Navy Lawyers Seek KSM’s Help To Free Bin Laden’s Driver

February 8th, 2008 Posted By Pat Dollard.

050407_hamdan_hmed_10ahmedium.jpg
Hamdan’ lawyers

Note that the guy was caught with two surface-to-air missiles as passengers. But he didn’t know nothin’ about nothin…

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - A U.S. military judge was considering a request Thursday by lawyers for Osama bin Laden’s driver to interview the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks—a man they say could prove their client was no terrorist.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan’s lawyers want access to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other high-value detainees held at this isolated U.S. military base to assess their potential value as witnesses at their client’s upcoming war-crimes trial.

“If someone’s on trial for organized crime, and they have a chance to interview the godfather … it’s highly relevant,” said Harry Schneider, a civilian defense attorney.

The judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, denied a similar request in December, citing security obstacles. But he showed willingness to grant some access at the pretrial hearing on Thursday, proposing that defense attorneys submit questions for the three detainees in writing.

He said he would issue a ruling as soon as next week.

Defense lawyers said the alleged top terrorists could help prove that Hamdan is not an al-Qaida member. Hamdan, who U.S. military records show is about 37, was captured in a car carrying two surface-to-air missiles by Afghan troops in November 2001.

“These high-value detainees are going to be critical to our defense,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, a defense attorney.

But prosecutors said such meetings would be unnecessary, conceding they already know Hamdan was not a member of the inner circle that planned the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Army Lt. Col. William Britt dismissed the request as a “fishing expedition.”

“The defense is asking for access to some of the most notorious suspects the world has ever seen on the basis of ‘maybe,’ ‘perhaps’ or ‘likely,’” Britt told the judge.

Hamdan, who is from Yemen, has been charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. He is scheduled to face trial this spring under a new Pentagon system to prosecute terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

He was first charged more than three years ago, but his prosecution has been delayed by legal challenges, including one that prompted the Supreme Court to strike down the original rules set up for the military tribunals in 2006.

Schneider, the defense attorney, said the government may be reluctant to make the high-value detainees available because they could reveal details of their treatment in secret CIA prisons. He said the defense team would agree to have a security officer present during interviews, to make sure they did not reveal classified information.

The government has not ruled out defense lawyers’ meeting with high- value detainees, but they must demonstrate the information they seek is relevant to their client’s case, according to Army Col. Larry Morris, the chief prosecutor for the military tribunals.

“It’s our belief that as of today, they have not met that threshold,” Larry said of Hamdan’s attorneys.

Defense attorneys also argued that they have not been provided with details about the whereabouts of Hamdan over a period of several months after he was arrested. One of his attorneys, Charles Swift, said he is concerned that the government obtained information from him through coercion during that time.

But prosecutors denied they were withholding any potentially exculpatory evidence.

Hamdan is one of four detainees charged under the new tribunal system. So far, no one has been tried. Australian detainee David Hicks avoided trial last year with a plea bargain, returning to his homeland to serve a jail sentence.

Prosecutors have said they plan to charge about 80 of the 275 men held at Guantanamo on suspicion of terrorism or links to terrorism or al- Qaida.


    • Young Americans Documentary
    • Learn More About Pat
    • blogroll

      • A Soldier's Perspective
      • Ace Of Spades
      • American Soldier
      • Ann Coulter
      • Attack Machine
      • Bill Ardolino
      • Bill Roggio
      • Black Five
      • Blonde Sagacity
      • Breitbart
      • Chicagoray
      • Confederate Yankee
      • Day by Day Cartoon
      • Euphoric Reality
      • Flopping Aces
      • Free Republic
      • Frontier Web Design
      • Hot Air
      • Hugh Hewitt
      • Ian Schwartz
      • Instapundit
      • Little Green Footballs
      • Matt Sanchez
      • Michael Fumento
      • Michael Yon
      • Michelle Malkin
      • Military.com
      • Missiles And Stilletos
      • Move America Forward
      • Mudville Gazette
      • Pass The Ammo
      • Protest Warrior
      • Roger L. Simon
      • Sportsman's Outfit
      • Stop The ACLU
      • TCOverride
      • The Belmont Club
      • The Big God Blog
      • The Crimson Blog
      • The Daily Gut
      • The Drudge Report
      • The PoliTicking Timebomb
      • The Pundit Review
      • Veteran's Affairs Documentary

5 Responses

  1. Ed Stanowicz

    This is a prime example of why our military men and women should be told to KILL terrorists, not capture them.

  2. allahlovesporkchops

    I believe that captured terrorists should be waterboarded IMMEDIATELY or at least ASAP. Then killed in action.

  3. B. Veener

    Those Navy lawyers are just doing what the Constitution requires of them.

  4. DC

    @ B. Veener:

    Yea, but if you or I were to be caught with a couple of SAM’s in the back seat of our car, we’d rot in prison for the rest of our natural lives…with no chance of parole!

    CAIR is at the bottom of this, and we all know what those ragheads stand for.

  5. B. Veener

    If you were caught with a couple of SAM’s in the back of your car and a jury convicted you of doing so beyond a reasonable doubt then you would rot in prison - same for him.

    The question of whether we should allow these guys lawyers is one thing, it’s another to question the Navy lawyers for doing what they’re Constitutionally obligated to do once they become their attorneys.

Respond now.

alert Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.

alert If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.

:mrgreen::neutral::twisted::arrow::shock::smile::???::cool::evil::grin::idea::oops::razz::roll::wink::cry::eek::lol::mad::sad::!::?::beer::beer: