9/11 suspects face Guantánamo Bay hearing - as it happened

Alleged terror attack architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants appear before military judge
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is accused of orchestrating the 9/11. Photo: EPA

8.45am ET: It's been more than a decade since the 9/11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people. But despite previous attempts, the men US authorities say helped orchestrate the terror atrocity have yet to be tried.

Faltering efforts to prosecute alleged terror architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants resume today at a Guantanamo Bay hearing mired in controversy, with even the former chief US prosecutor at the Cuban base denouncing the proceedings, as my colleague Chris McGreal reports.

Chris is currently going through security at Fort Meade in Maryland and will be reporting live on events as they are beamed over from the military courtroom in Guantanamo. Elsewhere, family members of those killed in the attack will be watching the hearing at a military base in New York.

They may have a little wait still. The rebooted military tribunal is expected to be heavy with legalese, with prosecutors keen to avoid a repeat of a 2008 arraignment hearing in which the alleged terrorist – referred to as KSM – tried to plead guilty during an outburst in which he declared that he wanted to die as a martyr.

With the hearing already under scrutiny, authorities will not want it to descend into a legal circus. The session is due to start at 9am ET, and the Guardian will be updating throughout the day.

8.49am: Chris MrGreal has got through security at Fort Meade and has sent across some thoughts as he waits for the hearing to begin:

One of the key questions of the day is whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow accused will plead guilty. Four years ago, at a previous arraignment hearing for a trial that was later blocked by the US supreme court, KSM pleaded guilty and said he wanted to be executed. However, defence lawyers have hinted that this time the accused may not plea at all, or offer what is known as a 'reserved plea' while extensive motions about the legality of the trial are argued.

Notably, given that the US does not regard the accused terrorists as legitimate combatants, some of the charges faced by the five are committing war crimes. All face charges of "murder in violation of the law of war" and "destruction of property in violation of the law of war".

By the end of the day, the judge is expected to have set a trial date possibly up to a year away.

9.09am: As expected, the hearing is due to open with legal argument. The Guardian's man on site at Fort Meade has been told by military officials to expect lots of procedural stuff to begin with. KSM and others will be asked whether they accept their lawyers before offering pleas on charges that include 2,976 counts of murder, as well as terrorism, hijacking, conspiracy and destruction of property.

9.34am: For many relatives of those killed in the 2001 attacks, today marks another step in a decade long quest for justice.
Five family members are at the actual hearing in Guantanamo Bay. Others are watching via satellite links at four military bases on the US east coast - in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
Retired firefighter Jim Riches, whose son died in the attack, will be amongst those watching from Fort Hamilton in New York.
He spoke to us before heading to the Brooklyn army base about why he felt compelled to watched proceedings:

I just wish it was televised so that the whole world could see it, and hear what they had to say.
It would let everyone judge these men.


He added that having it screened meant that no one would be able to say that the defendants were being "railroaded" by prosecutors.

We will find out if that is true shortly, word from Fort Meade is that the hearing has just got underway.

9.47am: Testy exchanges in opening minutes of hearing, Chris McGreal reports via Twitter.
KSM is refusing to address judge and has taken his headphones out in an apparent bid to ignore what he is being told.
The military judge has countered that the defendant - dressed entirely in white, with long flowing beard - cannot simply opt out of proceedings.

10.15am: More updates from inside the military screening room.
KSM's lawyer has told the judge the reason his client has removed his headphones is "because of the torture imposed on him".
Meanwhile a co-defendant arrived in the courtroom strapped to chair, apparently because he refused to enter by his own volition.
A third 9/11 suspect interrupted proceedings by suddenly kneeling to pray.
It seems that the courtroom circus that some had feared is beginning to materialise.

11.30am: KSM's apparent refusal to acknowledge the court is being replicated by his fellow accused 9/11 plotters.

In turn, all five have now refused to answer the judge's questions when asked.

Chris McGreal says there has been little movement inside the courtroom, as the hearing has get bogged down in procedural issues.

But in an update to a previous post, Walid bin Attash - the suspect shackled to a chair as he entered court - has had his restraints removed on the request of his lawyer.

