Driving Bin Laden? That’s a Jailin’

Posted on July 17, 2008

Osama Bin Laden’s alleged driver was cleared for trial on Thursday by a federal judge who rebuffed a last minute plea from his lawyers. Salim Hamdan will face a military tribunal set up specifically to prosecute unlawful enemy combatants captured by American and Allied forces on the field of battle in the ongoing and increasingly successful Global War on Terror.

There are several parts of this article I must comment on so bear with me here if this gets a bit long winded.

Judge James Robertson, of the district court in Washington, ruled that Mr. Hamdan’s claims that the military commission he faces is unconstitutional can be appealed to a civilian court only after his military trial is completed.

First off, if it’s “unconstitutional” (which we will see later why it really isn’t, or rather why the constitutionality of this entire ordeal is not a concern) it shouldn’t be happening. Second, how can someone NOT a citizen of this country appeal to a civilian court for a trial that had nothing to do with a civilian court? This absolutely boggles my mind. It’s like saying that I can appeal a traffic court decision at a driving school. Sure they are related and basically deal with the same sort of business but one really has nothing to do with the other.

It was Judge Robertson who ruled in 2004 that the original procedures set for military commissions by President Bush were inadequate, a finding later upheld by the Supreme Court. In response, Congress in 2006 passed the Military Commissions Act, setting up new procedures for the trials.

So the same judge found the original rules to be inadequate and even though he still claims it “unconstitutional” he lets the trial go ahead. Why? Maybe because he realizes that Congress made new rules that met the criteria for sufficiently protecting Mr. Hamdan’s alleged “rights?”

“Hamdan is to face a military commission designed by Congress under guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court,” the judge said.

Again, and I don’t know how to get this through the thick skulls of those who yearn to protect those caught on the field of battle fighting against us but THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR CIVILIAN LAWS!!!!! Our laws apply to OUR CITIZENS in OUR COUNTRY and citizens of foreign countries captured in battle are not subject to the rights, privileges or protections of our legal system. All this wrangling is going to do is eventually cause the military towards a policy of take no prisoners. It will be too costly and time consuming to deal with them. Imagine the word getting out in teh Muslim world that if you are taken prisoner you can have a trial IN AMERICA and be treated under the same laws and with the same protections as our citizens.

It’d be almost like a Temporary Citizenship card. I bet someone would even try to apply for some kind of benefits. Imagine if we have a terrorist over here for trial and some judge lets him out on his own recognizance. Then he goes and applies for food stamps because he isn’t allowed to legally work and he can’t leave adn somehow he has toe at.

I know it’s far fetched but in today’s climate of utter insanity I can see it happening.

Judge Robertson noted that his ruling applies only to the case of Mr. Hamdan and is not binding on the many other Guantánamo cases pending before other judges. He also did not rule on what he said was a central question, the constitutionality of a provision of the Military Commissions Act that permits only limited appeals by Guantánamo detainees to a single court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Ok so if these guys have limited appeals (and that’s a policy we should apply to our homegrown prison population also) just which court should they be able to appeal to? The Court of Public Opinion? The traffic court division of Minnetonnka, Minnesota? No. The military is prosecuting them (and defending them-maybe we should start billing their home countries for the cost of that) and since the military is part of the fedral government and the federal government is based out of Washington D.C. it only makes sense to allow them an appeal ther. Honestly I wouldn’t have let them have an appeal at all. Of course I am the kind of backwards thinking individual that thinks these guys should be put against the wall and shot straight off the bat like they should have done with John Walker Lindh. the traitorous “American taliban” that was captured in Afghanistan fighting American troops.

Onward;

Mr. Hamdan’s attorneys argued that to proceed with the military trial now would irreparably injure Mr. Hamdan, because the “rulebook” governing such novel trials is uncertain and because testimony based on hearsay and coercive interrogation methods will be allowed.

“At a minimum, Mr. Hamdan deserves his day in court — this court,” Mr. Katyal said.

First off, the “rulebook” is only going to become “certain” by actually using it. Only theoretical physicists and college professors should deal in theory. the rest of the world needs to deal with actual practice and the only way to do that is to get up off your hindquarters and take some action. Mr. Hamdan, by the way, does not deserve his day in any court in the United States. Just thought I’d toss that in.

Mr. O’Quinn replied that the rulebook for the military trials is laid out in the law passed by Congress, and that any challenge from Mr. Hamdan should come only after his trial is over.

So if Mr. Hamdan is found innocent can the military appeal THAT decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia? Just asking.

Judge Robertson, appointed by President Clinton in 1994, is known not only for his earlier ruling in the Hamdan case but for resigning in late 2005 from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees eavesdropping by the National Security Agency.

His resignation was widely viewed as a protest against President Bush’s decision to bypass the special court after the 2001 terrorist attacks and to permit eavesdropping without warrants against people in the United States suspected of terrorist ties.

JEEEEZ….can’t we get a judge that doesn’t appear to have a ideological axe to grind? On that let me point out this fact; The judge that resigned from FISA in an alleged protest against domestic warrant less wiretapping who openly questions the constitutionality of the proceedings has allowed those proceedings to continue. Why? Maybe because he realizes the “T’s” were crossed and the “I’s” were dotted and it’s full steam ahead for the good guys for once.

At Guantánamo Bay, a military court pressed ahead, as Mr. Hamdan’s chief military defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Brian L. Mizer, mentioned that the defense team had worked for years to vindicate what it has claimed are Mr. Hamdan’s fundamental rights.

What fundamental rights? You only have any rights as long as you don’t not do something to take those same rights away from other people. By becoming the driver of the world’s most famous and wanted cave dwelling madman Mr. Hamdan aided and abetted the man who was directly responsible for taking those rights away from 2,974 people on 9/11 and who knows how many others before our after that (I am sure I could do the math but you get the point).

While the court was proceeding Thursday, court clerks released a second ruling that rejected a central defense claim. Mr. Hamdan’s lawyers asserted that the detainee’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws was violated because only aliens — not American citizens – can be prosecuted for war crimes in Guantánamo.

Mr. Hamdan is a Yemeni, not an American citizen. Again, our protections do not apply to him.

Judge Allred also quickly rejected that claim in a six-page decision. He noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in June giving the detainees rights to file habeas corpus suits was limited and that the court suggested a practical analysis of other constitutional questions at Guantánamo.

He concluded that military commission trials afford detainees many legal protection, including legal representation, the right to be found guilty only by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and the right to a public trial.

Those are more rights and protections than islamic fighters afford those they capture on the field of battle. I would say so far we are taking the high road and eventually if the ACLU have their way in court it will come back to bite us in the ALGORE.

MacRanger weighs in as well.

» Filed Under ACLU, News, terrorism

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to “Driving Bin Laden? That’s a Jailin’”

Menno, The Netherlands on July 19th, 2008 6:26 pm

I just came across your website from a Google News Alert but have to say, why do you call John Walker Lindh a ‘traitor’? Is it just for effect or ideological points? I’m no lover of terrorists but if he had been a traitor, don’t you think the US govt could have jailed him on stronger charges, and a plea bargain?