New trial is ordered for 5 linked to 9/11 plot

[One assumes no one will ask how these folks could control NORAD, etc. --Student]

April 5, 2012 12:00 am
By Peter Finn / The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- A senior Pentagon official on Wednesday authorized a new trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four others accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, a step that restarts the most momentous terrorism case likely to be held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The suspects were first charged in a military commission in 2008, but the case was suspended after the Obama administration came into office and later moved to have them tried in federal court in New York City. That effort collapsed in the face of congressional and local opposition.

In April 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he was reluctantly sending the case back to the military. Military charges against the five men were re-sworn in June, and retired Vice Adm. Bruce MacDonald, the official who oversees the commissions and is known as the Convening Authority, on Wednesday sent the case for trial after reviewing and approving those charges.

The men face multiple charges, including murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, hijacking aircraft and terrorism. If convicted, they could face the death penalty.

Charged along with Mr. Mohammed are Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, a Pakistani who is Mr. Mohammed's nephew; Ramzi Binalshibh and Walid bin Attash, both Yemenis; and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, a Saudi. All are accused of playing key organizational or financial roles in the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, a plot that Mr. Mohammed has said he masterminded.

In the previous case, Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Ali and Mr. Attash won the right to represent themselves with advisory military and civilian counsel. A military judge was considering whether Mr. Binalshibh and Mr. Hawsawi were competent to make that choice when the case was suspended.

An arraignment will be held next month at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, and all of the pretrial issues that surfaced in the earlier case will have to be litigated again, including the issue of self-representation and the mental health and capacity of Mr. Binalshibh and Mr. Hawsawi. Each of the defendants is entitled to a military attorney and "learned counsel," a lawyer with experience in death penalty cases.

At one point in the last case, the defendants said they were interested in pleading guilty to capital charges because they wanted to be executed and die as martyrs. Next month's arraignment should make clear whether Mr. Mohammed wants to fight the charges or is still interested in pleading guilty. The other defendants have tended to follow his lead.

All five men were held in secret CIA custody at prisons overseas before they were transferred to Guantanamo in September 2006. Their treatment at the hands of the CIA, including the extensive waterboarding of Mr. Mohammed, is likely to be an issue at trial.

Under the reformed system of military commissions, prosecutors cannot use as evidence any statement that resulted from torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. But attorneys for the accused nonetheless are likely to make their treatment a central plank of any defense against the death penalty.

Some civil libertarians remain deeply skeptical of the system.

"The military commissions were set up to achieve easy convictions and hide the reality of torture, not to provide a fair trial," said ACLU executive director Anthony Romero. "Although the rules have been improved, the military commissions continue to violate due process by allowing the use of hearsay and coerced or secret evidence."

But military officials said the commissions, which were reformed in 2009 by Congress, offer defendants due process. They also said the use of hearsay or coerced evidence is strictly limited to some unique circumstances on the battlefield and is not a back door for tainted evidence.

"If observers withhold judgment for a time, the system they see will prove itself deserving of public confidence," Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, the chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, said in a speech this week at Harvard Law School.


Funny, both Stalin and Hitler would have done this out in the open. You might not get a fair hearing but they didn't hide anything.

Show Trial

Hey, this is a show trial after all. 90.9 WBUR, a National Petroleum Radio affiliate, states of Brig. Gen. Mark Martins: "He has been called Guantanamo's detox man largely because he has made it his mission to show that the military commissions system at Guantanamo is no longer a toxic version of victor's justice." (Or so they say.....) Follow the link to WBUR and click the "Listen to the Story" button. You can't miss the button it is just above and to the left of the man with all the fruit salad.

"If observers withhold

"If observers withhold judgment for a time, the system they see will prove itself deserving of public confidence," Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, the chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, said in a speech this week at Harvard Law School.

As Bugs Bunny would say, What a maroon.

whatta imbessel

"If observers withhold judgment for a time, the system they see [ Globalist translation: we hired the best Law & Order writers/producers to put on a great show with all the drama, pomp, & circumstance.] will prove itself deserving of public confidence." [ Globalist translation: "Make no mistake, their guilt and punishment are assured."]

Something like this?

peace everyone


What is taking so long???

It has been over 10 years since the 9/11 attacks and the military is just now starting to hold trails for the various suspects. Amazing! Khalid Sheik Mohammed(KSM) was supposedly captured in 2003 but he wasn't charged until 2008. Why in he11 did he need to spend 5 years in a secret CIA prison if the evidence was so clear cut?

my letter to the Globalist controlled London Times

Sir - It is welcome that individuals who had planned the initial hijackings should be brought to trial. However, that the attack was not a surprise cannot be denied. Susan Lindauer, an ex-CIA agent, was warned by her handler two weeks prior to expect airplane hijackings.

Individuals like Miss Lindauer, Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright and Coleen Rowley were censored for bringing their knowledge to light while those in positions of authority who had information that could have disrupted or prevented the attacks were never fired from their jobs or publicly censured. In fact, one or two individuals received commendations, pay rises or were promoted to more senior positions.

It is unfortunate the trial won't be a civil-proceeding since all the questions that remain unanswered cannot be investigated or aired in public. But such questions, like the collapse of World Trade Centre 7, are dismissed as "conspiracy theory" and British troops in Afghanistan continue to die and be seriously injured.

Yours sincerely,


After reading her book, it seems that Lindauer knew about 9-11 much before the two weeks before 9-11 you cite. In fact, I recently came across an excellent interview of her from 2004 in the New York Times. She warned several of her relatives and friends. The New York Times independently interviewed them, and they confirmed that they were warned by her about nine eleven before it occurred. As far as these trials are concerned, i would think that the 9-11 Truth community would see these trials as perhaps the most important opportunity in a long time to highlight 9-11 issues. Problem is, of course, that people have their pet theories that might muck up the works, however valid their theories might be. I think the focus should be on questioning the evidence, rather than positing particular theories. Such as, were the planes that hit the wtc towers actually the planes are said to have been? This is standard in a murder investigation. Was the bullet that killed so and so actually fired from gun x? Just a matter of due dilligence. Serial numbers, chain of custody, would be involved, not theories about what happened on 9-11. In other words, questioning, attacking the evidence.

Justice delayed

Justice delayed is justice denied: legal principle.

"If observers withhold judgment for a time, the system they see will prove itself deserving of public confidence:" bullshit.

Just to remind people or in case they didn't know; military people are trained to react not to think. That is why they put so much emphasis on drill, drill, drill. These people should really avoid any attempt at being clever, as in the case of the General here, because they are really not set up for it.