Military commissions

We Were Lied To About 9/11 - Episode 22 - Andy Worthington


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoB613GD3hQ

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, the director of “We Stand With Shaker,” calling for the immediate release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and is available on Amazon) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo.” He has written for the New York Times and the Guardian, and is currently writing for Al-Jazeera. He has also worked with the United Nations, WikiLeaks and Reprieve.

Battles Over Government Secrecy Dominate 9/11 Hearings

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-eviatar/battles-over-government-s_b_1974460.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

October 19, 2012

This is the print preview: Back to normal view »
Battles Over Government Secrecy Dominate 9/11 Hearings
Posted: 10/17/2012 1:49 pm

The definition and use of classified information, and the public's right to hear it, is proving to be one of the most important issues arising in pre-trial hearings in this historic September 11th terrorism prosecution. With only two of the defendants actually in the courtroom on Wednesday (the others elected not to come), lawyers from the government, defense, ACLU and 14 media organizations over the last two days have argued vehemently over whether the government is properly classifying information -- particularly the memories and experiences of the defendants, who were subjected to the CIA's classified "enhanced interrogation" program. Even if it is deemed classified, argue the ACLU and news organizations, it still has to meet a strict First Amendment standard for the court to lawfully prevent the public from hearing it.

The First Amendment only allows the closing of a courtroom, argued ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi and media lawyer David Schulz, if it will "cause grave harm to national security."

"The government fails utterly to explain how it has a legitimate interest, let alone a compelling one, in suppressing information about a CIA coercive interrogation and detention program that was illegal and has been banned by the president," the ACLU says in its brief to the court.

The issue is important, both for the public's right to know what its government did and for the legitimacy of this historic trial. As Schulz told the court yesterday: "Nothing is likely to shape the public perception of the fairness of these proceedings more significantly than the way the court handles this request for a protective order."

The current proposed order, he said, "covers things that quite clearly can't credibly constitute a threat to our national security."

The Real Reason Only Five Detainees Are Coming to New York?

US Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that five detainees would be moved from Guantanamo Bay to New York, where they would stand trial for carrying out the 9/11 attacks. However, five other detainees will continue to be tried before military commissions, which have lower standards of evidence. The five detainees coming to New York have previously indicated they intend to plead guilty, although the five to be tried before military commissions have not.

The New York five are:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed;

Ramzi bin al-Shibh;

Ali Abdul Aziz Ali;

Mustafa al-Hawsawi; and

Khallad bin Attash.

TheN3TWORK- Constitutional Rights

(video below the fold)

In the name of homeland security after 9/11, anti-terror legislation passed that granted sweeping authority to federal agencies to investigate all targets, foreign and domestic. The conclusion reached by many of our elected representatives, and echoed repeatedly by President Bush, was that the government needed this additional authority to protect America from future terrorist attacks. After a brief overview of the Founding Fathers’ intent in crafting the Constitution, theN3TWORK explores the current challenges to keeping our rights under mounting pressure to yield them to national security. We provide startling examples of how new and ambiguous pieces of legislation, like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, have already curbed our civil liberties. Included in the episode is a breakdown of the MIAC report, along with very disturbing CSPAN footage from the introduction of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Bill. A must see for every American citizen!

Model for US Trials After the Next Attack? Speak Out!

Snips: A military attorney for one of the Sept. 11 defendants at Guantanamo Bay predicted on Tuesday the Pakistani would at best see only a sliver of classified evidence and would be convicted in what amounts to "a top secret trial."

Mizer said that on four occasions while defending another Guantanamo detainee, he himself was barred from seeing classified documents the government presented to a military judge, even though the Navy lawyer has security clearance. "I cannot rebut evidence that I cannot see, and we can lose legal motions based upon evidence that is not available to defense attorneys with the highest levels of security clearance," Mizer said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZXxZ9jWlnYZ5G_1_W_-FG8F2vHwD91C13T00

Attorney seeks clearance for 9/11 defendant - AP

By ANDREW O. SELSKY – 20 hours ago

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A military attorney for one of the Sept. 11 defendants at Guantanamo Bay predicted on Tuesday the Pakistani would at best see only a sliver of classified evidence and would be convicted in what amounts to "a top secret trial."