After Olbermann waxed poetic for the misunderstood bin-Laden driver we learn that not only is the terrorist convicted of only a lesser crime, but that he is sentenced to only 5 1/2 years. With 5 years credit.
This is the result of running a war like it isn’t a war, but a law enforcement problem.
In an astounding finale to the first military-commission trial, Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s personal aide, has been sentenced by a military commission to five-and-a-half years in prison — five-and-a-half years — upon conviction for the war crime of providing material support to al-Qaeda.
It gets worse. The military judge, Naval Captain Keith Allred, has decided that Hamdan should be credited with the five years he has already spent in custody.
In effect, the jury’s shameful 66-month sentence is thus reduced to a shocking six months — for key assistance to a terror network that has killed thousands of Americans and continues plotting to kill more.
~~~In Hamdan’s case, we thus have a double problem. First, the jury of military officers somehow decided that material support to our enemies, by a guy who actually protected bin Laden and transported weapons for al-Qaeda, was worth only five-and-a-half years in jail. Second, the judge then made matters incalculably worse by effectively giving Hamdan what everyone (including the judge) must know will be taken as a get-out-of-jail card: i.e., full credit for the five years Hamdan has already been in custody as an enemy combatant. That turns the 66 months into six months.
Understand: there is no requirement to try captured enemy combatants for war crimes. As the laws of war have long provided, and as the Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed, wartime enemy combatants may be held without trial for the duration of hostilities. War crimes charges are an additional measure against combatants who commit egregious law-of-war violations.
Yet, that distinction has been lost in the media’s coverage. Absurdly, Hamdan is now in a better position as a convicted war-criminal than those who have merely been detained as enemy combatants without war crimes charges. The American military has managed to value terrorist war crimes as a less serious impropriety than terrorist war participation. Instead of highlighting Hamdan’s conviction, the government will now spend its time explaining why he is still being held after his sentence is over.
~~~Hamdan’s commission has produced a trial that seems to have bent over backwards to be fair to the defendant — so much so that dubious evidentiary rulings and jury instructions may have caused an unmerited acquittal on one of the two charges. More significantly, it has resulted in a sentence that is stunningly unjust, by any measure, given the magnitude of the crime of conviction.
It’s too late to do anything about the horrible SCOTUS decision that brought this about but ensuring that Obama doesn’t get to nominate the next justice is now that much more important. Imagine the damage to this country a liberal court could do?

See author page
as a desert storm vet i have to say, That makes me sick! how the hell can these military men do that to our troops? they need to be fired!
Amazing truly amazing that this scumbag will only get 6 months.
Did the SCOTUS decision affect this case? I thought that this was already going forward when that decision came down.
I guess Democrats have infiltrated the military tribunals.
Rather, serious career military officers are not at all persuaded by the dubious legal adventures of the Bush Administration and prefer the actual rule of law and have become sick and tired of GITMO.
Just a hunch.
oh my Arthur,,,,
you know how I feel about lawyers… no matter where they come from…
your “cheeky” dubious BS is just what it is… BS…
If you were a driver for a mob boss…. and obviously had knowledge of what they did…
would you be guilty too???
Yes you would because by not saying anything that makes you in agreement with their actions…
This ruling is BS and you know it in you black heart… but you would never admit it…..
Yes,, there are liberal P’sOS in the military… oddly enough they are lawyers…
Well, think of it this way. This guy has been spilling his guts to the American military. He has caused other arrests and stopped other operations. When he gets out will he be safe from his former cohorts? Or will they kill him horribly to get even? Do they regard him as a traitor? It seems unlikely that they will take him to their bosoms.
I hereby volunteer to pick-up Hamdan when he is released from the detention center and drive him to the airport for the trip back to Yemen.
My friends, Smith and Wesson will be along for the ride.
bigpapa typed:
“This ruling is BS and you know it in you black heart… but you would never admit it…..”
This ruling is correct.
The case brought against Hamdan was weak (indeed, many think it was, in your words BS).
ROFLMAO,,,, thanks Arthur I needed that!
Why the hell are we even having court cases with these people. Did we do this in WWII, Civil war, Korean War. This is a joke and we should not have any kind of court cases with these POWs. We should have just called them at the beginnign and kept them until the end of the War on Terror. And then after we could have Military Tribunals of those that were the instigators in the Al Queda movement. OR we should have just used the Geneva Convention and shot them on sight, becasue they would be coinsidered spies.
I guess that this is the corner the Administration has painted itself into. These aren’t POWs. If they were POWs, there would be a whole set of rules that govern how they should be treated. These guys are “enemy combatants.” And remember: you can’t use WWII or the Korean War or anything else as a precedent. This is “a different kind of war”–that is the point the Right has been making for the past seven years, right? So there need to be different rules that govern what you do.
I agree with you, Bush should have never called them enemy combatants, he should have called them spies and killed them on spot. But the military wanted to get intelligence from them so they made up the enemy combatants.
So I say we ust the Geneva Convention and treat them as spies. Then we can just kill them on spot.
I’ll admit that I’m not conversant with with the Conventions to know that rule. It seems to run counter to this:
What are the details?