Guantanamo 9/11 Trial: Judge Weighs Splitting Off Trial

Clouds loom over Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during the arraignment of the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four co-defendants, Saturday, May 5, 2012, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (AP Photo/The Miami Herald, Walter Michot, Pool)

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- A military judge is considering whether to split off one or more of the defendants and hold separate trials for five Guantanamo Bay prisoners charged in the Sept. 11 attacks, a lawyer for one of the men said Friday.

The judge, Army Col. James Pohl, proposed the change in a written order in part because of the difficulty trying to schedule hearings for five defendants and multiple lawyers at the U.S. base in Cuba, said James Connell, a civilian attorney for defendant Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali.

Pohl also questioned whether one trial for all five defendants would create a conflict with evidence that could help one defendant while hurting another, Connell said.

The judge's order is sealed. As part of the order, the prosecution was ordered to show cause why the cases should not be severed.

The Pentagon will not release the order until it has passed through a security review, said Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a spokesman for the Guantanamo military commissions.

"There are some very specific ethical constraints that prohibit the prosecution from litigating cases in the press," Breasseale said.

Previously, Connell had said he wanted his client's case severed from that of the others, who include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks, and the prosecution wanted them all tried together. Both sides are barred by the rules from disclosing their wishes at this point and will be filing legal motions by the end of the month.

The five men were arraigned together on May 5 on charges that include murder and terrorism. They could be sentenced to death if convicted. The next pretrial hearing in the case is scheduled for June but lawyers for several defendants have requested a postponement.

Earlier on HuffPost:

Comments

[AlanBannacheck]

01:22 PM on 05/20/2012

You have to wonder how many of those "shadow prisons", located in many foreign nations are holding up.

[tom sproule]

10:49 PM on 05/19/2012

Try every single detainee at once so that they can't pontificate from the stand.

[westcoastsc]

03:06 PM on 05/19/2012

The only trials that should be done about 911 should be against the Bush Administration and their fellow conspirers.

[Syni Cal]

10:07 AM on 05/19/2012

Many posters on this site often quote " nothing to hide, nothing to fear" when debating new laws that strip away our civil liberties. My question to the US administration is " just what are afraid of?"
An alternative question would of course be " what are you hiding?" but the majority of reasoning people already have a pretty good idea of the answer to that one.

[viciousvirago]

08:52 AM on 05/19/2012

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) usually works well here in the States. But when things happen outside, on foreign soil, things work slower.

Even tho I abhor the people responsible for 9/ll and other suicide bombers who killed our sons and daughters, they have the right to a FAIR trial, which means no secrecy. It goes against 200+ years of so-called democracy. It is simply untenable for me, an ex Army officer and surgeon, to have anything done in secrecy, especially trials involving the UCMJ.

Opinions?

[Diane1976]

03:04 PM on 05/19/2012

I believe the US government made some very bad decisions during the early period after 9/11 that may be all or partly excused because of the circumstances. However, the result was a terrible betrayal of values, and I think that was especially unfortunate for the US military which has a fine tradition, and reputation. Some say it was worth it, for security reasons. We can't know that for sure.

Obama's decision to "look forward" and not conduct a witch hunt for guilty officials from Bush downward seemed right. But that decision also resulted in what appears to be the opposite extreme, a cover-up. It's hard to say at this point who is guiltier of the betrayal of values of which Obama spoke, Bush for doing it, or him for the cover-up. He should have gone some middle route of acknowledging the wrongdoing through some formal process that would show accountability while considering the mitigating circumstances of 9/11.

If they can't convict people without hiding torture, abuse and illegal treatment, but believe them to be a threat, they have the legal right to hold such people indefinitely without a trial. They may be able to prove guilt in spite of torture, but, the torture, abuse and illegal treatment should not be hidden. It should be acknowledged and it should be condemned by all officials involved including the president.

[viciousvirago]

03:32 PM on 05/19/2012

VERY well said Diane2976. I agree with most points.

[KIVPossum]

07:53 AM on 05/19/2012

And yet we claim we are a nation of human rights. LOL

[Roelvdwegen]

07:35 AM on 05/19/2012

These men will get no justice, it does not matter if they are guilty or innocent.

[bustoff]

09:38 AM on 05/19/2012

Expunge them all and save us a lot of time, expense and effort.
They will love going to Paradise(where 72 virgins camels will be waiting for them)
Procrastination is the devil's handiwork.

[SeanMartin]

05:45 AM on 05/19/2012

They have been "guests" of the US for almost a decade without even knowing what their crimes were. The US fought to even allow them attorneys. They — and the 300 or so like them — are now at the whim of some kangaroo "military court" that has already made its decision and is simply going through the motions...

— and your country calls this justice.