As a Quaker, I strongly oppose the death penalty. In this case however . . .
6
More outrage by their attire than the fact that they are defending these men's lives?
4
Grandma used to say: "Don't defend a wrong!" by which she never would have meant don't defend ANY person of ANY background charged with ANY crime. She supported me as a young legal aid lawyer in NYC no matter what the crime or the client. The wrong here is the FEMALE defense lawyers' (or are the male members of the team in "muslim garb" too?) adopting a mode of dress that has nothing to do with religion or respect and everything to do with the political oppression of women. This is cut and dried. Black and white. These women would get a tongue lashing from grandma because they have empowered a political ideology which says not only that women must cover their heads, but that they must submit to the man-made customs of a particular radical sect that thrives on the oppression of women and girls. If defending hugh heffner, would they dress as bunnies? OK, I didn't think so. This dress code is based in the very same mindset and is as rooted in true spiritual purpose.
14
As one of the 5% who were women in the law school class of 1970, I am troubled by any comment on the appearance of women practicing law. We do not, and must not, have any limits not also applied to men.
11
There is something to be said for the tradition of lawyers wearing court robes. It's not done in the States but it is in most other Western court proceedings I believe. It's an equalizer, reinforces the role of the lawyer as an officer of the court, and prevents the lawyer's personal dress from influencing the court and jury. I suppose when the lawyers used to be military in uniform it was similar. Maybe a type of robe and headdress (OK not the dumb powered wigs) should be considered.
7
Many in the world say it appears America has lost its mind with regard to Trump’s election here. Hopefully those same will miss this story which is otherwise proof positive that it definitely has.
6
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It appears that no one can prove these people guilty.
Why is this taking so long?
7
The history of military courts with respect to trials of persons accused of crimes related to national security, and not members of the military, is pathetic. Essentially, the defendants are guilty unless God appears and sets them free. That’s the reality, these are never fair trials and are a mockery of our assertions of a free and independent judiciary that serves equal justice for all.
9
I think that the defense attorneys' attire represents a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
12
To call the Guantanamo proceedings a "court" is an insult to American Jurisprudence. It is neither fair nor Constitutional. The sole reason all those suspects are housed at Guantanamo instead of in the USA, is that if they were in the USA, they would have the Constitutional right to bail hearing, a fair trial, the right to see all of the government's evidence against them, the right to investigation and the and the right to competent counsel. The whole Guantanamo set up is an intentional and abusive violation of the US Constitution. A drunk driver in the US has more rights than a alleged terrorist in Guantanamo.
12
They are being allowed to exercise an element of control over the trial, playing games with the prosecution. A summary judgment should have been issued years ago. They should have never made it from the field of battle.
21
It’s just awful that we have these principles, laws, and treaties, ain’t it?
5
I'm a college fashion professor, and this article shows the power and influence clothing has on people. I can't imagine what it must be like to be called on to defend those who committed terrorism against the US where thousands of innocent lives were killed. While the families of the 9/11 victims feel the defense team is somehow betraying the US, I see what they are doing as playing a part in order to do their job, and using clothing as a costume to be more effective in the defense of their clients which they have a responsibility to do whether we like it or not. This is a statement of our legal system rather that a statement of loyalty.
It is also a stark, visual reality of the gender differences in Muslim countries, and even the gender difference with the US. If the legal team would have been US male lawyers, would we have seen this clothing issue? Doubtful. A US male legal team would have just worn their normal suits, and been accepted for that. These women have to play along in order to do their jobs. Gender inequality in full view in a US court.
44
@Mary -- Every accused deserves a defense. I'm pretty sure that's a concept Americans used to be proud of, and support. Maybe not anymore, with the extreme right-wing radicalization of the judiciary, and not much criticism of it.
10
There is no such thing “Muslim attire”. Muslims from different part of the world wear different clothes - there is no holy prescription to wear long tunics or robes.
51
Wonderfully drawn and watercolored. It's a pleasure to see how a professional artist represents people in such a stark setting, thank you.