And that is it for a bit. Our man watching from Fort Meade reports a break in proceedings.

The hearing is due to resume shortly with pleas from the five defendants. But given that none have spoken so far in today's session, the question of their guilt or otherwise may well be greeted by silence.

12.07pm: After hours of silence from the defendants, we have just had an outburst from one of the suspects.

Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, accused of helping facilitate the 9/11 attack, began ranting about the former Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, Chris McGreal reports from Fort Meade.

He went on to tell the court: "Maybe you are not going to see me anymore".
The judge said it was his choice whether to attend or not, to which the terror suspect replied that he had been misunderstood.

"It's about the threats we receive at the camp," he said.

The defendant added: "Maybe they are going to kill us and say that we are committing suicide."

12.43pm: More in from Chris McGreal at Fort Meade. He reports that the only female defence lawyer, Cheryl Bormann, has asked the judge to order women members of the prosecution to cover themselves up "so that our clients are not forced to not look at the prosecution for fear of committing a sin under their faith".

Bormann was wearing an abaya. Some of the women in court were wearing skirts.

The judge ignores her request.

Meanwhile, bin al-Shibh's reference to Colonel Gaddafi has been clarified. It appears to be a reference to the military control of the Guantanamo prison, which he apparently compares to conditions in Gaddafi-era Libya.

During his outburst he told the court: "Era of Gaddafi is over, but you have Gaddafi in (Guantanamo) camp. Maybe they are going to kill us and say that we are committing suicide," he said.

The judge then told him to be quiet. "You are disrupting this commission," he said. At which point the defendant duly shut up.

1.32pm: It's a lengthy break over at Guantanamo Bay for prayers and lunch. Which gives our reporter Chris McGreal time to mull over the morning session. Here are his thoughts:


If we've learned anything from this morning's hearings at Guantanamo Bay, it's that the lawyers are apparently more effective than the defendants at disrupting proceedings - excepting an outburst from one of the accused, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, who invoked Muammar Gaddafi, and a farcical debate about Khaled Sheikh Mohammed's headphones.

For a start, the judge can't have the lawyers thrown out of the court or confined to a restraint chair - which is how one of the accused arrived.
David Nevin, the lawyer for Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, repeatedly tried to bring up the issue of the torture of his client while he was in CIA custody.

Then the lawyers raised a slew of issues as they were asked to take the oath to represent their clients. One said he could not take such an oath and would only swear to do his best because of the severe restrictions on access to the accused, including having what he said should be confidential conversations monitored by the military.

Anything the accused men say to their lawyer can be used by the prosecution in court. Another lawyer protested at the lack of a translator to be able to talk to his client. The judge came back that if they lawyers didn't swear, then they could not be counsel in the case.
"It's like being pregnant -you either take the oath or you don't," he said.
One by one, they took the oath.

But what appeared to be a coordinated campaign of attrition by the lawyers to discredit the proceedings slowed the pace so that by lunchtime the court was still some way off hearing please from the accused men. It doesn't look as if that process will be any easier after lunch given that the accused are refusing to acknowledge the judge.

2.55pm: During the break in proceedings I managed to catch up with Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer who knows Guantanamo law more than most.

As director of legal charity Reprieve, he has helped secure the release of 65 detainees and still acts for some 15 inmates.

He said the silence of the defendants at today's hearing was "not surprising", adding that "nothing will happen for the next three years" in terms of the case ever coming to trial.

A persistent critic of the Guantanamo Bay tribunals and the detention camp itself, Mr Stafford Smith added that it was "particularly ironic" that the rebooted military hearings were being held in the year that may see the re-election of Barack Obama.

"The first thing that Obama did as president was announce that Guantanamo would close and that he would stop the trials and yet here we are coming up to November's election," he said.

An artist's impression of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed An artist's impression of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Photograph: Janet Hamlin/AP

3.21pm: Chris McGreal has just filed this report from the afternoon session:


Such is the process of American courts that after the military judge, Colonel James Pohl, checks the qualifications and standing of the defence lawyers, they get to ask him about his qualifications to sit in judgement - and whether any conflicts of interest come in to play.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's lawyer, David Nevin, pressed Pohl on a whole series of issues.

