At his arraignment on charges relating to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed told a military tribunal at the U.S. military base on Guantánamo Bay that he wants to be sentenced to death so he can die “a martyr,” reports The Washington Post:

Calling the process an “inquisition,” Mohammed told Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann, the presiding judge, that he wants to represent himself at trial and looks forward to the death penalty.

“Yes, this is what I wish,” Mohammed said, toying with his eyeglasses. “I have [been] looking to be a martyr from long time. I will, God willing, have this, by you. I understand very well.” …

Mohammed, appearing as leader and elder statesman of the group [of co-defendants], quickly took center stage at Thursday's hearing, railing against President Bush and his “crusades” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He appeared to orchestrate a last-minute strategy that could prove a major disruption to the trials.

After conferring openly with his alleged co-conspirators, who were seated at defense tables on the left side of the courtroom, Mohammed disavowed the system created to try him. He refused representation from any American citizen, saying he objects to any system outside Islamic religious law. He vowed to move ahead as his own lawyer at trial. …

Kohlmann accepted the requests of Mohammed, [Waleed] bin Attash and Ammar al-Baluchi to represent themselves, but said he would take more time to consider the requests from [Ramzi] Binalshibh and [Mustafa Ahmad] Hawsawi. Binalshibh apparently is taking medication, and his lawyers argued that he could not make the decision on his own.

TownHall.com’s Amanda Carpenter reports that after the arraignment concluded, the ACLU wasted no time releasing a statement of condemnation: “It hardly comes as any surprise that after holding individuals in solitary confinement for five years and subjecting them to torture, these detainees would reject the legal system and offers to represent them.”

But is that the way it really went down? Maybe not, according to The Associated Press:

The five co-defendants … said they would represent themselves.

But defense attorneys said four men intimidated a fifth defendant to join them in declaring they didn't want attorneys.

At a news conference, the military defense attorneys denounced the court for allowing the defendants to talk among themselves before and during their joint arraignment, saying this is when Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi was pressured into going without a lawyer.

“It was clear Mr. Mohammed was trying to intimidate Mr. Hawsawi,” said Army Maj. Jon Jackson, his lead military attorney. “He was shaking.”

Chief military defense counsel Stephen David, an Army colonel, said the fact that the alleged coconspirators were allowed to talk unhindered in the courtroom in their first meeting since they were captured years ago was troubling.

“We will have to investigate,” David said.

By the way, for those who fret that executing KSM will be giving him what he wants and creating a new hero for jihadis to look up to, martyrdom is not the only applicable Islamic concept in this situation. A devout Muslim could also say that it is KSM’s fate to be executed by the Americans for his crimes. The Stiletto does not think the ACLU or anyone else should interfere with macdoob, KSM’s destiny as ordained by his G-d.

Turkish Court Rules In Favor Of Secularism, Modernity And Feminism

Turkey's Constitutional Court overturned one of the ruling AK party’s central “reforms” – an amendment to the Turkish constitution that reintroduced Islamic headscarves in public universities, undermining decades of secularism in this Muslim country that wants to join the European Union. The opposition CHP party sued to block the amendment, and the court sided with them 9 to 2. Reuters reports that overturning the amendment is the opening salvo in taking Turkey back from the Islamists:

The headscarf amendment plays a central role in a separate, crucial case that seeks to outlaw the AK Party for anti-secular activities, and ban 71 members, including the prime minister and president, from belonging to a political party for five years. …

More conservative secularists saw the amendment as a violation of strict separation between Mosque and state, and evidence the AK Party has a secret agenda to introduce a system of Islamic law. …

The Constitutional Court, the highest judicial body, said lifting the headscarf ban was contrary to three articles in the constitution, including article two that specifies that Turkey is a secular republic. Turkey is also 99 percent Muslim. …

If AK is outlawed its members in parliament are expected to form a new political party and form the next government, analysts said, but added they may face serious legal hurdles.

More than 80 years after revolutionary secularists led by Mustafal [sic] Kemal Ataturk abolished the Ottoman Islamic Caliphate, the divisive potential of Islam in Turkey remains high.

At least 20 political parties have been outlawed in the past after the “secular elite … stepped in with coups and judicial decisions against elected governments,” The New York Times reports:

Kemal Anadol, a deputy chairman of the secular party, Republican People’s Party, said the verdict was a triumph of justice and showed that secularism and democracy are “constitutional principles that can’t be separated from one other.”

Mr. Erdogan, whose Justice and Development Party, or AKP, proposed the change, argues the case is a matter of individual rights. All Turks should be able to attend university no matter what they wear or believe, the argument goes.

But the way the party pushed it through Parliament - abruptly, with little public discussion -  angered the secular old-guard and disappointed liberals, who support the changes but wanted them to come with others that would strengthen other rights, like free speech. Some said they seemed to be pursing only changes that would please their constituency, and not the broader range needed to join the European Union.

“AKP is lost in the spell of their own power,” said Mithat Sancar, a law professor in Ankara, Turkey’s capital. “When they want to listen to liberals, they do, but when they don’t, they comfortably ignore them.”

The Constitutional Court decision on whether to ban the AK party is expected later this summer.

Although The New York Times tried to claim otherwise, secular Turks know all too well that the Erdogan and his Islamist AK party (second item) are  trying to bring back Sharia law one headscarf at a time (second item), and they wanted no part of it.

The Muslim “headscarf” is not the cute little babushka that your bubbe tied beneath her chin. Most commonly, it also covers the neck and shoulders completely so that not one strand of hair can peek through. As in every Muslim country that re-introduced them, “headscarf creep” will inevitably lead to more “modest” forms that include the niqab - a headscarf with an attached veil that covers the face - and the burqa - a headscarf that cascades all the way down to the floor to cover the entire body. This is the “democracy” that editorial writers (male, no doubt) at The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The New York Times wished on Turkish women.  

The Stiletto Scoops Mike Gallagher 

It remains to be seen whether Obama’s speech allays the concerns of Americans who wonder whether he is really what he presents himself to be. Is he a biracial, multi-ethnic man who transcends race and embodies the hopes and promise of America ? Or is he a closet racist (AKA “black separatist”) who believes that Jesus was a black man; that the U.S. government purposefully infected blacks with the AIDS virus to wipe them out; and that America should be damned for its treatment of blacks from its inception onward?

One doesn’t have to be an anti-black racist not to want to vote for an anti-white racist.

- Obama Races Away From Racist Pastor - But Did He Go Far Enough?, The Stiletto Blog, March 19, 2008

Could it be that Barack and Michelle Obama are capable of surrounding themselves with white-hating racists? If two of Obama's three declared spiritual advisors are such bigots, what does that say about the judgment of the Democrat nominee for president, not to mention his views on race relations?

There is a good reason that so many working-class, white voters have refused to vote for Sen. Obama during the primary process. Despite the whining of the mainstream media, it's not that white voters are afraid to vote for a black man. It's that they are unwilling to vote for a man who chooses vicious, angry radicals to guide him through life's many challenges.

- Another Chapter In Obama's Book, TownHall.com, June 6, 2008