The pre-trial hearings in the military commission of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants stalled midway through the week here at “Camp Justice,” in the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The hearings this week were to address a number of defense motions before the court, including seeking to end government monitoring and censorship of attorney-client communications, the compelling of witnesses to testify for the defense, and requests for information about the treatment of the men while in CIA custody and in the Guantanamo prisons.

Confusion ensued on Monday, the first day of the hearings, when a mechanism to prevent classified information was triggered, leading to the courtroom feed being cut off. It’s a standard procedure, but no one knew who had hit the censor button, a question that has still not been publicly answered.

On Tuesday, Commission Judge James Pohl, an Army colonel, announced that the more controversial motions on the court docket for the week — arguments from the defense to make available information about the CIA’s rendition, detention, and interrogation program, and evidence from the “black sites” where Mohammed was held — were to be pushed back to later hearings scheduled for February and April.

The defense is trying to get details of the all five defendants’ treatment — such as Mohammed’s infamous waterboarding 183 times while in CIA custody — on the record in an effort to undermine the case against them. The defense is arguing that the treatment amounted to illegal pre-trial punishment — a concept derived from military law, and the same claim made unsuccesfully by Bradley Manning’s defense last December.

The defense also asserts that the treatment amounted to “outrageous governmental conduct” — a legal concept that essentially holds that the government’s behavior was so beyond the pale that they no longer hold the legal authority to convict. The prospect of the government dismissing charges for a crime on the scale of 9/11 seems unlikely; however, the same arguments could be advanced to make the case for mitigating the sentencing of the men, should the court get to that stage.

Right now, it looks as though that stage would be a very long way away. The court was to take the remainder of this week to resolve a number of defense motions that seek to compel the production of certain witnesses. On Tuesday, Judge Pohl issued an oral ruling rejecting a defense motion to find rule 703 (pdf) of the military commissions unconstitutional. Among other things, the rule gives the prosecution the right to approve and reject defense witness requests.

Navy CDR Walter Ruiz, the lawyer for co-defendant Mustafa al-Hawsawi, responded that the defense would need time to look over and adjust their witness request arguments based on the new ruling, noting that he would prefer to do that with the benefit of a written version rather than the oral description — a “Reader’s Digest” version, as the judge himself described it.

The judge asked if the defense had any witness motions they were willing to go forward with. But after getting through one motion, the judge cancelled Wednesday’s session, replacing it with a private meeting in which he and counsel for both sides would “see if we can make useful time of Thursday when everybody’s going to be here anyway.” Late Wednesday evening, word came from the court that enough resolution had been reached to hold one more session, beginning Thursday at 9 am.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, (2nd R) the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, addresses the judge during the third day of pre-trial hearings in the 9/11 war crimes prosecution as depicted in this Pentagon-approved courtroom sketch at the US Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, October 17, 2012. (Photo: REUTERS/Janet Hamlin)

This report was cross-posted with our partner program Frontline.

The latest round of hearings at the military commission trying 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants opened Monday at Guantanamo, but by the end of the day it appeared that the judge was not entirely in control of the proceedings.

Attorneys were preparing to argue a defense motion to preserve evidence from CIA “black sites” overseas, where Mohammed and others were kept and interrogated before being transferred to Guantanamo. David Nevin, Mohammed’s lead attorney, had barely spoken a few words before the audio feed from the courtroom abruptly cut out. The courtroom feeds out its audio on a 40-second delay, so if any sensitive classified information is discussed, an appointed court security officer can kill the audio before the information can be heard.

However, in this instance, the court security officer was not responsible; in fact, when the feed was restored, Judge James Pohl was as confused as anyone as to what had happened. Clearly irritated, he announced that he had not initiated the cutoff, and he was, “curious as to why” it happened. Apparently, someone on the prosecution had killed the courtroom feed, or at least knew what was behind it. Prosecutor Joanna Baltes suggested to the judge that the parties discuss the matter in a closed session.

