There is a trial going on right now of 5 men who plotted the 9/11 attacks (now? What happened to the idea of a speedy trial?) The lawyer for Walid bin Attash has done something I have mixed feelings about. She’s wearing a hijab.
Attorney Cheryl Bormann, 52, who is from Chicago and is not Muslim, said she wore the modest garment that revealed only her face to show respect for the religious sensitivities of her client, Yemeni terror suspect Walid bin Attash.
These men must get fair representation in the court, and she’s going beyond the call of duty to work with her client…although letting them dictate how the lawyer dresses goes too far. If she were defending a sexist asshole like Tucker Max, would she let him make her do her appearances in a bikini? She’s there as a professional, not as a slave to the suspects.
But alright, let that one slide…let’s assume she’s doing what needs to be done to represent a slimebag. This, though, is not forgivable.
Bormann asked the court to order the other women present at the hearing to dress more modestly so as not to distract the defendants, who would be "committing a sin under their faith" by looking at them.
What an astonishing demand. According to the article, the chief prosecutor “deemed the request not worthy of a response.” Seems about right.
But now I’m wondering…Bormann has to know that this kind of behavior and request in the environment of that courtroom has to be highly prejudicial. Is she trying to subtly sabotage Walid bin Attash’s case? Because I don’t know much about him, and I’ve already decided that he’s an arrogant, contemptible jerk.
This would be like barring Jews from wearing yarmukles in the courtroom because it offends the sensibilities of the judge. Why is one form of idiotic headgear more important than another?
Your Honor, I would like to request that the prosecution refrain from any consumption of alcohol or eating of pork through the duration of this trial so as not to offend the defendants. And I would also, respectfully, request that you do the same.
Yes your Honor, I mean that during the hours of the trial and after hours as well.
I am profoundly offended by women wearing clothes. Not all women. Just the ones I casually wave at as I am carried down the street in my palanquin.
What do you mean I can’t have these very modest and reasonable requests? Don’t you know they are articles of my religion?
What do you mean that they aren’t articles of any regular religion? So what? God just revealed {hurr hurr} them to me personally. You wanna fuck with the prophet of god, motherfucker? BOY! Bring me my holy gun, I’m gonna off me some sinners.
Louis
If the defendants find themselves unable to lower their gaze as proscribed by their religion, then allow them to blindfold themselves. Problem fucking solved. Sheesh.
As a civil libertarian who believes that each individual gets to decide what floats his or her boat, I defend a woman’s right to wear a hijab — or not wear a hijab. (That second part, of course, would offend a devotee of the official Islamic misogyny that requires women to conceal themselves lest poor weak men lose control of themselves at the sight of an elbow or forehead.) My respect for a person’s right to wear a religiously sanctioned costume or affect a religiously required beard or hairstyle does not, however, include respect for the practice itself. I cannot help but think, “Oh, another person hobbled by religious superstition.”
For some reason I picture Phyllida “Portia” Erskine-Brown wearing a hijab with her silly horsehair wig on top.
If the court allows this observance of a religious belief so trivial as the hijab, m’lord, how then can it fail to respect the defendants’ deeply held belief that the infidel must be destroyed?
Asking non-muslims to adhere to muslim practices is absurd, and as PZ says, must be highly prejudicial.
Well at least the chief prosecutor deemed the request unworthy of a response.
It is a good job Cherie Booth(1) was not the judge, since she would probably have donned a burqa. Booth once gave a lighter sentence to someone who claimed to be a devout Muslim(2) on the grounds that as a religious person he must be good really.
1. Wife of Tony Blair. If possible, she is even more revolting than he is.
2. If I recall, the crime was assault and was committed as the man was on his way home from the mosque.
Wow that’s gotta be up there with starting a trial by calling the judge ugly.
Honestly, I am surprised that they are allowing a non-Muslim (GASP!) educated woman (DOUBLE GASP!) to represent them. I strongly suspect that, in their tiny, twisted minds, this is meant to show their absolute distain for the proceedings: if they were taking the case seriously, they would have a proper, faithful Muslim male as their representative.
