Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Sunday, May 06, 2012

9/11 Defendants’ Hearing Was Rigged, Lawyers Say

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — Lawyers for five men charged before a military commission with conspiring in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, complained on Sunday that the process was rigged to lead to the execution of their clients, and they offered new details and explanations for a sometimes chaotic daylong arraignment on Saturday.

Throughout the arraignment, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other four defendants refused to talk to — or even listen to — the judge. Several delayed the hearing by praying, and one shouted to the judge that guards at the prison might kill them. Another was brought to the court in restraints and later took off his shirt, before insisting that the full charges be read aloud, which lasted into the night.

One of the lawyers, James G. Connell III, who represents Ali Abd al Aziz Ali, said at a news conference on Sunday that the defendants’ refusal to acknowledge the judge was a “peaceful resistance to an unjust system.”

While Mr. Connell was prohibited from relaying anything his client had told him, he said, the defendants’ actions “appeared to be a coordinated strategy.”

Several of the lawyers amplified their complaints about restrictions on what they could discuss — including a Dec. 27, 2011, prison order about “contraband” information that includes details about the historic perspectives of jihadi activities and certain information about detention operations. A crucial part of the case will be the defense’s effort to present evidence — as mitigation against death sentences — of torture while the defendants were in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency.

But the lead prosecutor, Gen. Mark S. Martins, speaking later, characterized such complaints as “a bit misleading.”

He said that the lawyers were prevented from giving documents about certain topics to their clients — about the identities of interrogators, for example — but that they were free to speak with them about anything. He also reiterated that prosecutors would not use evidence “polluted” by torture, but said other evidence was available to prove the case.

General Martins also said that one part of the hearing that had been censored from observers by audio — because a defense lawyer had said something about torture — would be included without censorship in a public transcript.

Late Saturday night, after the hearing ended, one defendant, Ramzi bin al Shibh, looked to the back of the room, smiled and gave a thumbs-up sign. Eddie Bracken of New York, whose sister Lucy died in the World Trade Center, was watching the proceeding through a soundproof window at the back of the room and said that he and other family members interpreted the gesture as a taunt aimed at them.

But Maj. William T. Hennessey, a Marine lawyer representing Walid bin Attash, said he was in the viewing gallery and saw the thumbs-up. He said Mr. Bin al Shibh was gesturing at an interpreter assigned to his defense team who was sitting in a chair in front of the gallery window. He said Mr. Bin al Shibh’s eyes had fixed on the interpreter, with whom he has a rapport, and followed him as he walked over him for a brief conversation.

Mr. Bracken, speaking on behalf of the families who attended the arraignment, said watching the proceedings made him “very angry,” both because it took him back to the events of Sept. 11 — he said he watched the second plane hit the World Trade Center tower where his sister worked, although he did not realize that at the time — and because of the detainees’ displays of defiance.

“They turn around and they converse with each other — that’s good; my sister and those people that were lost, they can’t converse with anybody,” he said. “It brought up all the old memories and that whole day and up to today. And listening to all their rhetoric and how they perceive themselves and how the lawyers are perceiving them, it’s hurtful because they have no remorse.”

Still, Mr. Bracken said, he respected the defense lawyers, saying they were doing their jobs and upholding the Constitution. He also said he approved of bringing the case before a military commission at Guantánamo Bay, and looked forward to a sentence of either the death penalty or life in prison.

Cheryl Bormann, another lawyer for Mr. Bin Attash, wore a traditional Muslim clothing the covered everything but her face throughout the hearing and at one point asked the women on the prosecution team to consider dressing more modestly. Appearing in Western clothes in talking to reporters, she said she always wears Muslim garb in her client’s presence out of “respect for his religious beliefs.”

She also explained that in 2008, during an earlier attempt to try the case before a tribunal, a female paralegal on the prosecution team had regularly worn short skirts and “very revealing tops” to court, which was a distraction to the defendants, making it harder for them to focus on a proceeding that may result in their execution. A woman on the prosecution team on Saturday was similarly dressed in a way that clashed with her client’s religious beliefs, Ms. Bormann said.

Later, General Martins said he had not responded to Ms. Bormann’s comments in court because “they didn’t merit a response.” He said all of the women on the prosecution team dressed professionally and appropriately.

Ms. Bormann also declined to comment in response to a question about whether she had received death threats on Saturday. But she also said, “I’ve been doing death penalty work for a very long time, so I’m accustomed to being universally hated for that.”

Despite the disruptions, General Martins said that the process had moved along and that the defendants had been arraigned on the scheduled day. He also referred to the dispute over whether the case would have been better brought in civilian court, saying “speculation about what would have happened in federal court is just that — unconfirmable speculation.”

Still, he noted that several terrorism cases in the traditional criminal justice system have also had rocky moments. In the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in connection with the Sept. 11 plot, for example, a federal judge on several occasions ordered him removed from the courtroom for outbursts.

Mr. Moussaoui is now serving a life sentence.

Original Article
Source: ny times
Author: CHARLIE SAVAGE

No comments:

Post a Comment