Everyone else — including the assembled journalists, and seemingly the judge himself — had been of the understanding that the court security officer was the only one with access to the button to cut off the feed. Several of the defense attorneys demanded to know who exactly had access to the switch, and even if there were other, unknown parties monitoring and controlling the courtroom feed. The judge said they would address those concerns in a closed session immediately following today’s open court session.

On Tuesday, the judge will reveal what part of those conversations and arguments — if any — can be made public.

Update Jan. 29, 4:30 pm
Although Judge Pohl had said that an expert on the audio-video system in the court would provide details on the censorship mechanism today, no witness was produced because the judge said he couldn’t find the “right guy or gal” to testify. The prosecution indicated they might know the individual, but no other details were provided, and it was unclear when that testimony might take place.

There was also no clarity on the most controversial point from yesterday: who actually pushed the censor button, if it was not the court security officer. None of the defense attorneys asked about this; it was unclear why, although they may have been bound by orders discussed in yesterday’s private conference.

Update Jan. 29, 6 pm
In an interview, James Connell, who is representing defendant Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, described “an original classification authority who separately monitors the communications inside the courtroom” who has the opportunity to kill the feed.

But you might be surprised that Hollywood special effects man John Chambers—played by John Goodman in the film—was as real as they come, as was his relationship with the CIA.

The movie only scratches the surface of the strangeness.

In Argo, we see CIA agent Agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) employing Chambers to create a fake science fiction movie production as a cover to sneak six American hostages out of Iran— all of which is true.

But Chambers was never really a producer—he was a special effects makeup expert, and won awards for the simian faces he designed for the actors in the original “Planet of the Apes.” The Variety article about the fake “Argo”—all part of the elaborate cover— spoke about the longtime special effects expert trying his hand at producing.

In her book, “The CIA in Hollywood,” Tricia Jenkins recounts how Agent Mendez had previously worked with Chambers to produce makeup and disguises for some special jobs.

In another episode that reads like it came straight out of a movie: Mendez had Chambers use his special makeup skills to a transform a black case officer and Asian diplomat into two white men for a surreptitious meeting in Laos.

For more bizarre stories, or ideas for your next screenplay, “The CIA in Hollywood” is definitely a good read.

Tricia Jenkins, the author of “The CIA in Hollywood,” says the CIA first started working with Hollywood to influence foreign audiences. “Their purpose was essentially to shape foreign policy or to win hearts and minds overseas during the cold war,” she says.

The CIA developed a think tank to fight communist ideology, which negotiated the rights to George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” — getting a talking pig on the screen 20 years before “Charlotte’s Web.” Jenkins says the CIA also wanted to promote a certain view of American life, for instance pressing for line changes in 1950s scripts to make black characters more dignified, and white characters more tolerant. This “politically correct” image was intended to promote an attractive image of America to a world picking sides in the Cold War.

But while the CIA used Hollywood to project an American ideal, they didn’t seem much concerned with their own image.

“In the old days, the CIA, and its predecessor the OSS, they didn’t really spend much time worrying about what the public thought about them,” says to Ted Gup, author of “The Book of Honor: Covert Lives and Classified Deaths at the CIA.” He says that with the end of the Cold War, the CIA realized it needed an image overhaul. “It’s come to recognize that without public support, its budget is in jeopardy. And its very activities are in jeopardy.”

In 1996, the CIA hired a Hollywood liaison: Chase Brandon — who happens to be the cousin of Tommy Lee Jones, and consequently had lots of Hollywood connections.

Tricia Jenkins says there’s been a noticeable change in the portrayal of the CIA after that period. Before the 1990s, in films like “Three Days of the Condor,” the CIA was portrayed as evil, amoral assassins, or sometimes buffoons, like Max on the TV show “Get Smart.”

“Now it’s a much more favorable presentation,” says Jenkins. “Frequently being depicted as a moral organization that is highly efficient. It rarely makes mistakes, it’s needed more than ever.”

Since the mid-90s, the CIA has worked on a long list of productions, including “The Sum of All Fears,” and some big TV names — “Alias,” “24,” and “Homeland.”

