Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati'Split Verdict' Reached At Guantanamo Tribunal
US NAVAL BASE AT GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba - Military jurors on Wednesday found Osama bin Laden's former driver guilty of providing material support to terrorism in the first US war crimes trial since World War II.
But the jury found Salim Hamdan not guilty on a count of conspiracy, in the first case before the special tribunals created by President George W. Bush to try suspects in the "war on terror."
He faced a possible maximum sentence of life in prison.
His trial is seen as an important test of the controversial military commission system set up by the George W. Bush administration.
During two week proceedings, Justice Department prosecutor John Murphy described Hamdan as among the worst of bin Laden's henchmen.
"He's an al-Qaeda warrior. He has wounded, and the people he has worked with have wounded the world," Murphy told the jury.
But Hamdan's lawyers, who have already announced they will appeal, argued that although he served as bin Laden's driver, Hamdan was not implicated in any terrorist activity.
"We will capture or kill Osama bin Laden some day. You should not punish the general's driver today with the crimes of the general," the Yemeni man's court-appointed military attorney, Navy Lieutenant Commander Brian Mizer, told the court.
Human Rights Watch slammed the proceedings as marred by irregularities and built-in handicaps, making it all but impossible for Hamdan to get a fair hearing.
"A trial that depends on handicapping the defense can't possibly be fair," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch.
"The military judge tried at times to mitigate the commission's most unjust rules, but the flaws in the system won out."
Throughout the trial, Hamdan sat at the defense table, wearing a white skullcap and a a headset for translation into his native Arabic, wearing a white gown and a scarf draped across his shoulders.
Under the US Military Commissions Act of 2006, it takes a two-thirds majority -- or four of the six officers on the jury panel -- to convict.
The administration of President George W. Bush set up the special military commissions in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
The military commissions were invalidated in 2006 by the Supreme Court, only to be restored a few months later by the US Congress.
They have since been struck by a series of legal battles and hitches -- including a June Supreme Court decision that granted foreign terror suspects captured abroad the right to challenge their detention in US courts -- that have pushed back the opening of Hamdan's lawsuit, and perhaps others to come.
The indictment against Hamdan, who is about 40 years old, alleged that he met bin Laden in the Afghan city of Kandahar in 1996 and "ultimately became a bodyguard and personal driver" for the Al-Qaeda leader.
© 2008 Agence France Presse
29 Comments so far
Show AllDo you suppose somebody somewhere in the Middle East has noticed that all of bush's "enemies" and evil doers are Muslim? and that the people giving them these witch trials are christians?
Let us also remember that for 500 years Spain was ruled by Muslims. For those 500 years Christians and Jews were allowed to practice their religions. That's about twice as long as the u.s. has existed. Then when the Christians came back it was the Inquisition, the burning books, Torquemada, autos- da- fe. Oh yes and did I forget? witch trials.
makes ya wonder....
First we need to go after Condi Rice's hairdresser and seamstress! What about Don Rumsfelt's cook? Cheney's gastroenterologist? George Bush's AA team leader and his minister? Paul Wolfowitz' Arab mistress? Richard Perle's money launderer?
Remember the Lord High Executioner's song from the Mikado...'I've got a little list and there'll none of them be missed, no none of them be missed!'
"Hitler's driver was never prosecuted" Said the defense regarding the Nuremberg trials.
If Hamdan wants out of GiTMO, he'll have to be found guilty or plead guilty to something - even if it's not conspiracy and even if he's innocent of all charges.
Good point 4thefuture
And if it had been 1986 he would have been a "freedom fighter" against the Russians.
You would hope that the French would provide a couple of sentences of time line and context, but they don't seem to much more than the American press.
Notice that he began driving for Bin L in 1996. Anyone recall that the US was not in a state of war with him then? He may well have been on the US payroll back then.
Material support once meant things such as forged documents, guns and other instruments of active warfare, now it seems to be just about anything. So what's next? Maybe we ought to find out just what kind of car he was driving. Providing material support, under these charges, could they not be extended to the auto manufacturer and then to each one on the assembly line? Where does it logically end once the bounds of logic have been set aside?
Kafkaesque, (Lewis)Carrollesque, Orwellian, as most of us were reading them as pre-cautionary tales, apparently some were taking them as road maps.
Does this mean the little deserter and Fony Blair's drivers will be on trial next?
Save America,
Cindy Sheehan for Congress.
cindyforcongress.org
"How very Kafka-esque."
Murat Kurnaz's memoir of abduction, torture & imprisonment has been published in English. "Never forget" must be the motto of all of us citizens of the US; and we must learn in detail what has been done, by Americans and foreigners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, in brazen defiance of every principle of human rights which the terrorists who practice the "war-on-terror" cynically invoke & routinely violate.
Gorsegrower
Indeed what exactly does 'providing material support' mean? One might expect that to be building bombs, lots of cash, expertise at planning. By convicting the chaufeur one can make the arguement lapaz000 made...
Good job bush, we'll get right on your hairdresser.
The willingness of the Dems to grant retroactive immunity for horrible crimes against humanity speaks volumes about that party.
