Bin Laden's Driver Sentenced: 66 Months

[Falkenhayn]

Yes you read that right, including Time Served. He's eligible for parole in January.

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.


HAMDAN CHARGES
Conspiracy: Not guilty of two counts of conspiring with al-Qaeda to attack civilians, destroy property and commit murder
Providing support for terrorism: Guilty on five counts, including being the driver and bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden, a man he knew to be the leader of a terrorist group. Not guilty on three other counts

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.

+http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7547261.stm

[ArmorPierce]

did you miss this part

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

Basically, "well the judge decided to free him at January but we are going to keep him anyway."

[Falkenhayn]

did you miss this part

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

Basically, "well the judge decided to free him at January but we are going to keep him anyway."

Oh, I saw it. I figured that W's disdain for legal proceedings not in line with his policy positions is well established. Otherwise I didn't have anything to say on the matter besides a lot of piss and bile.

The board has students of Law and actual lawyers who could put forward a much more constructive a criticism on the legality of the action taken than I could. By "action" I mean, the "well, we're going to hold him anyway" decision.

[SirNitram]

So. After all these years, you.. Convicted him of what he said he did. Congraultations. Was it worth the majority of America's Soft Power?

On time served Hamdan could be released in five months

Epic. Fail. The Bush administration stacked the deck as ruthlessly as they could, and this is what comes of it.

[Enigma]

So. After all these years, you.. Convicted him of what he said he did. Congraultations. Was it worth the majority of America's Soft Power?

On time served Hamdan could be released in five months

Epic. Fail. The Bush administration stacked the deck as ruthlessly as they could, and this is what comes of it.

Except that the trial was an overall joke. I mean, even after five months they won't release him until they feel like it. W's doing what he wants even though it is going against the rest of the nation.... again.

[Questor]

So. After all these years, you.. Convicted him of what he said he did. Congraultations. Was it worth the majority of America's Soft Power?

On time served Hamdan could be released in five months

Epic. Fail. The Bush administration stacked the deck as ruthlessly as they could, and this is what comes of it.

Except that the trial was an overall joke. I mean, even after five months they won't release him until they feel like it. W's doing what he wants even though it is going against the rest of the nation.... again.

Just to point out: in five months, it may not be Bush's call. Which is a good question. Was it a straight mathematical exercise, with multiple choice sentences, like with the California Penal Code, or did the panel have some leeway?

[Durandal]

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

... So what was the point of this sham trial, again?

[Stuart Mackey]

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

... So what was the point of this sham trial, again?

Propaganda, it would seem.

[CmdrWilkens]

So. After all these years, you.. Convicted him of what he said he did. Congraultations. Was it worth the majority of America's Soft Power?

On time served Hamdan could be released in five months

Epic. Fail. The Bush administration stacked the deck as ruthlessly as they could, and this is what comes of it.

Except that the trial was an overall joke. I mean, even after five months they won't release him until they feel like it. W's doing what he wants even though it is going against the rest of the nation.... again.

No he will get released because the panel, very deliberately I have to believe, sentenced Hamdan to an amount of time to almost exactly (as close as they could managed) coincide with the end of Bush's tenure. So simply put the guy's sentence is up...when the rest of our sentence is finally up. I think slap in the face is about as simple a way of putting it as possible.

[Steve]

This is scary. I'm starting to agree with the "arrest Bush" argument after years of considering it something from the leftist lunatic fringe.

I mean, are they even caring now to bother with anything that doesn't fit what they desire in the world? Law means nothing before the whims and beliefs of Bush the Younger, the Shadow of God upon Earth, holy crusader to spread democracy to the Middle East?

[SirNitram]

This is scary. I'm starting to agree with the "arrest Bush" argument after years of considering it something from the leftist lunatic fringe.

I mean, are they even caring now to bother with anything that doesn't fit what they desire in the world? Law means nothing before the whims and beliefs of Bush the Younger, the Shadow of God upon Earth, holy crusader to spread democracy to the Middle East?

No offense, but around the time they began releasing memos explaining how bits of the Constitution did not apply to the President and his capacity as Commander In Chief, this was clear to me.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

They've tried him, and found him guilty, and we're not going to let him go at the end of his sentence: That's.. That's so blatantly criminal and unconstitutional that there's no justification for it that can be provided.

*sighs bitterly*

I spent six years of my life supporting Bush, and two years trying to convince myself it wasn't wrong of me to do so, just that things had turned out badly and that he and his advisors were ideological retards of the highest sort.

Unfortunately, now I must stand and contemplate the bitter fact, alas, that you were all right, and I was very much wrong; the administration is not merely stupid and incompetent, but also criminal and unconstitutional. There can now be no denying it. And to think that at the height of things in 2002 in the runup to the invasion of Iraq I told someone that I would kill them without hesitation if Bush told me to do it in person. Six years changes a person very substantially, me more than most, but, gods above, I was murderously wrong.

Ah well, I've turned in my voter's registration a year ago, and shall never again participate in the process, which is just as well, because I certainly don't trust myself to ever vote again; I am not capable of doing so responsibly, seeing as I supported this monster in the past, though I am at least intelligent enough to recognize that, and therefore remove myself from American politics until death. I cannot really see myself ever supporting a conservative candidate again short of a member of a conservative party in the sense at the RPR in France was conservative; and I must say that this maliciousness has more or less destroyed my ability to even support the traditionalism I lately espoused.

What can I say, other than that I wish for other people to deal with politics, for I know that I damned well can't?

[Darth Wong]

This is scary. I'm starting to agree with the "arrest Bush" argument after years of considering it something from the leftist lunatic fringe.

Why did you consider it "lunatic" for years? He was openly, brazenly flouting the law with a smirk on his face.

