Hamdan Case a Joke

We finally got him. Your children can now play freely in the streets again. We have nabbed, yes, Osama bin Laden's limo driver. Move over Hermann Göring and make room for Ahmad Hamdan.

As we all let out a sigh of collective relief, let us recap how we came to this glorious occasion:

Up until November 2001, Hamdan was chauffeuring bin Laden and a trunk full of surface-to-air missiles, thus providing material support to terrorists. He was a member of the world's number one terrorist' inner posse of bodyguards--a Yemeni version of Suge Knight.

After being detained and hauled off to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he wasted away in a detention facility until he finally was charged in 2003 on charges of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. Five years later (and the scrapping of habeas corpus, thanks to the 2006 Military Commissions Act) and countless mentions in the press--including the Ali-versus-Frazier-like 2006 case Hamdan-versus-Rumsfeld before the Supremes--he was found innocent of conspiracy (the more serious offense) and guilty of providing material support.

Lest you think this was a kangaroo court, the jury (all of them U.S. military officers) deliberated for eight hours over three days to reach their verdict. Thus, justice was served. The end.

Let's be honest: this case was a joke in the annals of justice and a blotch on America's campaign to prevent future 9/11's. It was held behind closed doors and secret evidence was admitted. The charge of material support for terrorism has no historical basis in international law or the laws of war, nor did the military commissions have proper jurisdiction to even try Hamdan on these charges. The tight handling of evidence and the lack of appeals made it nearly impossible for detainees to build a credible defense or counter the charges levied against them. Even the term "unlawful enemy combatant" has no legal basis in the laws of war.

Our military is always trumpeting how great its courts martial system is--if so, then why try these guys in what most legal rights groups call a kangaroo court? Nobody believes Hamdan received a fair trial. And if Nuremberg is the gold standard for war crimes trials (it was repeatedly invoked during the proceedings), then why wasn't Hitler's driver, Erich Kempka, prosecuted as a war criminal?

I believe Hamdan was not as clueless as his defense would have you believe. There's no way you can ferry around Osama bin Laden and not know what the chap is up to. But my feeling, though, is there are bigger fish to fry. This is a distraction and it paints us as weak and incompetent in the eyes of the world. Let's try those detainees in Guantanamo Bay, but let's do it right.

Comments

[heavyrunner]

Let's pretend that some people wake up and realize that 9/11 and the anthrax were of the same piece. The evidence is actually followed where it goes, and it leads to the Naval Observatory.

Should Dick Cheney's driver get a show trial?

I don't think so.

[mjc]

For one thing, Hamdan was quite young when recruited as a driver for bin Laden, but that doesn't even figure in to the sentencing and treatment of him.
Worden, the US military officers (and I know one quite well) never believe that they will be captured. A sort of invisible mind shield makes them feel invulnerable imo. Think that is one reason that any justice should probably be meted out by civilians, civilians with a certain amount of legal training and understanding. What our military did at GITMO and in Iraq have guaranteed that any treatment of American service personnel will not be fair or equitable should they be captured.

[Worden]

Two of the aspects of having a military jury which the White House may have never considered are (1) the panelists might actually believe in justice and (2) they might worry that when the tables are turned and they are captured as "enemy combatants" by a foreign government we are at war with, that government will allude to the US decisions and hold our military members in their torture chambers and give them unfair trials, as well.

[turkeywrld]

American justice at its idiotic best..who's next ..Bin Ladens housecleaner..or maybe the cook ??

[Coattails]

Well ok, if this guy worked for Osama, drove him around, and "unknowingly" carried missiles in his car coincidentally the day he was caught on the Afghan-Pakistan border, I think he could have been used for some serious intelligence.

This guy probably, at the very least knew of locations that were former Al-Queda hangouts or safezones, maybe he was cooperative, I would really hope so.

If I ever get caught in any incriminating situation, I'll just have to remember the defense "it wasn't my car, and, oh yeah, take my word for it, I didn't know there were arms in it."

[JerseyJon]

There's no question that this was a miscarriage of justice, and HP is right to write about it. But this post is a little thin. Give us some examples, explain the case history a little better. If you're going to compare this to the Nuremburg trials, then explain the differences, not the least of which was that this trial was entirely secret, whereas Nuremburg was ,open to public scrutiny of the process the defendants and the evidence. 'm a fan of HP, but I think you could do a little better.

[atp2007]

HE WENT TO COURT TO GET A HEARING ON THE TERRORISM CHARGES AND THE SUPREMES AGREED HE NEEDED TO HAVE A HEARING OF SOME SORT . SO BUSH SET UP THIS MILITARY HEARING SYSTEM, TRIAL STARTED. IN THE MEANTIME, THE SUPREMES RULE IN ANOTHER CASE THAT THESE MILITARY TRIALS ARE NOT WHAT THEY WANTED, SO ONCE MILITARY TRIAL IS OVER, THE S.C. WILL THROW IT OUT AND REQUIRE SOME NEW TRIAL. WHAT WERE THE POSSIBILITIES FOR THIS HEARING?

1) THEY FIND HIM GUILTY, THE MILITARY LOOKS LIKE HACKS AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM THAT IS WELL LOVED IN THE MILITARY LOSES IT'S LEGITIMACY. CASE AUTOMATICALLY REVERSED AND S.C. ORDERS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF HEARING.

2) THEY FIND HIM INNOCENT, BUT THEN GOV'T LOOKS SILLY, BUSHIES DECIDE THEY DON'T LIKE THE MILITARY SYSTEM AS THEY CAN'T CONTROL IT, TOO SOFT. HE STILL STAYS IN CUSTODY AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT .

