Image 01 Image 03

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed arraigned Saturday

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed arraigned Saturday

Yesterday, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) was arraigned at Gitmo along with his four co-conspirators.

The team at This Ain’t Hell was there, in person, and liveblogged the entire trial beginning with this photo taken from the parking lot full of media:

This Ain’t Hell reports that KSM, whose appearance most remember as a man in a dissheveled white t-shirt, now wears a “long, flowing beard.” Lawyer Cheryl Bormann appeared in court completely covered in the traditional hijab and requested that other females present also be required to alter their dress “for fear [of the defendants] committing a sin under their faith.”

The AP reported that the men refused to take part in the proceedings, removing their earphones and “passing around copies of the Economist.” For the handful of 9/11 family members who given the opportunity to attend, the scene was extremely difficult to bear.

The Obama administration renewed plans to try the men at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay after a bid to try the men in New York City blocks from the trade center site faced political opposition. It adopted new rules with Congress that forbade testimony obtained through torture or cruel treatment, and officials now say that defendants could be tried as fairly here as in a civilian court.

The liveblog account of Saturday’s proceedings gives a [very candid] snapshot of just how the September 11 masterminds are being treated. It is helpful for its description not only of the legal ins and outs, but also of the tone, sights, and subtext of the Gitmo events.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Lawyer Cheryl Bormann appeared in court completely covered in the traditional hijab and requested that other females present also be required to alter their dress so that “for fear [of the defendants] committing a sin under their faith.”

Boy, I hope there was a general chorus of laughter.

Those pukes can commit a sin by looking at a camel sideways. And usually do…

    persecutor in reply to Ragspierre. | May 6, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    My the sand fleas of a thousand camels invade her hijab. They helped murder thousands and they’re afraid to commit a sin?
    Cheryl Borman, go marry one of these animals, and see how modest they are in treating you like chattel.

    Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | May 6, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    I’m surprised the Mohammedans allowed a woman to defend them at all. Why don’t they ask that all females working on the case be removed from the room?

    Frank Scarn in reply to Ragspierre. | May 6, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    This demand that female dress conform to Muslim strictures is part of the Stealth Jihad. Getting America to conform to Islamic ways in sorts of ways, from restricting the manner in which females may dress to providing only halal food in prisons and schools where Muslims attend. It is one of a part of the Koran’s instruction that Muslims are the “best of peoples” (Sura 3,110), meaning that Muslims are superior to all others.

    Muslims enter non-Muslims lands to colonize them, not to integrate. This pattern is evident in every single non-Muslim country where Muslims are to be found. Without exception.

jimzinsocal | May 6, 2012 at 11:34 am

And if the reader has either forgotten or is unaware why we find ourselves at this..lets say “uncomfortable” point? Take ya 3 minutes to read a backgrounder from a guy that was there..our friend Andy McCarthy

jimzinsocal | May 6, 2012 at 11:46 am

I didnt say what I thought about all this. Like most normal Americans I agree this location of trial is correct. No way should this be going on in a normal court…all things considered including the physical proximity to the trade center location that would exist otherwise.
But come on. Women must cover up in defference to the religious beliefs of these dirtbags? Hey..will they be tainted if they drive to observe the trial by themselves as well? Will women reporters point of view be some how subject to an imagined original sin if they drove to a viewing location?
You can see how silly things can get once the door is opened to making accomodations.
Will Amish folks have the same claims or expectations in an imagined case?
I doubt it.
Not from an administration bent on muslim appeazement.

Juba Doobai! | May 6, 2012 at 11:52 am

For that idiocy, meaning garb and request, somebody ought to beat some sense into Cheryl Bormann with a stick no thicker than a man’s pinkie.

These people have one regard for the laws of man, so they’re making a mockery of the whole trial with their asinine calls to their false god. Khalid Shayk Mohammed said he did it. Okay, hang him with a larded rope. He doesn’t deserve a bullet.

FX Phillips | May 6, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Lawyer Cheryl Bormann appeared in court completely covered in the traditional hijab and requested that other females present also be required to alter their dress so that “for fear [of the defendants] committing a sin under their faith.”

Your request is denied on 2 counts counselor. 1) dressing to please the defendants so as not to offend the murderers of 3000 people is moral obscenity especially in the light that those you ask are not of that faith. Since when do we promote religion in any government. 2) Following the sharia dress code is not a sign of respect but a sign of subservience. Just because you wish to demean yourself is no reason the rest of the females present must do so especially for the appeasement of a guy who has already admitted and sentenced for the above mentioned killing three thousand people that he considers unworthy

Really? Who gives a crap? Do they think that they will ever be released?

    jimzinsocal in reply to Towson Lawyer. | May 6, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    I sure hope they are never released. That said, the reality seems to be that if the Administration wants some war ending bargaining chip? Everything seems to be on the table. Nothing will surprse me anymore.
    When the trial is finally underway (having met the prisoners demands for extended prayer time, food improvements and new tennis courts) it will be interesting to see where the evidense cut off is…by that I mean how the court defines the line between admissable evidense and that obtained via some newly defined definition of torture.

    Like with this lovely fellow…the guy that chopped off Daniel Pearl’s head to a cheering islamic audience everywhere. That deal is discussed here:

DINORightMarie | May 6, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Okay, I haven’t gone to the links, yet….but is this lady in the civilian court system really asking women to not dress as they choose in a free society? Is she asking the women to submit to Islam? “When in Rome, do as the Romans” does not apply to these men in a civilian court?

Or, is this a military trial, where a woman in the military legal system is subjecting herself (assuming she is not Muslim) to Islamic male diktats for women in their culture?

There is so much wrong with this. Do these men subject themselves to Judeo-Christian, Western culture to meet OUR less oppressive dress standards? No, as with the left, they only require US to bow and submit to THEIR requirements, thus exercising TOLERANCE – which as ever goes only one way.

KSM and the rest have confessed and admitted guilt. Do they STILL need to examine evidence to establish guilt?! Or do they just get a hearing before sentencing? Regardless, they should be TOLERANT of our Western dress requirements and standards, since they are HERE, not in a Muslim-dictatorship.

This should be their fate

Continuous until death. Forget this show trial stuff and show trial is exactly what it is.

“requested that other females present also be required to alter their dress “for fear [of the defendants] committing a sin under their faith.””

I hope the court told her not only no, but HELL, NO.

And if she was wearing a potato sack with only an eye slit, they should have told her to expose her face, too.

Tool. Hoping the crocodile will eat her last, no doubt.

Here is a photo of Cheryl Bormann

Look closely … at the face of evil.

Remember her, especially if she comes to a job interview where you work.

SmokeVanThorn | May 6, 2012 at 6:28 pm

Any one want to bet that Ms. Bormann(!) doesn’t support the contraception mandate?

BannedbytheGuardian | May 7, 2012 at 12:34 am

Mein GrossVater var ein Nazi

Und mir shenkt aus im blut….

Valderie Valdera Valder rahahahahraha.

Sorry I could not help it after seeing the pic. 🙁

Also remember they still have Khaled’s s son somewhere . That is the biggest prize & he is tortured by that.