The American Kafir

2012/05/07

Excruciating Beginning to Trial of 9/11 Plotters

The majority of those who have been following Gitmo detainees coming to trial of the 9/11 plotters knew it would become a circus, especially since Eric Holder has close ties to some of the detainees at Gitmo, Holder was a senior partner with Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represented 17 of the Gitmo Terrorists.

Also, we must never forget who killed Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl, a Center for Public Integrity’s report noted:

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told FBI agents in Guantanamo that he personally slit Pearl’s throat and severed his head to make certain he’d get the death penalty and to exploit the murder for propaganda,”.

How can we forget that Barack Hussein Obama and Eric PHimpton Holder, Jr wanted a civilian court for the 9’11 terrorists in a New York City Federal Courthouse. W

Source Link: FrontPageMag

Excruciating Beginning to Trial of 9/11 Plotters

By Rick Moran

It was supposed to be a routine arraignment — a reading of the charges and entering of pleas by the defendants.

But the hearing before the military commission charged with trying the 5 major 9/11 plotters for crimes ranging from nearly 3,000 counts of murder to terrorism quickly bogged down and became a circus. A legal proceeding that was expected to last about 2 hours became a 13 hour marathon when defense attorneys used a variety of delaying tactics that bordered on the surreal at times, while the defendants ignored the presiding judge, Col. James Pohl, and refused to enter pleas as a protest against what they believe is an “unfair” system. Their pleas were deferred until a later date.

The arraignment, broadcast on closed circuit TV to 4 other military bases, was witnessed by members of the press, military officials, human rights advocates, and six family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. Some family members who spoke to the press after the arraignment were outraged at the cavalier attitude toward the hearing by the terrorists. The untried system of military commissions will no doubt slow the legal process down even more, as defense attorneys explore the limits of their client’s rights. President Obama and Congress amended the system in 2009 and gave the defendants more legal rights while denying some evidence from being presented that was obtained from the prisoners via “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Human rights groups still say the proceedings are unfair and wish the trials to take place in civilian court.

The five accused included the boastful mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Ramzi Binalshibh, who allegedly scouted flights schools; Waleed bin Attash, who allegedly ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and researched flight simulators; Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who allegedly supplied Western clothing and credit cards, as well as acting as a conduit for money to the hijackers; and Mohammed’s nephew, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who also helped with financing the operation. The crimes committed by the 5 are outlined in an 87-page indictment that includes charges such as “conspiracy, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft, and terrorism.”

It became clear that one of the tactics of defense lawyers — both civilian and military — was to put the entire concept of military commissions on trial. In pursuit of this goal, they have filed hundreds of motions challenging every conceivable aspect of the proceedings, leading Col. Pohl to put back the start of the trial until May, 2013.

The cloak of secrecy — necessary to protect counterterrorism methods and confidential informants — is one of the major bones of contention about the commissions pointed to by human rights groups. While evidence obtained from defendants at CIA black sites has been made inadmissible by congressional reforms, some testimony from witnesses who may have been “renditioned” will be accepted. And there will be no mention of alleged mistreatment of the prisoners by their attorneys, although Col. Pohl allowed he will hear motions challenging that matter. Also, as a matter of secrecy, attorneys will not be able to discuss the government’s treatment of their clients while in custody.

Commission critics say that secrecy could still be maintained at a civilian trial — a questionable supposition given the opportunity for the terrorists and their lawyers to wreak havoc under the far more generous protections granted by the Constitution in such a trial. The outrage expressed by both Republicans and Democrats to the Obama administration’s announcement two years ago that Mohammed and his 4 co-conspirators would be tried in New York City caused the Justice Department to beat a hasty retreat and the idea of a civilian trial was dropped.