There are some uglier portrayals, sometimes produced with unapproved help from former agents— like in the movie “Syriana,” which features George Clooney as Bob Barnes, a CIA officer tasked with assassinating a Middle Eastern leader. The Character Bob Barnes was based on real ex-CIA agent, Bob Baer.

The real Bob Baer– working on a new book, “The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws of Assassination” — recalls that “they called me up and said, ‘We want to go on a trip with you to the Middle East.’ I went with the director, Stephen Gaghan, I took him to Lebanon, I took him to a meeting with some shady people I knew in London, in Nice, Soforth, and he was absolutely fascinated by seeing the real Middle East.”

“Syriana” isn’t exactly an advertisement for the CIA. But these days, that’s the exception— Jenkins says for the most part, the CIA gets their preferred image across—and unless you read the fine credits at the end of a film, you’d have no idea you just watched a movie produced with CIA help.

“It’s important to note that the CIA doesn’t help everyone. It’s only going to help those who portray CIA in a positive light and helps them boost recruitment interest,” Jenkins says.

During her stint on Alias, Jennifer Garner actually made a recruitment ad for the CIA. And if you find Ben Affleck or Jessica Chastain attractive, it’s hard to think of better recruitment ads than “Argo” and “Zero Dark Thirty.”

Army Private First Class Manning is escorted in handcuffs as he leaves the courthouse in Fort Meade, June 6, 2012. (Photo: REUTERS/Jose Luis Magana)

Army Colonel Denise Lind, the judge presiding over the court-martial, refused a defense motion to throw out the charges because of Manning’s harsh confinement conditions in Kuwait and a Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Va., according to the Associated Press and other reports.

Few observers expected the 22 charges — which include aiding the enemy, which carries a possible life sentence — to be thrown out entirely, but the defense was also asking that, if the charges could not be dismissed, the judge reduce Manning’s ultimate sentence, applying a 10-to-1 credit for each day of his confinement. On this point, Judge Lind gave a little ground, applying a 1-to1 credit for certain violations, resulting in the 112-day reduction.

According to blogger Kevin Gosztola, Judge Lind, who read her ruling out loud over the course of 90 minutes, found that the brig authorities at Quantico had kept Manning on suicide watch without proper justification and that he had not been given enough recreation time while under maximum-security status, but apparently considered these relatively minor violations. She dismissed the allegations of improper command influence in Manning’s treatment, as well as allegations of an intent to punish Manning.

Earlier today, Manning’s lawyer, Jeffrey Coombs claimed for the first time that Manning had actually been selective in the material he leaked, to make sure no one would be harmed by the release. He also revealed his intention to call as a witness Adrian Lamo, the hacker who reported Manning to the authorities.

Manning’s court-martial, which has been delayed multiple times, is currently scheduled to begin March 6.

M.S. Gopalakrishnan was a violinist whose intense study led him to develop new styles of playing the instrument in Indian classical music.

Arun Rath has an appreciation of the violinist who developed a unique style and sound, all the while remaining true to the classical tradition and avoiding fusion.

Subscribe and follow The World’s Global Hit

• Global Hit Podcast on iTunes
• Global Hit Podcast via RSS
• Global Hit Archive (prior to June 2009)
• Global Hit on Facebook
• Follow @marcowerman
  

The NRA has been extremely influential in shaping gun policy in the United States over the years.

And it’s reaching out internationally as well. The World’s Arun Rath has been looking into the NRA’s international interests and he speaks with anchor Marco Werman.

But not many people know that when Ravi Shankar began to cross musical boundaries, there was not universal praise, particularly in India. Purists in the classical musical establishment in India were deeply disturbed when Shankar began to work with Western Musicians

And the purists were downright horrified when he began to associate with George Harrison and the Beatles. The Fab Four famously visited India in 1968.

While the Beatles themselves may have been serious about Indian music and spirituality, the followers in their large entourage were not so culturally sensitive. A lot of Indians were put off.

But here’s something the purists failed to appreciate, or maybe they didn’t care, as Ravi Shankar traveled the world, crossing musical boundaries, lots of other people were crossing boundaries, mixing cultures… along the way, producing a generation of children like myself: an Anglo-Indian-American, and lots of other permutations.

