MSNBC.com-

 

Hamdan sentenced to 5 1/2 years

 

Bin Laden driver pleaded for leniency; he says just wanted a good job

 

MSNBC News Services

updated 5:04 p.m. ET, Thurs., Aug. 7, 2008

 

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - A military jury sentenced Osama bin Laden's former driver to 5 1/2 years in prison for aiding terrorism Thursday, making him eligible for release in just six months, despite prosecutors' pleas to give him no less than 30 years.

 

Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni who had faced a maximum sentence of life behind bars, gets credit for five years already served at Guantanamo Bay. He thanked the jurors for the sentence and repeated an apology for having served bin Laden.

 

"I would like to apologize one more time to all the members and I would like to thank you for what you have done for me," Hamdan told the panel of six U.S. military officers, hand-picked by the Pentagon for the first U.S. war crimes trial in a half century.

 

The judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, said he did not know what would happen to Hamdan once his sentence is complete, but said he would likely be eligible for the same administrative review process as other prisoners.

 

Pleading for leniency

The sentence was delivered by the same six jurors who convicted Hamdan on Wednesday in the war crimes tribunal authorized by the Bush administration to try non-U.S. captives on terrorism charges outside the regular civilian and military courts.

 

Hamdan had pleaded for leniency earlier Thursday, saying he regretted the loss of ?innocent lives? in bin Laden?s attacks.

 

Hamdan asked the jury to spare him from a life in prison, saying he worked as bin Laden's driver because he needed a job. Prosecutors asked for a sentence of no less than 30 years.

 

Hamdan, a Yemeni man with a fourth-grade education, was convicted of aiding terrorism by chauffeuring bin Laden around Afghanistan at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. But he said he merely had a "relationship of respect" with bin Laden, as would any other employee.

 

"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, reading in Arabic from a prepared statement.

 

The jury found Hamdan guilty of aiding terrorism but acquitted him of conspiracy Wednesday at the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War II.

 

Under tribunal rules, the jury imposes the sentence, not the judge. Their verdict does not have to be unanimous. A Pentagon legal official later reviews the sentence and can reduce but not increase it.

 

The military judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, already ruled that Hamdan should receive five years of credit for the time he has served at Guantanamo Bay since the Pentagon decided to charge him.

 

The tribunals' chief prosecutor, Army Col. Lawrence Morris, earlier said the failure to convict Hamdan of both charges would factor into his team's recommended sentence.

 

A psychiatrist hired by the defense told jurors that Hamdan has the potential to be rehabilitated.

 

Automatic appeal

The verdict will be appealed automatically to a special military appeals court in Washington. Hamdan can then appeal to U.S. civilian courts as well.

 

Deputy White House spokesman Tony Fratto applauded what he called "a fair trial" and said prosecutors will now proceed with other war crimes trials at the isolated U.S. military base in southeast Cuba. Prosecutors intend to try about 80 Guantanamo detainees for war crimes, including 19 already charged.

 

But defense lawyers said Hamdan's rights were denied by an unfair process, hastily patched together after Supreme Court rulings that previous tribunal systems violated U.S. and international law.

 

Hamdan has been held at Guantanamo since May 2002. The military has not said where he would serve a sentence, but the commander of the detention center, Navy Rear Adm. David Thomas, said last week that convicted prisoners will be held apart from the general detainee population.

 

Under the military commission, Hamdan did not have all the rights normally accorded either by U.S. civilian or military courts. The judge allowed secret testimony and hearsay evidence. Hamdan was not judged by a jury of his peers and he received no Miranda warning about his rights.

 

Defendant alleges coercive tactics

Hamdan's attorneys said interrogations at the center of the government's case were tainted by coercive tactics, including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement.

 

All that is in contrast to the courts-martial used to prosecute American troops in Iraq and Vietnam, which accorded defendants more rights.

 

The five-man, one-woman jury convicted Hamdan on five counts of supporting terrorism, accepting the prosecution argument that Hamdan aided terrorism by becoming a member of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and serving as bin Laden's armed bodyguard and driver while knowing that the al-Qaida leader was plotting attacks against the U.S.

