Hamdan Eligible For Release in 5 Months

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Do you get the feeling BushCo wants the Hamdan case to just go away? This news should fuel that view:

A military jury gave Osama bin Laden's driver a stunningly lenient sentence on Thursday, making him eligible for release in just five months despite the prosecutors' request for a sentence tough enough to frighten terrorists around the globe. Salim Hamdan's sentence of 5 1/2 years, including five years and a month already served at Guantanamo Bay, fell far short of the 30 years to life that prosecutors wanted. It now goes for mandatory review to a Pentagon official who can shorten the sentence but not extend it.

Here is an issue:

It remains unclear what will happen to Hamdan once his sentence is served, since the U.S. military has said it won't release anyone who still represents a threat.

George Bush won't be President then. Hamdan will be released imo. And the dirty truths will be swept under the rug.

< Kilpatrick's Bail Revoked | Bill Clinton to Speak at Democratic Convention Weds. Night >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hamdan Eligible For Release in 5 Months | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What? All that hullabloo and he... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Shainzona on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:29:26 PM EST

could be released in 5 months? I guess he was really really really bad - like they portrayed him...right?

Have any real terrorists been caught and tried?

: Yes, but by the Clinton administration (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by nellre on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:50:50 PM EST

This administration will be in the history books as the biggest travesty of all time.

Still a threat? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:41:36 PM EST

A threat to what? Drive with an expired registration? Sheesh.

I can't believe how we have been hyping these people up as "the worst of the worst." The driver!

: Meanwhile Pres. Bush (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:31:55 PM EST

sanctimoniously berates the Chinese government on its record re human rights.

: Sounds like (none / 0) (#25)
by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:01:51 PM EST

a good title for a movie.
The Driver: The Worst of the Worst

This Has To Be Seen (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by The Maven on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:46:00 PM EST

as an embarrassment for the Bush Administration and the entire Military Commission system, as they were clearly keying on the Hamdan case to set the tone for the other proceedings they were planning for prior to the election. Now, given the split decision on the verdict and the mild sentence, it wouldn't surprise me if they come up with some reason to put off the upcoming cases -- perhaps on the grounds that they've decided it's better if the federal courts provide further clarifications as to the legitimacy and constitutionality of the tribunal setup. I'll be happy with whatever pretense and fig leaf they come up with to minimize this blot on our nation's history.

Hopefully, come early 2009, we can shut Guantanamo down entirely and transfer jurisdiction back to regular criminal prosecutions before civilian courts, which are perfectly capable of handling these matters.

: I think it depends. (none / 0) (#9)
by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:53:57 PM EST

The administration probably wants to sell the integrity of the military tribunal system, and appearing to lose on a case that wasn't that important to them will give them more credibility when it's time to deal with the more dangerous detainees. And the fact he won't be released on Bush's watch saves them a bit of face at the same time.

Ooh, this is nasty (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:49:36 PM EST

they want to give President Obama the responsibility of releasing a dangerous terrorist just after inauguration!

: Could be before the inauguration ... (none / 0) (#14)
by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST

if it's in early January. And if it's five months from today it would be.
Bush will be President till noon on January 20th.

I'll Believe These Folks Are Going to Be Released (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by BDB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:13:55 PM EST

when I see it. Guantanamo is still fully funded by the Democratic Congress, no? Enough Blue Dogs crossed over to pass the awful MCA, no?

Which is not to lay the blame primarily on them, that stays with Bush & Co., but it doesn't seem like the Democratic Congress has that big a problem with it. One of many reasons why they should've is that now, if Obama wins, it becomes his problem.

What to do? If he lets one of them go and he kills Americans in a terrorist attack, Obama's screwed (and I find it hard to believe that after years of being tortured, none of these people wish us ill). If he holds them, he's continuing to violate the Constitution. I'd like to think it's the latter that will drive the next President, but it seems to me very few people in the Village care much about the Constitution or human rights these days. At least not when there's a chance to look tough on terrorism. From a political standpoint, you're much better off committing war crimes than risking another terrorist attack.

The reason for that is there are no adverse consequences to war crimes. The Democrats themselves have seen to that. Having sat silent, a lot of these problems will simply become their problems.

I'd feel bad for them if they hadn't done it to themselves. Oh, and if a significant number of them didn't just tell my phone company that it was okay to break the law and spy on me.

You legal minds here (none / 0) (#18)
by DJ on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:28:38 PM EST

what stops other countries for trying us for war crimes? Is it fear, diplomacy? Could they do it if they wanted to?


Jurisdiction, mostly (none / 0) (#19)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:36:33 PM EST

Folks like Henry Kissinger tend not to travel to countries that might try to arrest them and put them on trial.

Seizing a current head of state or official would, of course, most likely be seen as an act of war.


