NationStates Jolt Archive

osama bin laden's driver has been sentenced to 66months in prison with credit for the 61 months he has already been detained.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the convicted former driver for Osama bin Laden, was sentenced Thursday to 66 months in prison by the military panel that convicted him of a war crime Wednesday.

The military judge, Capt. Keith J. Allred of the Navy, had already said that he planned to give Mr. Hamdan credit for the 61 months he had been held, meaning that Mr. Hamdan could complete his criminal sentence in five months. After that his fate is unclear, because the Bush administration says that it can hold detainees here until the end of the war on terror.

The unexpectedly short sentence was far less than military prosecutors had sought. Through more than five years of legal proceedings against Mr. Hamdan, prosecutors had pursued a life sentence, and earlier in the day, faced with Mr. Hamdan’s acquittal on the most serious charge against him, prosecutors recommended a sentence of at least 30 years and said life may be appropriate.

so i guess he'll have to wait (like the rest of us) for the new president to come into office before he is released.

That is a surprise, considering the mockery of justice this whole affair has been.

Does anyone know what he's actually guilty of?

Does anyone know what he's actually guilty of?

He took a left when he should have gone right. That's what he gets for trusting his GPS System!

Seriously, according to the BBC, it was for supporting terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7547261.stm

He took a left when he should have gone right. That's what he gets for trusting his GPS System!

Seriously, according to the BBC, it was for supporting terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7547261.stm

Yeah, but what does that mean?

From BBC

Providing support for terrorism: Guilty on five counts, including being the driver and bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden, a man he knew to be the leader of a terrorist group. Not guilty on three other counts.

That apparently.

Does anyone know what he's actually guilty of?
he is guilty of being a chauffeur.

a military jury that i think would be disposed towards finding him guilty found him not guilty of all the terrorism charges and guilty of being what he admitted to being--the driver of a very bad man.

he is guilty of being a chauffeur.

a military jury that i think would be disposed towards finding him guilty found him not guilty of all the terrorism charges and guilty of being what he admitted to being--the driver of a very bad man.

This is what I was afraid of. I once dealt with the credit card account of an arab prince. Would I be up on charges it the US one day decides he is a bad man as well?

This is what I was afraid of. I once dealt with the credit card account of an arab prince. Would I be up on charges it the US one day decides he is a bad man as well?
if it is decided that he is a bad man, you might want to at least keep a very low profile when in the US.

Will it survive the appeal process?

Wait, they can hold him until the end of war on terror?
Doesn't that kind of mean, well, forever?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7547261.stm

Hamdan had admitted working for Bin Laden in Afghanistan from 1997 to 2001 for $200 (£99) a month

I think if we just tell him how much London Taxi drivers earn it will be enough

Will it survive the appeal process?

I think they are using this to really drive the point home

he is guilty of being a chauffeur.

a military jury that i think would be disposed towards finding him guilty found him not guilty of all the terrorism charges and guilty of being what he admitted to being--the driver of a very bad man.

Apparently the tribunal had been watching the Transporter flicks and thought this guy might be just as dangerous.

Wait, they can hold him until the end of war on terror?
Doesn't that kind of mean, well, forever?
yeah i think so.

but that depends on the feelings of the next president.

i hope that obama would let him go and i hope that mccain would remember what it was like to be held and tortured for years and ....let him go home.

Apparently the tribunal had been watching the Transporter flicks and thought this guy might be just as dangerous.

Well at least they have some sense. No-one deserves another film that bad.

makes ya wonder, he did bugger all and they wanted a longer sentance for him

Will it survive the appeal process?
yeah it will.

i think that the rule is that you can only appeal on basis of facts and the guy admitted to being a driver so what is there to appeal?

I wonder if bin Laden's dry cleaner or grocer has entered hiding?

I wonder if bin Laden's dry cleaner or grocer has entered hiding?
they are probably the next "worst of the worst" on the docket.

I wonder if bin Laden's dry cleaner or grocer has entered hiding?

it was more then just driving the person around. he also was convited to knowingly transporting equipment etc. or was that what he was aquaited of.
the crimes here seem kinda vauge. and the sentence seems to just be an excuse to justifiy how long they have held him.

And thus the world is made yet safer for future generations. Huzzah!

I wonder if bin Laden's dry cleaner or grocer has entered hiding?

His college roomies and professors as well probably.

they are probably the next "worst of the worst" on the docket.

Indeed. If not, tremble in fear at what one of the worst of the worst might go back to doing if it hadn't been for Guantanamo - driving people around!! :eek2::eek2:

I think they are using this to really drive the point home

that was SO bad!

Does it make any difference that this man stood next to, protected, and served the leader of a group dedicated to killing innocent people? That this man stood by while plots were hatched that destroyed the lives of thousands?

