The 9/11 Military Tribunals

[zorro99]

There is quite a bit of information coming out of the military tribunals taking place now in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The first defendent in Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan. If convicted, he is looking at life in prison. He has pleaded not guilty, unlike Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other defendents.

The latest news is that the prosecution has introduced a video similar to one shown during the Nazi Nuremburg trials:

Guantanamo trial views graphic September 11 video
Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:19 AM BST

By Randall Mikkelsen

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - Prosecutors in the
trial of Osama bin Laden's driver unveiled a graphic video on Monday
of the September 11 attacks and other al Qaeda operations that is
likely to play a repeated role in pending war crimes cases.

The video is entitled "The Al Qaeda Plan," an echo of "The Nazi Plan"
made by Oscar-winning director George Stevens as evidence in the
Nuremberg war crimes trials of German leaders after World War II.

"Oh my God" was heard repeatedly as crowds watched the twin towers of
the World Trade Center collapse on September 11, 2001, in a vivid
highlight of the movie shown over defence objections at the terrorism
conspiracy trial of Salim Hamdan.


The six-member panel that will decide Hamdan's fate also saw footage
of charred bodies stripped of flesh in the bombings of two U.S.
embassies in Africa and the body of a U.S. soldier dragged through
the streets in Somalia in 2003.

Control tower conversations with one of the doomed September 11
planes were also included.

"The Al Qaeda Plan" was made for $25,000 (12,500 pounds) by terrorism
consultant Evan Kohlmann for the Office of Military Commissions,
which is conducting the trials of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo.
Its 90 minutes of video clips depict the history of al Qaeda from its
formation in 1988 through the September 11 attacks.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/art...8_RTRUKOC_0_UK- GUANTANAMO-HEARINGS-VIDEO.xml


What impresses me is how much information has already come out of these trials, and we're only into the second week of a relatively low-level operative. There is much more to come.

The 9/11 Commission report was not the final chapter. These trials are the final chapter in the 9/11 national saga. This won't end with a Jack Ruby bullet; rather, this will end with evidence, trials and hopefully, convictions of the responsible individuals. These trials should go a long way toward putting an end to these nonsense conspiracy theories.

 

[~enigma~]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Hmm...wonder why i never saw these two together?

 

[Drudgewire]

These trials should go a long way toward putting an end to these nonsense conspiracy theories.

Ever the optimist, I see.

 

[zorro99]

Judge blocks more evidence in Hamdan case
By Mike Melia

Associated Press

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - A military judge yesterday penalized U.S. prosecutors by blocking their use of a May 2003 interrogation of the defendant as they finished presenting evidence in the first Guantanamo war-crimes trial.
Judge Keith Allred, a Navy captain, said that, as a penalty for not giving Salim Hamdan's defense team potentially important documents until after the trial began, the government could not use the statements Hamdan made in the interrogation at Guantanamo.

Allred said he would reconsider the ruling today, when the defense is scheduled to begin presenting its evidence.

But he said he would let prosecutors submit the interrogation only if they could provide "clear and convincing evidence" that the statements were not obtained through coercion.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080730_Judge_blocks_more_evidence_in_Hamdan_case.html

I'm sure a lot of claims will be made about these being "show trials" and all, but the Judge is making it tough for the prosecution with rulings like this one.

 

[gumboot]

That seems a bit arbitrary doesn't it? Surely the role of a judge and the judicial system is to ensure appropriate evidence is revealed, not to randomly decide "well you didn't show the defense this bit, so now you can't use that bit". That seems rather... wrong.

Unless the two pieces are one in the same - as in the prosecution didn't show the defense the interrogation files, so now the prosecution cannot use the interrogation files. That would be fair and logical. Essentially they would be ruling it inadmissible.

Any lawyers want to comment?

(I understand this is a military tribunal, not a criminal court, but it would be interesting to hear a comparison)

 

[Travis]

The six-member panel that will decide Hamdan's fate also saw footage
of charred bodies stripped of flesh in the bombings of two U.S.
embassies in Africa and the body of a U.S. soldier dragged through
the streets in Somalia in 2003.

I don't recall that happening in 2003. Did I miss something.......important?

 

[Slayhamlet]

I don't recall that happening in 2003. Did I miss something.......important?

Must be a typist's mistake. It should be 1993. This version of the article gets it right.

 

[Travis]

Must be a typist's mistake. It should be 1993. This version of the article gets it right.

Perhaps we should try to convince Alex Jones the US secretly invaded Somalia in 2003 and everyone has been covering it up. We could use that typo as "undeniable evidence."

I mean it's of the same caliber as the "evidence" he usually brings to the table.

 

[cludgie]

Funny how at none of the trials to date the defence has tried to claim "it wasn't my client because it was all really an INSIDE JOB!!"

