If the US government ignores the sentence, and keeps Osama Bin Laden’s driver longer, then why have the military tribunal in the first place?

When you say that anyone “we” deem to be a danger can be held indefinitely, whom is “we”? Civilian courts? Military courts? The White House? Where is the accountability? Where is the transparent rule of law?

Earlier I wrote:

“The British fought IRA terrorism for 30 years and in doing so treated the IRA as common criminals. They had proper trials, were afforded their own counsel, and in the end the terrorists served long sentences as the murderers they were. It was all in the open, in public courts of law.”

“Why can’t the US do the same?”

The 1993 WTC hijackers, the 20th 9/11 hijacker and the failed “shoe bomber” all were captured, accused, tried and convicted in open courts of law and afforded the rights of defendents. They are all serving life sentences and slowly rotting to death in US prisons. And yet, somehow, the American republic didn’t suffer any from NOT having these criminals sent to Gitmo for the ’star chamber’ system of justice preferred by some.

From Stop The ACLU
Are Military Tribunals Fair?
After years of litigation a verdict was finally reached for Salim Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden’s driver and detainee accused of war crimes. While cleared of conspiracy he was convicted on multiple counts…

I received this via blogburst from Jay over at Stop the ACLU and wanted to make sure and repost it. So what do you guys think? Are tribunals fair or not? Share your opinions. … After years of litigation a……

This blogburst is courtesy of Stop the ACLU: Are Military Tribunals Fair?…

Becaue the Geneva Conventions and our Constitution apply that anyone we deem to be a danger can be held indefinitely, just like we held people in World War II. We give them a trial to determine their sentence of accused crimes. Some of these trials will end up making the prisoners stay for life, instead of until the end of conflict or when we deem they are no longer a danger.

Cross-posted with permission from Stop The ACLU Blog
After years of litigation a verdict was finally reached for Salim Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden’s driver and detainee accused of war crimes. While cleared of conspiracy he was convicted on multiple c…

Stop the ACLU Blogburst:…

Instead of the SS in the docks at Nuremburg, though, we got a paid driver.

Why such a weak case for the 1st military tribunal?

And, after he got his sentence, did the US say that they could hold Hamdan indenfitely – even after his sentence was served? What’s the whole point of having military tribunals if the government can ignore the verdict and sentence?

The British fought IRA terrorism for 30 years and in doing so treated the IRA as common criminals. They had proper trials, were afforded their own counsel, and in the end the terrorists served long sentences as the murderers they were. It was all in the open, in public courts of law.

Why can’t the US do the same?

I was expecting the 1st military tribunal to be a showcase. Herman Goering (#3 man in the Third Reich), not Heinrich Hoffman (Hitler’s chaffeur).

My guess – and its just a guess – is that the US is stuck with about 200 Arabs and other Moslems in Gitmo that they just don’t have any idea what to do with. 75% of the “worst of the worst” (The Decider’s own words) held at Gitmo at one time or another have simply been let go, allowed to go home to Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Algeria or wherever. Only one (David Hicks, Australia) was sent to home to be convicted and imprisoned in his own country.

Gitmo is a shambles.

Even John McCain says it should be shut down.