43
Maybe clothes are important for the "show" but isn't the whole thing a farce? Why isn't this court in the USA? Why are these men held in prison for so many years before their trials? What about how they were tortured? Have the torturers been held too?
42
Nuremberg comes to mind. Not because of what was worn by the participants, but what couldn't be hidden: To seek justice for what had been done. Regardless of Louboutins or Birkenstocks, justice should always be blind.
6
What still amazes me with about the detainees is that with all the self righteousness we proclaim is our American justice, they have not been and probably will not be any time soon, given the judicial solution that is due our citizens under law. I am beginning to wonder if ANY of the remaining detainees are truly terrorists. After all, we started a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in a country that was not responsible for 9/11 to begin with.
And then we worry that women attorneys are wearing abeya's? Personally, I think the detainees would be offended that non Muslim women were wearing the garb that represents their religion.
21
@Mountain Dragonfly They are not American citizens so are not entitled to the same legal protections, for starters.
3
I argue on behalf of the female civilian attorneys to wear what they want, whether it is politically correct or not.
As a female attorney for 40 years, I cannot imagine adding an abeya or the like to my professional wardrobe.
42
@Unhappy JD They are wearing what they want. Every lawyer makes it very clear that that they choose to cover in order to have honest, comfortable conversations with their clients.
10
The basic problem is that both the families of the victims and the women on the defense team who wear abayas are each right.
9
AMERICA should be ashamed
22
Jury selection in January 2021? These trials should have been over and done with years ago.
72
i think it shows the defendants that not everybody in this country is a soulless, mindless, hack. maybe the will realize their war shouldn't be against all of us. we aren't all as bad as some of the people they targeted.
6
@justin Which of the people they targeted would you describe as bad? The worse person in those towers or the Pentagon should not have been killed as part of a mass murder.
These men deserve a fair trial, but if they are found guilty we should show them no mercy.
20
@Reader to what end at this point?
What compensation can any of these men possibly provide?
2
If the women on the defense team elect to wear abaya that should be there choice. I am, however, puzzled as to how these defendants have become comfortable with women as their counsel, regardless of dress. Does Ms. Rosenberg have any insight?
40
Respect for religion should work both ways.
29
The detainees should have been tried years ago. What a stain on my country.
43
A lawyer has the duty to zealously represent her client but this doesn't mean that she has to change the way she dresses. In any event, jurors are very good at spotting insincere gestures and are unlikely to react favorably to the spectacle of people pretending to be Muslims when they obviously are not.
32
When my Christian father attends a bar or bat mitzvah at a synagogue, he wears a kippah. There is nothing insincere about this gesture. He does this not to “pretend” he is Jewish, but as a sign of respect for the culture and ways of people of another religion. Agnostics might stand, sit, kneel and pray during a Catholic wedding mass; they are not insincerely pretending to be Catholic. They are participating in something that is meaningful to the bride and groom. The female attorneys defending these men are no different. Well-mannered and sincere people do this type of thing all of the time.
96
@DLF A man putting on a kippah is not the same as a woman covering her entire head, neck and body.
23
@DLF
Showing respect in a church, or a mosque, or a synagoge is one thing;
Showung"respect" by wearing an abaya in a court room is not aceptable.
Respect in a court room shoud be wearing "regular attire".
Some Indians go naked for religious reasons;
In india it is accepted, but i doubt that it would be in a US court;
And it is not for the defendant's lawyer's to decide.
If the defendants are unhappy with a woman' counsel dress, they should go without counsel.
The same situation happens in Europe hospitals, were some moslem husbands refuse to have their wiwes attended by a man physician
The question is then put to the women themeselves;
If both refuse,and if a wommen physician is not available, they are told that they will have to wait;
And in case of urgency, such as giving birth, the hospital will disregard the husband objections.
Religion's place is in places of worship, not in courts , hospitals, schools,etc.
34
Regardless of who wears what, is this not the perfect case to apply Judge Roy Bean's famous dictum?
I am sure the defendants do not want to be defended by women, "properly " covered or not.
