12:30 P.M. EST
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Foreign Press Center. I'd like to ask those of you who may have forgotten to turn off your cell phones or pagers to do so now. We have with us today Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann, who is the Legal Adviser to the Convening Authority in the Department of Defense in the Office of Military Commissions. He will be speaking to us about Commission issues.
We have until 1 o'clock with the General. He will make an opening statement and then we'll go right into questions. Because of the limited time, please do not ask follow-on questions until everyone has had a chance to ask an original question. Thank you.
General Hartmann.
BGEN HARTMANN: Thank you. Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Convening Authority for Military Commissions received sworn charges against six individuals alleged to be responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks upon the United States of America which occurred on September the 11th, 2001. These attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,973 people from around the world, including eight children. These charges allege a long-term, highly sophisticated, organized plan by al-Qaida to attack the United States.
The accused are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam Al-Hawsawi, and Mohamed al-Qahtani. Now that sworn charges have been received, the Convening Authority will review those charges and the supporting evidence to determine whether probable cause exists to refer the case to trial by military commission.
The chief prosecutor has requested that the charges be tried jointly and that they be referred as capital for each defendant. If the convening authority, Mrs. Susan Crawford, in her sole discretion, decides to refer the cases as capital, the defendants will face the possibility of being sentenced to death. Each of the defendants is charged under the Military Commission Act with conspiracy and the separate, substantive offenses of murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, terrorism, and providing material support to terrorism.
The first four defendants, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali are also charged with the separate, substantive offense of hijacking an aircraft. All of the charges are alleged to have been in support of the attacks on the United States on September the 11th, 2001. The charge sheet details 169 overt acts allegedly committed by the defendants and their uncharged conspirators in furtherance of the 9/11 events.
The charges allege that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks by proposing the operational concept to Usama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtaining approval and funding from Usama bin Laden for the attacks, overseeing the entire operation, and training the hijackers in all aspects of the operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Waleed bin Attash is alleged to have ministered an al-Qaida training camp in Logar, Afghanistan, where two of the September 11th hijackers were trained. He is also alleged to have travelled to Malaysia in 1999 to observe airport security by U.S. air carriers to assist in formulating the hijacking plan.
Ramzi Binalshibh is alleged to have lived with the Hamburg, Germany al-Qaida cell where three of the 9/11 hijackers resided. It is alleged that Binalshibh was originally selected by Usama bin Laden to be one of the 9/11 hijackers and that he made a martyr video. He was unable to obtain a United States visa and therefore, could not enter the country as the other hijackers did. In light of this, it is alleged that Binalshibh assisted in finding flight schools for the hijackers in the United States and continued to assist the conspiracy by engaging in numerous financial transactions in support of the 9/11 operation. Ali Abdul Aziz Ali's role is alleged to have included sending approximately $127,000 to the hijackers for their expenses and flight training and facilitating travel to the United States for nine of the hijackers. Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi is alleged to have assisted and prepared the hijackers with money, western clothing, Traveler's Checks and credit cards. He is also alleged to have facilitated the transfer of thousands of dollars between the accounts of the alleged 9/11 hijackers and himself on September the 11th, 2001.
Mohamed al-Qahtani is alleged to have attempted to enter the United States on August the 4th, 2001 through the Orlando International Airport where he was denied entry. It is also alleged that al-Qahtani carried $2,800 in cash and an itinerary listing a phone number associated with al Hawsawi. Now that the charges have been received and sworn, they are being translated into the native language of each accused and are being served on them. I will evaluate the charges and all of the supporting evidence, along with the chief prosecutor's recommendations and I will forward them with my independent recommendation to Mrs. Crawford, the convening authority. She will review all of the information and make her independent decision whether to refer any or all of the cases to trial by military commission and if so, whether the cases should be referred as capital.
Just as in the military court martial practice, the pretrial advice must contain my legal conclusions, as to whether the charges are supported by probable cause, are subject to the jurisdiction of the military commission and should be tried by a military commission. The convening authority's final decision follows her review and consideration of my advice, the file provided by the prosecutors and any national security concerns. This is very similar to the sequence of events that occurs in military legal offices thousands of times each year all around the world.
