9/11 hearing proceeds in bite-sized chunks

[Tank]

9/11 hearing proceeds in bite-sized chunks

The first Guantanamo hearing for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused over the 9/11 attacks turned into a series of disputes between defendants, lawyers and the court, writes the BBC's Steve Kingstone.

As courtroom dramas go, this one veered wildly between suspense, tragedy, farce and black comedy.

Early in the hearing, one of the accused, Ramzi Binalshibh, got up from his chair and began to pray.

"When detainees stand up, the guards get excited," observed the judge, Col James Pohl, with studied understatement.

Proceedings were interrupted for several minutes as the defendant continued his prayer, kneeling on the courtroom floor...

This farce of a 'trial' has so little legitimacy all it does is bring the US legal system into disrepute.  I'm sorry to say it but the only thing that should be done is let these people go. There is absolutely no way any of these people can have a fair trial now and their treatment to date has been despicable. I'm not saying that they are innocent but due-process has been breached to such an extent that nothing that comes of these trials can be considered fair. These people should have been treated correctly from day one.

What do you think Bruce?

[Ali]

I'm not Bruce, but unfortunately, I agree.  No matter how heinous the crimes (and certainly, I think these were heinous of the worst sort) I think that it has to be mandatory that we follow due process.  If we don't, I think it has to be a mistrial, just as it would be if the person was accused of some lesser crimes.  This whole thing has been handled absolutely dreadfully from the very beginning, and unfortunately I don't believe that there is any way to proceed and call it justice now.

[Recusant]

. . . all it does is bring the US legal system into disrepute.

Though the distinction will be lost on most of the world (and so I agree with Tank's assessment), this is a military tribunal, and thus it reflects on the US legal system only in the broader sense that these individuals are not being given a proper trial in that system. There is an article in The Atlantic magazine which makes that point very clearly.

[Sandra Craft]

. . . all it does is bring the US legal system into disrepute.

Though the distinction will be lost on most of the world (and so I agree with Tank's assessment), this is a military tribunal, and thus it reflects on the US legal system only in the broader sense that these individuals are not being given a proper trial in that system. There is an article The Atlantic magazine which makes that point very clearly.

Yeah, the U.S. military is a world of its own, it's ironic that their function (at least the official one) is to defend a constitution that they aren't necessarily bound or protected by. 

[Tank]

. . . all it does is bring the US legal system into disrepute.

Though the distinction will be lost on most of the world (and so I agree with Tank's assessment), this is a military tribunal, and thus it reflects on the US legal system only in the broader sense that these individuals are not being given a proper trial in that system. There is an article in The Atlantic magazine which makes that point very clearly.

I did think about making the distinction about it being a military rather than civilian process but as you say it's a distinction few would realise and even less would care about.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Yeah, I don't see anything good coming out of this.  Guantanamo has been an albatross around our neck for awhile.  The whole thing has dragged on too long and is now a farce.  The military tribunal is not set up for this kind of proceeding. We could take the Defendants to Yemen, and then notify that government that they are there.  They will kill them for us. (Just kidding).