Salim Hamdan was found guilty of transporting bin Laden from place to place. In doing so, he was found guilty of aiding and abetting a terrorist not of being a terrorist himself. He was, in effect, sentenced to five months of continued confinement in Gitmo. In other words, that was the best the US could 'hang on him.'

Yeah, but what does "Yemeni chauffeur = terrorist?" have to do with that? Why did you ask that question? What that question not important to what you were trying to say? If that's the case, then whey do you get so bent out of shape if somebody doesn't bend over backwards to answer your questions? I'm still confused.

Is the fact that Hamden was from Yemen have any importance in this? If not, why was that bit of information included? What about "chauffeur." I assumed you were asking is maybe his national heritage and current occupation had anything to do with being a terrorist? Was I wrong?

I asked for a clarification and you came back with the ramble about him being found guilty of aiding and abetting a terrorist and I guess you're acting as the defense attorney (why am I surprised by that?) and suggesting he wasn't "aiding and abetting" or that "aiding and abetting" a crime isn't a crime in itself?

But then why didn't you ask "Does a Yemeni Chauffeur = Aiding and Abetting?"

Why, you more you think about this the stranger it gets. All I know is I sure don't want to hear any more nonsense about how nobody answers you questions because when we try to answer we discover you didn't really want your question answered. You just wanted to complain about it not being answered. That seems hardly rational.

. o O (Go back to sleep, Lawmage. False alarm.)

Yeah, but what does "Yemeni chauffeur = terrorist?" have to do with that? Why did you ask that question?

With what, Ray? I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

So am I--by your response.

Are you so tired by the differences in our time zones, Ray, that you only submit a posting in order to submit a posting?

Not exactly, Liz. Once again you either fail to understand the topic you are trying to discuss or you are deliberately making statements that are not true. I leave it to the readers to decide which. Salim was found guilty of transporting Osama from plae to place for the purpose of aiding his acts of terrorism. The transporting was not the issue, the purpose of the transportation was. Moreover, transporting Osama was not the sole charge. He was also found guilty of transporting rockets...pretty clearly they must have needed a chauffer since they lack legs and all. I suppose you will tell us Salim had no idea those rockets intended to launch themselves at anyone and no idea they were even dangerous. He was after all a poor dirt farmer with a mere fourth grade education. Perhaps had he been a student in an Israeli elementary school he might have learned about rockets but alas...Yemeni schools are so under funded they cannot teach that sort of thing.

And I just had to clean up the mess left by one of my cats when she leapt off my keyboard and knocked a glass off my desk. Does this make sense to either you or Ray?

My cat is a cat. She has no knowledge of what can happen as the result of her being a cat.

Liz, to answer your question directly, no, Yemeni chauffeur does not equal terrorist. It does not, at least, automatically equal terrorist.

But Yemeni chauffeur does not automatically make one innocent. It's not an either-or.

There you go, a direct answer, with expansion of the response.. What more could you ask for?

Perhaps Liz meant to suggest that Salim, like a cat, did not know any better. After all, a poor Yemeni with a fourth grade education could not possibly know that helping a terrorist like bin Ladin kill thousands of people was wrong.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan was convicted of "providing material support for terrorism." Beyond that, we'll probably never know unless the Court documents are released. I imagine that Hamdan's case will fall by the wayside--unless it becomes either an indictment or a defense of the Military Commission Act which is what I wanted this thread to be about.

Here is the thing, Liz. The MCA set up a process to try detainees for what amount to war crimes and to determine their status in terms of the category of detainee to which they belong. The Geneva Conventions, the same Geneva Conventions certain liberals bitched we were not following, require that we provide a means of doing exactly that. These same liberals also bitched that these detainees deserved their day in court. The military tribunals established under the MCA are lawful and duly constituted courts of the United States established by the Congress through legislative act...exactly as every other Federal court except the Supreme Court has been established.

With all that in mind, I have a hard time seeing just how the trial and conviction of Salim Ahmed Hamdan would serve as an indictment of the Military Commissions Act. What would be the basis of that indictment? In the Salim case, the tribunal found him guilty of some offense (providing material support to terrorist activities) and not guilty of other offenses (conspiracy.) It seems to me at least this finding shows pretty clearly the tribunals are not mere kangaroo courts returning the verdict the government desires. I would suggest in so far as the Salim case answers your question, Liz, it answers it as an affirmative defense of the Military Commissions Act.

I know the MCA set up "a process to try detainees for what amounts to war crimes" etc. But it was enacted only after much political and legal wrangling, including an earlier decision by the Supreme Court that rejected what Mr. Bush wanted--to deny the detainees the right to habeous corpus. This is the first time since the Nuremberg trials wherein a military commission had been used. (I only know about the Nurembuerg trials, btw, through the Spencer Tracy movie "Judgement at Nuremberg." And, as I recall, Tracy played a retired civilian judge sent to hear the cases of some German judges who were accused of crimes against humanity.)

Whatever, legalists are apparently still fighting the enactment of the MCA.



To answer your question, Law, about how Hamdan's trial would serve as an indictment of the MCA, I offer this, taken from gaurdian.co.uk:



But, remember, I also said it could be used as a defense of the MCA.

Hamdan got a light sentence. What sort of sentences will the few 'heavy duty' detainees receive?