This was not about being a driver, this was about being a member of a vile organization that existed only to impose religious retribution upon people who did not believe their brand of religious dogma. Amazing you guys will go after those evil Christians over a vote on gay marriage but have no capacity to see what constitutes a very real attempt to impose religion upon your world.

This was a travesty of justice. This man should have been sent to his paradise.

This is what I was afraid of. I once dealt with the credit card account of an arab prince. Would I be up on charges it the US one day decides he is a bad man as well?

*cough*

*points at Londim's post on page 1*

Providing support for terrorism: Guilty on five counts, including being the driver and bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden, a man he knew to be the leader of a terrorist group. Not guilty on three other counts.

If you knew (or had good reason to suspect) the Arab prince in question was involved in terrorism and that your activities would aid and abet him in said activities then yes, potentially you could be charged. If you didn't have good reason to think that the man you were dealing with was a terrorist then you'd be in the clear.

Amazing you guys will go after those evil Christians over a vote on gay marriage but have no capacity to see what constitutes a very real attempt to impose religion upon your world.

there is one key difference. retard christians hold political power and can actually affect changes. anyone who seriously worries about al-q imposing their religion on us is too dumb to even contemplate taking seriously.

Does it make any difference that this man stood next to, protected, and served the leader of a group dedicated to killing innocent people? That this man stood by while plots were hatched that destroyed the lives of thousands?

If the Supreme Court had not pressured the Bush Administration to either hold trials for the detainees or let them go, he'd still be rotting in Gitmo with no charges filed against him and you not giving a shit. For being a driver, not an actual combatant. Franz Kafka had a superb judicial system in comparison.

This was not about being a driver, this was about being a member of a vile organization that existed only to impose religious retribution upon people who did not believe their brand of religious dogma. Amazing you guys will go after those evil Christians over a vote on gay marriage but have no capacity to see what constitutes a very real attempt to impose religion upon your world.

If being associated with a terrorist group on the tertiary was enough to be convicted the same as an actual operative, then theoretically PETA should be locked away the same as operatives of ALF. But that's not happening either.

This was a travesty of justice. This man should have been sent to his paradise.

The real travesty was the years it took for them to come up with a charge against him and actually hold the tribunal.

Does it make any difference that this man stood next to, protected, and served the leader of a group dedicated to killing innocent people?

Did he plot to kill innocent people? No? then it shouldn't matter.

That this man stood by while plots were hatched that destroyed the lives of thousands?

Did he plot to destroy the lives of thousands? No? Then it shouldn't matter.

This was not about being a driver, this was about being a member of a vile organization that existed only to impose religious retribution upon people who did not believe their brand of religious dogma.

Funny, I thought we believed in freedom of association in this country.

Amazing you guys will go after those evil Christians over a vote on gay marriage but have no capacity to see what constitutes a very real attempt to impose religion upon your world.

False dichotomy. I resist when any religious organization attempts to impose its beliefs on the population. I do not, however, wish to criminalize belonging to a religion. Merely being part of an organization is not criminal.

This was a travesty of justice.

You're right. Considering that the jury found him not guilty of any actions of actually attempting terrorism and found him not guilty of any conspiracy to commit terrorism, and found him not guilty of actually directly facilitating any plans in furtherance of terrorist goals, he was essentially convicted for working for a bad man.

*cough*

*points at Londim's post on page 1*



If you knew (or had good reason to suspect) the Arab prince in question was involved in terrorism and that your activities would aid and abet him in said activities then yes, potentially you could be charged. If you didn't have good reason to think that the man you were dealing with was a terrorist then you'd be in the clear.

But he was an Arab.

Should that not have been enough or me to suspect him?:confused:

This is ridiculous. He wasn't a citizen of US or EU, and he didn't swear any oath to fight terrorism. He was under no obligation to participate in the War Of Terror, and under no obligation not to work for the enemies of US. He did a normal civilian job, and he didn't do anything illegal under his jurisdiction.

It's like sentencing Leopoldo Galtieri's chauffeur because he was driving a bad man of the losing side.

This is ridiculous. He wasn't a citizen of US or EU, and he didn't swear any oath to fight terrorism. He was under no obligation to participate in the War Of Terror, and under no obligation not to work for the enemies of US. He did a normal civilian job, and he didn't do anything illegal under his jurisdiction.

It's like sentencing Leopoldo Galtieri's chauffeur because he was driving a bad man of the losing side.

Like I said, the man wouldn't have even gotten a trial if the Supreme Court didn't force Dear Leader to put up one, even a farce like this.

yeah it will.

i think that the rule is that you can only appeal on basis of facts and the guy admitted to being a driver so what is there to appeal?

you got it backwards actually. There are essentially two things that need to be determined in any trial, findings of law (what does the law say) and findings of fact (do the facts meet the definition of the crime). Findings of law is a matter for the judge, findings of fact are a matter for the jury.

