Appropriate clothing at 9/11 trial
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Appropriate clothing at 9/11 trial

  1. #1
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,534

    Default Appropriate clothing at 9/11 trial

    Should the women in the courtroom at a trial for terrorists be required to wear Muslim dress to make the defendants more comfortable? Did this defense attorney make the right decision in wearing a burka out of respect for her client when she is not a muslim?

    The defense attorney who wore a traditional Islamic outfit during the rowdy arraignment of the accused Sept. 11 terrorists is defending her courtroom appeal that other women in the room wear more "appropriate" clothing to the proceedings -- out of respect for her client's Muslim beliefs.

    Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, attended the arraignment Saturday dressed in a hijab, apparently because her client insisted on it. She further requested that the court order other women to follow that example so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes "for fear of committing a sin under their faith."

    At a press conference Sunday at Guantanamo Bay, Bormann said she dresses in a hijab at "all times" when she meets with her client "out of respect" for his beliefs. Asked why she requested other women do the same, Bormann said, "When you're on trial for your life, you need to be focused."

    Bormann, who is not Muslim, claimed the issue came up several years ago, when a paralegal wore "very short skirts" and it became a distraction for the defendants. She said that on Saturday, "somebody" was also dressed "in a way that was not in keeping with my client's religious beliefs."

    "If because of someone's religious beliefs, they can't focus when somebody in the courtroom is dressed in a particular way, I feel it is incumbent upon myself as a counsel to point that out and ask for some consideration from the prosecution," she said. "Suffice to say it was distracting to members of the accused."

    The clothing request was just one of several unusual moments during Saturday's lengthy and chaotic hearing.

    The court hearing for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-defendants should have taken a couple of hours at most. Instead it lasted almost 13 hours, including meal and prayer breaks, as the men appeared to make a concerted effort to stall Saturday's hearing.

    They knelt in prayer, ignored the judge, wouldn't listen to Arabic translations over their head sets and one even insisted on having the more than 20 pages detailing the charges against them read aloud, rather than deferred for later in their case as the judge wanted, which added more than two hours to the proceedings.

    Defense lawyer James Connell said Sunday that a tentative trial date of May 2013 is a "placeholder" until a true date can be set for the trial.

    "It's going to take time," said the chief prosecutor, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, who said he expects to battle a barrage of defense motions before the case goes to trial. "I am getting ready for hundreds of motions because we want them to shoot everything they can shoot at us."

    The defendants' behavior outraged 9/11 family members watching on closed-circuit video feeds around the United States at East Coast military bases. One viewer shouted, "C'mon, are you kidding me?" at the Fort Hamilton base in Brooklyn.

    A handful of people who lost family members in the attacks and were selected by a lottery to attend the proceedings watched in the courtroom.

    "They're engaging in jihad in a courtroom," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles, was the pilot of the plane that flew into the Pentagon. She watched the proceeding from Brooklyn.

    The defense attorneys in the case have complained repeatedly about the proceedings and about the military tribunal system itself. Human rights groups and defense lawyers say the secrecy of Guantanamo and the military tribunals will make it impossible for the defense. They argued the U.S. kept the case out of civilian court to prevent disclosure of the treatment of prisoners like Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times.

    A family member of one 9/11 victim spoke to reporters Sunday and said he has respect for the defense attorneys.

    "They're doing their job," said Eddie Bracken of Staten Island, New York, whose sister Lucy Fishman died at the World Trade Center in 2001.

    Bracken also read from a prepared statement which was directed at Mohammed. "You never killed the American spirit. Let freedom ring, let freedom ring, let freedom ring -- and that's what I have to say," he said.

    Mohammed, the admitted 9/11 architect, and the four men accused of aiding the 9/11 conspiracy put off their pleas until a later date. They face 2,976 counts of murder and terrorism in the 2001 attacks that sent hijacked jetliners into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The charges carry the death penalty.

