The split verdicts announced Wednesday against Osama bin Laden's former driver by a military jury at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are significant for a couple of reasons.
Advertisement
First, the case against Salim Hamdan showed the system for prosecuting terror war detainees in a military court, though too long in the making, worked and by most accounts worked fairly well.
Hamdan was by no means a top-tier al-Qaida figure — 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed soon will get his turn in the dock — but his case showed the trial machinery can function with fairness and relative efficiency.
The trial judge, a Navy captain, kept out some of the prosecution's evidence and let other items in. The trial itself took less than three weeks; it didn't turn into a circus like federal proceedings against Zacarias Moussaoui, which stretched over years in a civilian court.
Second, while Hamdan was found guilty of supporting al-Qaida by serving bin Laden as a driver and guard, he was acquitted of conspiracy, which tends to rebut claims by some that military jurisprudence is politicized and rigged to ensure convictions. Bush administration officials said they were satisfied with the results.
No question, authorities picked Hamdan for the first detainee trial because those involving Mohammed and others will be more complicated. But then, a majority of the Guantanamo detainees are ordinary al-Qaida foot soldiers, not top-echelon leaders. There's reason to believe most of the cases can be concluded in a reasonable way.
Still, some criticized Hamdan's prosecution, saying he wasn't a terror planner or bomber. But evidence showed he was a terror supporter, an enabler — in some ways just as critical to al-Qaida's operations.
In sum, it's good that he and others like him will stay locked up for years to come.
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.
Leave a comment.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Bush told Russia today they had no right to invade a sovereign nation,hmmhmm.At least they didn't make up WMD b.s. and forge a document !
Wow!! It's hard to believe that someone at The Oklahoman actually got paid to write this. The writer can't possibly know how the military works. Nobody charged in a military court is ever not guilty. Over charge and then convict for nothing doesn't mean the system is working.
Gitmo Show-rigged to convict. Our country has allowed President Bush to set up his own prison and his own court run by the military under his command. Acquittals are not allowed. Hearsay and secret testimony are allowed. Evidence or testimony obtained by "Harsh interrogation" and "Enhanced Interrogation" (to make torture acceptable and palatable) is permitted. This is not a "system that works" for fairness, truth, or justice. This is just the first act in a show that is an insult to the United States.
So the guy was convicted of driving Osama bin Laden's car -- that's "supporting terrorism." Okay. But why go through this charade? Why not just shoot him as soon as he's captured -- because we think we might get some information out of him by torturing him for a while? Okay, after we get NO information, why don't we just lock him up and throw away the key? Because we are dishonest, that's why. We want to say, "He had a fair trial." But at what point do judicial proceedings stop being a trial and become a kangaroo court? How about 1. when the judge allows secret testimony, and hearsay, 2. when the defendant is not judged by a jury of his peers, and 3. when the defendant is subjected to months of (unproductive) coercive tactics, sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. Hamdan may or may have not been guilty of anything, but his trial was nothing but a kangaroo court. Why pretend otherwise? Can anyone give me a rational reason for that? Why wasn't he just shot -- summary battlefield justice -- or locked up without publicity? If you're gonna give him a trial, give him one, but don't expect me to believe a kangaroo court is a trial. Lie to yourself, Army "intelligence" officer, if you must, but you dishonor your uniform when you lie to the U.S. public.
7
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Leave a comment. Log in below or sign up (it's free).Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.