by Aamer Madhani
The Pentagon outlined its plans this morning to seek the death penalty against six terrorist suspects accused of planning, funding and organizing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks--a trial that will undoubtedly refocus attention on the controversial military tribunal system at Guantanamo Bay.
The charges filed against the six, including purported Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, are for a litany of crimes of war and include conspiracy, murder, attacking civilians, terrorism and supporting terrorism. All six are being held at Guantamo Bay, Cuba.
"These charges allege a long term, highly sophisticated, organized plan by al-Qaeda to attack the United States of America," Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, the legal adviser to the tribunal system, told reporters at news conference at the Pentagon.
Besides Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, and Mohamed al Qahtani are charged as co-conspirators to the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S that left 2,973 people dead. Mohammed, Bin 'Attash, Binalshibh and Ali are also charged with hijacking or hazarding a vessel in connection with the four airplanes that were used in the attack.
Since its opening, Guantanamo has been criticized by some for being little more than an U.S. sanctioned gulag—where the ideals of American jurisprudence have been thrown out. The military tribunal has been criticized for it rules on legal representation for suspects, hearings behind closed doors and Guantanamo has been blasted for allegations of inmate abuse.
But Hartmann said the six accused men would be given the same rights as U.S. troops tried under a military justice system. The military is the process of forwarding to the convening authority for military commissions, Judge Susan Crawford, who can decide to refer some or all of them for trial.
The suspects will be allowed to call witnesses, they will be appointed military attorneys as well as the rights to obtain civilian attorneys. They will also be allowed to review any evidence presented against them. If convicted, appeals can go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"There will be no secret trials,” Hartmann said. "We will make every effort to make everything open," he said. "Relatively little amounts of evidence will be classified but it's still a possibility. We are going to give them rights that are virtually identical to the rights" that U.S. troops get.
Attorneys for Qahtani, who was thwarted from entering the U.S. on Aug. 4, 2001, immediately dismissed plans to try him at Guantanamo and accused the government in a statement of “ seeking to execute people based on this utterly unreliable and tainted evidence.”
The announcement of the charges comes just days after CIA Director Michael Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Mohammed is one of three al-Qaeda suspects who was subject to the harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding.
Waterboarding simulates drowning as a suspect is tied to a board and water is poured through a cloth that covers his face. The practice is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Army Field Manual, and most of the international community calls it torture.
When asked if Hayden’s admission could complicate the case, Hartmann said it would be up to the military judge to determine what evidence is allowed to be admitted.
Kevin Lanigan, the director of the Human Rights First, said the prosecution of Mohammed and the other suspects was long overdue, but that allegations of torture will cloud a military tribunal system that has been problematic from the start.
"In fact, the administration still refuses to acknowledge its two greatest self-imposed obstacles to achieving justice for the families and victims of 9-11: the absence of a credible and truly independent system for trying these defendants and problems caused by the use of official cruelty in interrogating them," he said.
The six Sept. 11 suspects could be the first executed under the military justice system in decades. Guantanamo does not have an execution chamber. Hartmann said that it was still too early to consider any planning for how the military would go about executing the accused men if they were convicted and sentenced to death.
It also seems unlikely that there could be any resolution to the cases before the end of the Bush administration.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Kevin Lanigan, the director of the Human Rights First, said the prosecution of Mohammed and the other suspects was long overdue, but that allegations of torture will cloud a military tribunal system that has been problematic from the start.
"In fact, the administration still refuses to acknowledge its two greatest self-imposed obstacles to achieving justice for the families and victims of 9-11: the absence of a credible and truly independent system for trying these defendants and problems caused by the use of official cruelty in interrogating them," he said.
The families must be very disappointed. Maybe this will give pro-torture advocates something to think about.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | February 11, 2008 2:03 PM
When are they going to charge Prez Chimpy and Darth Cheney with war crimes?!?!
http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd123%2FTeeJay210%2FPROTESTS%2F360f2277.jpg&searchTerm=war%20crimes&pageOffset=15
Posted by: John E | February 11, 2008 2:17 PM
I don't know how many of you caught it, but yesterday the Chicago Tribune editorial page endorsed Bush's torture (waterboarding) of prisoners.
The last line -
"And if what was at stake was the prevention of a terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, then the nation would more than understand."
Funny how experts on torture say that you get unreliable information, yet the administration admits to only torturing 3 people and preventing 3 attacks that had been planned.
I also find it interesting how we tried and convicted US soldiers of humiliating prisoners at Abu Graib, yet the people involved in this aren't even being charged.
I wonder why?
Posted by: dogjudge | February 11, 2008 2:46 PM
dogjudge, thanks for the catch. I did not see that in the paper yesterday. (I don't waste my time reading Bruce Dolt's rants anymore.)
Sadly, our newspapers have done such a poor job in this area, that the public still does not understand what is at stake.
"And if what was at stake was the prevention of a terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, then the nation would more than understand." NO.
We're flushing our Constitutional rights down the toilet so that Republic party members won't wet their pants. Pitiful.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | February 11, 2008 3:53 PM
"JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS SPEAKS"
WE NEED A TRIAL AND WE NEED ONE FAST. WE NEED A BIGGER, BRIGHTER, FASTER, SOMETHING LIKE "SHOCK N AWE" FROM THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
"SEE SPOT RUN, SEE AMERICA RUN" WAS JUST A PREVIEW TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS BOLD AND FINEST JUDICIAL BRANCH TO GET TO THE BOTTOME OF WHO WROTE GEORGE BUSH'S 9/11 SPEECH AT 9AM SEPTEMBER THE 11TH.
