CE Week #3: “6 Guantánamo Detainees Are Said to Face Trial Over 9/11″




By WILLIAM GLABERSON

Military prosecutors are in the final phases of preparing the first sweeping case against suspected conspirators in the plot that led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, and drew the United States into war, people who have been briefed on the case said.

The charges, to be filed in the military commission system at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would involve as many as six detainees held at the detention camp, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former senior aide to Osama bin Laden, who has said he was the principal planner of the plot.

The case could begin to fulfill a longtime goal of the Bush administration: establishing culpability for the terrorist attacks of 2001. It could also help the administration make its case that some detainees at Guantánamo, where 275 men remain, would pose a threat if they are not held at Guantánamo or elsewhere. Officials have long said that a half-dozen men held at Guantánamo played essential roles in the plot directed by Mr. Mohammed, from would-be hijackers to financiers.

But the case would also bring new scrutiny to the military commission system, which has a troubled history and has been criticized as a system designed to win convictions but that does not provide the legal protections of American civilian courts.

War-crimes charges against the men would almost certainly place the prosecutors in a battle over the treatment of inmates because at least two detainees tied to the 2001 terror attacks were subject to aggressive interrogation techniques that critics say amounted to torture.

One official who has been briefed on the case said the military prosecutors were considering seeking the death penalty for Mr. Mohammed, although no final decision appears to have been made. The official added that the military prosecutors had decided to focus on the Sept. 11 attacks in part as an effort to try to establish credibility for the military commission system before a new administration takes the White House next January.

“The thinking was 9/11 is the heart and soul of the whole thing. The thinking was: go for that,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no one in the government was authorized to speak about the case. Even if the charges are released soon, it would be many months before a trial could be held, lawyers said.

A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, declined to comment specifically. But he added that the government was preparing a case against “individuals who have been involved in some of the most grievous acts of violence and terror against the United States and our allies.”

“The prosecution team is close to moving forward on referring charges on a number of individuals,” Mr. Whitman said.

Ever since President Bush announced in 2006 that he had transferred 14 “high value” detainees to Guantánamo from a secret C.I.A. detention program, it has been expected that the Pentagon would eventually lodge charges involving several of the numerous terror plots to which officials say several of those men were tied.

Officials have said detainees now held at Guantánamo are responsible for attacks that killed thousands of people, including the United States Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, the attack on the destroyer Cole in 2000, and the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002.

But it has always been clear that a case involving the Sept. 11 plot would be the centerpiece of the military commissions system and its most stringent test. After the Supreme Court struck down the Bush administration’s first system for military commission trials in 2006, Congress enacted a new law.

Among other things, the Military Commissions Act provides that detainees charged with war crimes are entitled to military lawyers to defend them, a presumption of innocence and a right of appeal. But detainees’ lawyers and other critics have said that many flaws remain, including the fact that the system is under Pentagon control and even the judges are military officers.

Told of the possible charges, Carie Lemack, whose mother was killed on American Airlines Flight 11, said such a trial would be a grueling process for the families. But, Ms. Lemack said, “It is important that justice be brought to those who killed my mother and nearly 3,000 others.”

It was not clear Friday whether final decisions had been made about precise charges and which detainees are to be included.

But it is known that the prosecutors have considered charges of murder, conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism because of the Sept. 11 deaths. It is also known that a joint team of military and Department of Justice lawyers working on the case have considered charging six of the best-known Guantánamo detainees.

Lawyers have said that two of those are men whose treatment in American hands would inevitably be a focus of defense lawyers in their cases.

One of them, Mr. Mohammed, known as KSM, was subject to the simulated-drowning technique known as waterboarding while in secret C.I.A. custody, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, confirmed this week.

The American-educated Mr. Mohammed was described by the Sept. 11 commission as the “self-cast star, the superterrorist,” with plans for destruction on a vast scale. At a Pentagon hearing last year, he claimed responsibility for more than 30 terrorist attacks and plots.

He was explicit about his role in the 2001 attacks. “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,” he said.

The other detainee whose treatment could become a focus of any trial is Mohammed al-Qahtani, who has been held at Guantánamo since 2002. Pentagon officials have said he may have been the so-called “20th hijacker.” A month before the attacks, he flew from Dubai to Orlando, Fla., but was denied entry into the United States by an immigration official.

Pentagon investigators concluded in 2005 that he had been subject to abusive treatment at Guantánamo, including sleep deprivation, being forced to wear a bra and being led around on a leash.

Gitanjali Gutierrez, one of Mr. al-Qahtani’s lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said she had no information about whether he would be charged. “But if he is,” Ms. Gutierrez said, “I can assure you that his well-documented torture and the controversy over secret trials will be the focus.”

Zacarias Moussaoui, who at one point was identified by prosecutors as a potential “20th hijacker” pleaded guilty to conspiracy in 2005, and is serving a life term. He is the only person who has been tried in a United States court for involvement in the Sept. 11 plot.

Defense lawyers are also expected to use any commission cases to challenge the prosecutors over the C.I.A.’s destruction of tapes of interrogations of two detainees, which has been acknowledged by the agency.

Among the other four potential defendants are Guantánamo detainees who intelligence officials have said played critical support roles for the hijackers.

Officials say Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who had been a roommate of the lead hijacker Mohamed Atta in Hamburg, Germany, was the main intermediary between the hijackers and Al Qaeda leaders in the months before Sept. 11.

The Pentagon has described another detainee, Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of Mr. Mohammed, as “a key lieutenant for KSM during the operation on 11 September” who wired $114,500 to the hijackers.

