ACLU Crying About Osama’s Drivers Conviction
Posted on August 6, 2008
Just a few minutes ago, Special Contributor wrote “The ACLU are sure to be crying about human rights violations any minute now.” Yup!
After a trial filled with overwhelming constitutional and procedural flaws, a jury of military officers today found Salim Hamdan guilty of providing material support for terrorism. The American Civil Liberties Union has been at Guantánamo Bay observing the Hamdan proceedings, which lacked the fundamental legal safeguards found in traditional U.S. courts or military courts governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Followed by bloviation and terrorist love from Anthony Romero.
The Center For Constitutional Law is also pitching a hissy fit.
And in a large surprise to me, Firedoglake is weepy about this conviction. But don’t say that the Left supports terrorism. That would be mean.
Hamdan’s case has been a test in several ways. He challenged his detention, forcing Congress and the Bush administration to re-engineer the tribunals twice. As a driver, he had less obvious culpability for the deaths of thousands of American civilians than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In the end, the verdict recognized the differences. They put aside emotion and acquitted him of being a member of the AQ conspiracy in these attacks, but recognized his role in supporting the organization.
Essentially, they recognized Hamdan as a smaller part of the terrorist group, but that doesn’t absolve him from responsibility for his support of AQ. The verdict demonstrates that the Gitmo tribunals are not kangaroo courts, and that justice can be found in this process.
Justice was served, despite how much the ACLU cries about it. The fact that these terrorist defending lawyers think foreign terrorists deserve constitutional rights is absolutely abhorent. That they convinced SCOTUS to grant them is even scarier.
Lawhawk is on the same page:
Considering that terrorists caught on the battlefield are not a class of individuals protected under the Geneva Conventions, and would have been summarily executed in prior conflicts, the lengths to which the US has gone to provide rights to these terrorists - up to and including habeas access to US courts undermines the arguments by the defense. Hamdan has had more bites of the apple of justice than most defendants could ever hope to achieve in traditional criminal justice cases.
Cry me a river about the tactics that include sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. Hamdan admits that he was Osama’s driver, but claims that he was a mere lackey and didn’t partake in Osama’s jihad against the US.
Also see Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit
McCain releases a statement:
I welcome today’s guilty verdict in the first trial held under the Military Commissions Act (MCA). This process of bringing terrorists to justice has been too long delayed, but I’m encouraged that it is finally moving forward. I supported that legislation, which was a good-faith effort by Congress to meet the Supreme Court’s direction to establish a process to bring terrorist detainees to trial. Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a trusted confidante of Osama Bin Laden, was provided a full hearing of the charges against him and was represented by counsel who vigorously defended him. The jury found that the prosecution lawyers had proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hamdan had aided terrorists by supplying weapons to Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. This process demonstrated that military commissions can effectively bring very dangerous terrorists to justice. The fact that the jury did not find Hamdan guilty of all of the charges brought against him demonstrates that the jury weighed the evidence carefully. Unlike Senator Obama who voted against the MCA and favors giving Al Qaeda terrorists direct access to U.S. civilian courts to contest their detention, I recognize that we cannot treat dangerous terrorists captured on the battlefield as we would common criminals.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, Unhinged, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
24 Responses to “ACLU Crying About Osama’s Drivers Conviction”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Poor Jeff Molby. He must be gnashing his teeth and spitting blood right now.
Nah, by all accounts, that guy did “provide material support to terrorism”, so the verdict itself is no big deal.
Wake me when the process by which he was convicted is scrutinized.
What difference does it make when he was summarily executable on the battlefield?
Seems to me, if you’re guilty of one, you’re guilty of the other. But then, I’m not as smart as some folks.
We could have gotten this verdict in any lawful court in the nation. It is absurd that we debased the Constitution to get it. The White House comments are simply delusional.
Because he wasn’t summarily executed. If we’re going to have trials, they’re going to mean something. I’m not going to support anyone who tries to turn out legal system into a theater a la Stalin. We’re better than that.
*our
And Tom’s right, we didn’t need a special tribunal for this verdict. If he’s really as important as the administration accuses him of being, this is the equivalent of getting Capone on tax evasion.
We should just kill em on the battlefield. Screw this capture and let the legal system slap them on the wrist or release them crap.
I wonder how the ‘trials’ of our soldiers that were captured are going?
Oh yeah…that’s right. There are no trials, are there.
Go for it. I’d rather that than have you make a mockery of our legal system.
Don’t forget, though, that the “battlefield” encompasses the whole globe and many of the precedents that the Bush administration has been setting apply to citizens as well as non-citizens.
I hope your descendants are good little conformists.
BTW, Jay, the “slap on the wrist” for catch-all charge of “material support” is a possible life in prison.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t hold ourselves to a higher standard? What is this great “clash of civilizations” I keep hearing about if we’re not going to hold ourselves to a higher standard?
[blockquote][blockquote]I wonder how the ‘trials’ of our soldiers that were captured are going?
Oh yeah…that’s right. There are no trials, are there. [/blockquote]
Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t hold ourselves to a higher standard? What is this great “clash of civilizations” I keep hearing about if we’re not going to hold ourselves to a higher standard? [/blockquote]
When our enemies and their usefull fools use those ‘higher standards’ against us, yes we shouldn’t hold ourselves to the ‘higher standards’.
I see, Fersboo. Principles and morals are things we only worry about when life is going well. I’m pretty sure that’s what I read in my bible. I can’t believe I forgot.
I’m suggesting a ‘take no prisoners’ scenario.
Because he wasn’t summarily executed. If we’re going to have trials, they’re going to mean something. I’m not going to support anyone who tries to turn out legal system into a theater a la Stalin. We’re better than that.
He doesn’t merit it. It has nothing to do with whether or not we’re better than something.
At what point do liberals finally face reality and quit relying on sophistry?
How does one “merit it”?
You should ask one. I’m a libertarian, so it’s just a coincidence that I tend to agree with liberals on matters of civil liberties.
If we spent a few minutes talking about economics, you would find that we have a lot of common ground.
This isn’t a matter of civil liberties though. I find it outrageous foreign terrorists have the same rights as me. The Supreme Court is sending our country down the wrong path.
Christopher Hamilton
Civil Liberties: noun. freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the United States especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights —usually used in plural
That sure sounds like what we’re talking about. You and I seem to disagree on which, if any, liberties suspected combatants should have, but “civil liberties” is definitely the correct word to use.
How does one “merit it”?
Uhh, let’s see… by not being a terrorist or violating the Geneva Convention by fighting as a partisan?
Giving Hamdan, who could have been summarily executed on the battlefield, any rights at all makes as much sense as prosecuting someone for slapping a death-row inmate as he get strapped into the chair.
As for your sophistry to Christoper Hamilton regarding Civil Liberties, terrorists now have more rights than other federal prisoners because they can apply for habeas corpus in any court instead of only one. That’s thanks to the decision your precious little world-law-loving Ginsburg and betrayer-Souter handed down.
This is complete moral and legal insanity.
I misunderstood your pronoun. I thought you meant he didn’t merit a meaningful legal proceeding.
There are times in a man’s life when he has an extreme amount of control over another man’s life.
- A jury that sentences a man to death.
- A soldier in a tense situation may have authority to either shoot or capture.
- A person may witness a stranger choking.
- A homeowner may shoot an intruder if he has reason to believe his life is in danger.
In each case, the first person has momentary control over the second person’s fate. In no case, does voluntary lenience grant the first person perpetual control over the second person.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It is not sophistry to define the scope of a conversation. I cited a reputable definition of a phrase that was in dispute. My use of the phrase was accurate. The discussion is about the degree to which the people in question have civil liberties.
I don’t think I’d trade my rights for theirs. I think my rights to a speedy trial, to have a jury of my peers, to face my accusers, to challenge evidence presented against me, to reasonable bail…. Nah, I just can’t see myself trading those for a couple extra cracks at habeas.
The guy was caught with two shoulder rocket launchers at a roadblock but claimed the car was borrowed, and the rockets weren’t his.
I think he’s a typical terrorist.
A liar.
I sure hope they follow his movements after he serves his paltry 5 months.