 

But he was found not guilty on three other counts alleging he knew that his work would be used for terrorism and that he provided surface-to-air missiles to al-Qaida.

 

He also was cleared of two charges of conspiracy alleging he was part of the al-Qaida effort to attack the United States ? the most serious charges, according to deputy chief defense counsel Michael Berrigan.

 

Berrigan noted the conspiracy charges were the only ones Hamdan originally faced when his case prompted the Supreme Court to halt the tribunals. Prosecutors added the new charges after the Bush administration rewrote the rules.

 

"The problem is the law was specifically written after the fact to target Mr. Hamdan," said Charles Swift, one of Hamdan's civilian lawyers.

 

Link

Well, according to the article and a radio report I heard, his sentence has almost already been served (given credit for the 5 years he has been held at Gitmo), and he will be eligible for parole in about 6 months.

 

This whole trial process has been a sham, thanks to the administration's insistence that suspects be held in a legal netherworld since 2002.

 

If we could convict the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing in a regular court, why couldn't they do the same with these guys?

 

I would also like to know why you would put the least threatening terror suspect on trial first, a guy who had very little importance in Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, KSM, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Abu Zubaydah are still awaiting trial (and are the biggest Al Qaeda leaders in custody).

Well, according to the article and a radio report I heard, his sentence has almost already been served (given credit for the 5 years he has been held at Gitmo), and he will be eligible for parole in about 6 months.

 

This whole trial process has been a sham, thanks to the administration's insistence that suspects be held in a legal netherworld since 2002.

 

If we could convict the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing in a regular court, why couldn't they do the same with these guys?

 

I would also like to know why you would put the least threatening terror suspect on trial first, a guy who had very little importance in Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, KSM, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Abu Zubaydah are still awaiting trial (and are the biggest Al Qaeda leaders in custody).

Some "legal netherworld". He'll be out in six months because they counted his time in Gitmo. Anybody who is tried won't be spending long in prison unless there is proof they directly killed somebody (which I doubt will happen in any cases).

 

And as for "why isn't a regular court good enough for them" argument... well, it didn't deter them from a second attack, now, did it?

Some "legal netherworld". He'll be out in six months because they counted his time in Gitmo. Anybody who is tried won't be spending long in prison unless there is proof they directly killed somebody (which I doubt will happen in any cases).

 

And as for "why isn't a regular court good enough for them" argument... well, it didn't deter them from a second attack, now, did it?

1. The administration has already said that even though he will have served his sentence, they are STILL going to hold him indefinitely. If that doesn't make this a true 'show trial', what would?

 

2. First of all, Al Qaeda did not actually exist until a few years after the first WTC bombing. Second, law-enforcement is only one part of an effective way to fight terrorism. There are many other elements, which include foreign aid, education, special forces operations, and most importantly, working with other governments in order to close the net around the suspects.

Some "legal netherworld". He'll be out in six months because they counted his time in Gitmo. Anybody who is tried won't be spending long in prison unless there is proof they directly killed somebody (which I doubt will happen in any cases).

 

And as for "why isn't a regular court good enough for them" argument... well, it didn't deter them from a second attack, now, did it?

1. The administration has already said that even though he will have served his sentence, they are STILL going to hold him indefinitely. If that doesn't make this a true 'show trial', what would?

 

2. First of all, Al Qaeda did not actually exist until a few years after the first WTC bombing. Second, law-enforcement is only one part of an effective way to fight terrorism. There are many other elements, which include foreign aid, education, special forces operations, and most importantly, working with other governments in order to close the net around the suspects.

 

1. Administrative review does not mean 'hold indefinitely.'

 

2. 1988 is before 1993, at least on my calendar

Some "legal netherworld". He'll be out in six months because they counted his time in Gitmo. Anybody who is tried won't be spending long in prison unless there is proof they directly killed somebody (which I doubt will happen in any cases).

 

And as for "why isn't a regular court good enough for them" argument... well, it didn't deter them from a second attack, now, did it?

1. The administration has already said that even though he will have served his sentence, they are STILL going to hold him indefinitely. If that doesn't make this a true 'show trial', what would?

 

2. First of all, Al Qaeda did not actually exist until a few years after the first WTC bombing. Second, law-enforcement is only one part of an effective way to fight terrorism. There are many other elements, which include foreign aid, education, special forces operations, and most importantly, working with other governments in order to close the net around the suspects.

 

1. Administrative review does not mean 'hold indefinitely.'

 

2. 1988 is before 1993, at least on my calendar

1. Let's be realistic here, this WH won't let him go.

 

2. Al Qaeda did not have operational capability rivaling any other terrorist group until the rise of the Taliban. It wasn't at least until the mid-1990s that Al Qaeda became what would allow it to carry out so many attacks between 1998 and 2001, which put it on the radar of the world's major nations.

Some "legal netherworld". He'll be out in six months because they counted his time in Gitmo. Anybody who is tried won't be spending long in prison unless there is proof they directly killed somebody (which I doubt will happen in any cases).

 

And as for "why isn't a regular court good enough for them" argument... well, it didn't deter them from a second attack, now, did it?

1. The administration has already said that even though he will have served his sentence, they are STILL going to hold him indefinitely. If that doesn't make this a true 'show trial', what would?

 

2. First of all, Al Qaeda did not actually exist until a few years after the first WTC bombing. Second, law-enforcement is only one part of an effective way to fight terrorism. There are many other elements, which include foreign aid, education, special forces operations, and most importantly, working with other governments in order to close the net around the suspects.

 

1. Administrative review does not mean 'hold indefinitely.'

 

2. 1988 is before 1993, at least on my calendar

 

1. It really depends. If there is no appellate process on the administrative review (in other words, go through an objective, independent court, presumably a federal district court), it could mean "hold indefinitely" because there is no check on the decision. Furthermore, why should there be any administrative review at all? If he was sentenced to 6.5 years by a competent, lawful court, why should there be an extra step in the process that the lawful court does not have any jurisdiction over? To me, they are saying they can do what they want.

 

2. Your statement is pure semantics. His point was that Al Qaeda was not an enemy of the United States prior to 1993. He was absoltuely right, notwithstanding your little snide comment.

1. It really depends. If there is no appellate process on the administrative review (in other words, go through an objective, independent court, presumably a federal district court), it could mean "hold indefinitely" because there is no check on the decision. Furthermore, why should there be any administrative review at all? If he was sentenced to 6.5 years by a competent, lawful court, why should there be an extra step in the process that the lawful court does not have any jurisdiction over? To me, they are saying they can do what they want.

 

2. Your statement is pure semantics. His point was that Al Qaeda was not an enemy of the United States prior to 1993. He was absoltuely right, notwithstanding your little snide comment.

 

1. The man is going to be released and allowed to return to Yemen in under a year.

 

2. The stated goal of AQ beginning in 1991 was the removal of the stain of foreign troops from the land of the 2 mosques. Still prior to 1993.

1. Let's be realistic here, this WH won't let him go.

 

2. Al Qaeda did not have operational capability rivaling any other terrorist group until the rise of the Taliban. It wasn't at least until the mid-1990s that Al Qaeda became what would allow it to carry out so many attacks between 1998 and 2001, which put it on the radar of the world's major nations.

 

1. "This" WH is out in 5 months regardless, and the man is going to be released.

 

2. AQ certainly grew in experience and capability in the 90s, but the fact that the US didn't deal with him in 1994 when he was still a small fish is an indictment to the pre-2001 anti-terrorist approach.

AQ certainly grew in experience and capability in the 90s, but the fact that the US didn't deal with him in 1994 when he was still a small fish is an indictment to the pre-2001 anti-terrorist approach.

The current method of bombing the crap out of nations, bursting into the private homes of Iraqi citizens at random, and supporting some of the Middle East's worst regimes (ie. Saudi Arabia), is just creating more terrorists.