Millitary Commissions: Hamden Trial at Gitmo

Bin Laden driver given 66 months

Osama Bin Laden's former driver has been sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison at the first US military trial in Guantanamo Bay.

Salim Hamdan was convicted on Wednesday of supporting terrorism, but acquitted of conspiracy to murder.

Prosecutors had demanded a sentence of not less than 30 years.

On time served Hamdan could be released in five months but the Pentagon has said he will still be retained as an "enemy combatant".

The US has always argued it can detain such people indefinitely, as long as its so-called war on terror continues.

The Pentagon said Hamdan would serve his sentence and then be eligible for review.

Regret

The BBC's Kim Ghattas at the trial says the sentence is a dramatic snub to the Bush administration and came after just one-and-a-half hours of deliberation.

The jury of six US military officers, not the judge, imposed the sentence under the tribunal rules.

"It is my duty as president [of the jury] to inform you that this military commission sentences you to be confined for 66 months," a juror told Hamdan.

Our correspondent says Hamdan looked nervous as he walked in for sentencing but after hearing it, he told jurors: "I would like to apologise one more time to all the members and I would like to thank you for what you have done for me."

The judge, Navy Capt Keith Allred, told Hamdan: "I hope the day comes when you return to your wife and your daughters and your country."

Hamdan, who is aged about 40, smiled as he left court and said thank you to those in the room.

After the sentencing, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "He will serve out the rest of his sentence. At that time he will still be considered an enemy combatant.

"But he will be eligible for review by an Administrative Review Board."

The boards decide annually on the threat posed by detainees and the possibility of their transfer or release.

The White House had earlier said the trial was "fair".

The defence is still likely to go ahead with the appeal it announced on Wednesday.

Rights groups have condemned the tribunal system. Amnesty International said it was "fundamentally flawed" and should be abandoned.

'Worked for wages'

In his earlier plea for leniency to the jury, Hamdan said in a prepared statement: "It's true there are work opportunities in Yemen, but not at the level I needed after I got married and not to the level of ambitions that I had in my future."

He said he regretted the loss of "innocent lives".

Hamdan had admitted working for Bin Laden in Afghanistan from 1997 to 2001 for $200 (£99) a month, but said he worked for wages, not to wage war on the US.

About 270 suspects remain in detention in Guantanamo Bay.

Among the dozens of other inmates due to be tried there in the coming months are men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks.

It's pretty clear that the trials are complete shams, with no real basis in law.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's pretty clear that the trials are complete shams, with no real basis in law.

Cycloptichorn

He received a sentence of 66 months. Does your opinion remain the same?

Hamden was found guilty of providing material support to Osama Bin Laden. He was found innocent of conspiracy of terrorism.

The trial was a horrible production.

The supreme court ruled 3 times already that the operations at Gitmo were unconstitutional.

Even if the material support verdict was a good one, the methods used in the court may ultimately invalidate the ruling.

It's pretty clear that the trials are complete shams, with no real basis in law.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's pretty clear that the trials are complete shams, with no real basis in law.

Cycloptichorn

Not really. They were authorized by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Their basis in law is pretty soundly established.

The judge lied about the laws of war regarding those conspiracy charges when he gave the jury instructions.

So, Diest,
What's your opinion of the sentence? He could be out in 5 months. If you equate terrorism to a criminal act then my take is it was eminently fair. Getaway drivers of bank robbers get about the same. Certainly will NOT make sense for him to take it beyond this court.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's pretty clear that the trials are complete shams, with no real basis in law.

Cycloptichorn

He received a sentence of 66 months. Does your opinion remain the same?

Yes, of course it does. There was no legal basis underpinning these trials,

trials in which the defense is not even allowed to see the evidence against their client, where the charges themselves can be kept secret.

But, he won't be released, even after his sentence is over.

Cycloptichorn

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's pretty clear that the trials are complete shams, with no real basis in law.

Cycloptichorn

Not really. They were authorized by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Their basis in law is pretty soundly established.

No, it is not. The Congress may have authorized the trials to go forward, but that does not mean the trials themselves have any real basis in law.

oralloy wrote:

The judge lied about the laws of war regarding those conspiracy charges when he gave the jury instructions.

I'm pretty sure that the jury, made up of military officials, were well aware of the laws of war and what they mean.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But, he won't be released, even after his sentence is over.

Cycloptichorn

That depends whether he is deemed an enemy fighter or not. Enemy fighters can be detained until the end of the war.

I am confused as to how he is still considered an enemy combatant. It seems that charge that would label him that didn't stick.
I think whoever becomes president needs to revoke his status as a enemy combatant.

The Trial:
What worries me the most is that the verdict gives the illusion of justice. I feel like even the right end product does not equate to justice if you can't get a fair trial. We want convictions to stick, so the standard for due process must be very high. This trial was a "trial run" if you will to test out the system.

The problem is going to come when they start trying to convict the real threats. They've illustrated the problems with the military commission, and in the end, it may mean that the Gitmo court looses their authority.

I've never had a problem with the idea of trial for these people, but I think that it should have played out under our constitutional federal courts or in a court that is governed by international law. Creating a third system (which ultimately reports to the US) that abides by neither is an embarrassment to our country.

My grandfather worked for the US military during WWII as an interpreter/translator. In fact, he was General Tojo's translator. I can tell you how radically different those trials are from these productions.

I feel like the US was content to use whatever evidence it could of Hamdan's crimes while concealing the evidence of their own crimes.

The old prosecutor resigned because he felt administrative pressure to simply produce results. He felt it was more of a political show than a trial. My hat goes off to him for stepping down and voicing his ethical concerns with the trial. That's the American sense of justice I believe in; that we deserve our trial to be fair.

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But, he won't be released, even after his sentence is over.

Cycloptichorn

That depends whether he is deemed an enemy fighter or not. Enemy fighters can be detained until the end of the war.

How can he be? He was cleared of charges to that effect BEFORE they trumped up the 'material support' charges to pin SOMETHING on the guy.

From Horton:

Quote:

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/08/hbc-90003374

The whole thing has been a sham from day one.

It has been revealed that no sentence other then 'guilty' is an acceptable one to those who organized and are running these trials.

Just look how pissed you are that the judge didn't convict on the other count; you are calling for his removal, and saying he was a liar. That's not justice; that's a pre-determined outcome.