3) THEY FIND HIM INNOCENT OF THE MAJOR CHARGES, BUT GUILTY OF THE LESSER, GIVE HIM A SENTENCE SHORTER THAN THE AMOUNT WAITING FOR THE S.C. TO REVERSE ON APPEAL, WHICH HE DOESN'T REALLY WANT NOW BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE TO START ALL OVER . MILITARY LOOKS GOOD, JUSTICE MAINTAINED ( OFTEN REFERRED TO AS "FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE' VERDICT). AS THERE IS NO REASON FOR A S.C. APPEAL, THE SYETEM CAN CONTINUE UNTIL ONE OF THE CASES ACTUALLY HAS A REASON TO APPEAL. LAWYERS AND JUDGES HAPPY, MEANWHILE HE IS STILL IN GITMO AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT FOREVER.

[RobinSeattle]

Leave it to the boobs at the Bush Administration to make people feel sorry for Osama Bin Laden's driver.

[Moshe]

The Bush/Cheney Administration has already trashed the protections of procedural due process in this case, so I guess now they are taking a shot at trasing any protections of substantive due process as well, by giving a guy 30 years for driving a car.

In the pre-Bush/Cheney Rule of Law era, that would have seemed absurdly disproportionate.

But in the Bush/Cheney post-Rule of Law era, that sounds about right, unless they can get the death penalty or just use "aggressive interrogation" until the guy in custody is dead.

Here is something worth noting though: Every real war is ultimately about winning the hearts and minds of the majority of the people, and that is done by establishing that you are the good guys, not the evil guys that torture, act in a lawless manner, etc.

So because of these kinds of lawless, morally bankrupt, bone-headed Bush/Cheney policies, we are now losing that war big time in the rest of the world, even if Rush/Hannity can still manage to sell this insanity domestically.

[OncevotedRepub]

If I recall correctly, even the Moscow Show Trials in the 1930s allowed reporters (at least a chosen few) in the courtroom........

[Durango]

And one aspect lost on nearly everyone:

Anti terrorism is a zero sum game. The resources wasted on this nonsense are resources that cannot be used to hunt for Osama Bin Ladin al Qaida and the real perps.

Who are a threat.

Even the resources of the US government are not limitless. And the wasting of money, effort and personel not only doesn't make us safer. It actively makes us less safe.

Bush and Company are a disgrace to everything America has ever stood for. But are wasting our tax dollars on stupid frivolous enterprises as well.

[JanP]

Please explain to me how keeping this guy in Gitmo deprived us from using resources on Bin Laden...

I thought getting any al Qaeda memebr - dead or alive - helped defeat them.

[Durango]

The money man power, resources in general wasted on keeping him in prison and prosecuting him is money that CANNOT and HAS NOT been spent on real anti terrorism.

Or do you think there is no limit to government money, man power and resources?

And where are Bin Ladin, Zawaheri and the other perps?

Time and effort wasted have prevented them from being tracked down.

[FearlessFreep]

Clearly, the important thing in the War on Terror isn't to get results but to have it appear as if you're getting results.

[gde]

Anti terrorism is not a zero sum game, it is a negative sum game. As practiced by the US, every dollar spent on "anti-terrorism" probably destroys several dollars forever, plus lives of course.

[fishsandwichesr2good]

How many "drivers" have been sent away for life after a break-in, bank robbery, etc., have gone wrong?

[mh01]

Please, lets not feel bad for the perps, lets save that for the victims.

[JustMyWords]

That sounds so profound, except for one minor detail. This driver was 10,000 miles away from the actual crime, driving around someone that is alleged (not yet proven) to have been involved in a conspiracy.

Not quite the same as convicting the get-away driver, now, is it?

[JanP]

I thought planners of crimes were guilty of the crimes even if they were 10,000 miles away.

[Quitcherbichin]

What's that old saying about lying down with dogs...seems to fit perfectly here.

[gde]

According to basic principles of law, nobody has the legal right to use deadly force, even in self defense, to support the commission of a felony.

According to the US military, if it is committing the crime, it is the other way around: the criminal has the right to kill in self defense, the victims do not.

What this court does not realize, is that it approves of a legal doctrine that says any foreign government has the legal right to prosecute any member of the US military, or even other US citizens, at any time, merely for being associated with organizations associated with the invasion of Iraq.

[Gidster]

Does that mean any paid driver for a criminal at any time of his career is culpable?
Drivers do not usually get life in robbery cases.

[broilinginhouston]

I, for one, won't be sleeping easily until Bin Laden's pedicurist has been brought to justice, too.

[shanker]

You are much too cynical.How do you know that Hamden and Osama didn't switch positions to throw off U.S. justice , while all along Mr.Hamden is the real evil mastermind?I once knew a man named Harder ,while not the same surname he was a nasty fellow,which pretty well convinces me that Hamden/Harder are two of a kind and Osama is likely innocent.

[Bobrobert]

Trial by torture should never be allowed.

This is disgusting and anyone who approves of it is no better than the terrorists of 9/11.

No sane individual can believe justice is served by torture - for any reason.

Trying to find an excuse to use torture leads to the loss of every right the US Constitution gives us.

Disgusting and pathetic.

Pray for our troops.

[JanP]

I know just how you feel.

A woman on the Internet once told me that humiliating a Terrorist in jail by putting a pair of woman's panties on his head was every bit as bad as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed cutting of Daniel Pearl's head. I had never thought of it that way.

Of course, I feel a ittle differently. Or a lot differently.