Prisoners now have access to civilian defense attorneys who specialize in complex death sentence cases — at taxpayer expense. And it was from civilians that most of the posturing and courtroom antics came from. For instance, attorneys for two of the plotters asked that the entire 87-page indictment be read word for word — a right that is granted defendants but is rarely exercised. It took 2 1/2 hours and 6 prosecutors to plow their way through the mind-numbing legalese. At one point, it was thought that all 2,976 names of the 9/11 victims would be read aloud, but prosecutors only mentioned the number of dead without objection.

But that was a small blessing. There were constant interruptions and trivial objections. Binalshibh’s attorney, James Harrington, interrupted the hearing to inform the judge, “My client would prefer to have his name pronounced Bin-al-shib-ah.” Pohl acceded to the request while Binalshibh laid a rug on the floor and began to pray. No attempt was made to stop him.

One female attorney for Mr. bin Attash, Cheryl Bormann, came dressed to the hearing in an abaya, covered head to toe with only her face showing. She suggested that females on the prosection side do likewise, “so that our clients are not forced to not look at the prosecution for fear of committing a sin under their faith,” she said.

The defendants themselves were alternately defiant and disinterested. Mr. Bin Attash had to be brought into the courtroom chained to a wheelchair because he refused to enter voluntarily. They all refused to put on headphones to listen for the simultaneous translation in Arabic, so Col. Pohl ordered the loudspeakers in the courtroom to carry the translation. This slowed the pace of the hearing down even more as the defendant’s lawyers would often speak over the Arabic translation, causing confusion and forcing the translator to repeat. The Guardian referred to the “near-farcical scenes in which the defendants prayed, read the Economist, talked among each other and ignored the judicial events around them.”

At one point during the reading of the charges, Judge Pohl asked Mr. bin Attash’s attorney Capt. Michael Schwartz, who was the attorney who demanded that the charges be read in their entirety, why he wasn’t paying attention. “You are the one who wanted it to be read,” Pohl said. “Your honor, it’s not my right. It is my client’s right,” the lawyer replied.

All of these antics angered many of the family members of 9/11 victims who were granted access to the proceedings at Guantanamo after winning a lottery. Prominent spokesperson for the families, Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles was a pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, said, “They’re engaging in jihad in a courtroom.” An emotional statement issued by Eddie Bracken, whose sister died in the World Trade Center, echoed the thoughts of many family members:

“I came a long way to see you, eye to eye. … If you would have this in another country, it would be a different story. They would have given you your wish to meet your maker quicker than you would realize. But this is America, and you deserve a fair and just trial, according to our Constitution, not yours. That’s what separates us Americans from you and your ideology,” he said.

The hearing will continue next month as Judge Pohl will entertain the first of several hundred motions filed by attorneys for the defendants.

2011/10/23

The Sharia-Math of Public Beheading

Source Article Link: Family Security Matters

The Sharia-Math of Public Beheading

Written By Hasan Mahmud


On October 7th, 2011 eight Bangladeshis were publicly beheaded in Saudi Arabia for the crime of murdering an Egyptian in 2007. The execution created a virtual tsunami of support and protest worldwide. The proud declaration of the Saudi ambassador in Bangladesh that his country follows “Allah’s Law” was immediately addressed by nybangla.comwith a video of Saudi prince in a nightclub, acting in a decidedly unIslamic fashion (see below). This occurs at a time when there is raging debate transpiring the world over, about the legitimacy of capital punishment. Many countries have abolished it. Creating theological awareness in the Muslim masses about its anti-Islamic nature can help its elimination.

References from the Quran and Prophet Mohammed’s statements, quoted below, show that like many Sharia laws the rule of public beheading has some apparent legitimacy from Islamic scripture.

  1. Death sentence is allowed – 5:33.
  2. Beheading is allowed by the words “Smiting Neck” – 8:12 and 47:4.
  3. Blood money can be paid for unintentional killing of a Muslim – 4:92.
  4. Punishment of intentional killing of a Muslims is consignment to hell– no worldly punishment ismentioned – 4:93.
  5. “Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equalfor equal”.  Forgiveness is encouraged – 5:45, 2:178.
  6. Punishment in public is instructed – 24:2.
  7. The Prophet is reported to have publicly beheaded adult captives of Banu Quraiza by the  verdict of Sa’ad b. Mu’adh – (Banu Quraiza had already agreed to comply with his judgment)- Sahih Bukhari 4-280, 5- 148, Sahih Muslim 4368, 4369, 4370, Sirat of Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq page 464 etc.

Let’s note that the Quran and Sahi Bukhari 9-21 encourage forgiveness and other options such as exile and forbids killing without “good reason.” This does not adequately explain what that exactly could be. According to Sharia law an intentional murder can be adjudicated in 3 ways:-

(1)   If the family of the victim pardons then the murderer is acquitted.

(2)   If the family of the victim accepts Blood-Money then the murderer is acquitted.

(3)   If the family of the victim does not agree to pardon or take Blood-Money then the murderer is sentenced to public execution.

This law shows sympathy to the victim’s family and grants a right which none, not even the State, can supersede. On the other hand we see in secular democracies that a governor or president at times “pardons” convicted murder who face a death sentence, without even consulting the victim’s family. This can be heart-breaking for the victim’s family to see the convicted murderer of their beloved one roaming around proudly! But this law has some devastating impact also – see below #5. The law of public-beheading and the killer’s acquittal by forgiveness or payment (the principle of “compoundability”) are problematic in our time for these theological and practical reasons.

(1)   This law is the reason for the increased number of honor killings. When a woman is killed by her father or brother for alleged relationship or anything else, the family members “pardon” the killer because they don’t want to lose another member of the family by death sentence of the court.

(2)   This law will create havoc among people if applied in many Third World countries. There are criminals/ killers who are enormously rich, well connected, politically powerful, and brutish in nature, and have pet brutish young cadres under their command to boot. They will be free to kill because they are in a position to threaten and force the poor helpless family of the victims to “Pardon” them with or without Blood-money and the State cannot do anything.

(3)   Verses 5:33, 8:12 and 47:4 were revealed in a context of war; these can not be stretched to cover personal murder.

(4)   Verse 24:2 is about adultery, it cannot be stretched to murder.

(5)   This law discriminates against women because if the victim has son/s, his daughter/s cannot pardon the murderer – (Sharia the Islamic Law – Dr. Abdur Rahman Doi – page 235).

(6)   The Banu Quraiza incident has always been debated – there are good references against it. There are enormous problems and violence in all secondary sources of Islam. Although Hadiths and Sharia law stipulate that denying them turns a Muslim into an apostate (this is sheer blackmailing in the name of Islam), we must apply our right to accept or reject any or all of them totally or partially to achieve sustainable peace.

(7)   Above all and most importantly, the institution of Sharia law totally ignores the Islamic dynamics of updating social laws while keeping the value or the spirit of the Quranic and Prophetic injunctions intact.  Even Sharia-leaders admit that many of the Quranic dicta are contextual and cannot be applied today. Examples include slavery, Jizya tax for non-Muslims etc. Some are already updated such as some rituals of Hajj, zakat or Islamic Tax (originally it was given to a State-fund) etc.

Public beheading might have been necessary in the past in which the society consisted of unenlightened people or there was no better way of carrying out the death sentence. We don’t need it anymore.  More human ways are developed to punish a criminal. Even if death sentence to murderers is accepted, it must not be by beheading and in public. Moreover, people who believe that public beheading reduces murder cases are utterly wrong. Public beheading measurably failed to reduce murder cases.  As the BBC reports, last year (2010) 26 criminals were beheaded in Saudi. This year until October, 56 people have already been beheaded – more are coming up. So, all this law manages to do, is defame Islam and Muslims.

Criminal laws reflect the nature and magnitude of intellectual resistance to crimes. Lest we forget – “Language of protest shows the nature of the protester”.

Family Security Matters Contributor Hasan Mehsud is a member of AILC (American Islamic Leadership Coalition). He can be contacted at hasan.mahmud@hotmail.com.