This is the seventh and final interview conducted via e-mail with Scott Fentermaker. In our previous interview, Mr. Fenstermaker called for an international investigation of our war on terror. He also revealed a "demographic consistency" among the attorneys and judges trying these cases.
TP: I would like to ask more questions about these practitioners of Judaism. However there is a story in today's New York Times concerning your client, Amhed Khalfan Ghailani.
According to this story, lawyers for Mr. Ghailani have "raised concerns in court that their client's mental state may have so deteriorated after his detention that he may not be able to assist in his own defense". But in the next paragraph, "the lawyers said that at the moment they still believed that their client, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, is competent for trial". And at the end of the story the statement is repeated; "defense lawyers currently believed Mr. Ghailani "would pass the standard of competency to stand trial".
You have told us that these lawyers will; " file all of the right motions, make the right objections, question witnesses well, and make the appropriate arguments". That certainly appears to be happening here.
Do you think this competency motion is a ruse, and if so why?
SF: The competency motion is a ruse and is being used as a weapon by Mr. Ghailani's appointed counsel against him. In a previous interview, you asked me the following question, "Can you describe the legal mechanisms these [CIA] operatives use to thwart due process?" Mr. Ghailani's appointed counsels' effort to attack his competency is a perfect example of the "legal mechanisms" that the CIA operatives can use to "thwart due process." While Mr. Ghailani's appointed counsel are not CIA agents, they are aggressively taking direction from CIA agents. Mr. Ghailani is well-aware of this fact and is, apparently, resisting their efforts. Good for him!
Here is another quote from the story: "While in detention, Mr. Ghailani has said, he was subjected to cruel interrogation techniques; court papers filed by his lawyers describing his treatment have been heavily censored because the information is classified."
We have discussed how the mitigation evidence is still available thanks to the motion filed on Mr. Ghailani's behalf, do you think any of that evidence will be presented at the trial?