Accused 9/11 mastermind tells hearing he wants martyrdom

Friday 06th June, 05:30 AM JST

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba —

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the reputed mastermind of the Sept 11 attacks, told a military judge at his arraignment Thursday that he welcomes the death penalty as a way to martyrdom and ridiculed the proceedings as an “inquisition.”

In his first public appearance since his capture five years ago, Mohammed wore thick glasses, a turban and a bushy, gray beard, and he was noticeably thinner—a stark change from the slovenly man with disheveled hair, unshaven face and T-shirt from the widely distributed photograph after his seizure in Pakistan.

He and four other detainees accused of plotting al-Qaida’s 2001 attack were at turns cordial and defiant at their arraignment, the first U.S. attempt to try in court those believed to be directly responsible for killing 2,973 people in the bloodiest terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil.

The arraignment is the highest-profile test yet of the military’s tribunal system, which faces an uncertain future. It also threatens to expose harsh interrogation techniques used on the men, who were in CIA custody before being transferred to Guantanamo in 2006.

A sound feed to journalists from the courtroom was turned off at one point, and a soldier told them it was because the detainee was discussing a medication he had been given, which was a privacy issue.

But his defense attorney, Navy Cmdr Suzanne Lachelier, told The Associated Press later that the prisoner had been discussing his five years as a prisoner of the United States.

The arraignment also indicated that anger against the U.S. among some defendants remains at a boil.

One defendant said he deeply regrets not joining the hijackers who crashed passenger airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.

“I have been seeking martyrdom for five years,” said Ramzi Binalshibh, the alleged main intermediary between the 19 hijackers and al-Qaida leaders. “I tried for 9/11 to get a visa but I could not.”

Asked if he understands that he could be executed if found guilty, Binalshibh said: “If this martyrdom happens today, I welcome it. God is great. God is great. God is great.”

The U.S. is seeking the death penalty for all five defendants, who sat at separate tables with their defense teams in a high-tech courtroom on this U.S. Navy base. Binalshibh’s ankles were chained to the floor.

Mohammed was careful not to interrupt Judge Ralph Kohlmann. He lost his composure only after the Marine colonel ordered several defense attorneys to keep quiet.

“It’s an inquisition. It’s not a trial,” Mohammed said in broken English, his voice rising. “After torturing they transfer us to inquisition-land in Guantanamo.”

The former No. 3 al-Qaida leader explained he believes only in religious “Sharia” law and railed against U.S. President George W Bush for waging a “crusade war.” The judge, wearing a crewcut and black robes, warned Mohammed that he faces execution if convicted of organizing the attacks on America. But Mohammed said he welcomes the death penalty.

“Yes, this is what I wish, to be a martyr for a long time,” Mohammed declared. “I will, God willing, have this, by you.”

Mohammed said he would represent himself at his war crimes trial and two other detainees quickly followed suit: Binalshibh and Waleed bin Attash, who allegedly selected and trained some of the hijackers.

“It hardly comes as any surprise that after holding individuals in solitary confinement for five years and subjecting them to torture, these detainees would reject the legal system and offers to represent them,” said Anthony D Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York.

The Bush administration has acknowledged that Mohammed was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding—a technique that gives the sensation of drowning—in secret CIA custody before he was transferred to Guantanamo in 2006.

Mohammed is the most valuable al-Qaida official in U.S. custody and the central figure in a trial that will put the Pentagon’s military tribunals under an intense spotlight. The tribunals have faced repeated legal setbacks, including a Supreme Court appeal on the rights of Guantanamo detainees that could produce a ruling this month halting the proceedings.

Defense attorneys harshly criticized the military commissions, which were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2006 before being resurrected in an altered form by Congress and President Bush.

“I think the American people, if they ... understood the ramifications in the long term to our Constitution, to their Constitution, I think they would be ashamed,” Lachelier said outside the heavily guarded courtroom.

The defense attorney tried to raise another pending Supreme Court decision in the courtroom, on the benchmark when defendants can be allowed to represent themselves, but Kohlmann told her to keep quiet.

“What part of ‘no’ do you not understand?” the judge said, peering down from the bench. “Sit down.”

Binalshibh’s civilian attorney, Thomas Durkin, said the men should be tried in U.S. federal courts.

“We have had many terrorism cases in our federal court system,” Durkin said. “I think it is a shame that for whatever reason the Bush administration has put on what we think is a show trial.”