I was just catching up on Jesus and Mo, and something Mo said made me think …
Since his lawyer is a woman, shouldn’t he have two of them? I know she isn’t giving testimony, but still, shouldn’t she have someone to remind her of things her scatterbrain can’t keep organized?
Great strategy for the defense lawyer, all right. Infantacize her client, and constantly remind the jury that he can’t possibly be expected to abide by the same rules of society as the rest of us. Invoke the “mental defect of religion” plea.
When I go on trial, I’ll demand that all concerned wear their full pirate regalia, as ordained by His Noodliness.
To those asking why he has a woman lawyer please remember that that’s religion and this is buisness. Even for godbots the later is often the priority
The logical conclusion of religions in which YOUR beliefs limit MY actions in cases where my actions are neither directed at you nor concern you (except in your mind). These defendants want all the women in the courtroom to dress according to the dictates of the defendants’ religion. If looking upon a women dressed immodestly is a sin in YOUR religion, may I suggest a lovely designer pair of BLINDERS?!
To call the disgraceful Guantanamo military commissions a ‘trial’ is utterly ridiculous. Of course they are not taking the kangaroo court seriously. I don’t know why anyone would expect them to.
Here’s the wikipedia entry on One Legged Terrorist Mastermind Wallid Bin Attash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_bin_Attash
What’s truly arrogant and despicable is the scare-mongering ten years on that these are “the worst of the worst” and that we couldn’t possibly let these super-villains on American soil in front of a real judge.
She’s not an idiot, so there must be a reason for this behavior. Perhaps she’s trying to demonstrate the rigid, unusual lifestyle of these people (compared to American people at least) as part of building their defense.
They’re misunderstood, you see? You might not like the way they live, and while it offends you, you need to ask yourself, is what they’re doing REALLY bad or is it just… different? Are the charges against them because they did something bad, or just… because you’re prejudiced?
If she can upset people enough with innocuous things, then she can get them to admit they were having the same reaction to OTHER things too these people did.
I can see donning a hijab to gain your client’s trust. But asking everyone else to do so? Honestly. Men who can’t handle seeing women dressed in normal clothes just shouldn’t be allowed in public, period.
Bormann asked the court to order the other women present at the hearing to dress more modestly so as not to distract the defendants, who would be “committing a sin under their faith” by looking at them.
I think I’m in the boring majority on this, but I find this request over the line. Bormann wearing a hijab or burka or whatever she feels like, I don’t have a problem with and would have been annoyed if PZ had complained about her doing so. But demanding everyone do the same? No. Just, no. If her clients can’t look at women without “sinning” then maybe they should consider a plea bargain that would put them in prison for life: they’ll be away from the temptation of looking at women and won’t be at risk for the death penalty any more.
Off topic, as a New Yorker who cared for some of the 9/11 survivors and lived in the shadow of the plume for months, I don’t want anyone put to death in revenge for the attacks. Put away for a long time, maybe life if they’re found guilty, yes, but not killed. We’ve revenge killed enough people already. Stop now.
No! This is just fucking stupid. These morons need to be offended more often.
The two other good reasons for showing up in such a getup would be : first, to impress the rest of the world — the trial is not being conducted in secret — that the defendants are being given every fair shake. “see, one of their lawyers even covered herself!” or to impress the judge with your sincerity. It’s likely to backfire on both counts.
That could be it. The defendants may very well have done everything they are accused of, but there’s no way they could possibly get a fair trial, even in a civilian court, let alone by military tribunal. It would have been more honest just to carry out extra-judicial killings – and Obama clearly has no moral problem with those. Apparently the defence lawyers have been told they mustn’t discuss with their clients the torture to which they were subjected, even though it’s clearly relevant to their defence, and, at least in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s case, it’s a matter of official record.