35
On what information do you stake your certainty? Please say it's something more than a hunch or a handful of headlines.
13
Every person, even the one accused of the most serious crime, has the right to be defended in the best possible way. I have great admiration for these women who put the accused at ease even through the choice of clothing. It's a small sacrifice that can help build a relationship of trust between defendant and counsel. And this relationship is the foundation of the right of defense.
34
“embarrassing to see other accomplished American women garbed in ancient, archaic, demeaning, humiliating wear.”
Ms. Winter, I am deeply sorry for your loss but your insensitivity toward other cultures is showing. I suppose you make the same comment about Amish and Mennonite women.
32
@Wang An Shih Ms. Winter isn't making that comment about Islamic women, she's making it about women pretending to be Islamic.
48
@James Polan ...They aren't "pretending" anything. Read the article. They articulate their reasons, which are completely logical. You don't get to tell other people to wear, and your narrow mind is on full display.
28
@Al Packer,
"You don't get to tell other people to wear". Yes, and you have identified the difference between the West and those parts of the world ruled by clerics.
30
Count me among those deeply offended by the abaya “costumes.” It sickens me, actually, and probably not for the reason the many families of the murdered are (rightly) offended. What irks me is that these smart, profession women abase themselves to satisfy these misogynistic men. If you are a Muslim woman who believes that you must cover yourself, that is your business and your choice. If you are a nonbeliever in a country where this is required (or you will be arrested or beaten), you have no choice. But for a nonbeliever to do this, in a US court, when she is not required to, is something else entirely. It’s is not respect for the beliefs of the accused: it is disrespect for yourself. Those men see you as a thing with no inherent value. Something to be owned by a man. Something that exists to produce and raise a man’s babies. And you choose to wear the clothing that so objectifies you? That obscures your femaleness? Your individuality? Your humanity?
How disappointing.
142
@Passion for Peaches Interesting how you are denigrating a woman who made her own choice. So much for "empowerment" and freedom of choice. Seems like it applies if it's the "right choice" through a narrow lens of western-centric and white point of view.
29
@Thomas Interesting how you pulled race into this. This has nothing to do with race. It’s about Western women choosing to please these prisoners by wearing attire that represses and subjugates women.
30
@Passion for Peaches So well said. I was so infuriated to read that these Western women are doing this. Shame on them. They are poor role models for their daughters and other young girls and women.
32
Maybe to counterbalance the abayas, the prosecution can wear red MAGA caps.
33
Which is why Trump stands an excellent chance of reelection.
@Jay why
They do not represent MAGA. They represent the US. Please don't conflate the two.
3
Every defendant, even these, is entitled to legal representation. None of them are entitled to control their lawyers' dress. The fact that their lawyers have chosen to accept that means that they have gone from their proper role providing legal services to becoming allies of the defendants.
73
@J Katz
Similar to what McConnell is doing with the Senate impeachment trial.
11
@Jonathan Katz ...oh, please. Read the article again, and this time think about it, if you have the capacity.
12
The attorneys are fully in control of the way they dress each and every day. They dress this way because they choose to, not because their clients demanded it.
19
Is a video or audio of some past proceedings available online? If so, where?
2
@Jim Davis
Not likely. Families, even those in attendance, get poor audio and distant visuals, from far back in courtroom and via 40-second 'security delays.'
Terrible system. Gone on far, far too long, and no where near actual trial (latest 'hoped for' date: Jan. 2021.)
Try and sentence them already. To life. See, that wasn't hard!
~ 9/11 family member
22
This jail has been open a very long time. Curious to see which of the Democratic Presidential Candidates will advocate for closing it.
10
@Tom
Obama did....but McConnell's iron hand leading a GOP Senate, and the subsequent Tea Party rise in the House blocked anything being done.
12
@Tom - Pete Buttigieg has said he would close Guantanamo.
1
I do comment only the style of drawings. Exquisitely done, in a very short time, like a camera snapshots of mind, they tell so much more about the ambience of that courtroom than real photographs would.
57
@eero raunio An exhibition of these pieces would be quite powerful.
