CHIEF PROSECUTOR MARK MARTINS
REMARKS AT GUANTANAMO BAY
23 JANUARY 2017
Good evening. We are joined this week by the family members of Michael Baksh, Charles
Burlingame III, John D’Allara, Peter Hanson, Sue Kim Hanson, and Christine Hanson. We are also
joined by injured first responder Frank Favilla. September 11, 2001 was Michael Baksh’s first day as
an insurance executive at Marsh & McLennan, on the 94th floor of the North Tower. Michael loved
all kinds of music, and in a previous career he was a producer for Def Jam Records. Charles “Chic”
Burlingame served as a Navy F-4 Phantom pilot before flying with American Airlines. Chic was the
pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, and would have turned 52 on September 12th. John D’Allara
was a detective and rescue specialist with the New York Police Department. John’s twin brother says
they were complete opposites, John being more academically driven. He was a teacher before starting
with NYPD.
Peter Hanson, his wife Sue Kim Hanson, and their daughter Christine Hanson were
passengers on United Airlines Flight 175, travelling to California on business and to take Christine to
Disneyland. Two-year-old Christine was the youngest victim of the 9/11 attacks. She loved her
stuffed rabbit and working in the garden with her father. Peter met Sue when Sue was studying
microbiology at Boston University. Frank Favilla was a NYPD detective, injured while working at
the World Trade Center site in September 2001. Frank retired from NYPD in 2004 after a 20-year
career.
We also remember Abe Zelmanowitz and his sister, Rita Lasar. Abe worked for Empire
Blue Cross and Blue Shield in the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Abe and his best friend,
Ed Beyea, perished there along with many others after Abe refused to leave Ed’s side. Rita passed
away on January 8 of this year, at home, surrounded by family. She was known and loved by many
during her long life, and her passion, warmth, and joy affected all of us before, during, and after her
attendance at the proceedings here in June, 2013.
We pause to remember and honor these individuals and their families, who continue to
meet heartbreaking tragedy with dignity and grace. Their examples inspire us and provide
enduring tributes to those whom they loved and to the legacies that live on. Recognizing their
examples and our solemn duty to them, we remain focused on moving these cases to trial.
Upcoming Proceedings in United States v. Mohammad, et al.
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017, the Commission convened to try Khalid Shaikh
Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz
Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi will hold another series of pre-trial sessions without
panel members present. These five Accused stand charged with plotting the attacks of
September 11th, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 persons. I emphasize that the
charges are only allegations. The Accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Matters under consideration by a military commission in this or any
other particular case are authoritatively dealt with by the presiding Judge. Any comments
addressing systemic issues that are the subject of frequent questions by interested observers
should always be understood to defer to specific judicial rulings, if applicable.
1

