Did Obama Kneecap the 9/11 Suspects' Defense Lawyers?

[n2doc]

— By Nick Baumann

Mon Apr. 11, 2011 12:01 AM PDT

Last week, on the same day President Barack Obama launched his re-election campaign, his administration announced that it had officially reversed its decision to try the accused 9/11 plotters—including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed "mastermind" of the attacks—in federal court and would instead prosecute them via the military commissions system.

But, as the military commissions gear up for what could be their first cases to end in death sentences, a shadow hangs over the lawyers representing these most unsympathetic of defendants. For well over a year, civilian and military defense lawyers representing so-called "high-value detainees" at Guantanamo Bay were caught up in a secret Justice Department investigation. (The agency won't say whether the investigation is still ongoing.) Can Guantanamo lawyers mount full and fair defenses of the 9/11 conspirators while under the pressures of a past or present DOJ investigation—and the threat of a future probe by the Pentagon itself, as some congressional Republicans have called for? We're about to find out.

The genesis of the DOJ probe dates back at least to the summer of 2009, when guards at Guantanamo found a series of photos in the cell of Mustafa Ahmad al Hawsawi, an accused Al Qaeda financier and one of KSM's four co-defendants. The photos, according to multiple reports, showed CIA employees suspected of involvement in the interrogation of high-value detainees, including al Hawsawi himself.

The CIA, unsurprisingly, was deeply alarmed. John Rizzo, then the agency's top lawyer, demanded an investigation. He later described the incident as "far more serious than Valerie Plame," referring to the Bush-era leak of an operative's covert status. He wasn't alone in his concerns. "This is an agency that has reasons to be concerned as to whether or not somebody's got their back," another high-ranking former intelligence official told Mother Jones last year. "It's always operating out there on the edge, not unlawfully, but generally at the farthest reaches of executive prerogative."

more
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/obama-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-defense

[Old and In the Way]

1. Whatever the truth is, we aren't allowed to know.

What's the USG afraid of in letting these people have their day in court? Perhaps an inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Or, worse, a discovery process that will turn this into a circus?

[leveymg]

2. Despite all the waterboarding and psychological torture, these guys may remember the "wrong things"

about the "wrong operations" managed by western intelligence agencies that were running these operatives through cutouts and proxies, on and off, inside the U.S. and around the world, for years until 9/11.

The biggest danger would be if they remember enough so that a smart legal defense team could connect the dots revealing to the world why the hijackers were let into the U.S. and why they evaded the hamstrung FBI investigation so easily. G-d, the worst thing would be to put federal whistleblowers on the stand in the same trial to establish that there are higher-ups who facilitated al-Qaeda operatives inside the U.S. and sabotaged efforts to capture them. If the defendants were able to help identify top-tier confederates, that would certainly cast the wisdom of executing them into question.

We wouldn't want that to happen in open court in front of a bunch of TV cameras, and bloggers, and stuff. No, no, no . . . that would be disruptive.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Remember how Obama thought trying them in civil court in NYC was a good idea?

I think that may have been before the facts were laid out for him.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

4. no, that was before a stonewalling congress kept refusing to fund the closing of gitmo

as well as the moving of the prisoners there.

And what would be the best alternative you think. A military trial or just keep em there with no trial until such a time that congress changes its mind

[Old and In the Way]

5. Best option?

A public trial in NYC. Anything less is BS. Even Saddam had his day in Iraqi public court. The Nuremberg trials were broadcast to the world. So what makes this special? Hint - see leveymg's post above.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

7. he already tried to make that happen, I do agree tho that the public trial would be the best choice

but if that is to happen, then people needs to get on the arse of all the congress-critters and basically force em to cry uncle on the issue of funding the closing and transfer of the gitmo prisoners(not something I've seen much activity from people on the left aside from forum and blog posts )

[Bluebear]

9. So, he caved.

[leveymg]

6. Absolutely. But, I wonder if even he has been told the whole story.

The cold, hideous fact is that the U.S. and its allies were running al-Qaeda terrorist operations against the Russians in Chechnya and Bosnia. All these guys are veterans of those secret wars, their identities and intentions were well-known to U.S. intelligence and its proxies. The big question is, why did Bush refuse to issue the round up order when presented with that option in late August by George Tenet who made an unscheduled visit to Crawford to advise the President about al-Qaeda.

Now we know there were other teams inside the U.S., and that the four hijacked airliners -- and those who managed them -- were only part of a larger operation involving many who got away. For some reason, the U.S. appears to have made a mess of locating and capturing the others.

Of course the Powers That Be want to put this behind them.

[JohnyCanuck]

8. kick n/t