Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, has created a stir over wearing a hijab to the military tribunal and asking other women to cover up out of respect of the Muslim sensibilities for the defendants. I have received a fair number of calls on this from reporters and lawyers due to my past representation of Muslims in national security cases. I believe the display was a professional and tactical mistake and I would not want someone on my team to try to make such an extreme accommodation to a client.
Bormann requested a court order for other women to follow her example, at least in dressing modestly, so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith.” She insisted that her hijab was necessary since, “[w]hen you’re on trial for your life, you need to be focused.”
First, I should acknowledge that I have refused to take cases in military tribunals and I do not believe that lawyers should legitimate these proceedings. However, I recognize that this is a personal choice and many lawyers in good faith have chosen to take these cases and make the best of a bad situation. I will also note that reporters often adopt the garb of a country to facilitate an interview as do, on occasion, diplomats and politicians.
However, regardless of the forum, I do not believe an attorney should accommodate a client’s beliefs to this extent. It is important for clients to understand the relationship with an attorney is a strictly professional one. Moreover, they appear in a court that reflects the values of a pluralistic society. While you are allowed to personally follow any set of moral beliefs and practices, you cannot force others to adhere to those values. Just as a “jury of your peers” does not guarantee you twelve hardcore militants, a fair trial does not mean a court that meets your aesthetic or religious tastes.
I believe it is a serious mistake to blur that line with a client. A client can always seek to have a new lawyer. However, if a client were to insist on my dropping a young female associate from the team, I would file for my own representation to end with the associate’s representation.
I do not believe that distraction concern is a serious one. If a defendant is not focused by the potential of his execution, a longer skirt is not only to succeed. Death penalties tend to concentrate the mind of the most distracted defendant. If not, I doubt the longer skirt will overcome the problem. Zacarias Moussaoui was obsessed and filled with hatred toward Judge Brinkema regardless of her wearing a judicial robe. He was a hate-filled and unbalanced fanatic who hated women, Jews, and most everyone. In this case, the attorney should have insisted on appearing in her normal professional garb. Over the months of preparation, the clients would have to be get to speaking to her and other women dressed in a modern fashion.
Just as we would not ask to remove minorities for a racist client, we should not accommodate beliefs that are viewed as sexist by the majority of our society. The fact that they are religious based does not alter the situation.
I also believe that this public display undermines the credibility of counsel. The basis for the display and the motion is highly questionable, particularly in a proceeding where the female attorneys are already in uniform. That leaves reporters and observers who should not have to find the lowest common denominator with a defendant to maintain “focus.”
It is not clear why counsel would want the focus of the trial to begin on such a stylistic or religious point. There are ample reasons to object to these tribunals as little more than Kangaroo courts. However, Bormann hit on the one element that is missing from the tribunal that is not a shortcoming. While I would not describe the tribunal as a true court of law akin to an Article III federal court, it is not a Sharia court. I would prefer the opening fights to be over the unfair procedural and evidentiary rules rather than counsel’s dress code.
Source: MSN
Sling is ridiculous. Nobody deserves to make a mockery of the values of this country because of their own religious belief – and that is exactly what is going on here. Why should any employees of said court, or jurors, be forced to wear anything for someone else? It is forcing someone’s religious beliefs on them and controlling them due to those beliefs. I’m pretty sure this is still the USA and that should never be legal.
And while I do agree that for the most part, the court isn’t really legitimate to begin with, there is no reason to make it more of a joke.
I agree with Sling Trebuchet.
If they think it is a Kangaroo Court then the lawyers ought to file objecttions to the hop skip and jumps that make it a Kangaroo Court. A Kangaroo has four legs but walks on two. That is a tricky dicky. Four legs good, two legs baaaaaad.
HenMen,
Commander In Chief is a lofty title as long as those given orders agree to follow them. Also had Obama tried to carry through on his campaign promises he probably would have been impeached. You know very well who’s been running this country and it isn’t the people we’ve elected, though they do have restricted freedom of action.
Hopefully this won’t end up being like the Lynne Stewart debacle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart . Crossing lines of ethical practices and codes of conduct sometimes involve slippery slopes. Best to keep a certain distance and not get pulled in by the emotion and zeal of defending a client. Do the best but only what is expected and required of you.
Why must it be a stunt or a tactic?
Bormann represents Walid bin Attash.