The military commissions plan to allow coerced testimony, although evidence obtained by torture is not allowed. Attorneys for Mohammed have said they will challenge evidence obtained through harsh interrogations.

Air Force Brig Gen Tom Hartmann, a top tribunal official, told reporters it was up to the judge to determine whether to allow as evidence statements obtained during waterboarding. Hartmann said waterboarding has not officially been classified as torture.

Mohammed said he was tortured after being captured in Pakistan in 2003 but didn’t elaborate, indicating he understood he should not discuss it in the courtroom.

“I can’t mention about the torturing,” said Mohammed, who received an engineering degree from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. “I know this is the red line.”

Kohlmann said he would try to minimize the chance that classified information will come out, in part by delaying closed-circuit video and audio of the proceedings by 20 seconds.

The defendants spoke with each other in Arabic, appeared to pass notes among them and at one point looked back and chuckled at reporters watching from behind a courtroom window.

All appeared to be in robust health except for Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who allegedly selected and trained some of the 19 hijackers. He looked thin and frail and sat on a pillow on his chair.

The other defendants are Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, known as Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew and lieutenant of Mohammed, and Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, a Saudi, who allegedly helped finance the hijackers.

About 35 journalists watched on closed-circuit TV in a press room inside a converted hangar, while two dozen others watched through a window from a room adjacent to the courtroom. No photographs were allowed inside the courtroom, but a sketch artist was allowed to draw the scene.

Mohammed saw the sketch made of him when it was given to the defense team and he complained that it made his nose look too big. The artist said she would alter the sketch accordingly.

With less than eight months remaining in Bush’s term, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both say they want to close the military’s offshore detention center.

Obama also opposed the Military Commissions Act, which resurrected the military commissions in 2006. McCain supported it.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 29 Total Comments Show All

WilliB at 06:39 PM JST - 6th June

In the event, Khalid Mohammed touted his achievement even before he was captured, and 9/11 is widely celebrated among muslims. I guess that means they are celebrating Jews, then? But a little logical contradiction has never been a problem for the Ummah.
skipthesong at 06:59 PM JST - 6th June

9/11 is widely celebrated among muslims." Very true.

Sabi, if you think this man is some angle, please let us know why you think that. I have stated before while I was not in those buildings at that time, I was working there. Co-workers who survived said they seen large planes. People died on those planes. I can not account for the Pentagon, but I can account for NYC/WTC. I did not live far away. Even pieces of engins dropped down on some streets. Thus, it was not an internal explosion.

If you know of some remote control device to help this guy's trial, show it. He may be a patsy, but I would say a patsy for AQ.

BTW, if he really wanted Martyrdom, perhaps he should have strapped himself with a bomb and did it the usual way. The security at the WTC was not that intense. Anyone could have just really walked right in. And this is a place that was previously AQ attempted to destroy in 93'.
sabiwabi at 08:17 PM JST - 6th June

Sabi, if you think this man is some angle, please let us know why you think that.

I don't think he's an angle. From his picture, he seems rather round.

If you mean angel, I have no idea. I don't like him and I don't hate him, because I don't know him. All I know, for sure, 100%, is that he is not the mastermind of 911.
skipthesong at 11:11 PM JST - 6th June

If you mean angel" Ok, you got me.. anyway, "All I know, for sure, 100%, is that he is not the mastermind of 911." Tell me how/why you are sure. And I assume you want him to be free too, correct?
WilliB at 01:23 AM JST - 7th June

sabiwabi:

" All I know, for sure, 100%, is that he is not the mastermind of 911. "

And how do you know that "for sure, 100%"?
Eccoman at 10:13 AM JST - 7th June

It's not likely the actual mastermind of the Sept 11 attacks will be revealed in the foreseeable future, but I'm with Sabi in that it's unlikely Khalid was the man pulling the strings.

Skipthesong, of course engine debris would be found on the ground - due to the impact at high speed - regardless of who was flying the plane and how many people were murdered in the incident.

I strongly believe that 9-11 was our equivalent of the Reichstag fire, the false flag used to justify a power grab and excuse for war. This is something I've arrived at after several years of sifting through evidence and debunkings, plus observing what has happened since that watershed day.

Flame me if you will, but that's my position. Khalid was most likely a patsy, and whatever comes out of those kangaroo courts in Guantanamo Bay are suspect to say the least. It's clear the US govt holds its own constitution in utter contempt, otherwise they'd have nothing to fear in trying these alleged terrorists in open court.