You can almost never appeal on the basis of facts. The finding of facts, the determination of what actually happened, is the jury's job and an appeals court will virtually never second guess the jury. The jury found the facts that they found, and the appeals court will not second guess that. They will not overturn a verdict simply because they would have found different facts, since it's not their job to find facts, it's the jury's job and they did it.

The only time this is not true is when an appeals court determines that the findings of fact were so erroneous, so in error, so beyond what any reasonably jury could possibly find, that the jury essentially failed to do its job properly. When there is no question that the jury was wrong, an appeals court can reverse a conviction. But when there's any showing that a jury could reasonably find as they did, the facts will remain uncontested, since if the appeals court overturned a verdict merely because they disagreed with the facts found by the jury would essentially usurp the job of the jury entirely

On the other hand, an appeals court will review findings of law, which is an entirely separate matter.

If you knew (or had good reason to suspect) the Arab prince in question was involved in terrorism and that your activities would aid and abet him in said activities then yes, potentially you could be charged.

Those are not the elements of aiding and abetting.

there is one key difference. retard christians hold political power and can actually affect changes. anyone who seriously worries about al-q imposing their religion on us is too dumb to even contemplate taking seriously.

So you see holding a vote on gay marriage to be more dangerous and criminal than slaughtering thousands to make a political/religious statement? It is not whether or not they will succeed. It is the lengths they will go to and methods they will employ to do so.

So you see holding a vote on gay marriage to be more dangerous and criminal than slaughtering thousands to make a political/religious statement? It is not whether or not they will succeed. It is the lengths they will go to and methods they will employ to do so.

I see them both as despicable ... only one of the two situations directly affects my life, so I tend to spend more time arguing against that disgusting viewpoint

So you see holding a vote on gay marriage to be more dangerous and criminal than slaughtering thousands to make a political/religious statement? It is not whether or not they will succeed. It is the lengths they will go to and methods they will employ to do so.

Funny you should be trying to make an issue out of that. After all, Your Dear Leader won the 2004 re-election partially on the Gay Marriage is more dangerous than Bin Ladin "Family Values" issues in states that had Defense of Marriage referendums.

you got it backwards actually. There are essentially two things that need to be determined in any trial, findings of law (what does the law say) and findings of fact (do the facts meet the definition of the crime). Findings of law is a matter for the judge, findings of fact are a matter for the jury.

You can almost never appeal on the basis of facts. The finding of facts, the determination of what actually happened, is the jury's job and an appeals court will virtually never second guess the jury. The jury found the facts that they found, and the appeals court will not second guess that. They will not overturn a verdict simply because they would have found different facts, since it's not their job to find facts, it's the jury's job and they did it.

The only time this is not true is when an appeals court determines that the findings of fact were so erroneous, so in error, so beyond what any reasonably jury could possibly find, that the jury essentially failed to do its job properly. When there is no question that the jury was wrong, an appeals court can reverse a conviction. But when there's any showing that a jury could reasonably find as they did, the facts will remain uncontested, since if the appeals court overturned a verdict merely because they disagreed with the facts found by the jury would essentially usurp the job of the jury entirely

On the other hand, an appeals court will review findings of law, which is an entirely separate matter.
i wrote that not out of any understanding of the law--i dont have much understanding of the law--but because of something i heard on the tv.

that this is a military tribunal and that somehow george bush got to decide some of the rules and that the rule actually IS that he cant appeal based on the law but only if it can be shown the the jury got the facts wrong. since he got convicted of being what he freely admitted to being--chauffeur--there can be no appeal.

i may have been able to remember who said it yesterday but its been 24 extra hours so i have no idea who i was listening to. it must have been some tv reporter or analist. which probably means that he was full of shit.

If the Supreme Court had not pressured the Bush Administration to either hold trials for the detainees or let them go, he'd still be rotting in Gitmo with no charges filed against him and you not giving a shit. For being a driver, not an actual combatant. Franz Kafka had a superb judicial system in comparison.

The Supreme Court had no right to force anything on a military detainee. That is where the stupidity started. He is a member of AQ and deserves no less than to rot. Keep calling him a mere driver but do you think Osama calls a temp agency for drivers/bodyguards? This guy is close to Osama and is as much a member of AQ as any other AQ member.

And Kafka's book is about the judicial limbo a normal citizen is thrown into for an unspecified crime. Osama's driver is a member of a terrorist group and is a witness to crimes being planned and performed. Hardly the same situation that Josef K. finds himself in.

If being associated with a terrorist group on the tertiary was enough to be convicted the same as an actual operative, then theoretically PETA should be locked away the same as operatives of ALF. But that's not happening either.

