The defense attorney who wore a traditional Islamic outfit during the rowdy arraignment of the accused Sept. 11 terrorists is defending her courtroom appeal that other women in the room wear more “appropriate” clothing to the proceedings — out of respect for her client’s Muslim beliefs.
Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, attended the arraignment Saturday dressed in a hijab, apparently because her client insisted on it. She further requested that the court order other women to follow that example so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith.”
At a press conference Sunday at Guantanamo Bay, Bormann said she dresses in a hijab at “all times” when she meets with her client “out of respect” for his beliefs. Asked why she requested other women do the same, Bormann said, “When you’re on trial for your life, you need to be focused.”
Bormann, who is not Muslim, claimed the issue came up several years ago, when a paralegal wore “very short skirts” and it became a distraction for the defendants. She said that on Saturday, “somebody” was also dressed “in a way that was not in keeping with my client’s religious beliefs.”
“If because of someone’s religious beliefs, they can’t focus when somebody in the courtroom is dressed in a particular way, I feel it is incumbent upon myself as a counsel to point that out and ask for some consideration from the prosecution,” she said. “Suffice to say it was distracting to members of the accused.”
Timothy Capps
I’m very impress with you, and if I went out of term because of both anger and ignorance,
take my apology,
I did notice your self discipline to be taking your time to anger, it was very obvious,
and I thank you for being here to give us some expertize that you really qualify as you mention.
feel free to continue, it is well recieved by our smart group whom you will also like and admire,
their intelligence and knowledge on a multitude of very interesting subjects. filling the cup
of many people around us reading their comments on so many SMART POSTS FROM KNOWLEDGEBLE AUTHORS AS YOU MUST HAVE NOTICE ALREADY,
GLAD TO HAVE YOU ON BORD. AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR TALK ABOUT HER TELL ME THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE LEARN THE MANY WAYS TO SKIN THOSE CATS
BEST TO YOU.
I suppose I should address the demand that other women “dress appropriately.” Maybe her clients really are too distracted to assist in their own defense. I doubt it. When the judge refuses the request, she will write down an issue for appeal. Death penalty lawyers figure they’re going to lose at trial, so they like to preserve as many issues as possible to see if appellate counsel can get the case overturned. I don’t expect you to like it; just talking inside baseball for those that can handle it.
Thanks Ilovebeeswarzone. I am a veteran of many such discussions FR and elsewhere. I am under no illusions that a conservative death penalty lawyer is unpopular no matter where he goes lol Square peg, etc. Believe me, I got a lot of grief from the dp community because I was the only conservative besides our investigator (boy was he glad when I got hired!) But we kept things on a professional / social level and avoided politics… religion not so much since I tend not to downplay that. I like Cheryl a lot, liked to go out and have dinner & drinks, liked to talk trial work with her. I completely disagreed with her politics so that only came up if we REALLY wanted to tweak each other. When her first Burka Barbie photo circulated among friends, we all laughed. That was some time ago at Gitmo. Little did I foresee how infamous she would become!
@Timothy Capps:
The making of sausage…
The fact of the matter is this:
The court proceedings are being made into a mockery by the defendants…..
One took out his earpiece that translated all the proceedings into Arabic for him.
So the judge had the entire proceeding in both languages.
One complained about the restraints he is required to wear because he refuses to be there.
He then pretended to ignore all questions to him.
Even when the judge offered to have the restraints removed IF he’d behave civilly he refused to answer, so the restraints stayed on.
More than half of the media walked out in the afternoon simply because the defendants’ lawyers were making it a circus, grilling the judge.
One lawyer even had the gall to insist that the judge IS a victim of 9-11-01 because he is an American!
Talk about the victim-mentality writ large!
When the judge sets June 12 as the next time this group will meet at least one lawyer for a defendant claims that’s not enough time!
The judge allowed a lunch break as well as TWO prayer breaks but still one of the defendants seemed to be praying during the proceedings.
Sounds like this is going to be a real circus.
(Or, as Woody Allen once said, “a mockery of a travesty of a sham.”)
Timothy Capps
so she is one of them is in she, she has embrace the cause and the culture didn’t she?
that’s why they have accepted her?
if you don’t know, she might have never told you,? knowing how you feel about them, but still, you prefered to keep the frendship as opose to the rejection of her having been lure by them,
am I right or just assuming?
I thought it was odd that she (the woman in the hijab) was the only lawyer (she defends only one man) who refused to sit at the tables with their defendant.
Instead she sits in the audience.
Like a member of media or a family member of one of the 9-11-01 victims.
Is she THAT scared of her own client?