For people like me, multicultural, muti-racial, this was our music.

And for those of us who grew up away from our ancestral home of India—living with “Imaginary Homelands,” to use Salman Rushdie’s phrase— Shankar provided an easy bridge back—his explanations of Indian music helped us learn about ourselves.

And our generation—Ravi Shankar’s godchildren—has produced some remarkable music that speaks our new musical language.

Percussionist Trilok Gurtu effortlessly switches back and forth from tablas to a drumkit, making traditional Indian melodies swing.

And of course, there’s the amazing music produced by Ravi’s own very different children, singer Norah Jones and sitarist Anoushka Shankar. Anoushka’s last album was a marvelous fusion of Indian Classical music and Spanish Flamenco.

It can be an awkward feeling to be of two cultures and neither at the same time. E.M. Forster described an Anglo-Indian character in A Passage to India. In a room full of Indians or a room full of Englishmen, he was okay. But in a mixed environment, he was bewildered—he didn’t know whether to act Indian or English.

For those of us facing a similar confusion, the kind of music can be empowering: Your ears and your heart tell you there’s nothing awkward or impure about this combination. It’s beautiful.

He’s the soldier who allegedly released hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the website WikiLeaks.

The US Army private is due to be court-martialed on 22 charges, including “aiding the enemy.”

Anchor Lisa Mullins speaks with reporter Arun Rath, who is covering the pre-trial hearing for The World and PBS Frontline.

Two military psychiatrists who cared for Bradley Manning during his confinement at Quantico have testified that their recommendation that Manning be removed from a suicide watch was disregarded. The Army private accused of leaking more than 500,000 classified documents to WikiLeaks had been kept in solitary confinement more than 23 hours a day in the brig at Quantico, and was given a “Prevention of Injury” status usually reserved for inmates who are violent or an escape risk. Manning was deprived of his clothing and forced to wear a “suicide smock” during this time.

Navy Capt. William Hocter, the forensic psychiatrist on staff at Quantico who treated Manning, testified that while he considered Manning a suicide risk when he first arrived, by one month later he believed Manning’s state of mind had stabilized enough for him to be taken off the suicide watch and “Prevention of Injury” (POI) status.

Capt. Hocter’s assessment was backed up by a consulting psychiatrist, Navy Capt. Kevin Moore, who also testified tonight. Capt. Hocter said he was disturbed the recommendations were disregarded. “I never really experienced anything like this,” he said. “It was clear to me they had made up their mind on a certain course of action, and my recommendations had no impact.”

Earlier in the day, Marine Col. Robert Oltman, the security battalion commander at Quantico, testified that guards at the brig had been concerned by what they considered erratic behavior from Manning, including dancing in his cell, and playing “peek-a-boo” with the guards. When asked about Oltman’s testimony, Capt. Hocter dismissed these concerns, saying, “He was dancing in his cell, so what?” to laughter in the courtroom. “He’s sitting in a cell all day, he’s got to do something to amuse himself,” he said, describing Manning’s actions as “normal human behavior. … Lots of things people do in their cells that wouldn’t necessarily concern me.”

In their testimony, Col. Oltman and Capt. Hocter each described a heated exchange over Manning’s continued POI status during a meeting with brig officers. Col. Oltman testified he had lost confidence in Capt. Hocter’s opinion after an inmate suicide at Quantico some months earlier, implying Capt. Hocter could have done more to prevent it. Capt. Hocter acknowledged he was very angry in the meeting, adding that to him Manning’s treatment “seems senseless. I feel bad now that I got angry, but it was appropriate to be upset in that circumstance.”

Capt. Hocter and Capt. Moore both testified that Manning’s treatment would have certainly aggravated his psychological condition; Capt. Hocter testified Manning suffered from both depression and mood disorder. However, both psychiatrists said they saw no malicious intent from the brig officers, which would be necessary for the defense to prove that Manning’s treatment qualified as “unlawful pretrial punishment.”

Both military psychiatrists said they believed Manning’s treatment was due to an excess of caution in protecting an extremely high-profile inmate compounded by a growing concern over military suicides.

