Less Than Ideal Litigation Strategy

So, here you are, in Guantanamo Bay, accused of being a terrorist and put in front of a kangaroo court composed of U.S. military personnel. Obviously, then, you should have an opening argument like this one:

I don't want an attorney. I don't want a court. . . . A nation that is an enemy of God is not a leader and cannot be a leader . . . . You judge me and you sentence me the way you want, if this is God's will. . . .God would provide me with rescue, and then you will regret everything.

The "father of two in his late 20s, with bushy dark hair and a shaggy beard," also advised the court through his defense attorney that "he would prefer to be killed than cooperate."

While apparently this approach gets rave reviews in the terrorist's litigation strategy handbook, as it seems to be fairly popular, the more ironic "What is the evidence against me? Tell me and I can tell you if it is wrong or not, but if I do not know what I am accused of, I can't defend myself" strategy, while not much more effective at the trial level, tends to be more effective on appeal.