Is she THAT worried about insulting his religion?
@Nan G:
No, Nan, what Bormann has done is to [self impose] second class status upon herself to cater to her Muslim client. And in doing so, has made herself the laughing stock of the legal profession, well that is, except for her good friend Timothy Capps.
He claims I would like him, but I doubt it. I have a habit of judging people by the company they keep, and he seemed to have enjoyed his association with Ms. Bormann, not someone I would want to associate with. Not only has she forfeited her rights as an American woman, she has now brought her client’s religion into play. It should be interesting to see how she keeps Islam, and it’s murderous tenets, out of the case now.
retire05
that is like OBAMA BOWING TO THOSE ARABS, DEMEANING AMERICA’S GRAND STATURE INTERNATIONALY, HE ALSO APOLOGIZE FOR AMERICA,
THE ACTORS ARE RAISING MONEY FOR THE OCCUPIERS,
WHO ‘WILL RAISE MONEY FOR THE OFFICER OF THE LAW BEING ATTACK VICIOUSLY
BY THOSE OCCUPIERS,
AREN’T THEY ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN THOSE NO GOOD FOR NOTING EXCEPT TO CAUSE A LOT OF TROUBLE FOR THE LAW OFFICERS AND THE CITIZENS.
RETIRE05
YOU have an argument secret weapon of her, if she bring the religious culture of ISLAM AS A CAUSE FOR THOSE TO HAVE COMMITED THAT CRIME, THERE FOR NOT GUILTY THEMSELVES,
DO YOU THINK SHE WOULD GO THAT FAR?
THE FACTS NOW ARE SHIFTING TOWARD THEIR RELIGION, LIKE INSISTING FOR THE CLOTHES OF HERSELF AND PUSHING IT UNTO OTHER WOMANS, ADDING IT IS OFFENSIVE FOR THE ACCUSED,
AND THE TRYAL IN ARABIC ALSO, WHAT ELSE FOCUS ON ISLAM WHICH WE HAVEN’T LEARNED YET?
COULD IT BE THAT EVIL TO WIN OVER ON THE NAME OF ISLAM.
@Hard Right:
Buzzer sounds.
What retire05 said was:
It’s her onus, and yours since you subsequently agreed with her, to demonstrate evidence which supports the contention regarding trial or summary execution.
While retire05 made the correct observation that the GCs don’t recognize them as legitimate (lawful) combatants she failed to mention that the GCs do indeed establish protocol for “unlawful combatants”. That protocol does not include deprivation of trial or being shot on sight.
Does Mr. Yoo say that being deprived of trial and being shot on sight is permissible? Didn’t think so.
Are the GCs silent when it comes to “unlawful combatants”? No, they are not. Thus, the GCs provide coverage for them to the extent that their handling and/or punishment/disposition is laid out.
In fact, the GCs specifically address everyone who falls into the hands of the enemy, regardless of who they are. From Convention IV:
Furthermore:
You’ve been around these parts long enough to know that I don’t argue points where I am wrong. Nor do I argue points where I am not solidly, and unquestionably, backed by the facts.
Now, I would suggest that you get busy providing some source materials to support the points that you and retire05 are trying to put forward.
Otherwise, you are doing nothing but spinning your wheels.
retire05, although I think I’ve earned the right to be tired of you, I might point out that when you’re considering hating me because of the company I keep, you might consider my military service and that of my sons. I kept the company of many fine soldiers, sailors and officers over the years. Since you have me at a disadvantage, i.e. I don’t have a clue who or what you are (perhaps you are a retiree?) I will assume the best of you, including your military service. Be well.
ilovebeeswarzone (!) I never for an instant considered that Cheryl drank the Moslem Kool Aid. That’s just not her. I know for a fact her client would not see her at Gitmo unless she played dress-up. That’s what this is about, as I have already explained.
The “I belong to a screwed up religion and couldn’t help myself defense” is not viable. Unless Islam could be portrayed as a mental illness that kept the defendant from appreciating the difference between right and wrong. Hmmm…
@Timothy Capps:
Mr. Capps, welcome to Flopping Aces.
You got quite the reception as you stepped thru the saloon doors, eh?
You can’t pay too much attention to retire05 though. She’s the crazy aunt that most families would keep heavily medicated or locked in the basement. For sheer entertainment value, we let her run free.
I read her very personal (ad hominem) criticism of you and knew that the corresponding take down would be epic. Your response was a thing of beauty which reminded me of this (with you playing the role of the cat, of course):
Retire won’t have enough class to come back by to try and make things right, so kindly allow me to apologize for her uncivil behavior.