10
@eero raunio I totally agree! The drawings are exquisitely rendered, full of life...fantastic!
6
Seems absurd to me for the defendants' legal team to submit themselves to the archaic restrictions of a religion they do not follow in order to mollify religious extremists who are on trial for the murder of thousands of civilians. Isn't that exactly what these men want? To impose their religious customs on people who otherwise would have no desire to follow them?
79
@Alex
The goal of the defense lawyer is to give their clients the best defense. Establishing a rapport with your client is essential to this outcome and these lawyers have decided to dress in a way that eases their relationship.
15
Still very hard to stomac. What about wearing traditional Western attire on the conservative side?
"The lawyers say they need to respect the religious sensibilities of their clients in order to defend them. Families of the 9/11 victims say they are offended by Western women covering themselves and embracing the cultural norms of men accused of mass murder."
This is an interesting dichotomy and I think I would like to hear Ms. Bormann's reasoning as to why she thought it was necessary to respect the wishes of the perpetrators in court. No judgement either way, I just think the thought process is extremely intriguing.
30
@Ben Because she is their attorney, perhaps. The prosecution is not doing this, only the defendants attorneys
3
@Ben
Actually I wonder why women are defending these detainees if we are concerned about their religious and cultural comfort. Wouldn't they prefer men as most of the countries that confine women to abeyas also give them little authority?
10
@Ben Saying "perpetrators" is pre-judging the "defendants." Judging is the purpose of the trial.
2
While I find it absurd that these men can wear Palestinian garb absurd as well as their ability to acquire and wear elaborate cultural religious garments and even disturbing that the women in their proximity must abide by the defendants' religion, I think it is some way justified. I don't find it at all hard to imagine the outcome of the trial vulnerable to an appeal based on the insufficient efforts of the defense team should the men not cooperate based on their religious prohibitions.
8
At first I thought, "Well, what an original way of viewing this Gitmo thing."
But then I thought, "What if the NYT ran an article about what the defendants and prosecutors and guards at the Nuremberg trial wore, or what the defendants wore in the trial of the murderers of the freedom riders or the antagonists at the Stokes trial of evolutionary theory"?
There are some trials and judicial processes so somber and consequential that to dwell on something as beside the point as clothing seems somehow to diminish the significance of the proceedings--talk about "normalizing" the grotesque.
The fact is, Gitmo is a stain on the soul of the United States of America and no matter how they dress it up, the trial is so tainted by delay, secrecy and the very idea that our ideals, our rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights and Constitution do not apply to others but only to those lucky citizens living within the borders of the USA as to make any thing about Gitmo stink to high Heaven.
Habeas Corpus?
We keep men prisoners for 18 years and we don't even have the courage or decency to call them "prisoners"? They are "detainees?"
Rather than looking at the clothes, look at the language, the failure of nerve and rectitude which Gitmo exemplifies.
49
@Claudia They are not entitled to Habeus Corpus. They are battlefield participants who attacked the US. This is not a domestic criminal trial. It is a war trial. Learn the difference.
3
There's nothing in this article about the male defense attorneys dressing in "culturally sensitive clothing." The one illustration of a male defense attorney, Gary D. Sowards, shows him wearing God knows what- a Halloween costume? At any rate, as a defense attorney myself, I don't agree that you need to dress like your clients to "bond" with them. I guarantee you that any of the defendants in this case would be thrilled to have an attorney in a $3,000 suit from Brooks Bros., provided the attorney was as good as his or her suit.
60
@Paul McBride As an another attorney, I would say it would depend on the client. One would like to have a forthcoming client, correct? We deal with the biases of clients all of the time. We have an ethical duty to provide zealous representation- and in this instance it seems like the attorneys thought it was better for representation to dress as such.
9
@Thomas These terrorists are still at Gitmo because they have not been “forthcoming.”
7
@Olivia These alleged terrorists are at "Gitmo" because the United States Government refuses to allow them the same Constitutional rights we give a drunk driver. "Gitmo" is not US territory so the Constitution does not apply there.
2