By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, May
6, 2012 – Defense and prosecution teams said today they expect the trial of
five alleged 9/11 co-conspirators to take many months or years, while family
members of those killed Sept. 11, 2001, said they’re glad the trial is in the
military’s hands.
Yesterday’s roughly 13-hour arraignment
here of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, Ramzi
bin al Shibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi was the
first chapter of what attorneys on both sides describe as an epically
complicated trial to come.
Army Col. James Pohl, the judge in the
case, yesterday set the first motions hearing for June 12. Army Brig. Gen. Mark
Martins, chief prosecutor, said he expects “hundreds of motions” during the
proceedings.
“For so many determined people involved
in this trial, the pursuit of justice is worth every moment spent,” he said.
Martin noted many of the motions the
defense team has filed and likely will file involve classification issues. The
motions process -- in which either side can file, the other side responds, and
finally the judge rules – serves to “tee up” a common approach to contested
issues, the general said.
Martins acknowledged government
investigations have concluded defendants were tortured during the early stages
of their confinement. That greatly complicates the case, he said, but doesn’t
lessen the trial’s importance. Torture is deplorable and shameful, he said.
“The remedy is not to just dismiss all charges; it’s harder than that,” he
added.
Martins said the government’s case will
not include any evidence resulting from torture. He added he doesn’t agree with
defense attorneys’ contention that classification rules prevent them from
discussing their clients’ mistreatment or torture with them.
“They can talk to their clients about
anything,” the chief prosecutor said. What attorneys can’t do, he said, is
provide their clients with information that involves “sources and methods”:
locations of detention facilities; identities of cooperating governments;
identities of anyone involved in the capture, transfer, detention or
interrogation of detainees; interrogation techniques applied to individual
detainees unless that information has been declassified; and conditions of
confinement.
“If, in those five categories, there’s
material that relates to source and method that can still protect people from
terrorist attacks, … then that’s going to be classified, and we’re going to
work to protect it,” he said. Typically, that sort of information would be
discussed in closed court, he said.
Defense attorneys have a “healthy
skepticism” about the level of transparency possible in the case, Martins
noted.
“What we’re trying to do is put the question
of the fate of these individuals – their guilt or innocence … and the
appropriate sentence – to a panel of 12 jury men and women,” he said.
Defense attorneys differed in the views
they shared with reporters today on yesterday’s arraignment.
James Harrington is “learned counsel”
for Shibh, which means he is experienced in death penalty cases. Under military
commissions rules, each defendant in a capital case is assigned a learned
counsel.
While the arraignment was very long,
Harrington said, “I could say it went smoother than some people had
anticipated. … Things are set to progress.”
Defense teams’ jobs are to defend their
clients, regardless of public opinion or the sympathy the attorneys feel for
9/11 victims’ families, he added. “[The defendants] are entitled to a fair
trial,” he said. “It’s our obligation to try and get them a fair trial.”
Navy Cmdr. Walter Ruiz, learned counsel
for Hawsawi, said yesterday’s proceedings were “terrible.”
“We had some measure of hope” that legal
issues raised by defense attorneys would be heard, Ruiz said. “They were not.”
He said that after the arraignment
yesterday, he discussed the likely duration of the coming hearings and eventual
trial with a colleague. Ruiz recounted what he told his coworker: “I said, ‘I
didn’t believe you when you said I might retire from here.’ And then I said, ‘I
may never have another legal job.’”
He added he hopes the second trial for
the accused – the first was suspended, and the military commission process
changed – doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the earlier proceedings.
“What is important to understand is that
the reason this process has to drag on … is because [proceedings under the
previous rules] tried to cut corners constitutionally … [and] procedurally,”
Ruiz said.
While attorneys on both sides predict a
hard grind ahead, several family members of 9/11 victims who attended the
arraignment said they are glad the proceedings happen here.
Mary Henwood and her sister, Tara
Henwood-Butzbaugh, attended the proceedings in memory of their brother, John
Henwood, who was 35 when he was killed in the World Trade Center’s Tower 1.
“He was murdered that day. He was
terrorized, and he was murdered,” she said. To the question of whether military
commissions are appropriate to the case, she replied, “Absolutely.”
Henwood said she has met with the
prosecution and has seen the trial facilities here. “I feel very comfortable
that this is finally happening,” she said.
Cliff and Christina Russell came here in
honor of Cliff’s brother, Stephen, a New York City firefighter who died in
Tower 1.
“I’m comfortable with it being [a
capital case], … I’m comfortable with it being military, and I’m comfortable
with it being here, as opposed to being in [a] federal courthouse,” he said.
Russell added he came to see the
proceedings not out of a desire for vengeance, but for “some kind of
psychological satisfaction.”
Eddie Bracken came to Cuba to pay
tribute to his sister, Lucy Fishman, who died in Tower 2. Bracken said a fair
and just trial for the accused will show the world what America is based on.
“Do I respect the people that are
defending them? Yes,” he said. “It’s about our justice system and how we uphold
it.”
On the location, Bracken said, “I’d
rather have it here. This is the safest place in the world.”
Bracken offered a comment he’d direct to
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta if he were here: “Your people are doing a
great job.”
Martins said the reading of the charges
in yesterday’s arraignment provided a “stirring reminder” of the crimes that
occurred Sept. 11, 2001.
He emphasized that as in any U.S. court
proceeding, charges in the 9/11 case are only allegations. “The accused are
presumed innocent, unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,”
Martins said.
No comments:
Post a Comment