Moderator: Readers, please do not turn this thread into a discussion on conspiracy theories.
sabiwabi at 03:11 PM JST - 7th June

As for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being the 911 mastermind, that is indeed an outrageous conspiracy theory. Some here seem to think I am simply defending a fellow Muslim (I'm not Muslim). I don't know the guy, whether he is a decent or evil man, I just don't think he is any more the mastermind as Elvis is.
kinniku at 03:26 PM JST - 7th June

sabiwabi,

If you don't know Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it seems you do not have enough facts to discuss intelligently whether he is innocent or guilty. Yet, again, this doesn't stop you from saying you know he has nothing to do with 9/11.
super delegate at 10:55 AM JST - 8th June

I think a lot of Lefties secretly envy those clowns. To be "tortured" would be a dream come true for some of them.
sabiwabi at 06:43 PM JST - 8th June

kinniku

If you don't know Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it seems you do not have enough facts to discuss intelligently whether he is innocent or guilty.

I'm surprised your still pretending not to get my simple point. I don't know much about this guy, but I do know more than enough about 911 to know that this guy is not the mastermind. Seems you do not have enough facts of 911 to discuss intelligently whether he is innocent or guilty. You should make an effort to learn more about this very important event, instead of relying only on the mass media.
kinniku at 08:54 PM JST - 8th June

sabiwabi,

Thank you for your kind response. However, the question remains how it is that you can say 100% that "this guy" did not mastermind the terrorist attacks. Are you seriously expecting people to just take your word for it? It is a simple question, posed to you by many in this thread. I truly don't think you have an answer for them. This logically leads me to believe you don't know what you are talking about.

Unfortunately, this seems to be rather a pattern. On the Iran thread several people kindly asked you to explain how you were sure Iran was working on alternate sources of energy. There too, you left the question unanswered.
sabiwabi at 01:03 PM JST - 9th June

Are you seriously expecting people to just take your word for it?

No. I expect people to think reasonably at the facts and make their own conclusions. I believe I have responded more than adequately, while respecting the mod's request. I also addressed the Iran questions, if you still don't get it, ask a grown up to explain it to you.

Unfortunately, this seems to be rather a pattern.

I too see a clear pattern. Its your pattern of showing up on this forum, it seems, simply to criticize my posts, while not contributing anything at all related to the article.
kinniku at 02:55 PM JST - 9th June

sabiwabi,

No. I expect people to think reasonably at the facts and make their own conclusions.

Then why berate people so much when they disagree acting as though you have answers and then never actually specifically respond?

I believe I have responded more than adequately, while respecting the mod's request. I also addressed the Iran questions, if you still don't get it, ask a grown up to explain it to you.

You never answered the question. It is as simple as that. Go back and read both this thread and the other one. People keep asking you for your specific answer. You have provided none.

Lastly, you seem to think it is up to you how people can comment and in fact even goes as far as to suggest that some people are not allowed to comment. Why should that be? Why should your voice be considered the authority. As a member of the forum, I have just as much a right to read articles and the comments that follow and to comment when I would like. Why not try focusing on thinking of your answers rather than my comments.

You have not shown any specific reason for anyone to believe it is 100% sure (your words)that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent.
sabiwabi at 03:45 PM JST - 9th June

People keep asking you for your specific answer. You have provided none.

You choose not to see the answers. Reread my posts, its all there.

As a member of the forum, I have just as much a right to read articles and the comments that follow and to comment when I would like.

You certainly do. I am just pointing out that you often show up only to criticize my posts (often pretending not to understand some very simple points I'm trying to make). Except for your criticisms of my posts, what have written regarding this article?
kinniku at 04:03 PM JST - 9th June

You choose not to see the answers. Reread my posts, its all there.

Re-read your post...sorry, I still do not see where you have shown how you are 100% sure Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent. You do not need to launch into your familiar conspiracy theories to do this. You claim you do not know the man... that you don't know if he is good or bad...yet you claim you know for sure 'that guy' is innocent. When other people (I certainly was not the first in this thread) asked you how you were so sure, you did not respond. If you think that is you 'responded more than adequately', your definition of adequately is sorely lacking.

Except for your criticisms of my posts, what have written regarding this article?

Ummm...hate to burst your self-centered bubble, but until you jumped back in to angrily respond, I did not mention you nor did I quote you. In addition, people are allowed to comment on the articles and on other people's comments. Again, maybe you should spend more time answering people questions (if you are so inclined, which I sincerely doubt) rather than worrying about what I write.

By the way, your point just seems to be 'I say he is innocent and that is it'. Why should we believe you?