Featured Video Play Icon

C-VINE Military Tribunal Transcripts Discussion – (March sessions Part 1) KSM et al

Today we are having a discussion about the transcripts for the KSM et al pre-trial Military Tribunals for the Month of March 2019. This is a study pag

GITMO Military Tribunal KSM et al 3/26/19 – CVINE Breaking News
In GITMO – Who is Ammar al Baluchi and Why Should you Care?
Breaking News: KSM et al Military Tribunal Judge Reassigned

Today we are having a discussion about the transcripts for the KSM et al pre-trial Military Tribunals for the Month of March 2019. This is a study page, therefore our written report and video is not produced with tabloid style embellishments or sensationalism meant for entertainment purposes. Everything provided here is backed up with source for the public to fact check.

These here are the actual transcripts directly from the Dept. of Defense Website for the month of March 2019 and provided for convenience.  Take the time to download, print out or review in the PDF format:

U.S. v   Khalid Shaikh Mohammed et al (2)

Unofficial/Unauthenticated Transcript of the KSM et al. (2) Motions Hearing Dated 3/25/2019 from 9:01 AM to 4:38 PM

Unofficial/Unauthenticated Transcript of the KSM et al. (2) Motions Hearing Dated 3/27/2019 from 9:01 AM to 11:15 AM

As a reminder, the transcripts released by the DoD in these proceedings will say, “Unofficial/Unauthenticated” on them. C-VINE News specifically asked  Ronald E. Flesvig about this.  Ron is the Public Affairs Specialist
in the Office of Military Commissions – Convening Authority. (DoD).  He stated these transcripts are released as is, to be used as reference material, but may have misspelled names or incorrect punctuation. But, the content is accurate and was vetted for release to the public by the DoD. SIDE NOTE: (Scroll down to the page bottom, in order to understand who the alleged terrorists are that are housed at GITMO and what they are being charged with. This information also contains pictures and bio of everyone). 


Leonard Bacani traveled to Washington DC for C-VINE News on assignment to physically watch and prepare a report for this round of Tribunals. The tribunals were LIVE streamed via CCTV to Fort Meade Military Base, coming from Guantanamo Bay Cuba, with the same 40 second delay as (GITMO).

He watched the first day of proceedings, and then on the next day, the proceeding were conducted in closed hearing in which no one could observe.

Leonard took this opportunity to conduct a LIVE report in front of the White House and give a briefing of explosive findings from the first day. This briefing could only be published after the transcripts were released from the DoD…..

Click the LINK For Leonard’s Briefing of Day 1, of March 2019:

(You Tube Video of C-VINE explosive news brief) https://youtu.be/nHaEIxVqms4

Okay, let’s get to it!  Follow along with your transcripts or listen and take notes….

3/25/19 

The R.M.C. 803 session was called to order by Military Judge Col. PARRELLA at 0901, Wednesday, March 25, 2019. Judge Parrella announced they would take up 8 motions filed by Lead Defense Counsel for Accused Al Baluchi. Six of the motions would be public and two of the motions would be in closed session.   

(Page 95,96): MR. CONNELL, the Lead Defense Counsel for Al Baluchi had said Your Honor, at trial, the government seeks to introduce telephone calls involving Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and three other defendants made before and shortly after events of September 11, 2001. At the same time, the government seeks to avoid the obvious questions: How do they have those telephone calls? When did they acquire them?  

(Leonard Bacani Observation): It’s obvious the governments did not want to reveal SOURCES and METHODS, in other words, National Security secrets. The defense was under (gag order) which is a court protective order prohibiting the mentioning or discussing sources and methods in open court. The court has a delicate balancing act. He has an obligation to provide a fair trial for the accused but at the same time, he has to consider national security concerns.  

(page 110):  Mr. Connell said: The government acknowledges this essentially in its — in parts of its brief. Its description in AE 575 — paragraph 2.e. makes clear that the government seeks, quote, a substituted evidentiary foundation to be read into the record by two different FBI witnesses in open court. Clearly testimonial. 

(Page 111): “I am prohibited by the gag order, Protective Order #3, from arguing the specifics of sources and methods, although I easily could based on open-source material as well as unclassified discovery. That prohibition itself violates my personal First Amendment rights as well as Mr. al Baluchi’s due process rights”. 

(Page 112): Mr. Connell claims Mr. Al Baluchi had “relatively minor participation.”  

(Page 113-114): Mr. Connell said The government claims in AE 601B that — and this is an unclassified paragraph — the 118 telephone calls are calls associated with five telephone numbers that are otherwise significant to the FBI investigation regarding the 9/11 attacks. Cross-examination would reveal the nature of that connection as well as when and how the FBI acquired these 118 calls. 

The government claims in AE 601B at page 3 that from those 118 telephone calls, the prosecution identified it as a subset, the translated and/or audio content of which it intends to use affirmatively. Cross-examination would reveal how the government selected the records it chose for the exhibit, and the witness could describe the content of the other calls. 

In other words, the calls could reveal who else may be involved other than the five accused.  Think domino effect!  

Mr. Connell challenged the chain of custodyQuestions about those two statements would address the chain of custody and the admissibility of the exhibit Itself.  

(Page 114-115): And four, an FBI linguist made positive voice identifications as to four of the five of the accused United States v. Mohammad all based on this review. If examining a witness, cross-examination would reveal where did these, quote, known voice samples come from? If they came from the CIA and a black site, it would support our claim about FBI involvement in the RDI program and the connection between the FBI and the CIA. 

Note: A Black Site refers to a CIA detention site where terrorists are taken for “enhanced interrogation techniques.”  

Mr. Connell said It would also provide a basis for suppression because 10 U.S.C. 948r prohibits all evidence — which is not limited to testimonial evidence — all evidence which is obtained –which was obtained by torture. If these were CIA voice samples, we would have a very strong claim that they were acquired by torture. 

Mr. Connell is suggesting evidence against Mr. Baluchi should be thrown out on the bases of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree legal doctrine because evidence was obtained illegally. Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the “tree”) of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well. So if the judge rules that enhanced interrogations (torture) is illegal, then all evidence (statements) are to be excluded and cannot be used against Mr. Baluchi or any other accused.   

Mr. Connell wants to cross examine the linguist who identified the accused by voice to determine the qualifications and expertise of linguist and to determine who had access to the intercepts and reports. 

(Page 116): Cross-examination would explore the basis for their knowledge, the specifics of the aliases they believe to be used, the specifics of the coded statements that they believe to be used, and would explore the fascinating statement that the FBI further determined that the code telephone calls contained code statements, not an individual but an institution, and exactly who was involved in that. 

(Pages 123-124) Now, the first fact that we rely on in 601B (Gov) is that the United States acquired telephone calls from between April and October 2001 that were later determined to pertain to the planned attacks on September 11th, 2001. How we acquired those phone calls is something that’s a protected source and method that we’ve sought to protect within this litigation and specifically asked for the substituted evidentiary foundation. 

CIA intercepted the terrorists phone calls between April and October 2001. CIA had the information prior to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. 

The government claims the intercepts are not testimonial and therefore not subject to cross examination. 

Mr. Connell said Now, in response, the government claims that the exhibit itself is not testimonial. The government says nothing about the hearsay foundation statement, the seven statements we just reviewed, which are clearly testimonial. 

The government does not claim otherwise. The exhibit itself is not a business record, it is not a phone bill, it is not a call data report common in criminal cases. Rather, it is a curated exhibit created by the prosecution, as they clearly admit at page 3 of their brief AE 601BThe exhibit itself is not a business record, it is not a phone bill, it is not a call data report common in criminal cases. Rather, it is a curated exhibit created by the prosecution, as they clearly admit at page 3 of their brief AE 601B.” 

