Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Tribunal sentence confounds critics

Rocky Mountain News

Published August 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

The detention of enemy combatants in the War on Terror has left Americans scrambling for the right answers on how the U.S. should best deal with terrorism suspects. On the one hand, they can't be locked up and left in Guantanamo indefinitely. On the other hand, can they receive fair trials in military tribunals?

Critics of U.S. policy on home soil and abroad chorused "no" before Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan, even went on trial in the first - and long overdue - war-crimes prosecution of a Guantanamo inmate. "Guilty, as ordered," chimed the headline of The New York Times editorial, in keeping with critics' stance that the tribunals were simply kangaroo courts.

But Hamdan's sentencing last week flies in the face of this overdrawn thesis.

Prosecutors had sought a 30-year sentence for the Yemeni driver after his conviction on charges of giving support to al-Qaida. But the jury of six military officers handed down a sentence of 51/2 years behind bars. With time already served, Hamdan - who was apologetic in court and thanked the jurors - could be out in mere months.

But will he actually get out after his sentence is up?

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell raised doubts after the Hamdan case moved into jury deliberations.

"Even if (Hamdan) were acquitted of the charges that are before him," Morrell said, "he would still be considered an enemy combatant and therefore would continue to be subjected to - subject to continued detention. Of course, that said, he would also have the opportunity to go before the administrative review board and they could determine whether he is a suitable candidate for release or transfer. But in the near term, at least, we would consider him an enemy combatant and still a danger and would likely still be detained for some period of time thereafter."

In the automatic case review that Hamdan will now receive, the Pentagon can only shorten the driver's sentence, not lengthen it. Which is why Morrell's statement is so ironic.

Yet if the government is going to imprison some detainees even after they serve their sentences, why bother with trials in the first place?

For the sake of a fair and meaningful tribunal process, and for the reputation of the United States and its commitment to the rule of law, Hamdan should walk out of jail and be shipped to his home country when the jury said his time is up.

Comments

  • August 11, 2008

    8:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KelcyCo writes:

    The US does not have a reputation, unless you consider it to be a negative one. We no longer have a commitment to law either for that matter. We are spying on ourselves, conducting unlawful searches, unlawful seizures at the border, and the list goes on. Anyone with half a brain new this government was not going to release Hamden after the trial no matter what happened. Although, most of us figured it would be a kangaroo court. However, we were enormously surprised and impressed by the ethics of the jury. Hooray for them. They did the right thing. They probably have ended their military careers but they can at least look themselves in the mirror and get a good nights sleep.

  • August 11, 2008

    10:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    KelcyCO. You are spot on. We really have lost our freedoms in this country. Americans if you think you live in a fre country take another look. I still love my country, but the federal goverment that is running it needs to be severely overhauled. It has become so corrupt it is rediculous

  • August 11, 2008

    12:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    yaakovwatkins writes:

    Marshdale

    I haven't lost any freedoms except due to blunders by the Social Security Administration and the IRS. The FBI hasn't done anything to me. Of course, taking off my shoes when I want to fly is an inconvenience. But I've experienced security by airlines in other countries and the Transportation Safety people strike me as bumbling rather than malicious.

    The fact that we can have this discussion unmolested by government agents testifies to our freedom of speech. I have freedom of religion. I can go anywhere I like. I've got some problems with the zoning code but it's not that bad. My right to bear arms and self defense just received some help.

    A legal search happens when a law enforcement officer has a legal level of evidence. The officer doesn't have to be correct that the person searched has violated the law. He just has to have a certain level of evidence to justify the search. I really don't see many illegal searches. I do find times when people want to deny police officers accused of civil rights violations due process so that the case can be tried in the newspaper rather than by a review board. I find it hypocritical that civil rights activists don't seem to care about the civil rights of police officers.

    I really don't see noticeable infringements on our freedoms.

    As for corruption, my sense is that it has improved since the days when people living in cemeteries voted in alphabetical order for Democrats or the days when a newspaper publisher could start a war. But I've seen no proof. It certainly hasn't gotten worse.

    There is one major exception though. From what I understand, liberal college instructors seem to be more willing than they used to be to punish conservative students for their political beliefs. So in that case you may be accurate.

  • August 11, 2008

    5:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HolierThanThou writes:

    Freedoms lost include:

    1. Habeas corpus, which states that it is illegal for the government or anyone else to detain a person illegally. This means that probable cause must exist for arrest and the person must be legally charged with a crime for the detention to be legal. Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo was built and holds men in violation of habeas corpus. Extreme rendition is another example.

    2. The 4th Amendment is widely ignored by the Bush regime. Frequent and now public violations of FISA and unwarranted searches and spying on American citizens are now commonplace.

    3. Freedom of speech is all but dead. Corporate shills control major media outlets including television, radio, and the newspapers. "Free speech zones" were used in 2004 and conservatives are busy peddling fear about allowing too much free speech. On the good side, the internet is covering important news, allowing Americans access to foreign and non-traditional journalism, and publishing opinions like this one.

    4. 1st Amendment prohibitions on the combination of church and state where the government shall respect no establishment of religion is under severe attack. The destruction of the "establishment" clause actually begin with the brutal suppression of native American religious beliefs. It is continuing with illegal government funding of right-wing "religious" institutions including some that are actually operating a war-profiteers such as Blackwater. Prohibition of legal abortions would be another example of the corrosion done to the 1st Amendment by way of religion.

    So, yes, many freedoms have been lost in America. These are important freedoms whether you are aware that you're being impacted or not. The reason for necessary concern will become clear when you realize that elimination of the above freedoms provides fertile ground for the establishment of a brutal totalitarian police state.

    So, the time to fight for the restoration and maintenance of these human rights in American is now.

  • August 12, 2008

    9:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Patron_Drinker writes:

    DumberThanThou wrote:
    "Freedoms lost include:
    1. Habeas corpus...." (along with a bunch of other nonsense)

    Camp X-ray is a POW (Prisoner of War) camp. POWs are not subject to habeas corpus. Not even those who were born in the US, because by taking arms against the US, they became traitors, and thus lost their citizenship.
    The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with warrantless searches, rather unreasonable searches. Warrants are addressed only in that they must be supported by probable cause. There's nothing unreasonable about searching the homes (or listening to the communications) of suspected terrorists.
    Concerning free speech, well, your post is contradicted by the fact that you can post it.
    The 1st Amendment states that the government may not establish a religion or abridge the practice of religion. You are right in condemning the suppression of Native American religious practices. You're wrong in claiming that there is any kind of prohibition of "legal abortions". There is a line drawn on what constitutes a "legal abortion", but that is why you use the term "legal abortion" in the first place.