SF: Your question presumes that what happened on September 11th was a crime. That, sir, is for the jury to decide, not the news media or bloggers. The reason I haven't reviewed the evidence is two-fold: First, I will not be representing Mr. al-Baluchi in his New York trial. As I've explained, the government will move to have me removed as Mr. al-Baluchi's attorney by the judge, and the judge will grant the government's application. The judge will then appoint government-approved counsel to represent my client.
While I can't imagine a circumstance that he will accept the court's move, it will happen nonetheless. The second reason that I haven't reviewed the evidence is because it is irrelevant. The President of the United States has already announced, prior to the defendants even being charged in this matter, that one of them, my client's uncle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will (1) be convicted and (2) be sentenced to death. Furthermore, the Attorney General of the United States has already announced that (1) "failure is not an option," which presumably means that an acquittal is not to be tolerated, and that (2) even if the defendants are acquitted, the United States government will hold them indefinitely for reasons that apparently have yet to be developed. In other words, this is a case where the evidence is, paradoxically, irrelevant.
The reason for this is the fact that the 9/11 New York trial will be, like the military commissions before it, a show trial choreographed by the government for the purpose of processing these men to either a lifetime of imprisonment, or their deaths, whichever the government can squeeze out of the jury. As a result, the evidence you seem eager for me to review is meaningless and would afford my client no benefit. This trial will not be a legal proceeding, it will be a political lynching brought for the purpose of adding further support for America's suspect "War on Terror." Hence, the detainees' stated tactic of fighting this on a political level (the detainees' justification defense) rather than on a legal level. This is the direct result of the President's and Attorney General's lawless actions in condemning literally before they are even charged.
TP: Wait a minute, during our phone conversation I asked you if you were going to represent Mr. Baluchi at the trial in New York. You said, and I quote, "I would refuse to do it". Now you've just said the government will move to have you removed as Mr. Baluchi's attorney.
Are you Mr. Baluchi's attorney right now, and are you at this time scheduled to represent him in New York? You are not saying you have refused to represent him, you are assuming that you will be removed. Can you clarify this?
Then you say that all the evidence is irrelevant, because the President and Attorney General have guaranteed a guilty verdict. Yet in the previous paragraph you are telling us that the question of whether a crime has been committed is for the jury to decide. So which is it?
SF: My refusal to represent Mr. al-Baluchi and the government's intended effort to block me from doing so are not mutually exclusive. The government will attempt to block me from representing him and if it is unsuccessful in doing so, which is highly unlikely in light of Judge Kaplan's decision in Mr. Ghailani's case, I will refuse. There is nothing contradictory about each of these arguably independent circumstances.
I am Mr. al-Baluchi's attorney in a habeas case in Washington, DC and have been authorized to speak for him with respect to his New York defense. I do not, however, represent him in any case in New York. Indeed, he does not have a case in New York, at the present time. After all, I can't represent him in a case that doesn't yet exist.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
