Looking back, I can see that some people might view the federal laws of the US be a bit oppressive. While I am not here to debate whether it is or not, it just goes to show how much the government is willing to do to deter terrorists and to send a strong message to them.

Allright we got the driver.You people who do not know how this works read on.You get the driver he rats on the cook who in turn rats on the masseuse who in turn rats on the gardener who in turn rats on the housekeeper.You never actually get to the lead guy but you make it so it is almost impossible for him to get good help.For rich people like Osama Bin Laden this is worse than torture.

re: C Quil

When it comes to the flood, sometimes I thinking its raining all over the world. Peace

A letter writer in the Globe and Mail (Canada) said today that as much as he would like to see Bush and Cheney do serious time for their war crimes, he wouldn’t want to see a trial that convicted the pilot of Air Force One.

Now that they’ve got one “conviction”, the process is now considered “legitimate” and they can get to work on all the others.

Après moi, la déluge!

As a veteran of over 20 years of military service, let me say that sadly, I never saw, read, or heard of ANYONE tried in a military court being declared innocent. Has there ever been a case? Probably, but you can bet they are rare and far between. Defendents generally are found guilty, AS THE MILITARY HAS CHARGED!

And, before I get jumped on: yes, I DID sit on several courts during my military service!

What analogy do you prefer? The Trial by Franz Kafka? Drifter’s Escape by Bob Dylan?
It is so bloody typical: the menial must pay for the billionaire’s crimes. A pax Americana sense of justice: guilty or not, you are still guilty. Take the prisoner down.

By Brad W, August 6 at 9:20 am #

I think you should change the title of this article. By referring to Bin Laden as “Osama” in a headline, and in the lead paragraph, you fuel the ongoing Osama/Obama confusion. I’m a highly educated and informed reader, but when I glanced at the headline in my RSS reader, I assumed it was a story about Obama’s driver, and I had a moment of panic that some scandal had just broken, before I realized it was referring to Bin Laden.

I think TruthDig has a responsibility to do what it can to combat this confusion, by being precise and verbose in the use of names.

~~~~~~~

Brad W…

Thanks for this. I agree, for all of the reasons you’ve mentioned. If a highly informed person can make this mistake easily enough, then we know what the ‘majority’ can and will do with it. It’s not like they haven’t already.

So, it shouldn’t be such a big deal (at all) for Truth Dig to get into the habit of using bin Laden’s family name, rather than his given one. Better yet, they could use the man’s name in the title, just as the article did: Salim Ahmed Hamdan. If readers don’t know who Salim Ahmed Hamdan is, (even though they should) then they can look it up and learn something very useful.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html

Meantime, the precedent this sets scares the shit out of me. On the one hand, the US government had already indicated that they were gonna disregard the verdict, regardless of what it was. And on the other hand, they’ve carried out the atrocity (the so-called tribunal/trial), and even acquitted him of one of the charges. Thatis likely to set a precedent that these can in fact be legally recognized proceedings, when we know damn well that they are not!!

“enemy combatant’ my ass.

One can’t help feeling sad and depressed as another nail is hammered in the coffin of the American justice system!

The trial and conviction of Saiim Ahmed Hamdan, was and is a farce. There was no evidence against Mr. Hamdan other than testimony that was given under torture and “informants” for whom the trial proved that this government was doing the right thing.
I, still cannot believe that Mr. Hamdan, a driver, for Osama Bin Laden, had anything to do with aiding and abetting terrorism.  Even in this country, the US, a person who is a driver is never considered worthy enough to plan an action or to take part in any action. Drivers are considered menial labor and that is the extent of their involvement with their employer.
Not only this but the trial itself, was and is complete B.S., when you consider the fact that the authorities, in this case the government, held to the fact that they would even if Mr. Hamdan was acquitted of the charges against him, hold Mr. Hamdan indefinitely.
This sounds like any “kangaroo court” that I have ever heard of. Even if he was acquitted, Mr. Hamdan, had already been sentenced to life in prison, by the government, for crimes that make no sense and have no meaning, in the light of day.
How ridiculous can this government be? To pre-sentence a man without the benefit of trial??
This administration has gone off the deep end, and I would not doubt that they try to stop the elections of Nov. and take control of the government under martial law and make themselves rulers for life. This is not so far fetched as it seems as the administration has already talked about this very scenario and played it out, thousands of times for the benefit of the police and other agencies that will enforce this governments demands.
If, in the future, another president is placed in office, I believe, that there should be an apology to Mr. Hamdan, money should be given to him and he should be repatriated to Yemen without haste.

Did they convict his physician and shoemakers too? Fry ‘em! :Rollseys:

Arabs who can afford it always have ‘drivers.’  We had them living in Yemen not because we necessarily needed or wanted them but because it was the custom. (Besides, a ‘driver’ by virtue of just being the driver assumes complete responsibility for the safety of people in his car.  If there is an accident, no matter who caused it, the driver of any car involved in which someone is killed will spend the rest of his life in prison.)

Prosecuting BinLaden’s driver is so ludicrous as to be downright embarrassing.

This is a show trial and the logic behind it is qrotesque. Under this law an innocent man who drove someone to a place where a crime was committed could be jailed for life even if he knew nothing about the crime and took no part in it. What kind of perversion of justice is this? The real criminals are in the White House shredding the Constitution they took an oath to protect. By any logical reasoning Hamdan has committed no crime whatsoever. But, of course, that didn’t protect Bruce Ivins either. Just remember this when they come for you after you thought they would only use these laws on terrorists.

I think you should change the title of this article. By referring to Bin Laden as “Osama” in a headline, and in the lead paragraph, you fuel the ongoing Osama/Obama confusion. I’m a highly educated and informed reader, but when I glanced at the headline in my RSS reader, I assumed it was a story about Obama’s driver, and I had a moment of panic that some scandal had just broken, before I realized it was referring to Bin Laden.

I think TruthDig has a responsibility to do what it can to combat this confusion, by being precise and verbose in the use of names.