This is the seventh and final interview conducted via e-mail with Scott Fentermaker. In our previous interview, Mr. Fenstermaker called for an international investigation of our legal policy towards terrorist suspects. He also revealed a "demographic consistency" among the attorneys and judges trying cases related to the the war on terror.

::::::::

This is the seventh and final interview conducted via e-mail with Scott Fentermaker. In our previous interview, Mr. Fenstermaker called for an international investigation of our war on terror. He also revealed a "demographic consistency" among the attorneys and judges trying these cases.

TP: I would like to ask more questions about these practitioners of Judaism. However there is a story in today's New York Times concerning your client, Amhed Khalfan Ghailani.

According to this story, lawyers for Mr. Ghailani have "raised concerns in court that their client's mental state may have so deteriorated after his detention that he may not be able to assist in his own defense". But in the next paragraph, "the lawyers said that at the moment they still believed that their client, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, is competent for trial". And at the end of the story the statement is repeated; "defense lawyers currently believed Mr. Ghailani "would pass the standard of competency to stand trial".

You have told us that these lawyers will; " file all of the right motions, make the right objections, question witnesses well, and make the appropriate arguments". That certainly appears to be happening here.

Do you think this competency motion is a ruse, and if so why?

SF: The competency motion is a ruse and is being used as a weapon by Mr. Ghailani's appointed counsel against him. In a previous interview, you asked me the following question, "Can you describe the legal mechanisms these [CIA] operatives use to thwart due process?" Mr. Ghailani's appointed counsels' effort to attack his competency is a perfect example of the "legal mechanisms" that the CIA operatives can use to "thwart due process." While Mr. Ghailani's appointed counsel are not CIA agents, they are aggressively taking direction from CIA agents. Mr. Ghailani is well-aware of this fact and is, apparently, resisting their efforts. Good for him!

Here is another quote from the story: "While in detention, Mr. Ghailani has said, he was subjected to cruel interrogation techniques; court papers filed by his lawyers describing his treatment have been heavily censored because the information is classified."

We have discussed how the mitigation evidence is still available thanks to the motion filed on Mr. Ghailani's behalf, do you think any of that evidence will be presented at the trial?

SF: Your question states, among other things, that "the mitigation evidence is still available thanks to the motion filed on Mr. Ghailani's behalf." That is incorrect. I never said that "the mitigation evidence is still available thanks to the motion filed on Mr. Ghailani's behalf." The mitigation evidence would have been available anyway. The motion filed on Mr. Ghailani's behalf merely served as a vehicle for the government to keep the CIA prisons open, nothing more. To give credit to the appointed counsel for the existence of the mitigation evidence is extremely misleading.

Any mitigation evidence would only be relevant at Mr. Ghailani's sentencing proceeding, not his trial. How he was treated by the CIA is not material to the issue of whether he was involved in the Embassy bombings, except to the extent that evidence the government may use was obtained as a result of that treatment. The government has already announced that it has no intention of using evidence obtained as a result of the CIA's mistreatment of Mr. Ghailani.

TP: In another example, Mr. Ghailani's counsel appears to be seeking a mental evaluation of their client, while simultaneously controlling his access to any outside influence. "The lawyers asked to have an expert, presumably a psychiatrist or psychologist, evaluate their client. They asked that the judge not order a separate court evaluation of Mr. Ghailani." "We believe he is in such a fragile state that we can only hazard a guess of what his reaction would be".

Are his lawyers concerned for his mental state, or are they keeping him isolated?

Finally, the story mentions a letter: "Judge Kaplan said he had received a letter, which has not been made public, in which "the defense has raised a question about competency of the defendant."

Can you tell us what you know about this letter?

SF: I can assure you that Mr. Ghailani is highly competent to stand trial. There was nothing wrong with him when I met with him in May and June of 2009. In fact, his behavior toward his appointed counsel is evidence of his competency. He does not, in any way or at any level, want these men as his attorneys. I can assure you that he is objecting to their involvement and their presence on his defense team in the most strenuous of terms. Mr. Ghailani has explained to them that he wants other counsel and that he will not, in any way, cooperate with their efforts. For what I hope are obvious reasons, his appointed counsel will not tolerate Mr. Ghailani's rejection of them. They were hand-picked by the government for a reason, and that was to do the government's bidding in his case. They know that, and more importantly, Mr. Ghailani knows that. He is resisting their efforts by the only means available to him.

Appointed counsels' only weapon to fight Mr. Ghailani's rejection of them is to try and have him declared incompetent. If that happens, then he can't fire them, because nothing he does will have any legal effect. This is a tactic that the military attorneys and the civilian attorneys selected by the military attorneys have used aggressively in the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. Appointed counsel for Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Mustafa Bin Ahmed al-Hawsawi, and Rahim al-Nashiri are all currently trying to have their clients declared unfit, for the same reason that Mr. Ghailani's attorneys are trying to do so in New York. The appointed counsel have all been fired, and they refuse to tolerate this treatment. There may be other Guantanamo detainees in the same situation, but I am unaware of whether that is the case.