I’d like to see some real originality and humour, though: maybe the defence team could dress in kangaroo suits, with little Osama bin Laden dolls in their pouches.
If the defendants find themselves unable to lower their gaze as proscribed by their religion, then allow them to blindfold themselves. Problem fucking solved. Sheesh.
QFT.
These guys like to brag about their “accomplishments”. They are most likely guilty. They may feel disdain for the “kangaroo court”, but notwithstanding our Gitmo hypocrisy I doubt they would act differently in a “real” U.S. court. Why wouldn’t they plead guilty, esp. knowing they might meet Allah that much sooner?
Huh. Blockquote fail.
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
Commencing proceedings by demanding that other people in the court conform to her client’s delusions? Not really the best way to open a defence, but it does serve the purpose of demonstrating Walid bin Attash’s disdain for the proceedings and for personal autonomy of women, which may well be the intent of the maneuver.
I have no sympathy for the repugnant misogyny of bin Attash, but that said I don’t think this guy expects (or possibly even wishes) to be found innocent, and is instead seeking to turn this frankly highly questionable proceeding (I refuse to grace this illegitimate farce with the term ‘trial’) into a piece of legal theatre.
Great, now you made me google who the hell Tucker Max is. I wish I skipped that one :-/
Honesty seems to be in decline these days. I have a feeling it’s one of those non-renewable resources. Expect more newspeak and doublethink from all sides, as the world population continues to rise while sustainability plummets.
Two possible reasons:
1) They don’t recognise the jurisdiction of any infidel court, and entering a plea would be inconsistent with that – though admittedly it would be more consistent to refuse to talk to their lawyers or to attend unless forced to; one of them was indeed brought in tied to a chair because he refused to attend.
2) They think the whole show is good publicity for their cause, so they want it to go on as long as possible.
No, it’s worse. It would be like barring Jews from wearing yarmukles in the courtroom because it offended the sensibilities of the neo-nazi defendant, who’s accused of trying to bomb a synagogue.
one of them was indeed brought in tied to a chair because he refused to attend.
Do you have to attend your trial? I’ve heard of people being convicted in abstentia. Doesn’t that imply that the defendant can refuse to show, just has to abide by the result if it goes badly for him/her?
Not sure about the US, but in English courts, if held in custody prior to trial, you can opt to remain in your cell. The judge needs to be satisfied the accused is aware they have the right to be present, and the absence is voluntary.
So, plotting to ram airliners into skyscrapers, thereby killing thousands, is hunky-dory. Catching a glimpse of a woman’s uncovered knee, however, is the quick path to perdition. Glad that’s been straightened out.
Last I checked, evolution has equipped us with these weird little things called eyelids which we can use to close our eyes! If her clients don’t want to look at all the lewdly dressed infidel women they can shut their eyes or better yet wear that mask like thing they use to get some shut-eye on airplanes.
Well, for starters whether Bormann wears a hijab or not is not exactly the most important question about these trials. But since it is the question we’re discussing here – there’s nothing in international law that requires the women in the court dress according to these fanatics’ preferences. I think the lawyer is motivated in part by trying to get her client’s cooperation, and perhaps also grandstanding. Either way, I think it’s stupid. If I were on trial in Iran, I wouldn’t file a motion to tell a female prosecutor how to dress. It’s idiocy.
The real deal is this: We allowed a bunch of sociopathic fanatics to subvert our values and our justice system. These guys should be in federal court, standing trial in front of a judge who won’t take 13 hours to process an indictment or put up with bizarre grandstanding theatrics from defense attorneys. They should be in federal court where they sit there and listen, or get tossed back into their cells if they are disruptive. No prayer mats, no praying conspicuously during proceedings, no whining about women’s dress, no stupid stunts. They can sit in court and shut the fuck up, or they can sit in their cell and watch by video link if they are disruptive. And then, when they are convicted, they can spend the rest of their lives locked up in Florence Colorado, or wherever they get sent.