 

[Slayhamlet]

Perhaps we should try to convince Alex Jones the US secretly invaded Somalia in 2003 and everyone has been covering it up. We could use that typo as "undeniable evidence."

I mean it's of the same caliber as the "evidence" he usually brings to the table.

Maybe it should be added to Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline"? It is a mainstream media article after all.

 

[Travis]

Maybe it should be added to Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline"? It is a mainstream media article after all.

Exactly. It's about time we start living up to our "disinfo" title.

 

[zorro99]

"You don't understand al Qaeda," 9/11 plotter says
By Jane Sutton
25 minutes ago

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - The accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks told a U.S. war crimes court at Guantanamo on Friday that Osama bin Laden's driver had no role in al Qaeda attacks and was unfit to carry them out.

Anyone who thought all bin Laden's associates were involved in his plots "is a fool and does not understand al Qaeda," Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said in written comments submitted as defense evidence in the trial of Yemeni prisoner Salim Hamdan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801/ts_nm/guantanamo_hearings_dc_8;_ylt=AgTGmIvutNsmA1maMQEmMgmWwvIE

This is the first time we've heard from Mr KSM; no claims about working with or for Dick Cheney or anything.

Lots of interesting information coming from these trials.

 

[CptColumbo]

That seems a bit arbitrary doesn't it? Surely the role of a judge and the judicial system is to ensure appropriate evidence is revealed, not to randomly decide "well you didn't show the defense this bit, so now you can't use that bit". That seems rather... wrong.

Unless the two pieces are one in the same - as in the prosecution didn't show the defense the interrogation files, so now the prosecution cannot use the interrogation files. That would be fair and logical. Essentially they would be ruling it inadmissible.

Any lawyers want to comment?

(I understand this is a military tribunal, not a criminal court, but it would be interesting to hear a comparison)

IIRC it would fall under "discovery" in a criminal court. AFAIK both sides must give the other ample time to prepare a response to any evidence and expert testimony. For example, if a trial involved DNA evidence both sides would need to be given the opportunity to test the samples. That doesn't mean they have to.

I am not a lawyer, but read a lot of true crime and watch tru.tv. Any lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong or left something out.

 

[LashL]

That seems a bit arbitrary doesn't it? Surely the role of a judge and the judicial system is to ensure appropriate evidence is revealed, not to randomly decide "well you didn't show the defense this bit, so now you can't use that bit". That seems rather... wrong.

Unless the two pieces are one in the same - as in the prosecution didn't show the defense the interrogation files, so now the prosecution cannot use the interrogation files. That would be fair and logical. Essentially they would be ruling it inadmissible.

Any lawyers want to comment?

(I understand this is a military tribunal, not a criminal court, but it would be interesting to hear a comparison)

It is difficult to tell from the article, due to the wording, but I'll see if I can find a transcript of the ruling online. Generally speaking, though, you are correct that it wouldn't make sense for a criminal court to "punish" a prosecutor by denying the admissibility of one piece of evidence for failure to disclose some other piece of evidence in a timely fashion. However, if it is the documents from the interrogation that they seek to rely upon and those are documents that were not disclosed in a timely fashion, it makes sense.

IIRC it would fall under "discovery" in a criminal court. AFAIK both sides must give the other ample time to prepare a response to any evidence and expert testimony. For example, if a trial involved DNA evidence both sides would need to be given the opportunity to test the samples. That doesn't mean they have to.

I am not a lawyer, but read a lot of true crime and watch tru.tv. Any lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong or left something out.

In criminal courts (at least in Canada), there is no onus on the defendant to disclose its evidence to the prosecutor in advance, except in certain limited circumstances, but there is a very heavy onus on the prosecution to disclose every single bit of its evidence - both inculpatory and exculpatory, and whether it intends to rely upon it or not - to the defendant in advance (since the 1991 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Stinchcombe).

In civil courts - again, in Canada - both the plaintiff and the defendant must disclose their evidence to the other side in advance, via the discovery process.

 

[zorro99]

U.S. convicts bin Laden's driver at Guantanamo
By Jane Sutton
22 minutes ago

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - A military court on Wednesday convicted Osama bin Laden's driver of supporting terrorism but acquitted him on the more serious charge of conspiring with al Qaeda in the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War Two.

The judge at the remote U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay on Cuba scheduled a sentencing hearing for Wednesday afternoon for Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni captured in Afghanistan who now faces a maximum penalty of life in prison.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080806...rings_dc_14;_ylt=AvG7dm5oZfq3sdlxrIPCiEC9IxIF

I must say, Troofers have been awfully silent on this topic. What do they think of this? Has an innocent man been wrongfully convicted? Are these trials part of the conspiracy? Was this all concocted? If so, troofers should be marching through the streets, demanding his release!

And this in only the beginning - there are more to come!