Well, this is going to be fun. I admit that I find it odd to seek the death penalty as punishment for those whose most fervent desire is martyrdom through death. Isn't that rather like punishing a bank robber by giving him the keys to the vault? In any case:
Sitting at the front of a line of five detainees accused of carrying out the most devastating terrorist attack in U.S. history, Mohammed stroked his long, bushy gray beard and spoke in confident English of his contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the military commissions designed to try him.Contempt for the Constitution? An "inquisition"? Oh no he di'in't!
Calling the process an "inquisition," Mohammed told Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann, the presiding judge, that he wants to represent himself at trial and looks forward to the death penalty.
Even acquittal would probably leave the men in U.S. custody indefinitely. The government has determined them to be "enemy combatants" and serious threats to the United States and its allies.Oh. So. Well.
Claims that the Anglo-Saxon model of justicial proceduralism is a guarantor of actual justice are overblown, but nevertheless it seems clear that the presumption of innocence, evidentiary rules, impartial (such as it is) review, etc. form at very least a reasonably coherent means of determining guilt and meting out penalties. What's interesting about these tribunal proceedings is that they have not, contra the claims of many opponents, actually done away entirely with this process, but have instead simply skipped a step--hopping over the trial phase and going directly to sentencing.