Judge in 9/11 case receives new motion regarding female guards

FORT MEADE, Md. — A defense lawyer for the self-proclaimed architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. on Monday urged a military judge on Monday to allow testimony by a an additional witness testify who will say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammead and other alleged ringleaders accused in the terror attacks were subjected to handling by female guards that caused psychological trauma and violated their Muslim beliefs. 

Attorney DavidJames Nevin made a motion asking that Army Judge Col. James Pohl allow Dr. Pablo Stewart to testify about vouch for the health consequences to MohammedKSM and the other defendants of "sexualized torture and naked touching by women" at CIA black sites.

At a previous hearing, Pohl had issued a controversial order barring female denied additional witnesses from testifying in his controversial order to bar female guards from transporting the suspects last year. But he had denied testimony from additional witnesses. The defense motion asks him to reconsider that decision.

The U.S. Military Commission pre-trial hearing for the five alleged organizers of the 9/11 attacks, held at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was simulcast at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station was simulcast at this the Fort Meade Army post outside Washington.

Nevin called the use of female guards at the high security Camp 7 on Guantanamo an unnecessary "intent to punish," not allowed under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitutional as well as a previous case.

Bob Swann, the chief prosecutor of the Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay, opposed dismissed Nevin’s motion argument, saying that the topic has already been discussed extensively. 

But Nevin said that a line in the written standard operating procedures — "the close contact with unrelated females is inappropriate’" — line was deleted from the Standard Operating Procedures right before female guards were used. Nevin wanted an explanation as to of why the language was deleted and whether it was lawful.

"I’m not asking for [a procedures] the [Standard of Procedure] change; I’m trying to get at the fact of why the change was made," Nevin said. 

Other defense team lawyers argued against censoring transcripts of an the Oct. 30 open hearing related to the same guard situation. Some portions of the The transcripts were had blacked -out portions after being made public for a short time. In the that hearing, testimony of some military witnesses testified about involved forced-cell extraction, a forceful method in which where the guards coercively remove detainees from their cells.

More than a dozen media organizations have filed a motion to lift the classified status of the redacted material. , but the Guantanamo war court prosecutors offered no reasons for the redactions or who was  and who is responsible for making them. 
    
"Transcript or hamburger -- it was taken down word for word in proceeding in the public gallery. it is a verbatim transcription of proceeding, made to inform public about what happens here," said media attorney David A. Schulz, who has argued for media rights in the past for Guantanamo trials. 

Another 9/11 defendant, Walid bin Attash, who last week vowed to skip the proceedings unless his lawyers are removed from the case, the defendant who has been unhappy with his current counsel, was conspicuously absent from the courtroom. The other four defendants, while Ramzi bin al Shibh, Bin al Shibh, Ammar al Baluchi, Mustafa al Hawsawi and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were present.