9/11 accused pray in court protest

THE self-proclaimed mastermind of the 11 September terrorist attacks repeatedly declined to answer a judge’s questions yesterday and his co-defendants knelt in prayer in what appeared to be a concerted protest against the military proceedings.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men appeared for the first time in more than three years for arraignment at a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, charged with 2,976 counts of murder for the 2001 attacks.

The hearing quickly became bogged down before they could be arraigned. The men took off the earphones that provide Arabic translations and refused to answer any questions from the judge, Army Colonel James Pohl, dramatically slowing a hearing that is heavy on military legal procedure.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

At one point, two defendants got up and prayed alongside their defence tables under the watchful eyes of troops arrayed along the sides of the high-security courtroom on the US base in Cuba.

Meanwhile, in New York City relatives of some of the 9/11 victims watched proceedings via closed-circuit TV. Seated in military cinemas, with chaplains and grief counsellors on hand, more than 100 family members of those who died got their first glimpse of a legal process that is likely to stretch on for many months.

They watched as Prisoner Walid bin Attash was put in a restraint chair for unspecified reasons and then removed from it after he agreed to behave. Lawyers for all defendants complained that the prisoners were prevented from wearing the civilian clothes of their choice.

Mohammed wore a white turban in court; his flowing beard, which had appeared to be greying in earlier hearings and photos, was streaked with red henna. Mohammed’s civilian lawyer, David Nevin, said he believed Mohammed was not responding because he believes the tribunal is unfair.

Jim Harrington, a civilian attorney for Yemeni defendant Ramzi Binalshibh, said his client would not respond to questions “without addressing the issues of confinement”.

Pohl said he would not permit defendants to block the hearing and would continue without his participation. “One cannot choose not to participate and frustrate the normal course of business,” Pohl said.

He addressed the earpiece issue by bringing the translators into the courtroom to translate out loud and attempted to stick to the standard script for tribunals, asking the defendants if they understood their rights to counsel and would accept the attorneys appointed for them. The men did not respond, not even to acknowledge that they understood the questions.

Cheryl Bormann, a civilian attorney for bin Attash, appeared in a conservative Islamic outfit that left only her face uncovered and she asked the court to order other women present to wear “appropriate” clothing so that defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Binalshibh interrupted the session with an outburst fin a mix of Arabic and broken English, saying: “Maybe they will kill me and say I committed suicide.”

In the past, during the failed first effort to prosecute them at the US base in Cuba, Mohammed has mocked the tribunal and said he and his co-defendants would plead guilty and welcome execution. But there were signs that at least some of the defence teams were preparing for a lengthy fight, planning challenges of the military tribunals and the secrecy that shrouds the case.

The arraignment is “only the beginning of a trial that will take years to complete, followed by years of appellate review,” attorney James Connell, who represents defendant Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, told reporters gathered at the base to observe the hearing.

“I can’t imagine any scenario where this thing gets wrapped up in six months,” Connell said.

Defendants in what is known as a military commission typically do not enter a plea during their arraignment. Instead, the judge reads the charges, makes sure the accused understand their rights and then moves on to procedural issues. Lawyers for the men said they were prohibited by secrecy rules from disclosing their clients’ intentions.

Harrington, representing Binalshibh, who has said at one hearing that he was proud of the 11 September attacks, said he did not think that any of the defendants would plead guilty, notwithstanding their earlier statements.

Army Captain Jason Wright, one of Mohammed’s Pentagon-appointed lawyers, declined to comment on the case.

Before the hearing, family members at Guantanamo said they were grateful for the chance to see a case they believe has been delayed too long.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Suzanne Sisolak of Brooklyn, whose husband Joseph was killed in his office in the trade centre’s north tower, said she is not concerned about the ultimate outcome as long as the five prisoners do not go free.

“They can put them in prison for life. They can execute them,” Sisolak said. “What I do care about is that this does not happen again. They need to be stopped.”

The arraignment for the five comes more than three years after President Barack Obama’s failed effort to try the suspects in a federal civilian court and close the prison at the US base in Cuba.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced in 2009 that Mohammed and his co-defendants would be tried blocks from the site of the destroyed trade centre in downtown Manhattan, but the plan was shelved after New York officials cited huge costs to secure the neighbourhood and family opposition to trying the suspects in the US.

Congress then blocked the transfer of any prisoners from Guantanamo to the US, forcing the Obama administration to refile the charges under a reformed military commission system.

New rules adopted by Congress and Obama forbid the use of testimony obtained through cruel treatment or torture.

General Mark Martins, the chief prosecutor, said the commission provides many of the same protections that defendants would get in civilian court.

“I’m confident that this court can achieve justice and fairness,” Martins said.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But human rights groups and the defence lawyers say the reforms have not gone far enough and that restrictions on legal mail and the overall secret nature of Guantanamo and the commissions makes it impossible to provide an adequate defence.

Related topics: