Military jury convicts bin Laden's ex-driver in Gitmo trial
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 4 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
1
Gov't turns to AKB48 to sell bonds
-
2
Japan declined U.S. offer to station nuclear experts in Kan's office: Edano
-
3
Edano says he didn't deliberately mislead public about extent of nuclear crisis
-
4
Tabloid blasts growing numbers of foreign welfare chiselers
-
5
Lame applicant pool plagues Don Quijote
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
38 Comments
Login to comment
0
SezWho2
The administration should be ashamed of using the military to pursue its political agenda. But it's the same administration that sent another loyal soldier to the UN to detail Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
I agree with Abraham. Let's prosecute the tailors and kebab makers. If they would only refuse to serve, terrorism would wither and die away.
0
skipthesong
Hamdan did not have all the rights normally accorded either by U.S. civilian or military courts." Why should he?
0
SezWho2
Why shouldn't he? Our rights were adopted because we conceived them as the only way to ensure fairness.
0
undecidedbout08
We get it sez who, Ramadan implicated Clinton in the worst way possible so it's time to lash out.
0
SezWho2
undecidedbout08,
Why would I care about Clinton? Why do you care about Clinton? The issue is about rights. Try to focus on the issue instead of inventing distractions.
I'm not sure who your Ramadan is and I don't know how he is connected with Hamdan's case. Perhaps you could amplify that so that we could all see the relevance. However, as far as Hamdan is concerned, I understand the concept that we don't have to accord him the legal rights of an American citizens because he is not one. Nonetheless, I still think we do better for America when we accord him these rights because he is a human being.
0
skipthesong
sez, if this was a criminal case, particularly within the boundaries of the US, I would agree that said rights need to be protected. But when I see other countries' courts, and I have been arrested two occasions in Mexico, I really have a lost feeling. This same man would probably support god-only-knows-what type of punishment against a US or ally soldier.
However, this is not a criminal case. this is a case in which was the Catalyst for the war on terror.
Some people will have sympathy for this guy due to his stature, but would that same sympathy go to a person who is the driver for John Gotti, Mafia Dons, or even a driver for the KKK? I don't think so.
What do you mean by "still think we do better for America when we accord him these rights because he is a human being." Can you provide an example?
0
SezWho2
skipthesong,
We are the country which champions human rights. To the degree that we make distinctions--these rights for us, but only these for you--we lose credibility in that championing of rights.
What is wrong with habeas corpus for any human being? What is wrong to the right to a speedy trial? What is wrong about not allowing secret evidence? What is wrong about not allowing evidence extracted by torture? These are, or were, American rights because all men were created equal and because we knew we could not trust a government to conduct fair trials.
The drivers for John Gotti, Mafia Dons or the KKK all enjoy these rights. I don't think this is a matter of sympathizing with them or even a matter of sympathizing with Hamdan. I think this is a matter of what constitutes basic fairness. The argument that "we suspect you have not been fair with us and you're not an American citizen, so we don't have to be fair with you" is not a very persuasive one.
As for an example, I would give you the Dred Scott decision. Scott was unable to purchase his freedom from his "owner" and the Supreme Court ruled that it was too late for him to apply for it under Illinois law. The Supreme Court went on to rule that slaves and descendants of slaves were not American citizens and could not even use the courts. This is a classic case of being denied rights because not treated as human. We're still paying for this today, by the way.
The very existence of Guantanamo subverts our championship of rights. The test of morality is not how you treat those you perceive to be your friends, but how you treat those you perceive to be your enemies.
0
undecidedbout08
Yes, and it is because we champion human rights that we find ourselves targeted by half-literate, brainwashed man-boys like Hamdan - and his boss Osama bin Laden.
If they were uniformed I'd be the first to protest. But they aren't. And to grant them in this case the same legal rights we do US citizens is madness. If nothing else it completely compromises evidence-gathering and surveillance networks used to apprehend Islamofascists.
0
skipthesong
sez: very difficult to argue with you. Your points are clear and correct but undecided's post is also correct.
This is a classic case of being denied rights because not treated as human." Look, how many trials are mistrials? The US system is good, but its it not perfect and it is crumbling but not because of this.
How do you feel in doing a good deed to someone only to get a stab in the back?
0
cleo
What good deed was done to Hamdan that was repaid with a stab in the back?
It's very difficult to argue with Sez because he's correct.
0
undecidedbout08
I'm sorry, but that made no sense, sezwho.
