Relatives want prosecutors to drop pursuit of death penalty against Khalid Sheikh Mohammmed as latest hearing begins
Relatives of 9/11 victims said they do not want to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks, and four co-accused sentenced to death at their trial at Guantánamo Bay because life in an American prison would be a "better hell".
Speaking shortly before the latest round of preliminary hearings at the US military court on Monday, two women whose sons died in the attack on the World Trade Center said they wanted prosecutors to drop pursuit of the death penalty.
Loreen Sellitto's 23 year-old son Matthew died on 9/11. "I don't think there would be any better hell for them than to be under our rule. Death is too good," she told New York Daily News.
"I would be very comfortable knowing that these men have to spend the rest of their lives locked up and controlled for the rest of their lives by the country they tried to destroy."
Phyllis Rodriguez, whose 31 year-old son, Greg, died in the attack, objected to executions on human rights grounds. "What kind of society are we if we condone state-sanctioned murder?" she said.
Rodriguez is supported by her husband, Orlando, who has previously testified in the case of attempted hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui to ask that he be spared the death penalty.
The accused men each face a range of charges, including 2,976 counts of murder. But the status of accusations of conspiracy remain unclear amid a dispute between the Obama administration and prosecutors at Guantánamo following US appeals court rulings in other cases that conspiracy is not an offence under international law.
The chief prosecutor, Brigadier General Mark Martins, wants to drop the conspiracy charges because he believes the dispute about their legality will delay the trial further and provide grounds for appeal.
But the Pentagon and the Justice Department have told Martins they want the charges to remain pending a potential supreme court ruling on the issue.
The first hours of this week's preliminary hearing were consumed with lengthy legal debate over defence lawyers' complaints of government intrusion into attorney-client privilege.
Cheryl Bormann, who dresses in a black abaya out of respect to the religious sensibilities of her client, Walid bin Attash, complained that she is obliged to turn over to the government copies of written confidential communications with her client.
Defence lawyers also raised issues about the handling of classified information, saying that it restricted their right to properly investigate issues.
Mohammed, who appeared in court in a camouflage jacket with a beard dyed orange using berry juice, and the other accused sat quietly through proceedings after three of them, including Mohammed, were brought into court – apparently against their will – in shackles.
Mohammed and bin Attash refused to speak directly to the judge, prompting a lengthy debate about whether or not two of the accused had approved changes to their legal teams.
The court will also consider an application by defence lawyers to have the military judge, Colonel James Pohl, issue an order to the CIA requiring it to preserve as evidence the secret overseas prisons where Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and the other accused allegedly tortured. However, there are issues over whether the US has authority over the sites in countries such as Poland.
Other motions are seeking to require former President George W Bush to testify in the case, and to require the US government to produce official documents that authorised the CIA to abduct alleged terrorists and move them across international borders to the "black sites" for interrogation, a process known as rendition.
Defence lawyers are arguing that the CIA's mistreatment of the accused men was illegal "outrageous government misconduct" that should lead to the dismissal of the charges against the men, including counts of murder which could result in death sentences.
"By its nature, torture affects the admissibility of evidence, the credibility of witnesses the appropriateness of punishment and the legitimacy of the prosecution itself," the defence said in a written submission to the court.
Martins has said the government will not use evidence obtained from torture or similar treatment in its case.