Nearly seven years after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States, the first military trial of a prisoner held at the US Guantánamo Bay naval base has begun. The defendant is Salim Hamdan who is described as Osama bin Laden's chauffeur and bodyguard. Human rights organisations and the military lawyers representing Mr Hamdan and other terrorist suspects say it is impossible to have a fair trial before Guantánamo's military tribunals.
In a certain sense, the trial of Salim Hamdan is a test case. He is accused of conspiracy and supporting terrorist activities, which the White House views as war crimes. The US administration has declared the defendant to be an "illegal enemy combatant". As such, he is deemed not to be a prisoner of war, and thus not be protected by the Geneva Convention.
He is also a foreigner held outside the US and so, the government contends, the parts of the US constitution which protect defendants do not apply to him. The same argument is cited regarding the other terrorist prisoners.
Legitimacy
The US administration set up the military tribunals to try the 'enemy combatants' being held at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. From the outset, human and civil rights organisations and the military lawyers assigned to the defendants have questioned the legitimacy of the tribunals. They have taken their fight to the US Supreme Court in Washington.
Mr Hamdan brought a case against the then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, in which the Supreme Court ruled the military tribunals to be inadequate under the law. At the time, the Republican Party still had a majority in Congress. Under pressure from President George W Bush, Congress passed legislation designed to give the military tribunals, renamed military commissions, a new constitutional basis. However, another Supreme Court ruling on the issue last month again casts doubt on the legality of the military commissions.
Master brain
The uncertainty as to whether the commissions can successfully try and sentence defendants means that the trial of Mr Hamdan, a relatively minor suspect, is being seen as a kind of practice run. Only later will major defendants, such as the suspected brain behind the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, be dealt with.
Developments during the Hamdan trial could throw up problems regarding how the controversial commissions operate and also adversely affect the (international) standing of the Bush administration. Mr Hamdan's lawyers will object to evidence said to have been obtained through torture. Apparently, during his interrogation, he was woken up on the hour for 50 days. His lawyers also say that years of solitary confinement have left him a mental wreck.
The defence also wants to cross examine Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al-Qaeda suspects. Washington is eager to prevent this, but the military judge has ruled that the trial cannot continue if the request is refused. It is also possible that the former military prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, will appear to give evidence in Mr Hamdan's defence. After his resignation as chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, Colonel Davis has become one of the most outspoken critics of the military commissions.
Unclear
The Hamdan trial before a jury of army officers is expected to last three weeks. However, plea bargaining - as in the case of the Australian, David Hicks, who last year pleaded guilty in exchange for being allowed to serve his sentence back home in Australia - could always mean it ends earlier. The Washington federal judge, who last week ruled the Hamdan trial at Guantanamo could go ahead, made it clear that the defendant would be entitled to appeal against the outcome before a civilian court in the US. This means that it could take years for it to become clear just what rights the Guantanamo prisoners have under US law.
I am afraid that our American monarchy has decided to do whatever it wants, including deny that it is subject to our most supreme law. I await the fall of this kingdom, perpetrated on us by some of us. As a true and real American I am afraid to ask, "What's next?"
Carlos Borjal,
24-07-2008
- USA
David Turner: You are an example of people who takes the high moral grounds and ignores the reality that there are people out there who do not like us by just simply being us. In an ideal world you might have a valid argument but your world unfortunately does not exist. This war did not start when Bush got elected. This has been brewing for years long before the Cold War was over. The ineptness of our leaders for their inexcusable failure to deal with Bin Laden during the Clinton years is the embodiment of the world we are living today. Al-Qaeda made terrorism a global war and if we don’t destroy them now the future of our children and the future generations will be in peril. Appeasement or tolerance is not the way to go, we have to destroy our enemies now before they create havoc in our cities again. Violence is the only language these people understand and we have to respond in kind. The sense of fair-play was what made us a great nation, but the rules of the game has changed over time, we have to adapt to this new world. If again we fail to recognize the nature of our enemies, we will be at their mercy and that is a situation we can never accept. I trust our government’s position in Guantanamo, it’s our duty as citizens to have faith and support our military and court system whom we gave charge to our national defense and our security as a nation.
David L. Turner,
23-07-2008
- USA
I read the comments by Dick Udell and Some Random Guy. I am amazed by the ignorance and fear that many of the greatest, strongest and Just Country in the World citizens grasp hold of because of so many lies by the Bush adminstration's employees. Shame on the US populace to rationalize in their thinking no wrong has been envoked by our behavior or untrue beliefs due to Lack of Security in our Country.
It wasn't too many years ago that the USA was providing arms to the very same people that are now considered Terrorist with no rights. I didn't see one of the detainees in Guantonamo attacking US citizens on US soil. I did see them being taken prisoner In Afghanistan. Brain washed as they may be, are we planning on holding these idiots for the rest of their lives without trial. We didn't consider North Vietnam a legitimate Country during the VietNam War. Notice I used the Term War and not Conflict. We considered the Viet Kong Terrorist. Our Country did not hold the VC prisoners indefinitely. I know we let the Germans go home after unconditional surrender. Wait many Japanesse wern't belivers in the Christ God, did'nt look like most Americans, maybe that's why we stuck people that were citizens of our own Country behind bars, which could have ended up being for at least seven years if the War would not have ended. It is because these people believe in a different God, that we treat them worst than animals. Anyone that believes that the guys that we scooped up in Afganistan had the ability to do any harm to the citizens of the US have truly bought the lies of the present administration. Common sense, fairness, and strength have always been just a few of the attributes that make our Country the best Country. Do unto others, remember that the next time one of our citizens are in a situation in a foriegn land. Seven years. Common Sense? A book is what it truly will take to explain all of the complexities of the men we hold.
Some Random Guy,
22-07-2008
- USA
This article highlights why we will never be able to beat these guys. You can't use anything he said as evidence, because you woke him up while he was sleeping. What's next? You can't use that because you didn't provide him with a teddy bear, cookies and a glass of warm milk before he went to sleep? We've become such a bunch of pathetic, politically correct wimps who can't even lock up people trying to kill us. It's insanity.
Unfortunately the ICC is even more of a joke than US courts. It's filled with the same suicidal political correctness but also is subject to international political whims. We need to let the military courts finish this off, without having some liberal weenie tell them "you're a meanie" you can't lock him up!! They're the only ones capable of dealing with it.
Dick Udell,
21-07-2008
- USA
This is a complicated situation! Strictly speaking, these prisoners are NOT legitimate 'Prisoners of War' as they do not belong to any particular nation's military. They are criminal terrorists guilty of crimes against humanity. They obey no rules whatsoever. Perhaps a better solution would be to prosecute them in the International Court in The Hague as International Criminals guilty of crimes against humanity. We should also be aware that terriorists are fanatical individuals of many different persuasions, political and religious, and these particular circumstances should in no way reflect adversely on the Islamic population as a whole!
