Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Wall Street Journal
August 7, 2008
Pg. 12
In a saner world, yesterday's partial acquittal of Salim Hamdan might persuade critics that military commissions aren't the Star Chambers of political caricature. It won't, of course. But for all the press corps innuendo about jurors "handpicked by the Pentagon," these supposed rubber-stamps exonerated an al Qaeda terrorist of some of the charges against him.
Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver, was charged with two war crimes -- conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. He was convicted of the latter by a panel of six senior military officers, and now could receive as much as a life sentence. Hamdan was a footsoldier, though by his own admission he provided security and logistics support to al Qaeda. He was privy to the workings of bin Laden's terror network, and was not the mere civilian his lawyers depicted.
The conspiracy charge was arguably the more serious. If anything, though, its rejection proves the fairness of the military commissions process, which will stand as the most due-process-minded war tribunal in history. The judge presiding over Hamdan's trial, Keith Allred, did not instruct the jury that the international laws of war applied to killing military soldiers in combat, only to civilians. This is a distinction without a difference: Hamdan had already violated those laws by fighting out of uniform and joining a terrorist organization.
Still, Hamdan received a fair trial, with a team of defense counsel at his elbow. Small differences (on the rules on secrecy and evidence) from regular courts martial were in place to avoid compromising intelligence. Part of the prosecution's case was even excluded by Judge Allred because of rough treatment while Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He also has the right to appeal up to the Supreme Court.
The conviction vindicates the use of military commissions to try terrorists, instead of the civilian courts favored by the anti-antiterror lobby. It also paves the way for the worst killers incarcerated at Guantanamo to face justice, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other plotters of 9/11.
August 7, 2008
Pg. 12
In a saner world, yesterday's partial acquittal of Salim Hamdan might persuade critics that military commissions aren't the Star Chambers of political caricature. It won't, of course. But for all the press corps innuendo about jurors "handpicked by the Pentagon," these supposed rubber-stamps exonerated an al Qaeda terrorist of some of the charges against him.
Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver, was charged with two war crimes -- conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. He was convicted of the latter by a panel of six senior military officers, and now could receive as much as a life sentence. Hamdan was a footsoldier, though by his own admission he provided security and logistics support to al Qaeda. He was privy to the workings of bin Laden's terror network, and was not the mere civilian his lawyers depicted.
The conspiracy charge was arguably the more serious. If anything, though, its rejection proves the fairness of the military commissions process, which will stand as the most due-process-minded war tribunal in history. The judge presiding over Hamdan's trial, Keith Allred, did not instruct the jury that the international laws of war applied to killing military soldiers in combat, only to civilians. This is a distinction without a difference: Hamdan had already violated those laws by fighting out of uniform and joining a terrorist organization.
Still, Hamdan received a fair trial, with a team of defense counsel at his elbow. Small differences (on the rules on secrecy and evidence) from regular courts martial were in place to avoid compromising intelligence. Part of the prosecution's case was even excluded by Judge Allred because of rough treatment while Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He also has the right to appeal up to the Supreme Court.
The conviction vindicates the use of military commissions to try terrorists, instead of the civilian courts favored by the anti-antiterror lobby. It also paves the way for the worst killers incarcerated at Guantanamo to face justice, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other plotters of 9/11.