But we can’t do that, because we tortured these guys within an inch of their lives, violating everything that was once good and right about our criminal justice system and rendering a real trial in federal court impossible. When you toss legal precedent to the wind, and go back to sometime before the Magna Carta, of course you end up with a medieval spectacle with torture victims swaying back and forth and talking to themselves, and a confused judge who doesn’t have a clue how to balance barbaric superstition and proper courtroom order.
As for these guys, I don’t give much of a shit what happens to them. But I feel incandescent rage at the Bush Administration for trashing our constitution and the most basic fundamentals of international law. I’m pissed off at Pres Obama on this too – we are a strong enough nation to try these assholes in Manhattan before a federal judge. I have not yet heard a single coherent argument why they should not be tried in federal court, just like Tim McVeigh, except that we violated US and international law and now we are too ashamed to present a case against them in a real courtroom. Un-fucking-believable.
And then, when they are convicted, they can spend the rest of their lives locked up in Florence Colorado, or wherever they get sent.
One of our values is “innocent until proven guilty”. They might not be convicted in a fair trial. I find the probability low, but at this point the probability of them getting a fair trial is so low that I doubt we’ll ever know for sure whether all or any of the defendants were truly conspirators in the 9/11 attacks.
The problem is you’ve already captured them. You can do extrajudicial killing in the field, exigencies of war / crime fighting etc etc. But once they’re in custody you can’t really just go offing them behind the woodshed. Current levels of hypocrisy haven’t sunk that low, yet.
@dianne – The heart of the problem is that they are almost certainly guilty, but the evidence has been so tainted by torture that it would be inadmissible in court. I get that these guys are innocent until proven guilty… but seriously, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? The only way he gets found not guilty is if the evidence is inadmissible. And that, sadly, is the legacy of the Bush-Cheney years.
I think where your question gets more interesting is in the case of that kid who was 14 when he was arrested, and the many Guantanamo detainees who were sold by unscrupulous Afghans in 2001-2002. There are some serious issues of guilt and innocence there, but we’ve so completely buggered the system as to make it nearly impossible to distinguish victims from perpetrators.
Here’s a compromise: dismiss the torture evidence and let him go, then bomb him with a drone. And then everything will fit with the letter of the current law, both civil AND military.
A good DM could spin this scenario so many ways for a party of paladins.
If your client directs you to make a request of the court, should you do it? An attorney who knows that the judge will deny the request, but by asking gains the cooperation of her client, I think is showing good judgement.
I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.
SallyStrange @ # 19: I can see donning a hijab to gain your client’s trust. But asking everyone else to do so?
scottportman @ # 36: … the lawyer is motivated in part by trying to get her client’s cooperation…
This hypothesis seems both simplest and most plausible.
Moreover, it also accounts tidily for Bormann’s futile request, the reaction to which she no doubt predicted, accurately, to that individual she may well privately consider The Client From Hell.
Too many lawyers!
Dragging things out with too many challenges and stuffing around charging by the minute.
UNLESS they have good reason to believe that such a request will hurt their client, such as by further biasing the court against them or testing the Judge’s patience. From what I hear a lot of judges have very little patience for games like that.
If he’s worried about sinning, he can just ask Jesus for forgiveness, right?
Do you keep track of what you’re saying? Because you gave us the reason yourself in the preceding paragraph:
It’s not just a matter of being ashamed: it’s that little if any of the evidence would be accepted as admissible by any judge with a shred of integrity. My guess is that Obama was told that if he gave them a proper trial, they were likely to be acquited.
So now I feel bad bitching at all about people on a trial that’s basically a show trial and who would be acquitted if we had any standards.
Fuck you know what in that case a dress code is literally less than the least we could do.
Could this set a precedent? If the judge agreed to the defence’s request, would it mean that if ever I were to be hauled up in front of an American court I could insist that the proceedings be conducted and recorded in British English? Or is it only religion which is privileged?
