12/17 Motions Session #4: Bin Al Shibh, Re-Booted
We’ve returned from a lunch recess. So has Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh, along with his four co-accused, lawyers for both sides, and the military judge. Tension hangs in the air as the court attempts to question Bin Al Shibh once more, about whether he comprehends the right to be present, and the consequences that might accompany a knowing waiver.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
We’ve returned from a lunch recess. So has Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh, along with his four co-accused, lawyers for both sides, and the military judge. Tension hangs in the air as the court attempts to question Bin Al Shibh once more, about whether he comprehends the right to be present, and the consequences that might accompany a knowing waiver.
Yes or no, does the detainee understand his rights? Bin Al Shibh launches into protest, again insisting that he won’t answer Judge Pohl’s question until his earlier complaints are addressed. He escalates in tone and speed---the court trying in vain to silence him---and says his mistreatment is “torture,” and that he is “not a war criminal." But, Bin Al Shibh goes, on Judge Pohl is a war criminal. Suffice it to say, this second outburst restores Bin Al Shibh to his holding cell; he’s removed from the courtroom. (Afterwards, Judge Pohl warns counsel that the advice of rights colloquy with the accused is not intended to be some kind of free-flowing discussion. On the contrary, because of the risk of leaking classified information, detainees’ answers should there be limited to a “yes” or “no” only.)
We get a bench ruling: the requests to reconsider previously denied motions to compel discovery are . . . denied. This dispatches two motions: AE049C, Bormann’s motion, and another reconsideration request, AE29C, belonging to Ruiz.
Now there’s some procedural wrangling, but it lasts only briefly. One motion, regarding the scheduling of attorney-client meetings won’t yet go forward. At the same time, David Nevin, KSM’s learned counsel, seeks to put off argument on AE008 a bit further, in light of Ruiz’s still pending discovery request regarding his client’s historical language capability. But wait: it appears the government will stipulate to that capability, as alleged by Ruiz in his filing. That is, prosecutors will accept for purposes of this argument that Al-Hawsawi lacked sufficient English skills to be interviewed without a translator, at the time of his FBI interview some years ago.
This clears the way for the motion to dismiss the case for defective referral. It’s up next---apparently.