News has hit that Hamdan was just found guilty of the lesser charge of material support for terrorism by the military tribunal in Gitmo. Hamdan was acquitted on the more serious charge of conspiracy by the same jury, which is a blow to the Bush Administration’s hopes for a full vindication of its methods. That they could not secure a conviction from a hand-picked military jury on a terrorism charge they dearly wanted a guilty on will be picked over for days to come, I’m certain. Via NYTimes:
The military commission conviction of the former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was part of a select group of drivers and bodyguards for Mr. bin Laden until 2001, was a long-sought, if some what qualified, victory for the Bush administration, which has been working to begin military commission trials at the isolated naval base here for nearly seven years.
The commission acquitted Mr. Hamdan of a conspiracy charge, arguably the more serious of two charges he faced, but convicted him of a separate charge of providing material support for terrorism.
Sentencing will take place in a separate hearing to begin this afternoon. I keep thinking back to Ben Wizner’s post from over the weekend from "Camp Justice:"
The word “Guantánamo” has become so synonymous with indefinite detention and coercive interrogation that many Americans are unaware of the culturally diverse community that supports — some might even say “materially supports” — the military mission here. This weekend, I was immensely grateful for their presence and their generosity.
On Monday, the trial will conclude with closing statements from the prosecution and defense, after which the military officers who comprise the “commission” will withdraw to deliberate. There will be little suspense — not only because Hamdan will likely not be acquitted, but because, in the twisted world of Guantánamo detention, even acquittal would not lead to release. It is not the jury that will determine Hamdan’s fate, but the nation. Perhaps, when all is said and done, Hamdan’s embarrassing trial will accelerate Guantánamo’s inevitable endgame.
After sentencing, there will most certainly be more appeals filed on Hamdan’s behalf. The charge for which conviction was secured can carry a 2 year sentence, which Hamdan has already more than fulfilled at this point — but will likely not result in any freedom while the Bush Administration is still in office in any event. It’s certainly not been another Nuremberg in terms of openness, that’s for sure.
More from the WaPo. I have queries out to several folks, and will get more details to you as I hear back.
UPDATE: This just in from the Center for Constitutional Rights:
"In response to the hand-picked military jury’s decision in the Military Commission against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Shayana Kadidal, Senior Managing Attorney of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative, issued the following statement:
“Hamdan’s trial violated two of the most fundamental criminal justice principles accepted by all civilized nations: the prohibition on the use of coerced evidence and the prohibition on retroactive criminal laws.
The decision to keep these cases out of the ordinary criminal courts will produce years of appeals over novel legal issues raised by the untested military commissions system. Even after those appeals are finished, the process will never be seen as legitimate by the world. This case was the first trial run of the commissions system, and the decision proves nothing except that the system itself should be scrapped. Terrorism-related crimes should be tried in the time-tested domestic criminal justice system, a system whose rules have been designed over the centuries with two goals: to seek out the truth and secure justice.”
CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for the last six years – sending the first ever habeas attorney to the base and sending the first attorney to meet with a former CIA “ghost detainee” there. CCR has been responsible for organizing and coordinating more than 500 pro bono lawyers across the country in order to represent the men at Guantanamo, ensuring that nearly all have the option of legal representation. CCR represented the detainees with co-counsel in the most recent argument before the Supreme Court. For more information or to read the amicus brief filed by CCR in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, click here."
UPDATE #2: ACLU’s statement on the verdict is up. And I want to remind everyone of the fantastic discussion we had on Monday regarding Gitmo, these trials and the rule of law.
Related posts:
- David Kris: Our Only Military Commission Convictions May be Illegal
- Obama Announces New! Improved! Military Commissions
- Defense counsel in USA v. KSM, et al petition federal appeals court to end Congress’s segregated, sham Military Commissions
- Uh, Which Civil Liberties Groups Pushed For A ‘Prolonged Detention’ Executive Order?
- Obama to Git-Mo Better Military Tribunals





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Jus Cogens!
Geez, they’re too incompetent to even do the Alice in Wonderland thing. Didn’t Red Queen say something like: sentence first, then the trial?
I second that!
Guilty of “Driving While Arab?”
Gingrich sez Ds are stunned by R schenanigans, that they don’t want to offend their base and thus don’t know what to do.
Digg this post
Gingrich also sez Pelosi runs around the country in an AF plane and lives in SF, has no clue about what the rest of the country is about.
“Material Support For Terrorism?”
Apparently not for 9/11.
