Disorder in the Court
Bin bin al-Shibh, like Mohammed, said he too wanted to reject his court-appointed lawyers and represent himself. Judge Kohlmann tried to determine—as he did with Mohammed—whether the defendant fully understood the charges against him. "To you, they are accusations or charges," the bearded and shackled bin al-Shibh replied, speaking through an Arabic translator. "To me, they are not. I refuse those terms."
But did he understand that if he is found guilty, he could face a "death sentence"? Kohlmann continued.
"I am seeking martyrdom for five years," bin al-Shibh replied. "I tried for September 11 to get a visa and I could not. If this martyrdom happens today, I welcome it. God is great! God is great! God is great!"
The defendant, who had just essentially confirmed that he had sought to become the so-called 20th hijacker, then added: "I do understand I will be killed for the sake of God. But I don't understand that I am guilty."
But al-Shibh's ability to make the choice about representing himself was quickly challenged by his own court-appointed lawyers, who tried to raise again the "new information" they said they had received about drugs he was allegedly being given against his will. Bin al-Shibh seemed to confirm this, telling the judge he was "forced to take" the unspecified medication after his arrest more than five years ago and was told "if I do not, my situation will be worse." When he began to explain how he was given the medication, the court's security officer pressed a buzzer that made the discussion inaudible to the news media and legal observers watching from behind a windowed room in the back of the courtroom. (Lawyers said later that the discussion involved bin al-Shibh's account of where he was taken and given the medication during his years in CIA custody—a matter that remains highly classified.) In any case, bin al-Shibh said that as far as he was concerned the forced psychotropic medication didn't matter. "My mental capacity is absolutely fine," he said. "I don't think that there is reason to force lawyers on me that I don't want."
No sooner did the judge accept bin al-Shibh's decision than he began asking the same questions of Ali—who turned out to be a fluent English speaker and proved to be somewhat sophisticated. (Ali, who is accused of wiring $120,000 to the 9/11 hijackers, described himself as a "Microsoft-certified computer engineer.")
"No offense, lawyers," he said. "I am in the wrong court. I am not a criminal. My case is political." He then seemed to poke some fun at one of Kohlmann's questions to all the defendants: Did they understand that lawyers would be provided to them "free of charge"—a somewhat odd inquiry given that the defendants have all been incarcerated by the CIA and U.S. military for the past five years without access to any funds they might have once had. "The government has tortured me free of charge for all those years," Ali said. "The lawyers here today are for decoy, for decoration."
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: DXLVI @ 08/06/2008 1:48:40 AM
Comment: The defendants are nothing more than a bunch of crybabies (Allah would be proud). When I think of what they did to the inocent people at the WTC... I hope like hell they were tortured. I doubt it, but I can hope. If I give it any further thought tonight, their suffering would give me comfort. They hate us. Not because we're bad people, but because they are bad people. How many of you rasist have killed anybody because of the color of their skin? How many of you sexist have murdered somebody because their anatomy is different than yours? How many of you religious folk have killed someone from another church? These guys don't just hate diferent people they kill people because they think diferently than them. They don't just want you to be like them, they want you to be like them because they told you so. Do we as Americans (regardless of you politcal party) really need to use these jerks to be intraspective about us? Does anybody here choose these defendants as your, or better yet, your children's role models? These are all better questions than Olderwiser's questions. Sad dictator regime? You must be talking about the Bush administration. Please, consider this. They want to kill or convert as many Americans as they can. They want you to worship Allah just like they do. This will involve you learning to speak Aribic. They want to set-up an islamic dictorship to make sure you worship Allah just like they do. They hate President Bush and you hate President Bush (hack dictator is a pretty nasty thing to call our President). I hope you are as unhappy as you sound. Because you seem to have no problem at all with what the defendants did. Yet, you inpuned the reporters, the military and our President because of a question you think isn't answered in the story. I think they will get a fair trial. Will it be a perfect trial? I bet that's never happened for anybody. Was it an act of war or just a crime. Did they do it to make a buck? Was it vandalism? Or did they murder over 3000 people to achieve a geopolitiacal, ethnic, and religious goal? Sounds a lot like war to me. Either way, we aren't on trial, our country didn't deserve this and if they are guilty then I say execute them, cremate them, and dump their ashes down a toilette.
Posted By: weneed2openris @ 07/25/2008 7:32:10 AM
Comment: I wish that we would stop using the words radical and extremist. The quran is very clear on what muslims should do, they dont have to be radical or extremist...to follow the quran exactly means they must fight in the name of allah. That is not to say that all muslims are bad in anyway, most muslims do not follow the quran word for word, but their holy quran states, if they are called to fight, and dont, they are as bad as the infidels (unbelievers). So media, please stop using those words, extremist or radical, islam is NOT a religion of peace but of violence and the quran is saturated with instructions to kill all unbelievers. We better open our eyes before we are under sharia law.
Posted By: simplesimon33 @ 06/18/2008 11:54:29 PM
Comment: Martyrs in the making at Guantanamo by Timothy Rutten LA Times (on 6/8/08)
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may have been called to answer about 9/11 attacks but real questions will never be asked at these mock trials like:
1. What was the connection between Pakistani ISI and Al Qaeda?
2. Who in Pakistani government was KSM in contact with?
3. Pakistani ISI director General Mahmoud Ahmed had instructed Omar Sheikh (kidnapper of Daniel Pearl) to wire $100,000 dollars to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in his Florida bank account. Mohammed Atta used that money for flight training, living expenses and purchase of tickets on the day of the attacks. How many meetings did KSM had with General Mahmoud Ahmed before 9/11 attacks to finalize that arrangement?
4. General Mahmoud Ahmed as ISI Director only reported to Army Chief General Musharraf. Did KSM also met General Musharraf to finalize the day of 9/11 attacks and financing of the attacks? How did two Generals as Pakistani government leaders helped in executing 9/11 attacks?
5. How did Omar Sheikh who was released by India in 1998 hijacking of an Indian airliner to Taliban, wound up with KSM?
6. Why did kidnappers of Daniel Pearl demand the delivery of F-16 jet fighters by US to Pakistani government as a condition for release of Daniel Pearl? What connection did kidnappers of Daniel Pearl have with Pakistani government?
simple simon