Mr. Ghailani's appointed counsel could not care less about his mental state. They merely want to keep him from announcing that he wants to remove them as his defense team. Furthermore, should Mr. Ghailani be successful in his efforts to announce his desire to remove his attorneys, appointed counsel want the effect of that announcement to be negated by a finding that he is unfit to proceed. Appointed counsels' efforts to have Mr. Ghailani declared unfit result from their efforts to protect themselves, not him.

I do not know anything about the letter you reference, even to the extent that I was unaware of it until you mentioned it.

I strongly suggest that you contact Peter Quijano, Greg Cooper, and Michael Bachrach, and ask them whether Mr. Ghailani is attempting to terminate their involvement in his case and whether his efforts to do so led to their "competency" concerns.

TP: I called Mr. Quijano, and asked him if Mr. Ghailani was attempting to remove him as counsel. He stated that he had no comment, then hung up on me. Can you tell us anything about Peter Quijano, Greg Cooper, and Michael Bachrach?

SF: I do not know any of these three men personally, although I am acquainted with Peter Quijano. Mr. Quijano is a somewhat flamboyant attorney who is long on style and short on substance. The Southern District's CJA Panel selection committee has been aggressively attempting to diversify the Panel's membership, and Mr. Quijano is an example of their efforts. It does not surprise me that Mr. Quijano hung up on you when you asked whether Mr. Ghailani is trying to remove him as counsel. The answer is yes, and Mr. Quijano would not want to give that answer in a public forum.

Mr. Bachrach is a protege of the Southern District CJA Panel's power brokers. Although I know nothing about him, I am sure he was added to Mr. Ghailani's defense team to provide the demographic background I alluded to in one of my previous answers. He is a graduate of Cardozo Law School, which is a law school in New York with a student body consisting largely of Jewish students who did not perform well enough academically to be competitive to attend a more prestigious law school.

I know nothing of Greg Cooper, except what he looks like.

You should be aware that these men have been actively enlisted in the government's war on terror. As such, they may one day be treated like the soldiers that they are. While I will make a plea to those who may harm them to allow their behavior to be dealt in accordance with law, they are definitely in danger. Al Qaeda is well-aware of the identities and the activities of the defense attorneys who served in the 2001 Embassy bombing trial in New York. Similarly, it will be well-aware of the attorneys participating in the defense of the defendants in the upcoming terror trials in New York, including Messrs. Quijano, Bachrach and Cooper. Again, I urge those who would do them harm to allow their misconduct to handled in accordance with law. Unfortunately, I am not in control of what may ensue from the attorneys' illegal conduct.

TP: You stated that Messrs. Quijano, Bachrach, and Cooper, "have been actively enlisted in the government's war on terror". As such, you've implied that they could be in danger. "Al Qaeda is well-aware of the identities and the activities of the defense attorneys who served in the 2001 Embassy bombing trial in New York."

I must tell our readers, I do not believe in Al Qaeda. I think "the base" is simply a database of CIA criminals, bogeymen who are useful for perpetuating this false war on terror. Can you tell us what you know of any Al Qaeda operations or assassinations? Also, could you provide some background information on this 2001 Embassy bombing trial?

SF: You may well be right that al Qaeda does not exist. However, Mr. al-Baluchi, or the person who I believe to be Mr. al-Baluchi, seems to think that it does and that it carried out the 9/11 attacks and that he is a member. Maybe he is lying, mistaken, or maybe the person with whom I've been meeting is not really Mr. al-Baluchi and is merely a government plant. Either way, for the purpose of our discussion, I don't think it matters. What does matter is the detainees' opinion of appointed counsel and, irrespective of the existence, or lack thereof, of al Qaeda, the detainees have formed a negative opinion about appointed counsel, and for good reason.

Mr. al-Baluchi is well-aware of the attorneys' behavior both during the 2001 Embassy bombing trial, and at Guantanamo Bay. He is aware of the identities of the attorneys who took part in the 2001 trial, and their performance, which he and his fellow detainees found deficient. That doesn't prove that he is a member of al Qaeda, but it does demonstrate that he was interested in the 2001 trial before his capture in 2003, unless you think the government provided him with the transcripts of the 2001 trial to bone him up on the attorneys or for some other reason. I doubt that.

I don't know anything about al Qaeda assassinations or any other operations, for that matter, except for the 9/11 operation. I do, however, know about the conduct of the attorneys assigned to represent the detainees at Guantanamo Bay before the military commissions, and I now know about Messrs. Quijano, Cooper, and Bachrach's efforts to frustrate Mr. Ghailani's right to counsel in his Southern District matter. Based upon my knowledge of the behavior of the defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay and the behavior of Mr. Ghailani's attorneys, I have reason to believe that any appointed attorney's life would be in danger. There is no greater corruption in my mind than an attorney whose job it is to frustrate his own client's rights. That is the reason these attorneys are on these cases. The detainees know that and are not happy about it, to say the least.