Nah, don’t answer that…
1) No one agreed
2) NO it wouldn’t. It’s not a fucking law it would be one court decided whether or not to accommodate someone.
Ah, maybe I’m wrong. The article I read is here, but in fact it doesn’t say why Waleed bin Attash was “restrained in his chair”.
Fed court was Obama’s choice, Congress, both sides, blocked it.
I get that these guys are innocent until proven guilty… but seriously, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? The only way he gets found not guilty is if the evidence is inadmissible.
Well, what is the evidence against him? If it’s nothing but what he said while being tortured, I’d have to say that he should be found not guilty and let go with an apology. If there’s other evidence that he was involved, present that.
I see she’s using the same argument as the dingbat who wrote in the college paper that women shouldn’t wear low cleavage or shorts, because that makes the “bad” guys masturbate to their memory of your boobs/legs/ass, and it makes it more difficult for the “good” guys to concentrate on their studies and maintain pure thoughts mandated by their puritanical beliefs.
ayup. if you can’t keep up with your own moral standards because the sight of women distracts you, then it’s your problem, which is easily solved by making sure you can’t look at the women.
HA!
probably true; still stupid. I’m sure she could have found something else that wasn’t bigoted to make his time during this “trial” less unpleasant.
If she wanted to be sensitive to her client’s religious beliefs she shouldn’t be representing them at all, she should be at home making babies – preferably muslim ones.
True.
At risk of being annoying, do we actually know they have those views? People can be pretty inconsistent even in their religion, maybe they have no problem with womenz as long as they’re covered. I’d have heard stranger things from modern muslims. I’m probably wrong but given the high level of Islamophobia in atheism I’m less willing to jump on board bashing them now. Sigh
Because I don’t know much about him, and I’ve already decided that he’s an arrogant, contemptible jerk
Or, alternatively, he comes across as one because he’s deliberately showing he regards the process as inherently illegitimate.
You know, with the kidnapping from Pakistan, his torture in an unnamed US Afghan holding camp in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and the use of a carefully controlled military tribunal so civilian courts wouldn’t be able to rule on testimony and confessions obtained under torture. That sort of thing.
I doubt any of us would be inclined to cooperate with a country that did that to us, and I imagine the media of that country would paint us as jerks for not playing along.
One of our values is “innocent until proven guilty”. They might not be convicted in a fair trial.
They probably couldn’t be convicted in a fair trail – most of the evidence against them was obtained as testimony or confessions made under torture. That is precisely WHY they are not in a federal court – because the military tribunals can quash that little matter from being raised, despite the fact that everyone knows it happened.
Regardless of whether or not they did it (and I suspect they did) these trials are no more “justice” that the old Soviet show trials were.
After ten years in Gitmo and the hospitality they get, I would confess to it and the Lindbergh kidnapping too and so would anyone.
We haven’t the faintest idea what happened except that planes were hijacked and thousands of innocents died and after this perfect fuckup of the justice system, we never will.
Bin Lauden won. He’s looking down from paradise and laughing. He predicted that if you just give the infidels a little push, they would self destruct.
And so we have.
What. The. Fuck.
I am all for a fair trial. I am all for respect (like: don’t burn Korans). This is taking that so beyond the edge of reason.
My body is not dirty, or shameful, and if it bothers someone, they can avert their fucking eyes. Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins, etc.
Flashbacks to fundie youth group where the leadership told us that girls shouldn’t put on lip gloss in public, because a survey of high school guys said it made them think bad thoughts. Didn’t buy it then, and I sure as hell don’t buy it now.
THIS is the reason torture doesn’t goddamn work: it makes any proceedings afterwards moot. I agree with the people above saying that the reason this went to military tribunal is that any judge with a lick of decency would acquit based on the fact the evidence was extracted under torture. This is a Hobson’s choice, and I am disgusted to say this but it’s the least-worst alternative of all those available.
What a pack of sociopaths. On both sides. We (the US) no longer have the moral high ground.