Kangaroos interviewed in Australia stated that the Guantanamo courts didn’t come up even to their standards. “It makes me hopping mad,” one remarked.
“It is not the jury that will determine Hamdan’s fate, but the nation.”
It is a sad day when a military jury in Cuba will be deciding the fate of the United States.
Gingrich is the Republics Miss Haversham
The movie Judgment at Nuremburg with Spencer Tracy as the presiding civilian judge has been playing on TCM in the past couple of days. The concluding summary statement of the guilty verdict by the Tracy character resonates strongly against the Bush-Cheney administration’s “security at any cost to liberties” mantra. It’s well worth watching again in today’s fear-filled environment.
This also from the NYT article:
I guess this means we are going after the Saudi royal family and Pakistan’s intelligence service, right?
why is the coffee in this cup I’m holding getting *hotter*? Doesn’t work that way most days…
Hugh @9 – LOL.
Good Morning Christy.
aside from abject disgust and revulsion, my initial thought is the not guilty is the uniform’s fig leaf – that somehow, not giving Richard Cheney EVERYTHING he wants will somehow save their mortal souls
Well, those officers can kiss off their careers.
What “mortal souls”
I guess this means we are going after the Saudi royal family and Pakistan’s intelligence service, right?
Riiiiight….
h/t Bill Cosby
Actually, the jury followed the judge’s instructions on that acquittal. Based on the evidence presented, as I understand it from folks I’ve spoken with close to some of the defense counsel, the prosecution failed to make their case. I think this from the WaPo article sums up why:
“…Ben Wizner, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who attended the trial as one of several human rights observers, ridiculed the administration for inaugurating the military system on “a marginal figure.”
Even the prosecution’s own evidence portrayed Hamdan as someone who ferried weapons for al-Qaeda and knew details of terrorist attacks, but only after they occurred and often based on conversations he overheard. One FBI agent testified that Hamdan emerged from training at an al-Qaeda camp and said he had no interest in fighting.
“We were told that Guantanamo was necessary because these were the world’s most dangerous terrorists,” said Wizner, who criticized the Pentagon for revealing little in the trial about U.S. interrogation techniques. “Salim Hamdan is not one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists.”"…
If binLaden had taken cabs would the drivers be guilty of providing support? I’m serious – this is really stretching for someone to convict.
my initial thought is the not guilty is the uniform’s fig leaf – that somehow, not giving Richard Cheney EVERYTHING he wants will somehow save their mortal souls
My initial – (ok, so not really initial) thought is that these Tribunal trials are just *so* fucked up, that even the hand-picked Pentagonobots couldn’t fully stomach the travesty.
But they tried!
Pete Williams said this morning that the verdicts aren’t even required to be unanimous. Do you happen to know if that’s true?
Updated above with a link to the ACLU’s statement on the verdict and also a link back to the First Monday discussion we just had on these issues.
That’s correct — they only needed 4 out of the six jurors to secure a conviction the way the rules for the military tribunals were set up. Jane Mayer talks about how that process came to pass quite a bit in her book — you can send a thank you note to David Addington…
Anyone know what the actual vote was?
For this, we tore up our Constitution?
you can send a thank you note to David Addington…
ya know – I really *do* feel like sending him a note.
The message might be just a tad bit different though… I might write it as something of an homage to George Carlin’s “Seven Words”.
As the Washington Post’s article notes, even Hitler’s driver was not charged as a war criminal.
Don’t know the answer to that as yet, sorry.
Actually my mini rant at 8:33 is seven words, just not quite George Carlinesque.
Actually my mini rant at 8:33 is seven words, just not quite George Carlinesque.
I’ll just adjust it mentally. *g*
no verdict polling out there yet –
Navy captain is ‘President’ (foreman), the panel includes two colonels and three lieutenant colonels from the Army, Air Force and Marines.
They hate us because we live in houses and put food on our families.
when sending out those thank you notes, don’t forget the
Ayes here and YEA’s
here
Navy captain is ‘President’ (foreman), the panel includes two colonels and three lieutenant colonels from the Army, Air Force and Marines.
IIRC the Judge is a Navy Captain? If this is so important for the security of our nation why are there no flag rank officers involved? Just asking.
What’s a flag rank officer? Revealing my ignorance so I can learn something. Thanks.
you promised not to tell anyone about that *g*
I agree that within the limits of the process the military jury acted correctly. Hamdan was a schmuck and a gofer not a planner or participant in operations. The count that he was found guilty on stems from the fact he was found with a couple of missiles in his car.