“I think they were really very worried about his safety, didn’t trust any doctors,” Capt. Hocter testified. In the “context of what was happening with suicide in general … suicides on base, it was a very rough time,” he said. “They decided they were going to run the risk management aspect of this case — I just wish they had told me that’s what they intended to do.”

Follow @arunrath

In a pre-trial hearing on Wednesday, Manning offered to plead guilty to some of the lesser charges against him, “indicating he would accept general responsibility for providing information to WikiLeaks,” according to blogger Kevin Gosztola.

The plea does not involve the most serious charges, such as aiding the enemy, which could result in Manning spending his life in a military prison. By opting not to seek the death penalty in the Manning case earlier this year, the government left the door open to a possible plea deal, but this week’s plea offer came unilaterally from the Manning legal team.

Nothing is set to change in terms of the serious charges Manning will face at his court martial in February, so what does it all mean?

Many legal analysts are puzzled as to why the Manning team would unilaterally concede these lesser charges, with no promise of any reward for their concession.

The plea is notable for being the first time the defense has openly acknowledged Manning did, in fact, leak classified material to Wikileaks, though, they had implied as much during earlier pre-trial hearings.

If accepted by the judge, the plea could streamline the court martial. This would allow the court to leapfrog the details of the leaking itself, and jump right to arguments over whether the charges against Manning are justified, based on the material leaked, and the damage the leaking caused.

In pre-trial hearings last year, the prosecution spent much time detailing evidence that Manning was the leaker, which Manning’s lawyers never sought to contest.

They instead pointed out lax security and suggesting Manning should never have had access to the classified information. Lawyer David Coombs also implied that the damage caused by the leaks was minimal and outweighed by the public interest in their exposure.

It is obvious now that the defense will take a similar tack in the upcoming court martial and hopes to convince the court that Manning’s leaks did not rise to the level of “aiding the enemy.”

Even if they fail on that point, the same argument could be revived to argue for a more lenient sentence.

Manning’s eventual sentence could also be reduced if claims of “unlawful pretrial punishment”—i.e., Manning’s alleged ill-treatment in military prisons— are found to have merit.

Manning’s legal team also announced this week their decision to have the case decided by military judge, rather than a jury of fellow soldiers.

Follow @arunrath

In my conversation with Anchor Marco Werman, I tell him that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other defendants did not appear in court Friday, but during the week, their presence has been noticeably subdued compared to five months ago when they were formally charged.

Then, the defendants made defiant outbursts and broke into prayer during the proceedings.

Mohammed this time, was allowed by the judge to make a speech in which he criticized the US government for committing offenses in the name of protecting national security.

Also, the hearing is getting a lot less attention both by the media and the Presidential candidates this time around.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is accused of organizing the September 11th terrorist attacks, while the four others are charged with providing support for the hijackings.

The men could face the death penalty if convicted.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, the co-production of the BBC WorldService, PRI WGBH, Boston. Pre-trial hearings continue today in Guantanamo in the case involving the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators did not appear in court this time. The judge presiding over the military tribunal had previously said they didn’t have to. Reporter Arun Rath of our partner program Frontline on PBS is in Guantanamo covering the hearings. Arun, so what happened in court today without the defendants present?

Arun Rath: Well they picked up in the middle of a discussion they left off yesterday about dealing with witnesses. Basically the defense is unhappy with the current situation where the prosecution is essentially the gatekeeper on relevance for the witnesses, which they’re saying they shouldn’t be, it puts them on an omniful, position. And that’s because the government, the prosecution is also in charge of determining what information is classified. So the defense is all going pretty convincingly and this puts them at a distinctive disadvantage, because in terms of going into detail about the relevance of the witnesses, in essence they would be tipping their hand directly to the prosecution, directly at the people that they are fighting against in this [xx] process.

Werman: Now, this also kind of feeds into some other complicated part of this hearing. How to classify Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Isn’t he straight up an enemy combatant?

Rath: Yeah, that is how he has been defined. Yeah.

Werman: And yet they are also calling him a participant in the CIA program.