Military Trial Counsel (prosecuting attorney), MR. TRIVETT, said four of the five accused were identified by the linguist by comparing audio recording of the accused then comparing them with known voice samples of the accused. Three of the five accused self-identified themselves during the telephone calls.  Mr. Trivett said the defense was fee to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, specifically an FBI intelligence analyst, FBI linguist, and a Baluchi linguist. 

Mr. Trivett said the protective order is simply a prohibition of defense in inquiring as to how the U.S. Government was able to acquire these telephone calls.  

Understanding that there will be certain times when classified information is not relevant to the proceedings, in order to protect it, it permits the military judge to excise certain information, which we asked and was approved by Judge Pohl in our ex parte filing to do. 

Mr. Trivett argued “So while the accused does enjoy the right to cross-examine the witnesses who testify against him under 10 U.S.C. 949a, it’s clear within the Military Commissions Act itself that Congress never intended full Sixth Amendment confrontation rights as are enjoyed in Federal District Court. 

So the only thing that is potentially hearsay that would not otherwise be admissible is the substituted evidentiary foundation that is specifically authorized by Congress in the statute. Like I said before, we’re not apologizing for it. 

They weighed and made a determination that when prosecuting enemies of the United States, where there is strong evidence of their involvement in war crimes, that we should be able to use that evidence and still protect the national security implications of whatever source and method by which we obtained it. We’re not doing this very often. 

[The R.M.C. 803 session recessed at 1453, 25 March 2019.] 

[The R.M.C. 803 session was called to order at 1519, 25 March 

2019.]  

Mr. Connell argued “The military commission should revoke Protective Order #3. Protective Order #3 interferes with Mr. al Baluchi’s right to present a defense in two ways. First, it robs the information and telephone calls of all of the aspects valuable to Mr. al Baluchi’s defense while leaving the one remaining argument that the government wishes to make linking the co-conspirators. 

Second, it prohibits Mr. al Baluchi and his attorneys separately from asking questions or making arguments in court which would develop the factual basis that the members need to make an informed decision or that Mr. al Baluchi needs to oppose the government protective order in the first place. 

I respectfully request the military commission to rescind Protective Order #3. If the military commission will not rescind Protective Order — excuse me, not rescind its Protective Order #3, temporarily suspend it and then allow me to re-argue the inadequacy of — allow me to make this argument again without the restrictions of Protective Order #3, which would at least emulate an adversarial process over Protective Order #3. Thank you. 

Mr. al Baluchi in setting a date not later than — you know, the date on which the armed conflict between the United States and al Qaeda began, which, again, Mr. al Baluchi believes happened after September 11th, 2001 

Mr. Trivett argued that the War on Terrorism started prior to September 11, 2001. “The prosecution’s theory of hostilities is this. In 1996, Usama bin Laden declared war on the United States. In 1998, he made clear that American civilians, no matter where they could be found around the world, were legitimate targetof his fatwa and declaration.  

Al Qaeda attacked the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 257 people. They attacked the United States warship USS COLE in Aden Harbor in October of 2000, killing 17, wounding 39. And they attacked the United States by hijacking four planes, flying them into three targets, killing 2,976 people. 

After the embassy bombings, two weeks later, the United States fired over 80 Tomahawk missiles at Usama bin Laden-related facilities in Sudan and in Afghanistan. At trial, that’s either going to be enough or it’s not. It’s either going to be sufficient or it isn’t. It was sufficient in Hamdan, it was sufficient in al Bahlul, and we believe it will be sufficient here.  

And while our position is that the armed conflict started as early as 1996 and no later than August of 1998, for this case that doesn’t matter. All that matters is whether or not the September 11th attacks were sufficient, which we believe they are. So while we’ll prove all of it, all we need to prove is that the September 11th attacks happened and that al Qaeda was responsible for it and that that was sufficient to establish armed conflict.” 

