By SCOTT SHANE/NYT
Sept. 11 Defendant Seeks a Trial, and a Platform
.bmp)
Attorney for 9/11 defendants: Yes, they want a platform for propaganda
Of course they do. An update on this story. “Sept. 11 Defendant Seeks a Trial, and a Platform,” by Scott Shane for the New York Times/Jihad Watch is better for the comments….
The five men the Justice Department has said will be charged in the attacks of Sept. 11 intend to plead not guilty so they can express their political and religious views during a trial, the lawyer for one of the men said on Saturday.
The lawyer, Scott L. Fenstermaker, said that during a meeting at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison on Tuesday, his client, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, expressed the desire for a trial despite his intention to admit his role in the attacks and seek “martyrdom” through execution.
“He acknowledges that he helped plan the 9/11 attacks, and he says he’s looking forward to dying,” Mr. Fenstermaker said of Mr. Ali. But he said he expected Mr. Ali and his co-defendants to plead not guilty “so they can have a trial and try to get their message out.”
Mr. Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief organizer of the 2001 plot. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced on Nov. 13 that Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Ali and three other alleged 9/11 plotters would be tried in federal criminal court. Mr. Fenstermaker said Mr. Ali told him all five men would seek a trial.
The report of Mr. Ali’s comments may add to complaints from critics of Mr. Holder’s decision who favored military trials in Cuba and have said a criminal trial will provide terrorists with a propaganda platform. Defenders of the move say military commissions, too, would have given the defendants a public showcase for their views.
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Fenstermaker, who represents Mr. Ali in a civil case challenging his detention and visited him for three days last week, gave The New York Times a translation from Arabic of a two-page letter written by Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Ali, and a third 9/11 defendant, Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash to the military court at Guantánamo in September.
The letter was written to say that the men had no objection to a 60-day continuance in military commission proceedings. But the three men used it to condemn the United States’ military presence in Muslim countries and its support for Israel, a preview of the kind of thing they might be expected to say in court.
“We were arrested in 2003 and we spent three years moving around between the black sites in the ‘Dark Ages’ of Bush, then we were transferred to the island of oppression, torture and terror, Guantánamo, in 2006,” the letter said. The phrase ‘Dark Ages’ was in English in the original, the translator noted.
The letter goes on to excoriate President Obama, describing the current era as “the black ages of Barack” and calling him “a liar.” The three men offer greetings to Osama bin Laden; his deputy in Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri; and the head of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar.
Since their first appearances in military court at Guantánamo, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 defendants have indicated that they would admit their role in the terrorist plot and seek to be executed. But when they are indicted and brought to New York City for arraignment, as expected sometime in the next two months, they will have the option afforded any criminal defendant of pleading not guilty and standing trial.
Mr. Fenstermaker, a criminal defense lawyer practicing in Manhattan and Brooklyn who represents Mr. Ali pro bono, is an outspoken critic of the campaign against terrorism and has had a contentious relationship with the government. His 2005 lawsuit challenging the military commissions was dismissed, but it prompted several Guantánamo prisoners to seek his representation, he said. In June a federal judge rejected his request to represent a prisoner held in the 1998 Tanzania embassy bombing.
Kenny solomon posted this:
Mr. Fenstermaker’s firm’s website: www dot fenstermakerlaw dot com
A Wikipedia page (as usual there, full vetting of information is not guaranteed):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_L._Fenstermaker
Mr. Fenstermaker seems to have a bit of an interesting history challenging things vis-a-vie the government. Take a trip through the official public documents and you’ll see.
Ask yourself the following questions regarding this trial:
1. Who are the defendant’s attorneys and their firms ?
2. What (if any) are the attorney’s firm’s, partner’s, individual attorney’s and other staff’s connections to the current administration and people within the government ?
3. What are the firm’s, partner’s, individual attorney’s and other staff’s contributions to the current administration – financial and other methods (like overtly campaigning and/or lobbying) ?
4. Where are the firm’s and attorney’s retainers and all fees coming from ?
— — — — —
Pro bono my arse. The legal eagle part of this trial is going to cost millions of dollars at minimum, even if they move for (and receive) a mistrial on day one.
On question 4, my gut instinct says the answer is C.A.I.R.
I’m a member of a group called ‘DC Works For Us’ and part of our internet setup is a message board. I’ve asked some of our members to help me research all attorneys working this case and post their findings to the board (Obviously, all info posted must be vetted-to-accurate and verifiable.).
Kenny Solomon: Of course I carry a gun…….
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Trouble is, even though they will justify their actions with the Koran, almost word for word agreeing with MP Wilders (Holland), the media will probably report it in the light of PC, soft-glow, multi-culti, dhimmitude.
I believe they should be permitted to explain WHY they did this, and that the public be informed as to the true islamic justification in order to counteract the increasingly apologetic atmosphere .
Unless of course, the CAIR lawyers get to them first.
My heart breaks for the families of the thousands who were killed and for the soldiers still dying to protect the free world. This is an outrage and the direct result of electing a muslim president who came from who knows where and who refuses to disclose any information about his past. Is it just be or did his meteoric rise from obscurity happen very fast, and without any justification?