Statements by Prosecution and Defense on This Week's 9/11 Case Hearing
The Chief Prosecutor issued this earlier this morning.
Hello to all of you. Due to the Judge’s decision to take up the joint defense motion requesting he inquire into possible defense conflicts of interest (AE 292), I have no update on the procedural posture of the case.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
The Chief Prosecutor issued this earlier this morning.
Hello to all of you. Due to the Judge’s decision to take up the joint defense motion requesting he inquire into possible defense conflicts of interest (AE 292), I have no update on the procedural posture of the case. As filings become available, they will be posted on the military commissions’ website (www.mc.mil).Notwithstanding the recesses from in-court activity that have consumed the bulk of the period many of you have spent here this week, there has been no waning in the effort underway to get this case to trial. Yesterday, for instance, the Prosecution completed much work in compiling the final portions of the material it is obligated to provide the Defense in affirmative discovery and in also compiling responsive discovery to be provided to the defense team that has signed the Memorandum of Understanding indicating its obligation to safeguard classified information. Of course, our hearts go out to the family members of those who were killed on 9/11, and we can certainly understand their frustration.Still, we are determined to move forward under the supervision of the Judge. When each of us was assigned to this important mission, we were prepared for a marathon. We remain so. Meanwhile, in compliance with the law and consistent with our values, the five Accused remain securely and humanely detained, represented by counsel, and facing specific charges of which they are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty before this military commission.And now, I’ll be happy to take questions.I would be remiss if I were to close without thanking and commending the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.
Likewise, Ammar Al-Baluchi's attorneys had this to say, late last night, about the appointment of a special trial counsel to represent the United States in litigation arising from the FBI's questioning of a security officer assigned to the defense team of 9/11 accused Ramzi Binalshibh:
At approximately 9:00 p.m., newly detailed Special Trial Counsel filed a motion (AE292F) asking the military commission to take no further action on allegations of FBI intrusion into Guantanamo defense teams until he files a response on Monday, April 21. The Special Trial Counsel seeks to represent the government’s interests without involving the regular prosecution team. “The government’s attempt to introduce a Trojan Horse behind the wall of attorney-client privilege is a serious issue, and the appointment of Special Trial Counsel shows that the government is taking it seriously,” said Lt Col Sterling Thomas, USAF, a former prosecutor and detailed military counsel for Ammar al Baluchi. The Special Trial Counsel also noted that he would seek to file his response on April 21 without providing a copy to the defense. James Connell, detailed civilian counsel for Mr. al Baluchi, said he will oppose any attempt to exclude the defense from the investigation. “The defense is the key player in any investigation into the breach, and the government’s effort to stop the defense from learning the facts has the interests exactly backwards.” James Connell and Lt Col Sterling Thomas, United States Air Force, are detailed counsel for Ammar al Baluchi, also known as Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.
Wells C. Bennett was Managing Editor of Lawfare and a Fellow in National Security Law at the Brookings Institution. Before coming to Brookings, he was an Associate at Arnold & Porter LLP.