Dred Scott? - quite a leap there.
Relevance?
The Scott decision had direct bearing on the Civil War. You remember - where Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
0
skipthesong
No cleo, my point was how do you feel providing a human right, while there is no chance of you getting it if the shoe were on the other foot.\
Yeah, Sez is correct in his case, but so was undecidedbout08!
0
SezWho2
undecidedbout08,
I'm not sure that we were targeted by Osama bin Laden because we champion human rights. Osama bin Laden stated three reasons why he was at odds with the US and none of them had any direct bearing on human rights. You could even make the counter case--that our presence in Saudi Arabia was a sacrilege and that we were propping up a regime that made a mockery of the rights of Saudis.
However, for argument's sake, let's say that you're right and that this is the reason that we were targeted. How does this support not extending to Hamdan the rights that were extended. You mention that it compromises evidence gathering and surveillance networks. How does that happen? That is the government's assertion, but how does it happen?
Why is it madness not to torture, not to accept evidence obtained by torture, not to give someone a speedy trial and not to observe habeas corpus? Why does it matter whether someone is in uniform or not? And to the last, please bear in mind that if they were in uniform we would still not give them the same rights as US citizens, because, well, they wouldn't be.
While I'm at it, let me get to the Dred Scott thing. You say it's not relevant. I was asked for an example of how we are lessened by denying basic human rights--that's what we say ours are. I think Dred Scott is a perfect example of this. I don't think the Scott decision in any way led to the Civil War. However, it is true that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus--and that was controversial because it only imposed a partial suspension and because it was imposed by the President and not Congress. Finally Congress imposed it uniformly for all people.
But if you don't like this example as to how denying rights to people makes us generally look bad, look at how citizen Ron Williamson's rights were denied and the effect that it had on the judges, prosecutors and police in the town of Ada, Oklahoma. Or read about it in Grisham's The Innocent Man.
US rights are a standard for human rights and we should keep them that way.
0
SezWho2
skipthesong,
I feel very bad about doing a good deed for someone only to be stabbed in the back. But should I stop doing good deeds? I think it might be prudent for me to stop doing good deeds for those known to practice back-stabbing on me. I just don't think there is an apt comparison between human rights and good deeds.
0
ChimpsAhead
These evil doers only deserve human rights of nutrition and safety during inprisonment.
They bcannot be afforded rights held by normal criminals, they are too dangerous. Inthe prison system they will brainwash othe cons to becom homicide bombers etc. The war on terror would be endless.
0
Nippon5
If America had equal Human rights for all people then how do you explain the UCMJ and captains mass in the Navy... Those rules do not allow for equal Human rights.. No way should a hostile to the US person have more rights then our own military personel...
0
LIBERTAS
Kangaroo justice in a kangaroo court in a fast becoming banana republic!
0
ChimpsAhead
LIBERTAS
These terrorists folks are getting the best justice they could expect anywhere worlwide. This justice process took nto years to come to this decision. They are treated and tried humanely.
0
cleo
So it's better to throw away your own morality and let yourself sink to the level of the other guy? In a sense, isn't that letting the other side win? If you do that, what's the difference between you and him?
0
cleo
Chimps -
If you fail to respect a person's basic human rights simply because they're on the 'other side', then you're already on the path down to the level of the bad guys. The use of sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, secret testimony and hearsay evidence makes it impossible for any trial to be fair. Not chopping off heads doesn't mean that you haven't lowered your own standards.
There are still 250+ people who have been in Guantanamo for years for whom that claim would come as news.
Keep reminding us, it's easy to forget.
The sad and scary thing is that so many posters seem unaware of how far they have allowed themselves to slip.
0
skipthesong
Cleo, so, are you suggesting because there are accusations of human rights being violated, these guys should just be able to get up and be free?
0
TheNoSpinZone
I agree with Nippon5 and Chimpsahead.
cleo- In this unfortunate war that we did not start, hard choices had to be made to ensure the war would be successfull.
I believe the US has demonstrated to the world that our prisoners are treated with respect to their human rights and dignity.
0
cleo
skip -
The choice is either abuse people, or let them go? Come on skip, you're usually much more sensible than that. What's wrong with treating people how we would like to be treated if the tables were turned?
Nospin -
But it hasn't been....
I believe your belief is unfounded. The US has demonstrated to the world that it is prepared to subject its prisoners to treatment that it would deem torture or at least abuse if applied to its own people by their adversaries. Like I said, sad and scary that people like you don't see this.
0
SuperLib
Sink to the level of the other guy? I know you don't believe that. And you know that I know you don't believe that. So....why are you wasting everyone's time?
0
skipthesong
What's wrong with treating people how we would like to be treated if the tables were turned? " Yo Cleo, that's my whole point. Why does the US get the finger waved when it wasn't long ago, civilians, not even closely related to the US military were being hung upside down, had heads cut off, tortured to no end, cartoonist killed in their war against the infidel.
The table have been turned on many occasions and I think they failed by a far margin.
0
TheNoSpinZone
I agree with skipthesong.
We cannot be compard in anyway to these murdering thugs. THe US follows the rule of war. These guys kidnap civilians, torture murder them and release it on the internet, how sick is that?
0
Nippon5
Those who say America is not being fair to anyone is just closing their eyes on all the things that go on in every other country. Just because we set a standard doesnt mean any other country is even close that level of human rights, hell they dont even come close enough to our worse level of human rights, so drop the US should do this or that when our level of human rights is maybe too high (look at Singapore)
0
cleo
It's sick. But this guy is accused of driving a car, ferchrissakes. No suggestion that he kidnapped, tortured or murdered anyone. If there was a suspicion that he had, surely it would be on his rap sheet. You're saying that every American - every national of a country that has troops in Iraq and/or Afghanistan - is not only fair game for the jihadists, but actually deserves all they might get simply for being one of 'us guys'. I find that sick, too.
0
TheNoSpinZone
cleo
But the guy knew he was driving a terrorist mastermind. He is a co conspirator at least.
His hands are notb clean. He was deeply involved with the bad guys, and now he has to face justice.
0
Badsey
This guy should be let go: I have my car packed with surface to air missles and drive around known terrorists every day.. What's the big deal?
Even the French would have waterboarded this guy and then cut off his head. I don't care if he was underpaid for his services and had a poor health benefit plan.
I would send him to a Japanese prison in wintertime. Let him sleep on a cold floor for life (but right now that sounds kind of nice)
0
Madverts
No Spin,
And those in past and present US administration that were involved with the ba guys....
...oh, heh, sorry! I forgot it's alright that way 'round!
0
TheNoSpinZone
Madverts
Which members of the past and present UD admin were involved with bad guys?
Strange, considering, we are the good guys.
This terrorist was involved in attcking us.
0
Nippon5
No one truely thinks a driver for the leader of the largest terroist group in the world was just a driver do they? If you do I have a bridge to sell you, or maybe Ill buy your car and send you the money for the shipping in a cashiers check just send me the 2500 in shipping back...
Dont even try to say a driver for bin was not also an attacking member of the terrorist group.. Please I was born on a Wednesday but it wasnt yesterday
0
adaydream
SURPRISE!!!!!?????
NO!!!! < :-)
0
SezWho2
Looked at another way, some people are clamoring for the arrest of Bush and for his removal to the International Court and for a war crimes trial. Strangely, though, I don't hear anyone suggesting that Bush's driver or that the pilot of Air Force 1 should also be brought up on charges.
What about other drivers in history? Did we get all of them? Hitler's driver? Tojo's driver? Saddam's driver?
Of course the driver knew who he was driving and of course the driver knew what his passenger was doing. He might have, probably did, agree with bin Laden's cause. But he was a driver, not a wheelman. He was not someone who kept the engine idling to whisk bin Laden away from a murderous hit.
I don't think the point here is whether the driver knew or even what he knew. I think the point is what the driver actually did or did not do. And, thanks to this trial's absence of traditional American protections for the accused, we are not likely ever to know that. American citizens are best protected by according the accused the same protections that are accorded to American citizens.
Those who find it amusing when someone shows up at the door and says, "I'm from the government. I'm here to help," may want to have a second thought when the government says, "I'm your government and you don't need to know what I'm doing."
0
cleo
They tried him for serving as bin Laden’s armed bodyguard and driver in Afghanistan. That means either:
1)The US government thinks he was just a driver: or
2)The US government tries people for one thing then punishes them for another thing that isn't made public.
If 2) is the case, then the 'the US has the moral high ground' team need to take a good long look at what it is they're supporting, and Nippon5 needs to prepare to purchase 6 deluded judges' cars.
Following the rule that the simple is more likely to be true than the convoluted, I think (and hope) that 1) is the case.
Back to top