Military: Hamdan Is an Enemy Combatant and Will Be Detained if Acquitted by Jury
| Wed Aug. 6, 2008 5:33 AM PDT
It's stuff like this that ensures we have no credibility abroad. And really makes you angry.
After a number of ill-fated attempts stopped by the courts, the Bush Administration has finally closed its case against Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. He is being tried by a jury of six uniformed military officers who are set to deliver a verdict at any minute, following a two week trial at Guantanamo Bay. But the government doesn't have a great track record on prosecuting terrorism cases. What happens if Hamdan is found not guilty?
He'll be locked up indefinitely anyway. We just keep proving our fiercest critics abroad correct, over and over. Here's Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell:
MORRELL: Even if he were acquitted of the charges that are before him, he would still be considered an enemy combatant and therefore would continue to be 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.
The process for trying Guantanamo detainees has gone through so many iterations, you almost got the sense that the Bush Administration was really trying to find something that worked. Nope. Shame on you for giving that bunch the benefit of the doubt. "We would consider him an enemy combatant and still a danger" — that's the only standard someone has to meet to be locked up by the United States of America.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Oh, of course. But that would still look bad; that's why the charges are rigged.
He was acquitted of knowingly conspiring to kill civilians ? this means that he was, even if you bought the government's argument, simply helping to attack US soldiers, which while something the US certainly does not want, cannot possibly be considered a war crime.
Unless we want Charlie Wilson et al. convicted for helping the mujihadeen fight the Soviets.
Oh, of course. But that would still look bad; that's why the charges are rigged.
He was acquitted of knowingly conspiring to kill civilians ? this means that he was, even if you bought the government's argument, simply helping to attack US soldiers, which while something the US certainly does not want, cannot possibly be considered a war crime.
Unless we want Charlie Wilson et al. convicted for helping the mujihadeen fight the Soviets.
Oh, of course. But that would still look bad; that's why the charges are rigged.
He was acquitted of knowingly conspiring to kill civilians this means that he was, even if you bought the government's argument, simply helping to attack US soldiers, which while something the US certainly does not want, cannot possibly be considered a war crime.
Unless we want Charlie Wilson et al. convicted for helping the mujihadeen fight the Soviets.