If the leader of the ALF has a driver/bodyguard, who is a member of the ALF and knows of the organizations operations, are they not a criminal? Are they not a member of a criminal conspiracy? Your theoretical situation does not pass the sniff test.

The real travesty was the years it took for them to come up with a charge against him and actually hold the tribunal.

No, the real travesty is that this man, a known insider of AQ, will be free to walk the free Earth once again. Too weep for this man is to spit on the graves of the victims of AQ.

Funny you should be trying to make an issue out of that. After all, Your Dear Leader won the 2004 re-election partially on the Gay Marriage is more dangerous than Bin Ladin "Family Values" issues in states that had Defense of Marriage referendums.
and being gay in the military is most dangerous of all!

they are offering arabic translators $150k re-upping bonus at the same time that they have drummed out 300 arabic translators for being GAY. that makes the "cost of gay" something like $45,000,000.

but its more important to keep the military pure than it is to fight the war on terror.

I see them both as despicable ... only one of the two situations directly affects my life, so I tend to spend more time arguing against that disgusting viewpoint

Amazing. One follows a legal and democratic route and the other uses violence and terrorism yet both are equally despicable.

Funny you should be trying to make an issue out of that. After all, Your Dear Leader won the 2004 re-election partially on the Gay Marriage is more dangerous than Bin Ladin "Family Values" issues in states that had Defense of Marriage referendums.

Bush supports the Defense of Marriage referendums. I don't. Once again, I don't believe any state power has the right to condone or condemn marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Governments should offer legally binding partnerships that control the merging of resources and childcare.

But Bush did not win 2004 because of this. Bush won because he had an overall better platform than Kerry. Please show the election polls of 2004 that demonstrate that Gay Marriage was a high priority amongst voters.

Amazing. One follows a legal and democratic route and the other uses violence and terrorism yet both are equally despicable.
Yup

Though interesting that I was discussing their viewpoint and your counterpoint was about method

If we are discussing method of course one that causes loss of life is despicable as well

Along with torture (which we appear to be guilty of)

Bush supports the Defense of Marriage referendums. I don't. Once again, I don't believe any state power has the right to condone or condemn marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Governments should offer legally binding partnerships that control the merging of resources and childcare.

And the way you describe it, you make it sound like the separation of Church and State is nonexistent in regards to marriage.

But Bush did not win 2004 because of this. Bush won because he had an overall better platform than Kerry. Please show the election polls of 2004 that demonstrate that Gay Marriage was a high priority amongst voters.

And you don't bother to read my replies thoroughly. I said it was partially responsible, not the sole deciding factor.

And here's some links:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137535,00.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/06/EDGLOA6F1G1.DTL

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/37588.htm

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041107_election.htm

So you see holding a vote on gay marriage to be more dangerous and criminal than slaughtering thousands to make a political/religious statement? It is not whether or not they will succeed. It is the lengths they will go to and methods they will employ to do so.

yeah, see, i'm much more concerned about those actually able to do what they intend. when al-q gets to the point where they form a legitimate threat to me, then i will treat them as such. but they simply do not form such a threat. if they did, they would be pulling off bombings in public places left and right, as terrorist groups are able to do in places where they actually are threats. but i don't live in those places and neither do you.

do you realize how easy it would be for terrorists to engage in spectacular terrorism in the united states on a regular basis if there were any of them around and they weren't incompetent boobs (a problem suffered by our home-grown terrorists, the rightwing extremists and nazis)? fucking trivial. but it does't happen. there is an obvious explanation for this.

the mere fact that somebody somewhere would be willing to kill everyone within a hundred km radius of my house does not make them an actual threat worth spending much time worrying over.

and being gay in the military is most dangerous of all!

they are offering arabic translators $150k re-upping bonus at the same time that they have drummed out 300 arabic translators for being GAY. that makes the "cost of gay" something like $45,000,000.

but its more important to keep the military pure than it is to fight the war on terror.

150 K!?!?! i know where i'm going for job. i'll just go to the embessay and sign up.

they are offering arabic translators $150k re-upping bonus at the same time that they have drummed out 300 arabic translators for being GAY. that makes the "cost of gay" something like $45,000,000.
What bothers me here is rather 300 gay military arabic translators. Is there some connection?

Does anyone know what he's actually guilty of?

Being Muslim.

You're right. Considering that the jury found him not guilty of any actions of actually attempting terrorism and found him not guilty of any conspiracy to commit terrorism, and found him not guilty of actually directly facilitating any plans in furtherance of terrorist goals, he was essentially convicted for working for a bad man.

I guess George W. Bush's chauffeur is a war criminal. :p

I guess George W. Bush's chauffeur is a war criminal. :p

And his little dog too!