The lawyers representing KSM will likely have similar attitudes.

9/11 truth to date! Furthermore, no honest civil rights group would have WACO, TX child-murderer & NWO shill, Janet Reno, on their team to defend anyone, let alone a 9/11 patsy for the "official lie"! (Read about outrageous rights violations & abuses by Janet Reno in “Constitutional Chaos” by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.)

The entire KSM tribunal is a kangaroo court, including the so-called ACLU "Dream Team." Just look at who's on it--many shysters that were involved in all sorts of other gov't kangaroo trials: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/04/03/aclu-unveils-dream-team-to-rep-gitmo...

What a sick joke!

Let's see someone who acknowledges that 9/11 was an inside job properly defend KSM on those grounds!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

I'm just saying that these lawyers are not likely to question 9/11. If they learn KSM disputes his supposed confession, that might change. That's the big question - does he dispute the official story. Would and could a defense go further? For example. even if KSM admits to the hijackings, most people were killed by the intervening criminal act of the buildings being blown up. Could that be a defense? (I wouldn't be surprised if "KSM" confesses to that, and it not be questioned seriously. Case closed.) Anyway, there's no telling what the lawyers will have to deal with and I'm not questioning their ethics.

The ACLU's statement does bother me, though:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32758.html

The ACLU chose to focus on Mohammed's defense, Romero said, because he appears to be "the government's top priority in the prosecution. And whether or not they are able to convict Khalid Sheik Mohammed under these rules may well determine the fate of the almost 300 other men who are detained at Guantanamo.''

I think I have Constitutional Chaos and will check it out.

weren't any "highjackings", and KSM & others may well have been duped into this entire atrocity by the real perpetrators in our government!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

If he was duped, he might think the hijackings are real and confess to it.

In Moussaoui, the defense stipulated to the official story. Ideally, it would have to be proved. I don't think they could prove the planes, let alone the hijackings. I don't foresee this commission playing out that way. I imagine that again, the official story will be stipulated or found to be "true." Like you say, a kangaroo court.

Should the lawyers stay out for that reason? Are they intentional or unwitting participants in a charade that perpetuates a terrible lie? Are they giving the detainees the only chance they have for freedom? Can anyone say without being there and talking to "KSM"? Is ACLU effectively colluding with the government's wish to try KSM, which Asst. Sect'y Defense England said had "strategic political value"?

"Let's see someone who acknowledges that 9/11 was an inside job properly defend KSM on those grounds!"

Right on Colombo.

The rule of law may still be alive and well, if only ...

right (and wrong?)

Simple answer. There's no money in it.
Don't mean to be facetious but do lawyers actually care about true justice, or just winning cases within the framework of the existing legal structure?