This is the problem with America; what's "reasonable" and what's "lunatic" is defined solely by popularity, not by any kind of logic.

[Steve]

I, too, regret my error in not trusting the instincts I felt on Election Day 2000, when I wrote in the name "John McCain" (irony of ironies!) because, for all my distaste of Gore, I could not bring myself to vote for Bush. Four years later I ignored those instincts after moments of hesitation and voted for Bush, convinced that the devil I knew was better than the devil I didn't, afraid that Kerry might, in a zeal to split from Bush, do even more damage. And indeed, I still fear such regarding Obama.

But now I won't let that fear and what I figure an instinctive distrust of American liberalism to cloud my better judgement. Should I be at the ballot box this November, my vote is going toward Obama.

[Steve]

Why did you consider it "lunatic" for years? He was openly, brazenly flouting the law with a smirk on his face.

I allowed myself to think that such things were a necessary evil of the times, that those who refused to accept as such were either hopelessly biased idealogues or naive fools who were bound too tightly to ideals to understand the need for pragmatism and even cynicism in the world.

This is the problem with America; what's "reasonable" and what's "lunatic" is defined solely by popularity, not by any kind of logic.

Logic is not a natural thing to human beings, feelings are. If the majority of people believe something is reasonable, it will seem so; if something is considered "lunatic", then society deems it a lunatic view.

It is not a good thing when married to what appears to be an instinctive behavior toward Presidents and even other positions. The dignity and respect of public office is too frequently allowed to cross to the holder when it should not.

[Darth Wong]

Why the fuck should the public office itself have an inherent "dignity and respect", never mind its holder? The office is that of top public employee; the public should be able to demand answers from this fucker, and accountability. The idea of revering him or his office is completely absurd.

[Steve]

Why the fuck should the public office itself have an inherent "dignity and respect", never mind its holder? The office is that of top public employee; the public should be able to demand answers from this fucker, and accountability. The idea of revering him or his office is completely absurd.

I'm not sure where it comes from. It might be some modern day version of being in reverent awe of a ruling King or one's skilled tribal chieftain. Perhaps its rationalized by a perception of someone's abilities if they managed to be so successful as to achieve high public office - IOW, a circular logic wheel of "since people of great skill, talent, and wisdom get into the office, the office must be something for skillful, talented, and wise people".

Perhaps it would be better if instead of dignity and respect, an office and its sholder commanded fear and respect - that is, fear and respect of the power it holds over the apparatus of a state. Then we'd be less likely to blindly nod our heads at the holder of the office when we shouldn't and more likely to demand full accountings of their actions.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps it would be better if people understood that he is nothing more than the political equivalent of a factory plant manager. Yes, he makes decisions, and yes, he must have had some kind of talent to get that job (although not necessarily the talent one would hope), but he does not deserve automatic reverence.

[Edi]

Why the fuck should the public office itself have an inherent "dignity and respect", never mind its holder? The office is that of top public employee; the public should be able to demand answers from this fucker, and accountability. The idea of revering him or his office is completely absurd.

I'm not sure where it comes from. It might be some modern day version of being in reverent awe of a ruling King or one's skilled tribal chieftain. Perhaps its rationalized by a perception of someone's abilities if they managed to be so successful as to achieve high public office - IOW, a circular logic wheel of "since people of great skill, talent, and wisdom get into the office, the office must be something for skillful, talented, and wise people".

Perhaps it would be better if instead of dignity and respect, an office and its sholder commanded fear and respect - that is, fear and respect of the power it holds over the apparatus of a state. Then we'd be less likely to blindly nod our heads at the holder of the office when we shouldn't and more likely to demand full accountings of their actions.

You might have something here if this applied universally, but I have never seen any of this sort of behavior from your media and most people during the Clinton presidency, or even the Goerge H.W. Bush presidency, but when the subject turns to Reagan or Shrub the War Criminal, it's pure worship all the way like they were the fucking Second Coming or something. We'll see how it goes after the November election, but I'm fairly certain that if Obama wins, he will not have nearly the kind of deference from the hopelessly right wing media of the US as Bush did.

[Ford Prefect]

Perhaps it would be better if people understood that he is nothing more than the political equivalent of a factory plant manager. Yes, he makes decisions, and yes, he must have had some kind of talent to get that job (although not necessarily the talent one would hope), but he does not deserve automatic reverence.

When I was much younger, my father was having certain altercatiosn with state and local government. When he was ranting he said quite clearly to me that 'the government is supposed to work for us, not the other way round'. They weren't elected to be kings.

[Steve]

A very true sentiment, Ford.

Government is the embodiment of power. It should, IMHO, command respect. Not the kind of respect one gives to an admired colleague, close friend, or even lover and mate, but the kind of respect one gives to the police officer writing you a traffic ticket. A respect for the power it wields and how that power can and might be used.

[Steve]

Curse the edit feature, but my fatigue-addled brain has finally let me process a further elaboration for your sentiment, Ford.

If a government is meant to rule in the name of the people - that is, a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" - it must indeed be held accountable, and its powers real and potential restrained by the forces of law, tradition, and of course the People themselves. It should of course work for the people by providing them services that people cannot attain themselves.

But it must also do so wisely. A government that gives its populace whatever they desire is not necessarily healthy any more than a government that controls its populace.

Ultimately the application of government power on behalf of the people, singularly or collectively, will fall on the personal judgement of those who hold the power. It is there that the danger arises. We here in the States have failed to apropriately monitor tthe actions of those who wield the power of the government. We have allowed our fears of terrorism and our private follies and flaws to allow us to be blind.


*rubs eyes*


Gah, I must remember not to become philosophical when getting sleepy.