You’d think that a woman of her age and experience would have learned better manners by now.
I truly do hope that you will stick around and make yourself a regular here.
@Timothy Capps:
Do not flatter yourself that you can evoke enough emotion from me to hate you. And yes, I understand you were a JAG-ass (as my 4th I.D. friends call you) but frankly, it is lawyers like you, and your friend Cheryl Bormann, that have made a mockery of our judicial system.
I can just see you in court explaining to the judge why you are dressed up like a drag queen from Charlie Brown’s; “Well, you see your honor, my client, who is being charged with 1st degree murder, is a drag queen and he told me that if I did not respect his life style there was no way he could trust me. I am only dressed in these high heels and feather boas because I am trying to build the line of trust between my client and myself.”
Perhaps judges in Illinois are more understanding, and tolerant, of theatrics. But the judge in the case under discussion should put an end to it now.
Timothy Capps
thank you, i am relieve to know that, but NOW that you demolish my presume and assume scenario,
I am force to try another scenario at about the same level, IT SURELY WILL BE HARD TO BEAT THE PREVIOUS ONE, I thought it was perfectly stinging end, but I will go on the prosecutor side
BYE
Timothy Capps
oops retire05 has a better one,hard to beat,
retire05, I’m sorry you feel such disrespect for Naval Officers. Does your contempt extend to any other members of the United States military we should know about? I have represented just about every type of criminal, but not a drag queen (perhaps they tend to be law-abiding; I don’t know). I did represent a “dollar bill ballet dancer” once. Typically I wear a suit and a bow tie in court (kind of a branding thing, and my wife keeps buying them for me). When I was a JAG-ass, as you call them, in the Gulf during Desert Storm, I wore my Navy Uniform. I’m not going to repeat my explanations, as you are clearly not (I’ll be charitable) interested in comprehending them.
Aye, I have been a fairly frequent visitor, and now that I have figured out how easy it is to post, I will drop in more often. I was just waiting for a completely non-controversial topic with which to introduce myself.
Yes, this whole thing is totally messed up. It is designed for defense counsel to run amuck. I don’t know what people expect defense lawyers to do… show up, look respectable and shrug as their clients are hauled off to prison or worse. Every client I’ve ever had wanted me to be a pit bull, oddly enough. I am actually just a big lovable teddy bear. Cheryl is a Chicago street-fighter who came up through the Cook Co. PD office at 26th and California. She is not a stupid woman, nor has she gone over to the dark side. And asking the prosecutor to dress in a non-distracting way… you gotta think she’s yanking their chain a bit. You want to put the opposition on the wrong foot early. And theater has a place in the courtroom, at least a modest place. (I do not think the hijab is theater for reasons explained at length above; just don’t see any tactical advantage in it) It is an adversary system. That’s what people tend to forget. Even Greta tonight got it wrong talking about it being a “fact-finding exercise.” Ummm… maybe in France, but here its trial by combat without so much blood.
Anyway, thanks, Aye, for the welcome!
Timothy Capps
you mention something very important, that is;
unless prove to be portrayed as a mental illness.
we might find an end of the war with proving that and incarcerate all those and loose the key,
and win the war over all MUSLIMS,
THAT IS IF THEY ADMIT LOOSING THE WAR.
Timothy Capps
I have to come back to tell you beat me on the funny , this on 68 was very funny
thank you for the laugh
bye
retire05
did you laugh on theses last comments, including youre’s in
the drag queen and fur scarf too,
yes a funny one
bye
AYE
where did you find the boy and cat,
the repeat is compelling a person to move out of your comment space,
bye
Welcome to FA, Timothy Capps!
@retire05 #18:
Well….to analogize however imperfectly:
Me: “Zimmerman should get a fair trial and fair representation”
You: “Tell that to the family of Trayvon Martin, who lost his life due to Mark O’Mara’s client, George Zimmerman.”
That’s the logic I’m seeing in your response.
@ilovebeeswarzone #47:
Well…um….while we’re at it, maybe we can get Trayvon’s family members, New Black Panthers, and Al Sharpton to also sit in as jury on a Zimmerman trial.
@Aye:
Aye, you are the one spinning your wheels, dishonestly I might add. You’ve also moved the goalposts. It’s pretty clear Mr. Yoo knows it better than you and he says it doesn’t apply. Ooops.
