A reference to harsh treatment at CIA prisons brought out Guantanamo’s censors Thursday as an official of the war crimes court abruptly cut the sound to prevent spectators from hearing classified information.
Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, a lawyer appointed by the Pentagon to defend 9/11 suspect Ramzi bin al Shibh, began discussing the prisoner’s treatment before he was taken to Guantanamo in September 2006 when the censor hit the switch.
“The government can’t hide the fact that they used sleep deprivation …” Lachelier said before she was cut off and the sound of static filled a soundproof spectator section in the courtroom and a separate media viewing room. There is a 40-second delay in the spectator and media rooms.
U.S. authorities have cut the sound several times in the past to protect classified information and have held many hearings in private.
–Rest of article continues below–
Censors come out at Gitmo war crimes hearing
Reference to harsh treatment prompts censor to cut sound at Guantanamo hearing in Sept 11 case
BEN FOX
AP News
Jul 16, 2009 16:43 EST
A reference to harsh treatment at CIA prisons brought out Guantanamo’s censors Thursday as an official of the war crimes court abruptly cut the sound to prevent spectators from hearing classified information.
Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, a lawyer appointed by the Pentagon to defend 9/11 suspect Ramzi bin al Shibh, began discussing the prisoner’s treatment before he was taken to Guantanamo in September 2006 when the censor hit the switch.
“The government can’t hide the fact that they used sleep deprivation …” Lachelier said before she was cut off and the sound of static filled a soundproof spectator section in the courtroom and a separate media viewing room. There is a 40-second delay in the spectator and media rooms.
U.S. authorities have cut the sound several times in the past to protect classified information and have held many hearings in private.
Bin al Shibh is one of five Guantanamo prisoners charged before the special war crimes tribunal for their alleged roles in the Sept. 11 attacks.
He was not in court because he had chosen not to attend the pretrial hearing in which his lawyers were seeking a court order granting additional experts and other resources to help determine whether he is mentally competent to stand trial.
His lawyers say he has a “delusional disorder” and has been treated with a medication used for schizophrenia.
He and his fellow “high value” detainees are believed to have been subjected to particularly harsh interrogation techniques at secret overseas locations.
All five defendants have said they want to serve as their own attorneys and plead guilty but a judge has not yet ruled whether bin al Shibh and another defendant, Mustafa al Hawsawi, are competent to do so.
The men, including self-proclaimed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, face the death penalty if convicted.
Earlier, the pretrial hearing was delayed after all five defendants refused to attend the court session in an apparent protest of a judge’s ruling that Mohammed and two other men would not be able to speak at the session because their cases were not the focus of the hearing.
Later, three showed up at the hearing, though one quickly asked to leave because of limits set by the judge on the issues he could discuss in court. Mohammed did not attend.
The men’s trial, along with all Guantanamo war crimes trials, are on hold as President Barack Obama conducts a review of the system fo prosecuting terrorism suspects created under his predecessor.
Related posts:
- Bush Justice Department official who lied won’t be charged
- Iraq, Afghan War Costs Are $1.6 Trillion
- Ron Paul: GOP Rivals Are Fake Conservatives
- Stewart to Pelosi: “You don’t feel like the Pelosi/Reid/Obama trifecta will run rough shot over American’s liberties, and bankrupt our nation, enslaving our children to a history of debt and thus bringing a tyrannical fascist rule to the people?”
- The Looming Global Food Shortage
- Louisiana Caucus: McCain wins, Paul second, Romney third
- REPORT: SEPT. 11 SUSPECT WAS TORTURED




Here is my review…
Detaining people without trial – WRONG
Censoring evidence to a jury – WRONG (how can they make a fair judgement)
Torturing people in any way shape or form – WRONG!!!
It doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to review… oh wait… nevermind