Rath: Yeah, that’s one of the most peculiar uses of the term participant that I think any of us have heard here. One of the biggest issues here is whether or not the issue of the mistreatment of these men can come up in court. And the argument the government is using and it’s one that just amazes people is that they are saying that because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a participant in a CIA program, meaning that they have used him and therefore he can’t talk about it, basically he is centrally like a CIA employee and is restricted by those rules.

Werman: So how can he be an enemy combatant and a CIA employee at the same time? And the judge says the fact that the defendants were tortured is not relevant.

Rath: Right. Well that question itself hasn’t really been directly answered.

Werman: So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t in court today but he has been in court earlier this week. What have you seen? What has he said?

Rath: Well at first, everyone here was struck by the fact that he talked and made it in the arraignment. A lot of people call it a circus. They disrupted the court multiple times. One of the defendants took out their shirt. They would interrupt. They stood up for unscheduled prayers. They were much better behaved this time around. And it was noticeable. But then, midway through the week, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asked for the opportunity to say something to the court and much to everyone’s surprise that the judge allowed him. And he went on basically die or try for several minutes, and he talked about when he remembered the thousands gild on September 11th that he wanted America also to remember what he called millions dead Americans killed across the world. The President can take someone and throw him in the sea, with just clearly in reference to Osama Bin Laden in the name of national security for the American citizens, meaning referring to those drum strikes in Yemen this year. It was a pretty amazing moment that he was given free rein to do that. Afterwards the judge said this is never going to happen again.

Werman: Yeah, and pretty amazing that you’re in the courtroom to see that happen. I mean, I look on Twitter and it feels like you’re the only journalist who’s down there. How many journalists are covering this hearing?

Rath: It’s been kind of disturbing Marco. I mean we’ve been commenting on this. There are 25 reporters down here. Actually a couple have already left around mid-week. And this is compared to closely 60 back in May when they had people that were waiting to get in as well. When I was here in May it was much more of a big deal to win the lottery to get into the courtroom gallery. And this time it was pretty much, if you wanted to go, you could get in one way or the other. I know it’s an election season, but let’s face it, Guantanamo detaining policy, the military commission, it’s not an issue in the election. Nobody wants to debate it. And I think people’s attentions are just elsewhere.

Werman: Arun let me just ask you one more question. It was announced today that Major Nidal Hassn who’s on trial for a shooting rampage must shave his beard before going into court. KSM, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has a big beard, no problem with him in a courtroom or in a military tribunal wearing the beard. Why the difference?

Rath: The big difference is that Major Hasan, he is in the Army. And he is being tried in a court Marshall, so he is subject to their rules. I mean he has to cut his facial hair and comply with what the Army says, along those lines. Mohammed is an enemy combatant in the military commission. So he is in a different position. Also, we weren’t exact this week when he said he was allowed to… obviously he has his full beard now, but he was also granted permission this week to wear what he deems as his native attire, meaning the camouflage vest, that he is now wearing probably to court.

Werman: Arun Rath with our partner program Frontline on PBS, speaking with us from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Thank you very much Arun.

Rath: Thanks Marco.

Copyright ©2012 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Framing his statement as “advice” for Army Col. James Pohl, who is serving as the judge at the commission, Mohammed compared the 9/11 attacks with what he described as American crimes.

“When the government feels sad for killing of 3,000 on Sept. 11, we also should feel sorry that the American government that is represented by [Chief Prosecutor] Gen. [Mark] Martins and others have killed millions of people,” he said.

Mohammed also compared the US to a “dictator” and said that the government stretches the definition of national security “as it chooses” to justify killing and torture.

“Every dictator can put on this definition as the shoes he chooses to step on every law and every constitution,” he said.

“The president can take someone and throw him in the sea in the name of national security,” Mohammed added in a clear reference to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. “He can also legislate the assassinations under the name of national security for the American citizens,” he went on, in a reference to the drone strike that targeted and killed radical American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen last year.

“My only advice to you,” Mohammed concluded, speaking to the judge, “is that you do not get affected by the crocodile tears, because your blood is not made of gold and ours is not made out of water. We are all human beings.”

