9/11 suspects decline representation

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- Accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed used his first day in court to intimidate his co-defendants into refusing their right to counsel, a lawyer involved in the proceedings said Thursday.

Maj. Jon Jackson was one of several attorneys who appeared before a military judge Thursday to represent five al Qaeda operatives accused in the September 11 attacks.

By the end of the 10-hour arraignment, Mohammed and co-defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh had informed the judge that they wished to die as martyrs, and all five men had refused their right to counsel, saying that they recognized only Sharia, or Islamic law.

Jackson said his client, Mustafa al Hawsawi, did not decline representation by choice but by force.

"The only thing I'm privy to say is Khalid Sheikh Mohammad saying, 'What? Are you in the American army now?' " Jackson said after the arraignment.

"It was clear that Mr. Mohammed was attempting to intimidate Mr. al Hawsawi into not accepting me as counsel," said Jackson, whose client is accused of helping finance the attacks.

Jackson said Mohammed's comments undermined his efforts to build a relationship with his client, a task that he and other defense lawyers have described as difficult to begin with.

Defense attorneys had asked for Thursday's proceedings to be delayed, arguing that they did not have enough time with their clients since the charges were announced in May.

The lawyers suggested that their clients waived the right to an attorney without fully understanding what they had done.

"I had spent about 20 hours with my client; it was hard to build rapport with him. We started to gain some trust, and to have that destroyed by walking into court after five minutes was pretty bad," Jackson said.

Thursday's hearing marked a series of firsts following years of struggles by the Bush administration to craft a process for bringing the detainees to trial.

It was the first time reporters were able to see the al Qaeda suspects, who were all in the same room for the first time since their arrests in 2002 and 2003.

9/11 suspects decline representation - CNN.com

So..they wish to die as martyrs,so be it.

Given the evidence the administration used to take my country to war. I would actually like to see a fair trial. I don't know anything about these people except what this administration has told us. Not a very good source of unbiased information as we now know. These guys may be terrorists. But it shouldn't take a kangaroo court to prove it. In fact if these guys have info about a national tragedy it should be able to be viewed by all of us. Like the watergate hearing. Or the Clinton impeachment.

I don't buy in to secret tribunals. Or trials without evidence. And you shouldn't either.

The man admitted it all. And wants to die to become a hero, why not just let him go? He wants to be the hero, and would be welcome home as one. And will strike again.
Or do you think in a regular court of law he would do a thing different? Not that I like things done in secret, yet that is how the military court system works in these matters.
They could have just killed him in Pakistan and be done with it. This is a real Al-qaida member, we are at war with them.

Mikeyy I agree with almost everything you post, because it make sense and has substance. On this I want my military to do its complete job. This isn't a normal criminal. And not one would pay any lawyer. So which ever state was to try them would lose a lot of money doing it the regular way.
And because this war isn't over they can't have war crimes trials for the public.
Isn't our nation divided enough?

A Boise lawyer is set to represent this guy so I was interested in seeing a local guy defend. Guess I'll have to save my popcorn for the superbowl.

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

I don't have them in front of me. But the rules that I heard were being used in this trial seemed pretty unfair when I heard them. And I thought to myself. Why do we need to be so secretive at this point. They are not in a position to harm us anymore either way.

And lastly, We don't know who these people are. We know what we have been told by government officials. Remember the guy who was a person of interest in the anthrax case? Remember Richard Jewel? Opinions abound. We have no idea what type of torture was used on these guys. They are not allowed to talk about it in the court from what I gather. They may be guilty as hell. And that should be easy to prove in any court. In plain view.
We don't care because we have already decided they are guilty. That is a bad way to start.

False...false...false to the EXTREEEEEEEME...

Intelligence and operatives use COVERT actions to find info, gain locations and strategies, and otherwise dupe the enemy...

Having a civil trial would FORCE the state department to PUBLICLY REVEAL those methods...making any future use obsolete and useless...

That's why there was such a stink when the New York Times revealed that certain banks installed a program to follow terrorist money...Now that they know, they can just simply pull their accounts and relocate it elsewhere...drying up the whole damn angle...(Thanks NYT!!)...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Just like a congressional hearing. Some is private some is public. My only point again is how do we know who these people are? The only thing we know is what they have told us. So without any neutral court is the trial really fair? Look, Maybe this is the only way. But people speak about this trial as though they are lucky we bothered. And I think that the fact that we bother makes us the greatest country on the planet. If it stops being important to be fair then what do we have left?

We already know of cases where we have picked up people. Tortured them. And then dropped them in foreign countries. Then we deny their right to recourse because it will disclose secrets. This is OK with you?

Since when is war suppose to be fair anyway? This IS war you know.

Evidence???... One could say that admitting guilt and being "proud" of one's actions should also be considered as evidence

Yes it should. But if you read the post just before yours you will see the problem. Stinger wrote "Since when is war suppose to be fair anyway? This IS war you know." Are we so busy we don't have time to do it right?
We already assume guilt. So nobody cares how we convict them. I am not supporting these guys. I am saying that there is a mob mentality here. These guys are probably guilty as they profess. That shouldn't let us off the hook. And the severity of the crime also shouldn't change the fact that there should always be a fair hearing.