He writes:
Earlier this week the military completed the first war-crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan. The New York Times responds with an editorial titled "Guilty as Ordered" (ellipsis in original):
Now that was a real nail-biter. The court designed by the White House and its Congressional enablers to guarantee convictions of high-profile detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba--using evidence obtained by torture and secret evidence as desired--has held its first trial. It produced . . . a guilty verdict.
As the Times points out, it also produced a not-guilty verdict:
The only surprise was that Mr. Hamdan was actually acquitted on the more serious count of conspiring (it was unclear with whom) to kill Americans during the invasion of Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001.
The charge on which Mr. Hamdan was convicted seemed logical since he did work as Mr. bin Laden's driver. But it was still an odd prosecution. Drivers of even the most heinous people are generally not charged with war crimes.
We wonder if this defense would work in a civilian trial. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, yes, my client did drive the getaway car. That is why you must acquit him. He's only a driver!" We also wonder how long it will be before the Times starts referring to Hamdan, à la Rodney King, as "motorist Salim Hamdan."
The Times concludes:
"We are not arguing that the United States should condone terrorism or those who support it, or that the guilty should not be punished severely."Right, and Nixon is not a crook and Bill Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman.
Meanwhile, an Associated Press dispatch about the trial complains that "Hamdan was not judged by a jury of his peers and he received no Miranda warning about his rights."
A jury of his peers? Hey, that's how we'll capture Osama bin Laden: by summoning him for jury duty.
~~
And we wonder why we question their patriotism...
No comments:
Post a Comment