"SEE SPOT RUN, SEE AMERICA RUN II" IS WHAT WE WILL CALL IT."
YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO CATCH IT ON (PAY PER VIEW CSPAN) OR 60 MINUTES BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CATCH IT IN ABOUT 20 YEARS AFTER ALL EMAILS AND PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVES DESTROYED BY KARL ROVE, ALBERTO GONZALES, FRED FIELDING, AND DAVID ADDINGTON.
WE NEED A DISTRACTION AND FAST GENTLEMEN, THE LONGER WE WAIT THE SOONER OTHER STUFF IS COMING OUT.
SIEGLEMAN VS RILEY 60 MINUTE SEGMENT MUST NOT BE SEEN, SO GET ME MY DISTRACTION SOON.
OJ ISN'T UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 11, 2008 4:48 PM
KSM and his ilk? Let 'em burn.
Posted by: Jeff | February 11, 2008 9:05 PM
Loons, three terrorists were waterboarded. Three. And from it we got information that prevented terrorist attacks on Americans. As Bush said yesterday, "which terrorist attack" would have been Ok with you folks? How many dead Americans would you accept?
Posted by: John D | February 11, 2008 9:27 PM
"Loons, three terrorists were waterboarded. Three. And from it we got information that prevented terrorist attacks on Americans."
Posted by: John D | February 11, 2008 9:27 PM
What proof do you have that waterboarding (torture) prevented terrorist attacks??? The word of an administration that has repeatedly lied to the American people???
Keep Drinking the Kool-Aid John. Torture isn't the most effective means of intelligence gathering. Now go back to kicking your dog, or whatever it is misfits like you do!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | February 11, 2008 10:16 PM
Posted by: John D | February 11, 2008 9:27 PM
There's one american the Terroists have succeed in terrorizing.
So afraid for his own physical safety that he is willing to make other americans torturers and to surrender the US position as a leading light of human rights around the world.
Posted by: Micahel | February 12, 2008 8:56 AM
I'll bite little Johnny D. No American death is OK with me, even if YOU fell into a saw mill, a little part of me would weep for you. You and your ilk however are OK with 3000 Americans killed on 9/11 while the leader and mastermind has sleepovers and dinner parties in Pakistan. Good night.
Posted by: janet | February 12, 2008 9:39 AM
I am far from being a libertarian. I believe prisons should be hard places where punishment and reform are being dished out in equal measure. I believe life should mean life. However, I also believe in fair trials and that torture, in whatever form, has no place in civilised society.
At the same time as US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff promises a fair trial for Guantanamo prisoners accused of organising the 9/11 attacks, the CIA admits torture in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. No words of mine can express the horror of 9/11, but by committing acts of torture, the US authorities have sunk as low as the barbarians who plotted and carried out the attack on New York.
And Michael Chertoff's definition of a 'fair trial' is interesting. A conviction can be gained by a two-thirds vote, not unanimity as in a US jury trial. The jury is made up of military officers not members of the public. The 'evidence', including hearsay and some obtained by coercion, will be allowed, "if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person".
And some evidence will be not released to the accused or his representatives if it is deemed to contain classified information. Neither is the accused protected by the Geneva conventions. Groups like Amnesty International, who would release the most fairly convicted paedophile back into the playground with a slap on the wrist and bag of sweets, are quite rightly having a field day with this blatant infringement of human rights.
Someone will be found guilty for 9/11. The US demands it, and will be extremely selective in both its morals and laws as to how that guilt and punishment is apportioned.
www.charlesletterman.com
Posted by: Charles Letterman | February 12, 2008 10:46 AM
I am happy that the Pentagon is looking for the death penalty in these cases. It shows someone in Washington is taking terrorism seriously. I am
fearful that if the dems get in office later this year they will close GITMO and that would be a grave mistake. GITMO WORKS!!!!
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | February 12, 2008 11:03 AM
And from it we got information that prevented terrorist attacks on Americans. As Bush said yesterday, "which terrorist attack" would have been Ok with you folks? How many dead Americans would you accept?
Posted by: John D | February 11, 2008 9:27 PM
How do YOU know that waterboarding prevented an attack. Were you a fly on the wall? Because the Pres said so? What a maroon you are.
And how many dead and maimed soldiers are accetable to you? An infinite amount I'm sure.
Actually, I think that your continued celibacy has prevented an attack. So keep up the good work of being to creepy to screw.
Posted by: chimpymcflightsuit'snavigator | February 12, 2008 11:47 AM
Oh Dumb Dumb Janet, it's nice to see you're still alive and kicking.
Sorry, but me any my ilk are not Ok with 3,000 dead Americans, that's why it was the Republican party and president that actually has done something about it. You know, over throw the Taliban from Afghanistan, put Al Qaeda on the run, have West-friendly and sane rulers in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. etc. Sure, we haven't gotten the big enchelada yet, but we have gotten folks like Kahleid Sheik Monhammed, you know the guy who actually planned 9/11. COurse, he was waterboarded, which you folks oppose. Through the interrogation process, he spilled the beans on upcoming attacks that were then derailed, saving innocent lives.
Posted by: John D | February 12, 2008 1:07 PM
"Sorry, but me any my ilk are not Ok with 3,000 dead Americans"
Unless they are American soldiers killed in Iraq, then you're all for 3,960 dead Americans. In fact you want more added to the list for decades, even centuries to come.
Posted by: Michael | February 12, 2008 5:33 PM