers for the five men asked that he authorize the broadcast of "the most significant criminal trial in the history of our country."

At present, the proceedings are only retransmitted via closed-circuit television to a room at Fort Meade outside Washington that is open to the press and the public, as well as to other sites open to victims' families.

At Guantanamo, reporters, representatives of human rights groups and relatives of the victims of the attacks watch hearings from behind soundproof glass, receiving audio only after a 40-second delay.

Australian David Hicks, the first Guantanamo detainee to plead guilty in a military commission, in March 2007, has indicated that he plans to appeal his conviction based on the Hamdan ruling.

Others could follow suit.

"The Hamdan decision strikes at the heart of an already frail and unsettled military commissions system," said Ruiz. "This decision signals that even if and when these cases are tried, the end is nowhere in sight."
 
Guantanamo war court closed until next year

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/19/175100/guantanamo-war-court-closed-until.html

By CAROL ROSENBERG | The Miami Herald
11/19/2012

MIAMI — The Guantanamo war court is in recess for the rest of the year and won't get back to business until mid-January.

Hurricane Sandy forced closure of the court at a makeshift compound called Camp Justice. Now, according to a series of filings on the Defense Department's Military Commissions docket, scheduling conflicts mean the war court will remain dark until the week before President Barack Obama's second-term inauguration.

Army Col. James Pohl, the chief judge, set hearings for Jan. 15-17 in the capital case of Saudi-born Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused of orchestrating al-Qaida's bombing of the USS Cole off Yemen that killed 17 American sailors. Then the judge will hold hearings Jan. 28-31 in the case of five men accused of conspiring in the 9/11 attack by training, funding and directing the hijackers.

The Pentagon holds 166 men as prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba, six of them currently facing war crimes charges that seek the death penalty.

Hurricane Sandy came ashore as a Category 2 storm in Cuba and caused what military officials called "nuisance damage" to the Pentagon's makeshift war court compound at Guantanamo.

Tarps and tents were torn up, doors were blown open at some buildings, and there was water seepage inside the $12 million Expeditionary Legal Complex, which the troops call Camp Justice. But the technology that allows the proceedings to be beamed to U.S. soil on a 40-second delay was undamaged, said Navy Capt. Robert Durand, a Guantanamo spokesman.

Most of the 45-square-mile base lost power during Hurricane Sandy. Even the 17.4-mile fence line that delineates the base from Cuban-controlled soil went dark while the base managed to keep the hospital lit. Base officials have yet to disclose the total tab of hurricane damage, and so far won't say what, if anything, went wrong at the fence line where Marines keep watch on Cuba's minefield - and whether it will require a fix in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top