I don't know much about the 2001 Embassy bombing trial. I do know that Mr. al-Baluchi is not happy with the attorneys who served on that matter or those attorneys who represented his cousin Ramzi Yousef. Mr. al-Baluchi's experience with appointed counsel at Guantanamo Bay has only served to confirm his suspicions about government-appointed counsel.

This concludes our interview.

Scott Fenstermaker has been in the news since it was announced that five suspects would stand trial in New York for their part in the 9/11 attacks. He has been slandered by the ACLU, Bill O'Reilly called him a "weasel", and most Americans think he is a traitor. Yet in every venue where he has appeared, Mr. Fenstermaker has defended the rights of these detainees.

Although I do not agree with Scott Fenstermaker on all the issues we've discussed here, I do not doubt his integrity.

I am shocked that is he simply unaware of all the evidence available online that disproves the official story of 9/11. As we wrangled over the 9/11 truth issue in Part IV, I was not convinced that he was telling us the whole story. And I couldn't believe that he would opt for a "justification" defense, where his client pleads not guilty, then uses the trial to denigrate U.S. Foreign policy.

During our e-mail conversations, I told Mr. Fenstermaker that I was disappointed in our discourse about 9/11 truth. There was one more question I wanted to ask him, but we had moved on to other topics, and Part IV was already posted. My last question about 9/11 truth, and his answer, are posted below.

If there is one statement in these interviews that answers the question: Who is Scott Fenstermaker? It is his reply to the following:

TP: This is what I cannot understand. You flew down to Guantanamo Bay in late November, and discussed legal strategy with Mr. al-Baluchi. You were both aware of allegations that 9/11 was an inside job.

Yet you, or your client, decided on this "justification" defense. Where Mr. al-Baluchi will plead not guilty, then say he took part in this crime because the United States is a bad country. I think this is a tragedy not just for the detainees, but for all of us.

The Obama administration has the nerve, the gall, to put on this show. While millions of Americans and people throughout the world are aware that 9/11 is a lie. Not only would the 9/11 truth defense have a much better chance of winning freedom for the detainees, but this government would finally have to confront the truth in court.

So my question is this: Why did you, or Mr. al-Baluchi, decide that this "justification" defense is in your client's best interests, when you at least knew of allegations that 9/11 was an inside job?

SF: I do not think Mr. al-Baluchi thinks that the United States is a bad country, as you seem to claim, although the fear bureaucracy in our country would have us believe that he does. In fact, I think he quite likes the United States from what I can tell. He does, however, think our policies are problematic. While this may not seem like much of a difference, it is an important one. He understands that Americans have lost control of their government, much the way that the Germans lost control of theirs. While we haven't yet gotten to 1939 Germany, we are in 1934 and counting. The soldiers stationed in Grand Central Station with M-16s for the past eight years are evidence of that. Are those soldiers stationed in Grand Central to protect us, or to protect others from us? September 11th was to America what the fire at the Bundestag was in Germany. Those who attacked us understood that very well on September 10th.

I do not know who thinks 9/11 is a "lie," whatever that means. 9/11 certainly happened, and Mr. al-Baluchi is readily willing to take responsibility for it. You seem to think that "9/11 Truth" will absolve Mr. al-Baluchi, but I don't agree with you. As I understand the 9/11 Truth movement, their beliefs would merely add additional codefendants to Mr. al-Baluchi's case by way of superseding indictments, but would do absolutely nothing to get him off of the hook for criminal culpability. If you rob a bank and are held solely responsible, you would still be responsible if you had had an accomplice (or 50) who was (were) also criminally liable.

I do not think it is appropriate for you to claim that you know what is in Mr. al-Baluchi's best interests. You don't know him, have never spoken with him, and are completely unaware of his goals and aspirations. To suggest otherwise is transparently self-serving. You merely want "9/11 Truth" views aired at his trial. If that's what you want, take an ad out in the paper, or make web postings. You should not presume to know what is in Mr. al-Baluchi's best interests. Mr. al-Baluchi will accomplish more by being convicted and being put to death than he ever could by being acquitted and freed. Where would the world be now had Jesus been acquitted by the Sanhedrin or otherwise been spared from the cross?

...

Authors Bio:
I am a writer living in bucolic Spokane, Washington.

It wasn't always this way, back in the day I was a restless wanderer. I left home and traveled to straight to Europe, came back and hitchhiked across America. I joined a carnival, then the Navy.

After the Navy it was time for me to become an upstanding, educated citizen. I went to college, three of them to be exact, and I still don't have a degree. Maybe I don't have a Phd from and ivy tower university, but I do have street cred.

I write because I am pissed off. I am incensed by the people who prevent us from becoming what we could be. Our country, and our world are in real trouble.

We who know the truth, and seek the truth, can set each other free.

...