If the convening authority refers the charges to trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, which is the standard applied in all U.S. and military criminal trials. In the military commission process, every defendant has the following rights: The right to remain silent and to have no adverse influence drawn from it. The right to be represented by detailed military council as well as civilian council of his own selection at no expense to the government. The right to examine all evidence used against him by the prosecution. The right to obtain evidence and to call witnesses on his own behalf, including expert witnesses. The right to cross-examine every witness called by the prosecution. The right to be present during the presentation of evidence. The right to have a military commission panel of at least five military members determine his guilt by a two-thirds majority and in the case of a capital offense, a unanimous decision of a military commission composed of at least 12 members. The right to an appeal to the court of military commission review, then through the District of Columbia's Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately to the United States Supreme Court.
The rights I have listed are guaranteed to each defendant under the Military Commission Act and they are specifically designed to ensure that every defendant receives a fair trial consistent with American standards of justice.
This one charge is prepared by the joint team of military and Department of Defense prosecutors highlight the tremendous cooperative efforts put forth by a multitude of government agencies and reflect the continuing progress of the military commissions. As the legal advisor to the convening authority, I remind you that the sworn charges are only allegations of violations under the Military Commission Act and that the accused are and will remain innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thank you.
MODERATOR: We'll be happy to take your questions. Now, please identify yourself and your organization as you ask a question. Here and then at the back.
QUESTION: Yes, my name is Toshiya Umehara. I'm from the Asahi Shimbun, the Japanese newspaper. Sir, in the news briefing at Pentagon, you referred to the reasons as to why you do not use the normal court martial. You referred to some pretrial rights and need for a speedy trial. But by choosing this (inaudible), are you not sort of delaying this actually -- the trial itself? Because the current Military Commission Act itself is a product of numerous litigations and a Supreme Court decision. I'm sure you are aware there are many other litigations going on in the U.S. Justice system. And it made also again, subjects to be changed. So that on -- in that case, you may have to face -- to adjust another system. Are you getting my point?
BGEN HARTMANN: Sure, I'm getting your point. You're asking about the length of time. The global war on terror has taken some time. It has been going on for some time and it continues today. It's been fought in mountain caves and skyscrapers. It's been fought in planes, trains, ships, subways, parking lots, crowded marketplaces. The number of -- I listed the number of people who were killed -- 2,973 people, eight children. Those people and others who were injured came from more than 90 countries around the world, of every race, creed, color, sex and national origin. The global war on terror has been carried on through dummy corporations, through forged passports, falsified currencies, through various forms of propaganda, through the internet. It's taken a long time to gather the information, through the intelligence community, the law enforcement community and to have it evaluated properly by the prosecutors. They have organized the information, organized the evidence, compared that evidence against the law and are now ready to proceed to trial.
As to whether there have been delays because of challenges from legal -- from defense perspectives, that's part of the American system. We expect the defense to challenge. That's the accused right. You will see defense challenges in these cases. That's the right we provide to these defendants under the American system of justice. You know, in the military practice, which is very similar to this one, we provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines virtually the same rights, so we're proud to do that to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and we going to provide virtually the same rights to these people who are charged with these crimes.
QUESTION: Mike Kellerman, ATN-Television. General, if they are found guilty and if capital is referred, where are they executed and what is the method of the execution?
BGEN HARTMANN: It's an important question but one we don't need to get to. And the reason we don't need to get to that yet is because before the case is even referred, Judge Crawford is going to evaluate the cases and she's going to decide if these cases are referred as capital. And then if they are referred, any of them is referred as capital, and that's in her sole discretion, then a jury or -- in our case, a military panel, but a jury in the common parlance, will have to unanimously agree on the finding of guilty on the charges -- unanimously agree. At least 12 people have to unanimously agree. Upon the completion of that, then the prosecutors have to present aggravating factors which must be presented and the 12 members or more must unanimously agree on that. Following that, they must unanimously agree on a sentence. Then Judge Crawford will review the case yet again to decide, should they have decided on a death penalty. She will decide yet again whether the death penalty should go through, which is an extraordinary right that is only available in this system. It's available in this system and the military system. It's available in no other system that I know of in the United -- certainly, no other system in the United States. I know of no other on the globe. And then he has the right to defense. If there comes a time when it's necessary to execute a death penalty, we will follow the law as it exists at that time. And we are not focused on the methods at this time. We are focused on bringing the cases to trial.