: government (none / 0) (#21)
by DJ on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:46:32 PM EST

would it have to be a government?

From what I understand (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by DJ on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:25:40 PM EST

he was just a driver and cooperated fully. His boss and others much more involved with bin laden who did not cooperate were released much earlier.

Reminds me of the plane loads of bin ladens (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by bridget on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:49:48 PM EST

and friends etc. who were flown out of the country after 9/11. How weird was that?

I never understood that. Still don't.


: Yes, very mysterious that. (none / 0) (#31)
by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:40:53 PM EST

And who was the first person spoke privately with when he returned to the Whitehouse? And the press seemed very uninterested in discussing or questioning any of it.

good thing we have cass sunstein (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Turkana on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:37:03 PM EST

to make sure all this dirty business doesn't get partisan and messy, in the coming years...

: Sunstein... (none / 0) (#32)
by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:48:13 PM EST

It was at that point that I thought... what reason do I have left to vote for BO. I was already becoming acrobatic over FISA and Faith Based Initiatives... but SCOTUS? That was one of my last hopes. I fear that after four years of BO the American people will be so disgusted that congress and POTUS will both fall into the hands of the Repugs.

Daffy-nitions as per cartoon duck (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by wurman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:23:13 PM EST

Is there a declared war? With no declaration of war, how can a captive be held until the war ends? Exactly when does a "not war" end in this Bizarro World?

According to Bu$hInc, the people interred at Camp X-ray, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are "enemy combatants," not prisoners of war (see above), & the MCA, if my memory is correct, supports use of this odd, quaint, terminology.

However, there are some court decisions that seem to be less than impressed with these made-up terms.

[Slyly hides birth certificate] I recall the radio news (Robert Trout anyone?) & the movie theater newsreels on the Nuremburg Trials. This does not sound or look similar. My father was very interested in the Tokyo trials & had to make extremely super efforts to find out about the Japanese who were executed or imprisoned for atrocities & war crimes. The Germans, however, became notorious.

In any event, the trials of all World War II accused war criminals were public, multi-national, & covered by the media of the time.

To my knowledge, none of the allied powers went after either Hitler's or Tojo's chauffeurs.

[By the way, unbeknownst to the USA or the blogs, this is the 63rd anniversary of the nuclear weapon destruction of Hiroshima, Japan.]

You mean they decided (none / 0) (#2)
by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:38:35 PM EST

not to up the death count?

Amazing.

Five months after being held for how long? Five months also brings us to the end of the Bush regime.

How convenient.

He will be released ... (none / 0) (#4)
by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:43:36 PM EST

and the story of his release will receive negligible news coverage.

That'll be January, right? So most of the news coverage will be focused on the transition.

Not bloody likely (none / 0) (#8)
by pmj6 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:52:59 PM EST

Mind you, his sentence is 5.5 years. A lot of people who are eligible for parole don't get it. I tend to think both Obama and McCain (and the former much more so than the latter) would prefer to kick the can down the road instead of provoking a controversy in their first months in office.

: Ooops... (none / 0) (#10)
by pmj6 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:54:33 PM EST

...somehow forgot about the 5 years and one month already served. That would mean December of this year, would it not?

He probably told them where Osama bin Laden is (none / 0) (#13)
by Saul on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:25:49 PM EST

Like a plea bargain.

: "was" (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:34:09 PM EST

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence (none / 0) (#15)
by dianem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:40:24 PM EST

... that his release date is just about the time our next President is sworn in.

According to CNN (none / 0) (#26)
by k on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:18:57 PM EST

this morning when the news broke...Hamdan will serve the remaining 5 months in segregation and then be returned to general population where he will he held until the war is "over".

I'm sure this will be McCain's position and I'd bet dollars to donuts that it will be Obama's as well.

Mr. Hamdan will stay at Gitmo for a very long time.

: I do not think (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:31:50 PM EST

that it is actually tenable to hold all these people without trial until the "end" of a war that doesn't actually have an end. The Supreme Court basically cautioned as much in the Hamdi decision.

Bush league justice (none / 0) (#29)
by Jgarza on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:06:58 PM EST

Seriously I don't even know what to say. Bush must feel manly after this.

And the dirty truths will be swept under the rug? (none / 0) (#30)
by Edger on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:12:00 PM EST

And who will be the president doing the sweeping?

It is not at all clear... (none / 0) (#33)
by pmj6 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:25:02 PM EST

...the Bush Administration welcomes this verdict. The military, for better or worse, has its own deeply entrenched institutional culture, and it has on more than one occasion successfully resisted the Bush Administration's efforts to subvert military justice, intelligence gathering, Geneva Convention protections, etc. The verdict could equally easily be interpreted as a nasty going away present to an unpopular administration. If the civilian leadership really wanted Hamdan case just to go away, it could have done so quietly, and long ago.