Nevin asked if he has had contact with members of Congress re the trial. The judge replied: 100% no. But Pohl was more evasive over questions of contact with the CIA and FBI. He said he had reviewed classified evidence.

The judge refused to answer questions as to whether he is a member of a political party and if he has a religious affiliation (given the role of religion in case). Pohl said the question was not legitimate.

Asked about his knowledge of terrorism, Pohl said he has read Black Banners, a book by a CIA agent who opposed torture of suspected terrorists. He said he didn't form an opinion about torture on the basis of book and that he won't apply personal views on "enhanced interrogation" to the trial.

The question of torture overshadows the proceedings. Nevin tells the judge that he will be a "fact finder" on the use of enhanced interrogation. Pohl said he has no preconceived notions and has not made up his mind on any issue in the case.

"Judges come with life experiences. However their role in my view is to apply the law as it is regardless of personal feelings," he said.

Nevin also asked the judge which papers he reads. Nothing radical. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.

Asked about his experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, Pohl said he had overseen military trials there, including over the abuses at Abu Graib. He said he occasionally came under indirect fire.

"These were big booms in the night that landed somewhere," he said.

Nevin pressed Pohl on whether he knew anyone killed in Afghanistan or Iraq. The judge said he did, although not well. He denied it would affect his judgement.

The back and forth got testy as Nevin pressed on, asking Pohl how he could set aside that he is not a neutral arbiter because he is part of the US military fighting the people it is now judging.

Pohl responds that in that case no military court could try the men.

"Exactly!" responded Nevin.

3.48pm: As the procedural arguments continue, the defendants sit passively, appearing to take no great interest on what is being discussed, our reporter Chris McGreal says.


Walid bin Attash - the suspect brought into court shackled to a restraining chair - has turned his back on the judge and is looking over the back of his chair now he is no longer chained to it.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whose beard is now long, spends much of his time staring at the table in front of him. He has no communication, even with his own defence lawyer who is not permitted to talk to him without permission.

They are at opposite ends of a long table. It's the same set up with all of the defendants, with the accused terrorists at one end under the close eye of soldiers and the lawyers at the other.

4.41pm: Still waiting for things to get going at Guantanamo Bay following the latest break.

It looks like it could be a long session today, as defence lawyers seem intent on slowing down the proceedings. The arraignment hearing is still due to wrap up tonight though, we've been told.

But the delays have come as a frustration to 9/11 family members who have gathered at army bases to watch the proceedings.

"It's very frustrating, very frustrating," says Jim Riches who lost his son in the terrorist attack.

The retired fireman attended a screening at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, New York, alongside around 60 other relatives of 9/11 victims.

He said that as the morning progressed, family members began to get more and more annoyed.

"There was some frustration. People were saying, 'It's going to go on forver'."

"It's certainly going to be a long time until this case comes to trial," Mr Riches added.

6.31pm: After a series of delays, they are finally getting around to reading the charge sheet against the five accused men.

Chris McGreal at Fort Meade says prosecutors initially began reading the counts in full, in both English and Arabic.

But given that the charges run to 63 pages, the judge put a stop to it.

All the defendants have deferred entering a plea, a move which allows them to enter one at a later date.

7.34pm: A trial date, of sorts, has been set for all but one of the defendants.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three co-defendants are prelimiary slated to be tried in May 2013, but the judge has indicated that that time frame may slip.

Fellow terror suspect Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi objected to the date, with the court deciding to set aside the matter for a separate hearing.

And after a 10-hour day, the military court is now expected to sit until almost midnight, after it was ruled that the defendants have the right to hear the charges against them in full, in both English and Arabic.

It is expected that the 87-page indictment will take three hours to read.

In all, the four men face 2,976 counts of murder, as well as accusations of terrorism, hijacking, conspiracy and destruction of property.

After a long day punctuated by delays and non-participation by the defendants, the terror suspects have finally been arraigned. Chris McGreal, who has followed every moment, has summarised events here.

And with that, we are signing off for the evening.