But it is the process that determined that he was an unlawful enemy combatant, held him for years without trial, interrogated him using coercion and without benefit of counsel, and then sent him before this dubious military commission that should be on trial. Hamdan was just a small man caught up in events much larger than him and over which he had no control. The same can not be said of those who created the bogus imitation of a judicial system which tried him. If you compare what he did to what was done to him, it becomes clear that his jailors are far more culpable than he is.
Hamdan’s crimes if any were not against the United States except under the most tenuous and tortuous of readings. They took place in Afghanistan. Yet I have never heard the state of Afganistan express any interest in Hamdan or in prosecution of him. But then looking for substance, or justice, in a show trial sort of misses the point.
Admirals, generals
An officer in the navy or coast guard holding a rank higher than captain, such as rear admiral, vice admiral, or admiral
ps – I think the ‘judge’ is a Marine
No disagreement here that the process utterly sucks. Using coerced evidence at trial? Ginning up charges of conspiracy based on incredibly flimsy information, while letting his supervisor go — the man who actually coordinated the things that Hamdan was accused of doing — years ago in 2004? Puh-lease.
Generals in the case of the Army, Air Force and Marines and Admirals in the Navy.
What kind of appeals does the convicted have a right to under the MCA?
Forgot about Teh Google for a moment there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_officer
That isn’t exactly clear at the moment, frankly, and all sides are sort of feeling their way through. Since this is the first military tribunal to even do this since WWII, and since military law has been utterly revamped since that time, it’s very unclear. But the string of SCOTUS decisions pointing to habeas review point toward some appeal potential in the federal courts — and because there are substantial questions about coerced evidence being used and additional evidence coming from material to which the defense was not privy prior to trial because of its classified nature, there are certainly grounds for challenge. We’ll have to see…
As I read about Hamdan and Guantanamo, and in light of Solzhenitsyn’s burial, why am I reminded of the word “gulag?”
Samanthat Power up on wnyc.org.
Junior Officers = Army, AF, Marine 2nd Lieutenant, 1st LT, and Capt; Navy and Coast Guard version are Ensign, Lt Junior Grade, and Lieutenant. Also generically described as O1, O2, and O3
Field Grade Officers = Army, AF, Marine Major, Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel; Navy and Coast Guard are Lieutenant Commander, Commander, and Captain. O4, O5, O6.
Flag Officer (Stars) = Army AF, Marines Brigadier General (1 star), Major General (2 star), Lieutenant General (3 star), General (four star), and General of the Armies (5 star – none since Omar Bradley)
Navy/Coast Guard is Rear Admiral Lower Half (equivalent of 1 star), Rear Admiral Upper Half (2 star), Vice Admiral (3 star), Admiral (4 star), and Admiral of the Navies (5 star).
Navy also uses the rank Commodore (traditional 1 star) but not consistently. I believe Grace Hopper was probably the last formal Commodore. Usually used I believe as the designation for the commander of a task force at sea.
Also, since there is only one Captain allowed on a Naval vessel, Captains from other services (Marines, Army, AF) I believe are designated temporarily as Major (honorary) while on board.
This concludes the more information than you ever cared to know about commissioned officer ranks in the US military.
No disagreement here that the process utterly sucks.
Sign outside Tribunal door:
“No food or drink, small children, sidearms, or licenses to practice REAL Law are allowed to enter or be used inside.”
So, they create this Rube Goldberg mickymouse system without knowing what could/should be done afterwards? That makes no sense at all. Congress FU’ed this really nicely.
your Goldberg reference reminds me of the guy Hartmann (kicked out as Prosec. Chief) – who spent $12M of your money on his “expeditionary courtroom” only to have power, video, and audio FAIL during arraignments
You know Senator Dick Durbin once called the US system of detention a gulag and he was forced to apologize for his remark on the Senate floor. The fact that he was right didn’t seem to enter into it.
fyi – one of the witnesses to Quaran desecration was Hamdan’s ‘boss’ – the guy they let go in 04
Thanks.
OT – headline over at HuffPo:
“BUSH TO CONDEMN CHINA POLICIES BEFORE OLYMPIC ARRIVAL”
Nice to see that Georgie’s instincts are as sharp as ever…
He will then no doubt say a few pithy things about the silverware.
New Blue Texan post
Military Justice. The ultimate oxymoron!
Christy,
Thanks for your analysis! I heard the news on NPR, but I came here to understand it. I appreciate your work on these issues!
Bob in HI