Alleged 9/11 operative Mohammed may testify in video from Cuba
WASHINGTON — Lawyers in the upcoming trial of an alleged al-Qaida leader reached a compromise on Thursday to allow his defense attorney to submit written questions to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with government lawyers allowed to review the questions and answers from the presumed Sept. 11 mastermind to ensure that no classified material is included.
If government national security officials clear those replies, that could lead to testimony from Mohammed during the New York trial of Sulaiman abu Ghaith, possibly by a video feed or recording from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The complex turn of events came after Mohammed agreed to help the legal defense of abu Ghaith, who is charged with criminal conspiracy in connection with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Mohammed faces a U.S. military trial at the prison compound in Cuba, charged with capital murder on suspicion of plotting the attacks.
Abu Ghaith's chief defense lawyer, Stanley Cohen, reached out to Mohammed last month for help. The former top adviser to Osama bin Laden has submitted written statements on behalf of other al-Qaida operatives in their criminal trials, and his words helped downplay their roles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Homeland Security panned for passing on bio-threat technology
- Supreme Court’s health care law ruling worries 34 states
- Huge, ancient quasar could alter theories on black holes
- Monarch butterflies find milkweed supply dwindles
- Perceived slights have some New Yorkers longing for Pennsylvania
- Most young Republicans back legal marijuana
- Paul edges Walker in CPAC straw poll
- Buffet: Berkshire’s built to last
- Florida fisherman’s high court win spurs call for legal reform
- Gene making human brains bigger found
- Mo. gunman kills 7, self, in rampage