3/26/19: Sessions Conducted in a Closed Hearing 

 3/27/19 The R.M.C. 803 session was called to order Military Judge Col. PARRELLA at 0901, Wednesday, March 27, 2019.  

All attorneys for Government who were present in yesterday’s hearing were present today.  

Judge Parella noted the following accused are been absent: 

Mr. Mohammad, Mr. Binalshibh, and Mr. al Hawsawi. The remaining accused are present. 

Mr. Mohammad had an issue with having a female escort and in protest, he refused to attend. He wrote: “I knew I have to be present the first session, but the rest of it is not compulsory to attend, and if government insist to bring female escort” — looks like “given to me in each first session, then it is my decision to accept or refuse the other session.”  

Judge Parella said “During that 802 conference, Mr. Connell asked the commission to consider taking up the issue of whether the commission’s ruling in 502BBBB with respect to the existence of personal jurisdiction should be applied to the other accused who were not the proponent of the initial motion that led to that ruling. 

The government indicated that they were prepared to argue this should the commission deem it appropriate, although they didn’t believe that oral argument was necessary. After taking it under advisement, the commission decided to take this issue up in the open session and, as such, issued an amended docket order”. 

What’s at issue is, the prosecution for the U.S. Government makes its case that the armed conflict with Al – Qaeda and other Islamic groups aka (the war on terrorism) started much earlier than Sept.11, 2001. It actually started from when Osama Bin Laden declared a fatwa in 1996 and declaring war on the people of the United States and our government.

In opposition… the Defense attorney argues for Al Baluchi stating that when he was caught on tape between April – Oct. 2001… the United States was not yet at war yet, and therefore can be tried in a federal court away from the other 4 accused terrorists.

The benefits of a Federal Court vs. Military Tribunal are more attractive to the Defense because………………


RESEARCH LINKS AND GROUPS FOR DISCUSSION:

Join our Group Discussion about this report on our Facebook Group Page. Must be a member to comment – C-VINE International News Network.

KSM et al Tribunal Transcripts for Proceedings on 3/25/19: Unofficial/Unauthenticated Transcript of the KSM et al. (2) Motions Hearing Dated 3/25/2019 from 9:01 AM to 4:38 PM

Following is a report on the 5 individuals in KSM et al being tried. (Note: Included here is a link to read the ENTIRE report that will go into depth on exactly who all the names are at GITMO above and beyone these 5 and how many people total are there now):

 https://c-vine.com/blog/2019/01/29/united-states-vs-khalid-shaikh-mohammad-et-al-who-are-the-5-accused-in-gtmo/

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, called KSM, is accused of engineering the Sept. 11 attacks by proposing the plot to Osama bin Laden in 1996, overseeing the operation and training the hijackers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The International Committee of the Red Cross says Pakistani authorities arrested him March 1, 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The CIA waterboarded him before his 2006 transfer to Guantánamo Bay. In March 2007, according to a military transcript, he boasted: ‘‘I was responsible for the 9/11 operation — from A to Z.” In court, he typically wears a hunting pattern camouflaged jacket or vest, an attire he adopted after his lawyers litigated and won the right for him to do so in 2012. He has argued through his lawyers that that he considers himself a legitimate combatant entitled to Geneva Convention status as a prisoner of war. At Guantánamo, Mohammed has described himself as a revolutionary-like George Washington.

Walid bin Attash, allegedly ran an al Qaida training camp in Logar, Afghanistan, where two of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Osama bin Laden allegedly selected him as a Sept. 11 hijacker but he was prevented from participating when he was arrested and briefly detained in Yemen in early 2001. The Pentagon also says he traveled to Malaysia in 1999 to study U.S. airline security. The ICRC says Pakistani authorities arrested him on April 29, 2003 in Karachi, Pakistan. In court, he has banished his Pentagon paid defense attorneys from sitting at his defense table in a repeated effort to try to fire them. His trial judges have found that he has no good cause to do so, so his lawyers sit at the rear of the court when he attends hearings. Prosecutors at times call him “Khallad,” a name he used before his capture.

 

Ramzi bin al Shibh, a Yemeni, allegedly helped the German cell of hijackers find flight schools and enter the United States, and helped finance the operation. He allegedly was selected to be one of the hijackers and made a ‘‘martyr video,” but was four times denied a visa at U.S. embassies, in both Berlin and his native Sana’a, Yemen. The ICRC says Pakistani authorities arrested him Sept. 11, 2002 in Karachi, Pakistan, the first of the five alleged conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. Bin al Shibh has argued for years, mostly through his lawyers but at times through disruptions, that somebody at the clandestine Camp 7 prison where he and the others are held is disrupting his sleep through noises and vibrations. Prosecutors deny the event is happening. In 2016 he testifiedabout the issue and the first trial judge ordered the prison to stop doing it, if they are indeed doing it.

 

Ammar al Baluchi, charged as Ali Abd al Aziz Ali, is alleged to have sent approximately $120,000 to the hijackers for their expenses and flight training, and helped nine of them travel to the United States. He was born and raised in Kuwait, and is Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s nephew because his mother is KSM’s brother. The ICRC says Pakistani authorities arrested him on April 29, 2003 in Karachi, Pakistan. His U.S.-educated wife, Aafia Sidiqqui, was captured in Afghanistan but unlike her husband was taken to New York City for trial. She is now serving an 86-year sentence. His lawyers have been the most aggressive and by some measures most creative in filing legal challenges to the proceedings. In one failed effort to get discovery about what happened to their client in CIA custody they argued that the makers of the Hollywood film ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ got more details than they did.

Mustafa Ahmad al Hawsawi, a Saudi, is alleged to have helped some of the hijackers with money, Western clothing, traveler’s checks and credit cards from an office in Dubai. The ICRC says Pakistani authorities arrested him March 1, 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Hawsawi served as a witness via a sworn statement conveyed by the CIA in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, saying he had seen Moussaoui at an al Qaida guesthouse in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in the first half of 2001, but was never introduced to him nor conducted operations with him. This slight captive who suffered rectal damage in agency custody, according to the so-called Senate Torture Report, generally only comes to court on the days the judge mandates it. His lawyers for years have sought to have his case peeled off from the other four, severed as they say in court, to obtain swifter resolution. Prosecutors have opposed a separate trial for Hawsawi and the judge has so far rebuffed those efforts.

Source from the Office of the Secretary of Defense: https://www.mc.mil/CASES.aspx

An Additional 4 Proceedings are also being Held With the Following Individuals:

USS Cole: Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu Al-Nashiri 
Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu Al-Nashiri (Saudi Arabian)
Al-Nashiri is charged with perfidy, murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, terrorism, conspiracy, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, and hazarding a vessel. The charges arise out of an attempted attack on the USS THE SULLIVANS in January 2000, an attack on the USS COLE in October 2000, and an attack on the MV Limburg in October 2002.In August 2014, Mr. al Nashiri’s military trial judge dismissed the charges and specifications stemming from the M/V Limburg bombing. The Government immediately appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR). Two military judges and one civilian judge were assigned to hear the Government’s interlocutory appeal. In September 2014, Mr. al Nashiri moved to recuse the two military judges. He alleged that military judges are assigned to the CMCR in violation of the Appointments Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, and cannot be freely removed in violation of the Commander-in-Chief Clause, id. cl. 1. The CMCR denied Mr. al Nashiri’s motion in October 2014. Mr. al Nashiri then filed a petition requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus and prohibition disqualifying the military judges on his CMCR panel. On June 23, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion, denying Mr. al Nashiri’s petition because he could adequately raise his constitutional challenges on appeal from final judgment.
Majid Shoukat Khan
Majid Shoukat Khan was charged before a military commission with conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, providing material support for terrorism, and spying.

Mr. Khan resided with his family near Baltimore, Maryland, from 1996 through 2002. Shortly after September 11, 2001, he traveled to Pakistan to explore the possibility of entering Afghanistan for the purpose of jihad. While in Pakistan, Khan agreed to be a suicide bomber in a failed al-Qaeda plot to assassinate the former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. He subsequently returned to the United States gathering information for future terrorist activities, and later covertly delivered $50,000 of al-Qaeda money to Jemaah Islamiyah to finance the Indonesian J.W. Marriott hotel bombing in August 2003, which resulted in the killing of 11 people.

On February 29, 2012, Khan pled guilty to the charged offenses. As part of his pretrial agreement, Khan agreed to delay his sentence proceeding for four years, from the date the military judge accepted his plea, in order to cooperate with the government.

At Mr. Khan’s request, and upon agreement with the Convening Authority for Military Commissions, on September 16, 2016, the military judge permitted Khan to withdraw his guilty plea to the charge of providing material support for terrorism, as, in a separate commissions’ case, the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia had determined that charge can’t be tried at a military commission. Also at Khan’s request, the military judge deferred sentencing proceedings for an additional three years.

Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi
Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi (Iraqi)
Mr. Hadi al-Iraqi is charged with Denying Quarter, Attacking Protected Property, Using Treachery or Perfidy, and Attempted Use of Treachery or Perfidy in a series of attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan between about 2003 and 2004, and Conspiracy to commit law of war offenses. Pretrial proceedings are on-going. Next series on March 1, 2019.
Almed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al Darbi
Almed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al Darbi (Saudi Arabian)
Al Darbi was charged with providing material support for terrorism and conspiracy for allegedly planning to carry out terrorist attacks against shipping vessels in the Straits of Hormuz. The charges were dismissed without prejudice.

Cases go​ing on right now at GTMO: https://www.mc.mil/CASES.aspx

Forty are incarcerated as of this date at GITMO. Those who have been charged, and in one case cleared of all charges are listed above as a total of 9 but part of the 40 total.  Those who have not been charged are classified as AUMF – which stands for Authorized Use of Military Force AND was passed in 2001.  It is now being appealed and argued these people should be charged or released.  All incarcerated are of Middle Eastern Descent.


Transcripts for Military Tribunal KSM et al January 28 and 29th, 2019 :  

Linda Forsythe – Volunteer Citizen Journalist, News Commentator & Founder of the C-VINE International Charitable Trust.

This rapidly growing, grass-roots effort is exciting to watch as Patriots join together to MAGA! Continuing to look for volunteers to help with the many various duties that assist in running this massive movement. In addition we request financial assistance on our donation page, to cover the cost of travel expenses for reporting on the Military Tribunals and overhead costs for the C-VINE.COM website: https://c-vine.com/c-vine-donation-page/

 

Leonard Bacani is a retired Santa Ana Police Officer and the Founder of HOMELAND SECURITY SERVICES, INC. headquartered in Southern California.

HOMELAND SECURITY SERVICES, INC. is a Private InvestigationPrivate Security firm and State Authorized Training Facility. Contact Leonard at LBacani@hssinc.us for assistance or call the office: (714) 865-1135.          Website: http://www.homelandsecurityservices.com

 

All this and future Military Tribunal information will be released to the public after Department of Defense final approval & posted on the C-VINE.com website.


This article was posted by our C-VINE team of volunteer workers, investigative reporters, and citizen journalists, who make certain all information is vetted for accuracy before publishing. C-VINE News is placed in a Foundation, also called a Charitable Trust and is run by, “We the People”.

Conversations and discussions are being held on the C-VINE News Talk – Facebook Group Page(Must be a Facebook member): C-VINE News Talk

C-VINE – Breaking News Forums C-VINE Military Tribunal Transcripts Discussion – (March sessions Part 1) KSM et al

This topic contains 1 voice and has 0 replies.
1 voice
0 replies

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.