 The Military Judge’s Docket Order and Amended Docket Order list the matters he
intends to address during this session, time and rules of criminal procedure permitting. See
Appellate Exhibits 479 and 479E. The docket presently consists of 33 motions, including 12
motions to compel discovery, one motion to abate the proceedings, three motions to dismiss,
one motion to show cause, three motions for appropriate relief, two motions to reconsider prior
rulings of the Military Judge, and two motions to conduct depositions.
Also included on the docket is the Government’s Renewed Motion for a Trial Scheduling
Order (Appellate Exhibit 478). As with the original Prosecution request for a trial scheduling
order in Appellate Exhibit 175, this Renewed Motion contains the Government’s proposed trial
scheduling order, with proposed deadlines for filing of motions, witness lists, notices, and other
matters. The Prosecution proposes that the panel of members be assembled for voir dire in March
2018, with trial to immediately follow. In this Renewed Motion, the Government has also stated
that by 28 April 2017 it will provide the Defense a trial brief setting forth the evidence it intends to
introduce and the witnesses it intends to call during its case-in-chief, which is expected to last
between six and eight weeks. The trial brief will permit the Defense to focus its trial preparations
on meeting the Government’s case. Counsel for two of the Accused have filed responses
opposing the Government’s motion for a trial scheduling order; two others have filed requests
seeking permission to respond at a later date. See Appellate Exhibits 478A(KSM), 478B (AAA),
478-1(MFL)(WBA), and 478-2(MFL)(RBS).
Pursuant to the military judge’s ruling in Appellate Exhibit 422I, the judge will sit as the
deposition officer for the examination of Lee Hanson as a prosecution witness on the merits and
for sentencing. This deposition, too, is on the docket for the coming two weeks.
Other Recent Rulings in the Case
Since the last pre-trial sessions in December, the Commission has issued 33 rulings. These
include a ruling denying the Defense unlimited access to Department of Defense classified
information systems (Appellate Exhibit 356D), a ruling permitting one of the Accused to send a
letter to the President (Appellate Exhibit 371N), and a ruling declining to assert the Commission’s
authority over the circumstances of disposition of an Accused’s remains (Appellate Exhibit 474C).
In Appellate Exhibit 459E, the military judge determined that members of the press had not
demonstrated sufficient grounds to open the deposition of Lee Hanson to press observation, and
thus, did not overcome the Defense’s expressed concerns about pretrial publicity and other
matters.
During the last pre-trial session in December, the Commission heard argument on
Appellate Exhibit 286J, a Defense motion to order the Government to produce the full,
unredacted Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) study of the Central Intelligence
Agency’s former Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) Program, or, in the alternative,
to file the report with the Commission to be maintained ex parte and under seal pending further
rulings. On 15 December, pursuant to an order of the military judge, the Government filed a
notice stating that the Department of Defense possesses two copies of the full SSCI Study, and
treats them as a congressional record. The military judge’s ruling, Appellate Exhibit 286T, was
filed on 10 January and is available on the Military Commissions website. In Appellate Exhibit
286T, the military judge ruled that the Defense motion to compel is not yet ripe for decision
2

 because the Government is still in the process of tendering complete RDI discovery to the
Defense under the Appellate Exhibit 308 series. Thus, the military judge deferred ruling on the
Defense motion and adopted the Government’s position on preservation of the status quo
concerning the full SSCI report (as set forth in Appellate Exhibit 286L), ordering that the
Department of Defense shall preserve a full copy of the SSCI report pending completion of the
discovery process and further court orders.
Since the end of the pre-trial sessions last month, the military judge has issued eight
orders concerning proposed substitutions for classified discovery, in compliance with the
procedures for the protection of classified information. Seven of these eight orders concern
RDI discovery in the Appellate Exhibit 308 series of filings. These procedures for protection
of classified information are statutorily required, and in applying them military judges are
instructed by Congress to look to methods employed by United States District Courts under the
Classified Information Protection Act of 1980 (CIPA). See 10 U.S.C. § 949p-4(a); M.C.R.E.
505(f)(1); Appellate Exhibits 434F, 308ZZ, 308AAA, 308BBB, 308HHH, 308III, 308JJJ, and
308KKK. As of last week, the Defense has begun receiving information being provided as a
result of these orders.
Methodical Movement Toward Trial
To date, the parties have briefed in writing some 273 substantive motions and have orally
argued some 136 motions. Of the 273 motions briefed, 18 have been mooted, dismissed, or
withdrawn; 197 have been ruled on by the Judge; and 38 have been submitted for and are
pending decision. The Commission has received testimony from 37 witnesses in more than 93
hours of testimony, with all witnesses subject to cross-examination to assist it in deciding pretrial motions. The parties have filed 234 exhibits and more than 111 declarations alleging facts
and providing references to inform the Judge's consideration of these issues.
Meanwhile, the government has provided more than 362,478 pages of discovery to the
defense, and as of 30 September 2016, has submitted all discovery required at this juncture to
either the defense or the military judge in compliance with its obligations under law. This is a
key milestone to enable the scheduling by the military judge of trial on the merits.
This foregoing data, while never meant to imply that justice can be quantified,
nonetheless reflects methodical and deliberate movement toward trial.
*

*

*

*

For supporting these proceedings in the days to come, I commend and thank the
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and government civilians of Joint Base
Andrews, Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.

3