From the Chicago Tribune:
Now Bormann is defending Walid bin Attash, one of five top al-Qaidaoperatives on trial in Guantanamo Bay for allegedly conspiring in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The five men, who have come to be known collectively as the Gitmo 5, were arraigned there Saturday. It was then that Bormann gained national notice, and a measure of criticism, for appearing in court in traditional Muslim clothing that left only her face showing and for asking one woman on the government team to consider dressing more modestly so her client could focus on the proceedings.Bormann would not discuss reports of threats against her.For her, the issue is a simple one of respecting the religious and cultural beliefs of a client. She said that since she was appointed to bin Attash’s case last year, she has always dressed conservatively out of deference to a client who believes he will violate a religious tenet if he looks at a woman who is immodestly dressed.
“My client has never seen my hair, has never seen my arms, has never seen my legs,” Bormann said in an interview Monday. “All of the defense counsel, all of the guards and everybody who works in Guantanamo Bay camp has seen me dressed like this. … I never thought in my wildest dreams that this would become an issue.”
And my response to the attorney in GITMO defending the 9/11 terrorists who requested all females in the room wear traditional Muslim attire:
No thanks. Let’s instead have pork ribs served in the courtroom by female soldiers in bikinis. Respect for those who killed our family members BECAUSE of their religion? Pulllleeese!
During a recent speech at the American Constitution Society (ACS), United States Attorney General (AG) Holder lauded our American civilian court system as “our most effective terror-fighting weapon.” Holder’s address, along with his whole AG career, reflects a flawed ideology that believes wrapping enemy combatants in the American flag will somehow steer them towards full disclosure. Read the rest of this entry »
©2011 Susan Stamper Brown
Americans may be less safe today because the Obama administration made the decision to circumvent the Constitutional treaty ratification process by mandating that his administration would begin compliance with Article 75 of Additional Protocol I (API) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions “out of a sense of moral obligation.” Read the rest of this entry »