WASHINGTON, July 17, 2008
Judge Green Lights Gitmo War Crime Trials
Bin Laden's Former Driver Will Be First To Face Tribunals On Monday; Ruling A Victory For Bush Administration
-
Salim Ahmed Hamdan is seen in this undated file photo. Hamdan was a one-time driver for Osama bin Laden. (AP PHOTO)
-
Interactive Gitmo Tribunals Detainees on trial, photos and a history of the naval base.
-
Who's Who The Sept. 11 Defendants The five prisoners, led by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, charged with plotting the attacks.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson on Thursday rejected an effort by Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Hamdan, to postpone his trial. Hamdan argued he would suffer irreparable harm if his was tried before he could challenge the legality of the process.
Robertson's ruling is a victory for the Bush administration, which plans to use the military commission process to prosecute alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others charged in the 2001 attacks.
The Department of Justice celebrated the win for the administration, noting that Hamdan's trial before the commission would give him the most protection ever received by a defendant in such trials.
"We are pleased with the court's decision allowing Mr. Hamdan to be tried for war crimes before a military commission," DOJ Spokesman Erik Ablin told CBS News. "The government looks forward to presenting its case against Mr. Hamdan to the commission. We note that, under the procedures established by Congress in the Military Commissions Act, Mr. Hamdan will receive greater procedural protections than those ever before provided to defendants in military-commission trials."
"The good news for the government is that it finally gets to try a terror suspect," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "The bad news for the government is that any conviction that follows the trial can be overturned on appeal thanks to a series of rulings by the Supreme Court. The White House desperately wants to see at least one successful military trial before the end of the Bush Administration and this ruling all but assures that. Except that even if and when Hamdan is convicted the appeals process will take years to resolve."
The American Civil Liberties Union agreed.
"It is unfortunate that this trial will go forward," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project. "As Judge Robertson noted, there are serious questions about the constitutionality of the rules under which Mr. Hamdan will be tried. It doesn't make sense to conduct a trial under rules that are likely to be found unconstitutional later on. Proceeding with this trial now will only draw out a legal process that has taken far too long already, and further discredit a system that has been a disgrace from the start."
The administration suffered a setback last month when the Supreme Court ruled the Guantanamo Bay detainees can challenge their detention in federal court. Hamdan's attorneys hoped to use that ruling to delay his trial. But Robertson refused.
"Hamdan is to face a military commission designed by Congress based on guidelines handed down by the Supreme Court," Robertson said.
He said Hamdan can raise any procedural challenges during trial and, if convicted, he can ask military and civilian appeals courts to settle constitutional questions.
Robertson's decision came shortly after a military judge at Guantanamo Bay also denied Hamdan's request for a postponement.
While Robertson stressed that his ruling only affects Hamdan, judges overseeing hundreds of other detainee cases have said they were watching to see how he would handle the case.
The Justice Department argued that prosecuting suspected terrorists is a key part of the war on terrorism, and a necessary step toward closing the Guantanamo Bay prison.
"Putting the military commission proceedings on hold now would be contrary to these interests and hamper the government's war efforts, not to mention constitute a significant intrusion into areas within the province of the executive branch," government attorneys said.
Hamdan's attorneys can appeal the ruling but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would have to act quickly to keep the trial from going forward. His attorneys said they had yet to decide whether to appeal.
©MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From War On Terror
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 68 CommentsPosted by HadEnufff at 04:45 AM : Jul 18, 2008
Just look at "Cheney" - that is proof enough!!!
Frank Bowers of Austin, TX
The Bush administration%u2019s contention that the president has the power to detain anyone, including US citizens, indefinitely without charges or trial by declaring them %u201Cenemy combatants%u201D received judicial backing from a sharply divided appellate court in Richmond, Virginia Tuesday.
The 5-to-4 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit made it nearly certain that this assertion of dictatorial powers by the presidency will be part of the Bush administration%u2019s dark legacy handed on to a future administration.
The ruling by the full appellate court effectively overturned a decision reached by a three-judge panel of the same court issued in June of last year, which held that the Bush administration did not have the legal authority to detain people without charges and compared its assumption of such sweeping powers to military rule and the oppression of the American colonies by King George III.
That panel had itself reversed a lower court%u2019s denial of habeas corpus for Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. A Qatari national, al-Marri was a legal resident of the US and a graduate student in Peoria, Illinois, before the Bush White House declared him an enemy combatant in 2003 and ordered the military to throw him into a Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina, where he has been held for the last five years.
The ruling means that al-Marri will remain imprisoned without charges in the Charleston brig.
Welcome to whatever these Neocon Scumbags have turned us into. It certainly can''t be called America any longer.