This is a man who up to the time of his 2003 arrest/abduction in Karachi, Pakistan, lived in an environment where females covered themselves.
He might well genuinely find uncovered females to be a very significant affront.
If he is to be obliged to sit in a room with uncovered females, why not really party and burn a Koran or two?
Gyges,
I don’t see desperation in their actions. I see a protest.
Rafflaw,
By increasing the perception that “The defense MUST be desperate, they’re pulling stunts like this.”
Harry Nevus GED-
You said “I’m willing to believe he intended to keep that promise. He was made to understand that he couldn’t accomplish it unilaterally.”
I’m willing to believe that the President of the United States, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress could keep his promises- IF he had the guts to do so. And IF he cared more about the rule of law than he cared about serving two terms in the White House. The rule of law was badly broken when he entered the White House. Three and a half years later it’s still badly broken and now he (Obama- not Bush or Cheney) has given himself the power to kill individual Americans with NO due process of law.
The Constitution is still being kicked behind the door and I don’t see any chance of this election changing that. A spineless Republican worm running against a spineless Democratic worm gives us no hope at all of progress in restoring the Constitution and the rule of law in the next four years.
Maybe we should stop voting for status quo hacks and demand a radical reversal in the erosion of our rights as Americans. Maybe we should start voting for a man or woman who waves the Constitution in our faces instead of a flag, or an empty promise of a job, or “wink, wink, everything will be better AFTER the election”.
Gyges,
I don’t see how their tactics have made the process look more legitimate.
Don’t think she helps the case and why would opposing counsel defer to her?
Grand Jury.
Wike says:
“….The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions.[9] The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions.[10]
While all states currently have provisions for grand juries,[11] today approximately half of the states employ them[12] and only twenty-two require their use, to varying extents.[13]
So where does that explain to the layman what happened in Florica, or was it some other place that a Grand Jury would be required. If memory serves, it was a federal offense, where accdg to complaint here would mean SECRET proceedng or other abuses of the defense powers. ?????
School Closed—-for today.
Star chambers
Wiki quote.
In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of any politically motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since that time.
substantial reforms——BUT NOT IN AMERICA?
Kangaroo court,
Wiki says:
A kangaroo court is “a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted”.[1]
I thought it was with a view that the pouch moved and jumped but nobody knew why, as the causes could not be seen.
Take your pick, and thanks for the impulse, I had also wondered.
now will take a look at star court.
Gyges,
” I agree that the tactic may backfire, but how can it truly backfire when the entire process is not up to our normal judicial standards?”
Sure, I’m not just thinking in terms of this particular tribunal but in terms of pressure to change the policies. If the tactic makes the trial look more legitimate rather than less, it’s backfired.
In this case, I think it makes it look less.
HenMan said: “As I recall, Candidate Barack Obama promised to close Guantanamo, bring the defendants to the United States, and try them in civilian courts.”
I’m willing to believe he intended to keep that promise. He was made to understand that he couldn’t accomplish it unilaterally.
Henman,
Where do you find a rest of a civilized world. I thought they had all capitulated, except the rogue states.
Evne the cowards and holier than thou Swedes have been playing footsie with CIA and Nato for decades. Now they even have todken forces in you know where.
Idealist707 said: “And of course, in accordance with your thinking, the muslim courts trying secular Americans should provide uncovered women to help the defendants concentrate on their own defense.”
How would defense counsel dress to represent a man from Tahiti or Samoa?
On a more serious note, I know what a kangaroo court is, but why is it called that?
Uniform Code of Military Justice UCMJ
As I recall, Candidate Barack Obama promised to close Guantanamo, bring the defendants to the United States, and try them in civilian courts. Maybe we should ask him how to proceed now. Or is he too busy ducking for cover after his Vice President endorsed legalizing gay marriage? Obama’s gutless waffling is the cause of the problems this kangaroo court will bring about and the additional shame the U.S. will face in the eyes of what’s left of the civilized world.
Dredd and AY,
I would prefer the normal court martial process for these defendants. As I understand it, these trials are not using the normal UMCJ procedures, but a hybrid. When the defense is not allowed to see all documents and confront all witnesses and discuss the torture, how can it be fair? Gyges, I agree that the tactic may backfire, but how can it truly backfire when the entire process is not up to our normal judicial standards?