Combine that with their refusal to fulfill their oath and their duty to impeach, and the now flood of statements from the Obama camp about how there is no interest in prosecuting the Bush criminals and you can see where this is heading after the election.
If you want to keep Bush, Cheney and their minions out of prison, then vote Democrat.
The major media headlines are really coy today; you can read 'em all and not find out what the charge was. How anticlimactic when it turns out to be 'providing material support.' How weak can it get?
I suggest we sentence him to time served and turn the poor guy loose.
The Military Commissions Act replaced the document then in place- the u.s. constitution. It was an outrage when it passed, it's an outrage now, and will bever be anything else. Anyone bush says is an "enemy combatant" is one, and no appeal is possible. Nor is a fair trial. The end of justice as we leaned it in school.
also for those of you still hoping to see bush/cheney in the dock- the MCA gives them retroactive immunity forever.
that monstrosity of a law needs to be repealed.
I wonder if any of the "jurors" felt the urge to mention the Kangaroo in the room, but kept their mouth shut so as to avoid missing that flight back outta there?
Were the jurors from Yemeni and Afghanistan as the Constitution of the United States requires in this instance?
Actually, safiyyah, the Soviets came up with the idea and the Americans perfected it.
We can be sure that America is really respected around the world today. We are the first country that I have heard of that holds trials where you will continue to be held in prison if one is either found innocent or guilty! This is true American innovation!
Boing...boing...boing hop in the pouch it's time for court!
These kinds of court are also known as Kangroo courts (outside US)
My, there was a lot of troll feeding yesterday, but we don't have to respond to provocation.
Please excuse this small digression.
Some may feel that Troll feeding has a legitimate purpose: the Troll's positions are weak and need to be exposed, perhaps for the benefit of the Common Dreams audience. Others take the Troll as a chance to vent.
The drawback of troll feeding, aside from the fact that it is an absolute dead end, is that it fills the discussion page with GENERAL posts not connected to the SPECIFIC article at hand. 20 posts from one Troll plus the responses take up a lot of space. More than I want to sort through.
I look for posts that analyze passages of the article, that add information, suggested reading or links, that give personal experience. And I look for brevity – this is an online forum, you can't say everything.
When I look for debate, I look for discussion over HOW to change the world, not whether to change it.
And I look for open mindedness. Though I may agree or disagree with the individuals, the above posts are good.
For example, rjmart01 analyzes how 2/3 sounds better than simple majority, thus making the courts sound fairer than they are.
Galen suggests parallels to the absurd trial in Kafka – if we don't know the reference, he is recommending reading.
lapaz000 points out the unfairness of the charges by turning them on Bush and company and carrying them to a logical extreme.
These are useful, interesting, even funny. Trolls are not. Bring out the trolls.
The world knows these courts by another name Kangroo Courts
And the world's greatest terrorists sat in judgement. America is lost.
What was the point in having the trial?
They already had a guilty verdict before it even started.
What a banner day for Amerikan Law & Order!
• Hamdan is convicted for Driving While Muslim!
• Texas notches another disputed execution to keep that Guinness World Record!
• The Anthrax Terrorist is pre-executed!
Amerikan justice is served... raw.
Partial transcript of hearing: (probably more accurate than the official one)
Bush appointed judge – has the Bush appointed jury agreed on a guilty verdict or shall it be replaced summarily by another Bush appointed jury?
Bush appointed jury foreman – Yes your honour.
Bush appointed judge – What say you?
Bush appointed jury foreman – The Bush appointed jury finds that it wants to have a career in this man's army and not commit professional suicide. Heck if congress doesn't uphold the constitution, why should we stick our necks out?
well, a good start would be a citizen's arrest of condolleeza rice.
there's a $10k bounty for her.
Do you know what this precedent sets? It means that anyone who has facilitated the movement of George W. Bush's, Dick Cheney's, Rummy's, or any of the other terrorists presiding in Washington D.C. are now subject to war crimes tribunals for providing material support for terrorism. That includes members of the secret service, their drivers, their personal assistants, their families that gave them the strength to go on with their murderous activities.
Guess who will serve on the juries. It will be Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Nicaraguans, Salvadoreans, Guatemalans, ect. The persoanl assistants of Bush and other "leaders" had to know what their bosses did for a living-- namely, that they were terrorists, and that the government that paid their salaries is the largest and most organized terrorist organization in the world. At the trial, thousands of pictures will be shown of the innocent victims of the US government's death machine. First we go after Bush's hairdresser, then we work our way up!
How very Kafka-esque.
"Under the US Military Commissions Act of 2006, it takes a two-thirds majority — or four of the six officers on the jury panel — to convict."
What a figleaf, trying to give a show trial some semblance of impartiality.
With 6 judges on a panel, a 2/3 majority requires 4 votes.
With 6 judges on a panel, a simple majority requires (wait for it ...) 4 votes.
See how substantial are the protections afforded our victims?
Since these tribunals are not legal, would that not render the verdict invalid? Unless the judges in the US courts are Bush appointees, I would find it surprising if these judges upheld invalid verdicts.