    Earlier Saturday, Mohammed cast off his earphones providing Arabic translations of the proceeding and refused to answer Army Col. James Pohl's questions or acknowledge he understood them. All five men refused to participate in the hearing; two passed around a copy of The Economist magazine and leafed through the articles.

    Bin Attash was confined to a restraint chair when he came into court on Saturday, released only after he promised to behave.

    Ramzi Binalshibh began praying alongside his defense table, followed by Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, in the middle of the hearing; Binalshibh then launched into a tirade in which he compared a prison official to the late Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and declared that he was in danger.

    "Maybe they will kill me and say I committed suicide," he said in a mix of Arabic and broken English.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1uCID1N3p
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Posting Addict RebeccaA'07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    AR
    Posts
    8,896

    Default

    Do they require specific outfits for other defendants? No. These are no different. They don't have to look at the women in the courtroom. Unless women are dressing trashy in a way which interrupts the court proceedings, I don't see why a specific dress code be issued because a defendant "might" sin by looking at them. Stupid. I think they are trying to delay their trials.

  3. #3
    Mega Poster elleon17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    4,185

    Default

    Ridiculous. If they are offended, let them attend via teleconference and not able to see the others in the courtroom.
    Lilypie Fifth Birthday tickers
    Lilypie First Birthday tickers

  4. #4
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,534

    Default

    I think it is ridiculous also. They are just trying to make a circus trial out of it and this defense attorney is just feeding into it. And they wanted to have this trial in NYC where it could have gotten even more attention?!?
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RebeccaA'07 View Post
    Do they require specific outfits for other defendants? No. These are no different. They don't have to look at the women in the courtroom. Unless women are dressing trashy in a way which interrupts the court proceedings, I don't see why a specific dress code be issued because a defendant "might" sin by looking at them. Stupid. I think they are trying to delay their trials.
    Exactly.

    And prayer breaks???

  6. #6
    Mega Poster elleon17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    4,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kris_w View Post
    And prayer breaks???
    I'm actually not opposed to that part.
    Lilypie Fifth Birthday tickers
    Lilypie First Birthday tickers

  7. #7
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elleon17 View Post
    I'm actually not opposed to that part.
    I don't think they were talking about standardized prayer breaks at specific times. They were deliberately interupting in the middle of the proceedings to get down and pray.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Posting Addict boilermaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mtns.
    Posts
    19,380

    Default

    I've been thinking about this-- and I don't know the "right" answer.

    But having worked with Muslims over the years, I can appreciate the request for prayer breaks (they pray a lot and at specific times of the day.) I can understand why their defense attorney dressed in the way that made her clients most comfortable, but that was likely the only way that she could really have conversations and meaningful dialogue with them.

    In this country we do presume people are innocent until they are proven guilty. I don't see why we need to assume that these individuals are just trying to mess with the system when they could honestly be trying to prove their innocence.

    I don't trust any of their "confessions" since they were waterboarded 183 times. Really. Anything that we glean from torture seems to be an unreliable bit of information IMO. It would be hard for me as a defendant to respect a process and a trial that took 12 years to get to, and involved torture and potential abuse for years at the hands of my captors.

    I'm not suggesting that they are necessarily innocent, just that it doesn't seem to matter how they proceed at this point, does it?
    Audra
    DH Trey
    DD 8.03, DD 6.05, DS 3.07, DD 5.09, and DS arrived 6.17.12
    www.mamaginger.com

  9. #9
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,392

    Default

    What Audra said.

    Freedom of religion means the right to practice your own religion, not impose it on others. Asking your defense attorney to dress in a manner that makes you comfortable in your necessary interactions with her during your trial is fine. Asking others to dress that way is not.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  10. #10
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    What Audra said.

    Freedom of religion means the right to practice your own religion, not impose it on others. Asking your defense attorney to dress in a manner that makes you comfortable in your necessary interactions with her during your trial is fine. Asking others to dress that way is not.
    Agreed.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions