War Crimes System Is Still on Trial

[Neil D]

News Analysis

By WILLIAM GLABERSON

Published: August 9, 2008

The verdict in the first war crimes trial at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is in: One poorly educated Yemeni, with an impish sense of humor and two little girls, is guilty of supporting terrorism by driving Osama bin Laden. With credit for time served, the sentence is no more than five months.

With the decision from a panel of military officers last week, the Pentagon accomplished what once seemed nearly impossible. It completed a trial in a system that has faced a series of challenges since its birth in the unsettled months after the 2001 attacks.

The verdict and the five-and-a-half-year sentence may not have been as severe as the government had hoped for, but it was a green light for a tribunal that the Pentagon plans to use to prosecute as many as 80 detainees, including five men charged as the plotters and coordinators of the Sept. 11 attack. Nonetheless, the central question about the war crimes system remains unanswered after its first trial: Is it fair enough and open enough to meet Americans’ concept of justice?

Before the courtroom lights were out, there were doubts about whether the panel’s sentence would mean anything for the former bin Laden driver, Salim Hamdan. The Bush administration has long asserted that detainees at Guantánamo, even those who complete war crimes sentences or are acquitted, are enemy combatants who can be held indefinitely.

A Pentagon spokesman, Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon, pointedly declined to make any promises after the short sentence, which surprised the military prosecutors. The morning of the verdict they had been pressing for at least 30 years, and they argued that a life sentence would have sent the right message to terrorists.

Commander Gordon said he “would not want to speculate” about whether Mr. Hamdan would be released at the end of his sentence, adding, “I can reassure you that the Defense Department is hard at work on this issue.” On Saturday, he said no decision had been made.

After the trial, the comments by the participants were argumentative, a new reminder of Guantánamo’s enduring divisiveness and a sign that the final verdict on the military commission system is likely to take a while.

The prosecutors had a victory that had the trappings of defeat, as Mr. Hamdan was acquitted on a conspiracy charge. They acknowledged disappointment. But they kept repeating that they had, after all, won.

“I really think it is a vindication for the system,” said one of them, John Murphy.

The defense lawyers had the opposite challenge. Their defeat in a conviction looked like a victory because Mr. Hamdan had a new chance at life. They kept insisting that the system was as deeply flawed as they had been saying all along.

“This case is not a vindication of the military commission system,” said the chief military defense lawyer for Guantánamo, Col. Steven David. “Quite the contrary.”

It was quintessential Guantánamo, where things are rarely what they seem. The Pentagon’s spokesmen, for example, repeat like a mantra that the detention camp delivers “safe and humane” care. But military investigators have documented a history that includes treatment of one detainee who was isolated, deprived of sleep and forced to perform dog tricks.

Another military mantra is that the tribunal is open and transparent. But no one can go to this remote naval station to attend the sessions without military orders. At the tribunal itself, where many seats are empty, journalists are accompanied at all times by military escorts, who stand guard even outside the latrine.

So it was in keeping with the contradictions of Guantánamo that the Hamdan trial in many ways looked like an American trial and in many ways did not.

There were secret filings. There were closed sessions. There were unexplained mysteries. After a session was cut short because a participant was said to be ill, a military spokeswoman said it was not Mr. Hamdan. The next day, a different spokeswoman disclosed that it had indeed been Mr. Hamdan, who had, she said, been seen at a hospital for flulike symptoms.

There were unknowns. A Pentagon official, Susan J. Crawford, has broad power over the entire tribunal process, including naming the military officers eligible to hear the case. Her title, convening authority, has no civilian equivalent. Her decisions to grant or deny financing for items like the defense’s expert witness fees or defense lawyers’ transportation were not explained during the trial. She has never granted an interview to a reporter.

The defense was permitted to call witnesses. But, the defense lawyers said, remoteness and lack of cooperation from the government meant that was sometimes impossible. One witness who might have been powerful in the courtroom, Mr. Hamdan’s wife, could not make it to the trial. She appeared instead in a muffled videotape.

So much was new at the trial that the proceeding at times seemed like some kind of space exploration. After the military judge, Capt. Keith J. Allred of the Navy, told the panel he was considering a weekend session, he had to tell its members he had been informed that was not possible. “It’s not as easy as a court-martial back home,” he said.

The few familiar guideposts included the battle over Guantánamo itself.

Before the trial, Mr. Hamdan’s lawyers claimed that he had been mistreated by long stretches in solitary confinement. A spokeswoman, Cmdr. Pauline Storum, responded at the time that that was not possible because there were no solitary confinement cells in Guantánamo, only “single-occupancy cells.”

After the verdict, one of Mr. Hamdan’s lawyers, Charles D. Swift, said Mr. Hamdan was moved the night after the verdict into a cell by himself in a prison wing with no other prisoners.

One of the prosecutors had a familiar response that suggested that even after a historic war crimes verdict at Guantánamo, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The prosecutor, Lt. Cmdr. Timothy D. Stone, said Mr. Hamdan could not be in solitary confinement. “There are no solitary confinement cells on Guantánamo,” he said.

[Dr. Shane]

The first trial did seem to go well. I have to agree that it appears to be a vindication for the system.

[carolaa]

It's the first sign of semi-sanity I've seen come out of Guantanamo. It wouldn't have surprised me a bit if they had given him 30 years - for being a driver, which is not even a war crime. Yup, I tell ya, those are the worst of the worst over there in Guantanamo. You betcha.

But what good is any kind of trial as long as Bush is holding them indefinitely, regardless?

And if they aren't going to release anyone, then I'd just as soon see them stay at Guantanamo, where it sounds like conditions are much improved than they were. Otherwise, they will be shipped to black sites around the world where the conditions are mostly worse, as far as anyone can tell.

[Dr. Shane]

He was accused of conspiracy which is why he went to Guantanamo. He was Osama's driver! Yes, I think he belonged in Guantanamo. He was not some kid sold to US soldiers and falsely labeled a terrorist. This guy was the real thing. Yes, he was a bad guy.

The military court found him not guilty of conspiracy, which is why he got a light sentence. This should give all those in the anti-Bush crowd pause. The anti-Bush crowd has made a lot of accusations about the military courts not being fair. Well, will the anti-Bush crowd now admit they were wrong? Or will they just look for something else to whine and complain about?

[Neil D]

Quote:

The verdict in the first war crimes trial at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is in: One poorly educated Yemeni, with an impish sense of humor and two little girls, is guilty of supporting terrorism by driving Osama bin Laden. With credit for time served, the sentence is no more than five months.

Quote:

He was accused of conspiracy which is why he went to Guantanamo. He was Osama's driver! Yes, I think he belonged in Guantanamo. He was not some kid sold to US soldiers and falsely labeled a terrorist. This guy was the real thing. Yes, he was a bad guy.

The guy's been in gitmo for how many months???? 36?? 42? Does anyone really know?? And during that time, all information regarding Bin Lauden and al Qada has been sqeezed out of him thru questioning, slapping his face, waterboarding, and other humiliating tortures, maybe even holding onto electric wires [for all we know] with NO knowledge of whether he will live or die...Death would have been welcomed. Now, he gets another 5 months...hopefully it will be more restful and less stressful. Now he knows whenl he will get out...or go home...or be deported...somewheres....right?

Now remember, he's a bad man...he drove Osama bin Laden around. And he carried some rockets to his fellow terrorists to fight that Great Satan....He was supporting terrorism... that's a fact....Don't you forget it!

[Dr. Shane]

A lot of conjecture there. For all we know he has been eating hot dogs and french fries and playing tennis the last five years.

[carolaa]

He was accused of conspiracy which is why he went to Guantanamo. He was Osama's driver! Yes, I think he belonged in Guantanamo. He was not some kid sold to US soldiers and falsely labeled a terrorist. This guy was the real thing. Yes, he was a bad guy.

The military court found him not guilty of conspiracy, which is why he got a light sentence. This should give all those in the anti-Bush crowd pause. The anti-Bush crowd has made a lot of accusations about the military courts not being fair. Well, will the anti-Bush crowd now admit they were wrong? Or will they just look for something else to whine and complain about?

I think the anti-Bush crowd will be impressed at how fair the trial was, but they will also see it for what it was -- nothing. Because if Bush still holds people indefinitely, what is the point of a fair trial? Bush is god, and he will do what he wants.

[carolaa]

A lot of conjecture there. For all we know he has been eating hot dogs and french fries and playing tennis the last five years.

I hope you don't really believe that.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, wen we saw the video of the interrogation of a Canadian al qaida member they gave him a break from the interrogation to eat a hamburger. I am not sure if he get fried onions and a slab of cheese on it but it sounds tasty.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Bush is god, and he will do what he wants.

Close. Bush believes in God and does what he believes God wants.

[carolaa]

Quote:

Bush is god, and he will do what he wants.

Close. Bush believes in God and does what he believes God wants.

[carolaa]

OK, so that's why he is lying, deceiving, and manipulating the truth. I get it.

[Dr. Shane]

I haven't seen any evidence that he has lied, deceived or manipulated. Although I know he attends church on a regular basis and is a tithe payer.

[Planey]

Shane not seeing any evidence that he has lied, deceived or manipulated.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't believe posting provocative cartoons and attacking other members of the forum contributes to the healthy exchange of ideas. The official Congressional 9/11 report concluded there were no intentional lying or manipulation of intelligence.

The anti-Bush crowd continues to publish books and rumors on the blogsphere and many of their followers continue to drink their kool-aid.

[Planey]

'Twas intended as a light-hearted, jocular way of making a point.

I understood that this particular forum was set up to accommodate this style of posting.

Sorry if I misunderstood, and sorry if you were offended by that particular cartoon. I did not intend an insult, but I did intend to indicate that perhaps your mind was made up before you began to consider the evidence.

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

I have considered the evidence quite a bit. I even watch Al Jazeera English. There are a lot of things the Bush Administration has done in Iraq that I do not approve of. I supported the invasion of Iraq due to the evidence we had at the time. If I had known then what I know now I wouldn't have supported the invasion but hindsight is always 20/20 and we simply had no way of knowing then what we know now.

That said, I have not approved of how the war was executed almost from the very start. A lot of mistakes were made. Of course, a lot of mistakes have been made in most every war fought in history. So I have to give the Administration a little slack. But even taking that into consideration,,, a lot of mistakes were made. I am dumbfounded that Rumsfield remained in the Administration as long as he did.