Mr. al-Baluchi’s assistant was Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, according to various accounts. The September 11 commission said that Mr. al-Hawsawi had been assigned by Mr. Mohammed to help coordinate hijackers’ travel and was so centrally involved that he was their contact for unused money to be returned in the days before the attacks.

Finally, the detainee known as Khallad, who is missing part of his right leg as a result of what officials say is a long jihadist history, is believed to have had long ties to Mr. bin Laden. Officials have said Khallad helped select and train some of the hijackers and was originally slated to have been one of them himself.

Published in: on February 9, 2008 at 8:21 am Comments (4)
 Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

4 Comments Leave a comment.

  1. on February 10, 2008 at 7:49 pm Grace Evans Said:

    I’m fascinated that William Glaberson managed to report all that information and not put any noticeable spin on it. When I say that it wasn’t noticeable, I acknowledge that the spin could still be there; I was just surprised to note that I finished the article without any idea what to say about it. Well, almost no idea.

    It’s nice to hear that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, struck down by the Supreme Court, was replaced by something a little more reasonable. Habeus corpus is generally a good thing, and I wasn’t too happy about its being abolished in the name of national security. Too bad I can’t find anything telling me what this new version of the MCA actually does, so I can’t be sure habeus corpus isn’t still absent from that piece of Cuban property.

    What struck me about this article is the implication that President Bush may be seeking guilty verdicts for the 9/11 attacks as some kind of redemption for everything else he’s botched. It’s the lame-duck legacy building we’ve talked about in class, only Guantanamo has a significantly different set of problems than the Middle East. For one thing, the problems at Guantanamo are ours. Finally deciding on someone to blame for a horrifying terrorist attack may distract a few lemming-esque Americans from a failed war, a falling economy and the erosion of civil rights, but I cannot think that our entire nation would forget the injustices of the Bush Administration so quickly. At least, I can try not to think so. Beneath that optimistic shell lies my recollection of just how forgetful Americans are. A scandal emerges (Abu Ghraib, Alberto Gonzales firing U.S. attourneys, etc) that should shock us into speaking out, or at least moving to Canada, but we open our mouths in horror and find that no words issue forth. Then the scandal passes, as the mainstream media moves on to something more buzzworthy, and we temporarily forget that the moral foundation of our country is crumbling, at least until the next humiliation breaks. So while I’d like to think that nailing the alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks with a conclusive guilty verdict wouldn’t blind the American public to an array of national security failings, I know that societies love a scapegoat.

  2. on February 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm Amanda Nicol Said:

    I am afraid, Grace, that I did not pick up on that particular implication, most likely due to its being your opinion rather than an article nuance. Your distaste for Bush and the direction he has led this country in is duly noted; nonetheless, bringing the 9/11 terrorists to justice appears to be more of an attempt at establishing a military legacy than a presidential one. In fact, the only mention of Bush was in regards to his transferring of 14 high-security detainees to Guantanamo in 2006. I refuse to believe that Bush would be selfish enough to exploit the retribution for 3000 murdered people on behalf of his own personal gain. Do you really hold him in that little of regard? This is not an issue that Bush, nor anyone else, takes lightly; I cannot begin to fathom the personal toll 9/11 took on him, barely nine months in office and with the knowledge that he was president at the time of those attacks. I would expect – no, demand – that seeking justice for those attacks be on the administration’s agenda, not for Bush’s personal pardon, but to prove that the United States is still capable of real justice.

  3. on February 16, 2008 at 2:18 pm Brynna Soth (response to Grace) Said:

    Within the first sentence, I was already a little concerned.

    Grace, you said this. “…is the implication that President Bush may be seeking guilty verdicts for the 9/11 attacks as some kind of redemption for everything else he’s botched.”
    One of the first things this article says is that “…the former senior aide to Osama bin Laden, who has said he was the principal planner of the plot.” If this man admitted to it, and obviously seems rather stuck on the matter, then how can this be something that President Bush is seeking to make himself look better? Now, not saying I support Bush, which I don’t, but I just don’t see this one as an attempt to reconcile himself.

    This is just the main point I really noticed in disagreement with your post.

  4. on March 6, 2008 at 8:44 pm Grace Evans Said:

    Re: Amanda and Brynna

    Here are two quotes from the article on which I based my inference:

    “The case could begin to fulfill a longtime goal of the Bush administration: establishing culpability for the terrorist attacks of 2001. It could also help the administration make its case that some detainees at Guantánamo, where 275 men remain, would pose a threat if they are not held at Guantánamo or elsewhere.”

    “Military prosecutors had decided to focus on the Sept. 11 attacks in part as an effort to try to establish credibility for the military commission system before a new administration takes the White House next January.”

    As was stated in a previous blog article about Guantanamo, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suspended habeus corpus, explicitly prohibits invocation of the Geneva Conventions when calling for a writ of habeus corpus, limited detainees’ access to lawyers, and declares that any “unlawful enemy combatant” may be held indefinitely under these conditions. The article mentions that trials for those suspected in the September 11 attacks are part of an effort to justify the military commission system before the new administration takes over, which suggested to me that it could be part of a legacy-building attempt. The first quote suggests that success in this case is linked to the future of Guantanamo, an institution Bush and many Republicans want to continue. It is apparent to me that assigning conclusive blame in this case would be advantageous to Bush and his agenda. Whether that means he is actively working to ensure guilty verdicts is beyond my powers of determination, though it seems plausible.

Leave a Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image