Over SIX years of war. Civil rights breached by our commander in chief. Internationally recognized torture sanctioned by the White House. Two invaded and currently occupied countries. Hundreds of thousands dead, including OVER 4500 American soldiers. Billions of our tax dollars spent, and yes, are still being spent to this very moment.
Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, is now an occupied country which will implode when we get out of it, whether that happens one, two, ten or five hundred years from now. A society that CHOOSES to be ruled by religion cannot become a democracy; it can only be a theocracy with voting cards.
Bin Laden still lives. The mastermind of 9/11 still walks free.
The one, simple word for this is: failure. No amount of deception, indignation or wailing by republicons can change these facts.
Failure of Bush. Failure of Cheney. Failure of the republicans.
Time for a change.
"The mistake our military made with these terrorists in Gitmo was not killing everyone of them. We feed them special diets, provide their prayer mats along with a brand new Koran plus much more. On top of that you have these liberals crying the blues about how we are treating these savages. Do you think they would allow bibles if the tables were turned? Do you think there would be people complaining how we were treated?"
So, basically what you''re telling us is that you support murder and have no problem with US civilians being killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Were you born a *** head or are you just mentally defective?
Everything about Gitmo was an attempt by these corrupted politicians to avoid the inconvenience of laws and international treaties. The term "enemy combatant" was coined by this administration and carried the definition they wanted it to have because nobody was strong enough to stop them immediately, so the courts do it slowly. Accept it, that is the function of the courts in a society of laws and a part of what has kept America great. My fervent hope is that they are strong enough, fast enough to stop a manufactured attack on Iran.
The very fact that the "enemy combatants" were sent to Gitmo was to keep them away from the jusrisdiction of US courts. Why has Bush so little respect for American Law? Well, it turned out that the courst asserted their jusrtisdiction. Of course they did - it was either US courts or Cuban courts that would have to if the military is to stay subordinate to civilian control.
as well as the detainees in Gitmo ? Given Bibles ?
Special food ?
Think they are they treated better than Daniel Perl ?
This is nothing to joke about and sadly those joking
have never served this country.
If you are so smart..join the military and see how funny it is.
Posted by ap32801
I think most/all of the kids at Gitmo don''t want bibles. Maybe a Koran. Who are "our POWs"? And if they''re all being treated so well at Gitmo, why wasn''t the Red Cross and others denied access to view the facilities and treatment of those detained there? If there''s nothing to hide, why not let the international bodies go in and take a look??
---------
You should be tried for being a jackofffff!!
Posted by rosieod4prez at 07:57 PM : Jul 17, 2008
-------------------------------------------------
1. NEGATIVE, Rosie! YOU got it wrong! They are not internees. Bushie calls them enemy combatants!
2. These men are being accused of military offenses in the field, they should be considered enemy soldiers and tried in military courts.
3. Bush didn''t want to try them as military men. SO, they then should have been tried as civilians engaged in military operations. But, he didn''t want to do that either.
4. The point is: under military or civilian courts, they would have had definite rights. He didn''t want them to have ANY rights, that''s why they concocted this enemy combatant ***, and the phony court!
5. Under your scenario, I don''t believe he''d ask for a declaration of war just because they''ve making a bomb!
He should be concerned with what they will do with it!
6. If your scenario happened, with his lack of military experience, and if he reacted by irresponsibly taking action---like Bush---you could call him a chickenhawk, he''d meet the functional definition. I''d be looking at whether his actions were legal or not, I wouldn''t be engaged in name-calling at that point!
as well as the detainees in Gitmo ? Given Bibles ?
Special food ?
Think they are they treated better than Daniel Perl ?
This is nothing to joke about and sadly those joking
have never served this country.
If you are so smart..join the military and see how funny it is.
Tony Snow died of cancer and was buried this week..is this some sick joke ?
You should be half the person he was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Smirk5 at 07:13 PM : Jul 17, 2008
+ report abuse
Posted by WogerWabbit at 09:22 PM : Jul 17, 2008
I thought it was going to be about Judge Green.
How many heads have we sawed off lately, jerk !
Perhaps you live in Iran or Venezuela ?
personally-none but define lately as the "terrorist gave this up as bad PR long ago. I''m sure people recieving aid from us are cutting off plenty. Do you know what clandestine is? Do you know how secret wars are paid for when the operations are too big for congress to pay for? Drugs and weapons are smuggled. It happened in veitnam with air america, again with Iran-Contra and now tha same thing is happening again from the same bases ollie north set up. Ever heard of the MEK ? They are on the State Dept list of terror orgs yet we fund them in Iran.
If heads were cut off, that''s the area it would be in.
Is jerk the best you could come up with?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by rosieod4prez
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 68 Comments