It was a remarkable moment, and one not likely to be repeated soon. At the end of the lecture, Judge Pohl responded: “Something to make clear, I did not interrupt Mr. Mohammed, but this is a one time occurrence. If the accused wish to represent themselves as attorneys, that’s one thing. No matter how heartfelt, I will not entertain personal comments from accused about the way things are going.”

Mohammed’s monologue came after prosecutors and defense lawyers had spent hours debating how to handle classified information. His lawyer, David Nevin, told the court that his client wished to speak.

Witnesses in the court gallery say that Mohammed’s speech elicited no reaction from the 9/11 family members present, who may have simply been stunned.

Follow @arunrath

This blog was cross posted with our partners at Frontline.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that “material support of terrorism,” was not considered a war crime in 2001, throwing out the conviction of Osama Bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan.

Hamdan had been convicted under the Bush-era military commissions in 2008. The ruling is likely to have a huge impact: a number of detainees here at Guantanamo have been charged with “material support of terrorism,” among them Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing in 2000.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants were not charged with material support for terrorism, but the legal thinking that threw out the Hamdan decision could have profound implications for their case.

In the Hamdan decision, the court essentially said, “you can’t charge someone with an offense that was not an offense at the time committed,” according to Military law expert Gary Solis. He notes that this sort of ex post facto charging had been done in the Nuremberg trials, but “it’s always been a theory of criminal law, not a law itself.”

Solis is certain the Hamdan ruling will lead to legal scrutiny of charges brought under the 2009 Military Commissions act—the new, reformed Military Commissions developed under President Obama.

And that could mean more complications for the already complicated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In addition to other charges, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants face 2,976 counts of “murder in violation of the law of war” for the 9/11 attacks. It sounds reasonable for an attack that brazenly targeted civilians, but the problem is that, like “material support of terrorism,” “murder in violation of the law of war” wasn’t considered a war crime before.

It’s unclear why prosecutors chose this novel charge—others have been charged with “crimes against humanity,” for killing far fewer civilians than died on 9/11. But in the context of the military commissions or the law of war, Solis thinks “murder in violation of the law of war” is a “bogus” charge.

All the military commissions answer to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and based on their decision Tuesday, they may share Solis’ skepticism that “murder in violation of the law of war,” is legitimate. So if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is ultimately convicted—still a year or more away— it still may not be the end of the legal road for the 9/11 plotter.

Follow @arunrath

The hearings have already been delayed three times, and defense attorneys sought another delay last week, after they were forced to leave their offices due to health concerns from rat feces and rampant mold. (Lest you assume this is entirely a defense ploy, the Navy’s own “industrial hygiene officer” ruled the offices were unhealthy).

The matter appeared to be solved last week, after the judge became involved, and the offices were reportedly cleaned and re-authorized for use.

But in a conference with reporters Sunday night, Cheryl Bormann, attorney for co-defendant Walid bin Attash, claimed the offices were still uninhabitable, showing photos of air filters caked with mold and window ledges littered with rat and mouse excrement. She also described the respiratory and skin problems suffered by half of her staff, including her own visit to the Guantanamo Bay ER, with eyes nearly swollen shut.

“The bottom line is we’re not entering that workspace until we’re sure that it’s safe for us to be there,” she said. They have brought in an independent health expert and are refusing to use the offices, currently working out of a workspace. Bormann said she would return to the issue in the motion hearings this week.

Of course, moldy workspaces and rat droppings are about the least controversial aspects of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s long and winding road through American justice post-9/11. More than 20 motions may be considered this week, dealing with issues ranging from the “presumptive classification,” of testimony deemed potentially damaging to national security, the relevance of previous mistreatment of the detainees, to what sort of attire the defendants are allowed to wear in court. Dozens more motions have been filed, meaning more hearings in the months to come, and likely pushing the start of the actual trial back another year or even longer.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arraigned in May along with four co-defendants on charges ranging from terrorism to ‘murder in violation of the law of war.’ If convicted, the men would almost certainly face execution.

Follow @arunrath