MODERATOR: Next question.
QUESTION: My name is Chris Wernicke. I'm a reporter from Germany for Suddeutsche Zeitung. Thanks, General, for taking your time and presenting this very important case also to the international media. May I ask you to what extent are you concerned about allegations, especially - not only, but especially in the European press that part of - that there is some sort of shadow hanging over this trial because of alleged interrogation methods that have been used on these defendants? Some call it torture. Some call it enhanced interrogation methods. Could you comment to what extent you expect not only from the lawyers of the defendants but from the international (inaudible) some - some continuing cloud hanging over this trial?
BGEN HARTMANN: Well, let me answer that by saying that the decision on whether to introduce any form of evidence will be made by the prosecutors and they will proceed in an open court. They understand the hurdles that they have to apply with regard to the introduction of evidence, the rules of procedure and the rules of evidence. That's their obligation, their duty, their responsibility, and they understand it.
And as I've said before, America is a nation that is governed by the rule of law, not the rule of men. And in this case, the rule of law is being decided in the courtroom. That's the crucible of justice that will apply here. So any indications of how evidence was derived and any indications of how evidence is going to be admitted will be openly dealt with by the prosecution presenting the evidence in the courtroom. It will be challenged by the defense. Every piece of evidence, every piece of evidence that goes before the finder of fact before the jury, will be subject to cross-examination, confrontation, evaluation and review by the defense, by his counsel. And then out of that challenge, out of that debate in the open court, the military judge will make a decision and he will answer any questions with regard to the admissibility of evidence.
In terms of clouds over this system, you will find that this system is extraordinarily fair to the accused. The rights that we are providing to these accused virtually mirror the rights that we provide to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines around the world in every military practice. The military commissions themselves are not new. They have existed since George Washington, General Andrew Jackson, after the Lincoln conspiracy for President Lincoln's assassination, and after World War II. So the military commissions are not new. We have made a strong effort to in many ways make sure that these rights that we are providing to these accused mirror the rights we provide to our military. So it's not something that's new. It's - military commissions themselves have a long history and the rights we're providing are quite extreme in - quite extraordinary. In fact, these rights exceed the rights that were provided at Nuremberg. I mentioned to you beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no beyond a reasonable doubt standard at Nuremberg. There was no presumption of innocence at Nuremberg. There was no right of appeal at Nuremberg for those who were - for whom the death penalty was carried out almost immediately after those sentences were given.
QUESTION: Sara Hussein, Saudi Press Agency. I'm wondering if you can tell us whether the defense office currently has enough lawyers with the sufficient security clearances to serve these or to meet with these detainees, and when they might be likely to first meet with them.
BGEN HARTMANN: Very good question. As of the swearing of the charges and the serving of the charges, the accused will have the right to a detailed military counsel. We have worked very intently to make sure that they have - we have defense counsel available for them and with the appropriate security clearances. So that has - that has been taken care of.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
BGEN HARTMANN: That'll be up to the chief defense counsel, who will make a decision on when to assign and how to assign and who to assign. He makes those decisions.
MODERATOR: We have time for one more question.
QUESTION: My name is Daniel Anyz with Czech daily Hospodarske Noviny. It's just a technical question that if there is written that they have the right for an own counsel at no expense from the government, from there this counsel could come and be from a foundation, because I don't expect that they could have a counsel from Pakistan because it may be too risky for the counsel.
BGEN HARTMANN: I don't know about the counsel from Pakistan, but I'll give you the example of the Hamden case. Mr. Hamden has been charged and he has a detailed military defense counsel, he has a DOD civilian defense counsel, he has two civilian counsel from a distinguished civilian law firm in the United States, and another counsel is from Emory University. So the counsel are available to them if they'd like. If they find a way to find counsel from outside the military commission process, based upon the appointment by the chief defense counsel, but that's up to them.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. That concludes our briefing today.