Sorry but they just don’t meet the standards you selectively quoted.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/174117.php
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reagans-rejection-of-geneva-protection-for-terrorists
http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/international-organizations/terrorists-have-no-geneva-rights/
http://usnavjonmoseley.blogspot.com/2009/04/geneva-convention-does-not-protect.html
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0QpBKb13yoUJ:http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss20/fitzpatrick.pdf%2Bgeneva%2Bconvention%2Bdoes%2Bnot%2Bcover%2Bterrorists&hl=en&safe=active&gbv=2&safe=active&ct=clnk
The “Court also evaded the question of the general applicability of the Conventions to the conflict with al Qaeda.”
I noticed you avoided dealing with Mr. Yoo’s article, so I reposted it. Thanks for playing, game, set, match.
I can see now how military tribunals are going to be so much better managed.
@Hard Right:
“Dishonestly”? “Selectively quoted”? And then you accuse me of “moving the goalposts”?
That’s some mighty funny stuff right there. Obviously you need to spend just a wee bit more time on what is actually being argued here rather than getting all distracted by your efforts to reframe the argument.
Here is the original argument again for you:
And here is the initial exchange with between you and I:
I never said that the GCs offer protections to terrorists, or that they qualify for POW status, which is the point of what all of your cited sources, including Mr. Yoo, are arguing against. That’s a straw man and you should know better than to have tried that.
Your attempts to move the goalposts of what we’re discussing are really quite amusing. (I quoted the entire premise as laid out by retire05 above for easy reference.) So far, you’ve done nothing to support via sources what you claim to be true in regard to her arguments.
What I have said from the beginning, and what I supported through my source materials, is that everyone who falls into the hands of the enemy has some status under the GCs and international law.
The very “unlawful combatant” classification comes from…wait for it…the GCs and international law.
The protocol for handling and disposition of “unlawful combatants” is established under the provisions of the GCs as well. Deprivation of trial or being shot on sight is not the protocol.
So, while you’ve spent a bit of time citing reasons why these animals don’t qualify for POW status or other protections under the GCs, you have indeed wasted your time because you’re not even arguing against the point I’ve been making from the start.
Thanks for playing indeed.
I understand people don’t get how death penalty cases are tried by experts. If the court let’s her wear the hijab, she wins, because she has inched the boundary toward her direction. If he makes her take it off she wins because now there is no attorney client relationship and maybe it gets overturned. Is she says women are distracting her client that’s another issue to argue on appeal. There is a special accommodations line of cases. There are going to be lots of such demands on the part of the defense. I am sorry if it comes to a shock to you that some gamesmanship goes on and defense counsel seed the record with error. Let’s just say representing these people provides a lot of oppotunity to challenge the government. All I am saying is that there is a reasonable excuse for her garb and other issues. I don’t expect you to like it, I just thought you would appreciate the inside baseball perspective.
Nan brought up an excellent point that these defendants are acting like Moslems to the Nth degree. I say let’em have their beards, turbans, prayer rugs and a muezzin instead of a bailiff and demand the female prosecutor be dismissed unless she agrees to cover up. True colors and all that.
Thanks Timothy Capps.
Just 4 years ago a BBC director bemoaned the “growing nervousness about discussion about Islam and its relationship to the traditions and values of British and Western society as a whole.” Seeing the BBC as a defender “of freedom of speech and of impartiality,” he contended that it and other media outlets “have a special responsibility” to make certain that debate on any religion “should not be foreclosed or censored.”
But in just 4 years he has embraced dhimmitude.
In the most in-depth admission yet of the BBC’s double standards with respect to faith he explained, Christianity receives less sensitive treatment because it is “a broad-shouldered religion, compared to specifically, Islam in Britain which is “almost entirely a religion practiced by people who may already feel in other ways isolated, prejudiced against, and where they may well regard an attack on their religion as racism by other means.”
Thus, when asked whether the BBC would run a Muhammad-mocking program on a par with the Jesus-ridiculing Jerry Springer: The Opera, which it aired over Christian protests in 2005, Thompson answered that it would not.
Well, at least he’s honest.
Will that happen here, too?
Since 2009 the BBC’s radio 4 religious programming head is a Muslim and not surprisingly every single show highlighting a “minority” religion to air has been about Islam.
When Aaqil Ahmed, the Muslim chief of religious programming was asked about where the programs about Christianity were he answered: what do you want to do, live in the past?
I think it is fine if a judge allows a lady to wear what she wants in court…..I used to report on courts and saw numerous men and women kicked out for wearing clothing the judge deemed too informal.
Judges are like little gods in their courtrooms.
The judge in this case seems to also have the patience of Job.
I brought up the BBC stuff because this lady is the one who wants to IMPOSE clothing styles on others, not the judge, not even the defendants, far as I can tell.