A Partial Answer to My Question

The estimable Benjamin Weiser of the excellent New York Times news staff wrote me this afternoon response to my post earlier today about the government's motion for pseudononymous testimony in the Sulaiman Abu Gayth case. I had reported that:

Judge Kaplan, in a handwritten notation, appears to have rejected the motion two days later. He writes: “Motion denied for the substantially the reasons stated in open court this day.” Having not been in open court that day, I can’t say what those reasons were. I’d be interested to hear from anyone present.

Well, Weiser was in court that day, and in a Times story following the hearing, offered what may be an explanation for Judge Kaplan's later:

Prosecutors had requested that Judge Kaplan allow a cooperating witness to testify under a pseudonym and without his town of residence being revealed. They wrote that “these measures, while unusual, are appropriate in light of the unique risks of harassment and safety” that the witness and his family would face if he were to testify “publicly under his true identity.”

Prosecutors have said the witness would testify about his time in Afghanistan in mid-2001, when he encountered Mr. Abu Ghaith at a Qaeda guesthouse in Kandahar. They said he was later arrested in the United States on terrorism charges and pleaded guilty as part of a cooperation agreement.

Mr. Cohen had opposed allowing him to testify under a false name, arguing that the witness had already discussed publicly his past and cooperation with the authorities. In a filing, Mr. Cohen quoted directly from statements the witness had made, apparently in a televised interview.

Judge Kaplan seemed skeptical of the government’s request, saying that another Qaeda cooperator, L’Houssaine Kherchtou, had testified in a 2010 terrorism trial under his real identity.

Questioned by the judge, Mr. Cronan offered additional details about the mystery witness, including that he had been charged in a six-defendant indictment.

An Internet search of the quotations in Mr. Cohen’s filing and other relevant words turned up an interview that suggested that the witness is Sahim Alwan, a member of the so-called Lackawanna Six, a group of Buffalo-area Yemeni Americans who had gone to a Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. Both Mr. Alwan’s lawyer and prosecutors said they had no comment.

My thanks to Weiser for bringing this to my attention.