terrorists beware

[KarlXII]

Is life a fair sentence? Hell, he even said he was in it for the money.

[Andres]

In its first response, the White House said Hamdan had received a "fair trial".

So, a guy who worked for enemy n° 1 of the US gets sentenced by a US court and they expect the international community to believe that this was a "fair trial"?

Is the White House trying to tell me that there isn't even the slightest air of this court being biased?

Did they ever hear about in propria causa nemo iudex (no person can judge a case in which he or she is a party)?

They could at least have had the decency to let him be judged by an international court, like the International Criminal Court (but therefore, the US should ratify its founding treaty...). Than I might have been willing to believe that the guy was been given a fair trial.

[KarlXII]

You know, with the time spent with this trial, the first for Gitmo, we could've spent it on someone who, you know, actually killed people.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The whole "what would I do" question and debate is irrelevant. I would consider being a driver for someone who offered me a few million (I value my life more though), but that doesn't make it right.

[LittleGrizzly]

If it helps, I'd be any "sociopath's" driver if the price was right. And the right price is lower than you think.

Thats what i thought when panzer mention $1,000,000. the $99 a month sounded pretty sweet to me, us unemployed can't afford to be picky ya know...

Edit: I think the whole what would i do has some bearing on the subject, as he could be any guy who just happened to see a very well paid oppurtunity come up and ignored the fact it was for a less than wholesome character, it should at the very least be taken into account when sentencing, that the nicest guy in the world could have wandered into that job....

[Craterus]

What was the guy supposed to do? Quit the job? Drive him off a cliff? I think not turning up would probably have been a bad idea.

Personally, I think the US is punishing this guy for their lack of any real progress in finding Bin Laden so they've taken the next best thing and slapped it with a punitive and completely unjustified sentence to make it look like they're actually achieving something in their war on terror.

[Andres]

Just a random thought:

Let's assume there's indisputable proof that the US committed war crimes in a recent past (for the sake of convenience: e.g. torture).

Will Mister Bush's driver also be sentenced to life time imprisonment?



But let's stick to the topic at hand and what's most relevant for the international community (the Org is in fact a mini-international community).

Lefties when a man's house is seized because he didn't have a license plate on his van in his driveway: It's the law and it's fair.

Lefties when bin Laden's Yemeni driver/bodyguard in Afghanistan (ie the crap about being a poor Afghan with a hungry family means nothing) is sentenced to jail: Oh noes! How unfair!

You're comparing apples with oranges...

In the first case the culprit was a US citizen living in the US and thus falling under US law.

In this case, we're talking about war crimes in an international conflict.

a) The court judging over this man should have been an international court (like the International Criminal Court, which founding treaty the US administration still hasn't ratified); b) the law applicable in this case should have been international law and international law only, not US law.

The US is involved as a party in this dispute and shouldn't be the judge in nor make the rules for this lawsuit (nemo iudex in propria causa, a long since established principle in law).

If an international court applying international legislation in this case would sentence the man to life time imprisonment, than, I, as an unbiased, non-US citizen and thus representative for the international community, would have far less difficulties to accept this judgement.

That's all

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Oh, and the whole Left/Right thingy found it's origins in 1791. I don't like being labelled, but if you insist on putting a (somewhat anachronistic) label on me, I'd prefer to be called caveman instead of "lefty"

[Husar]

Just a random thought:

Let's assume there's indisputable proof that the US committed war crimes in a recent past (for the sake of convenience: e.g. torture).

Will Mister Bush's driver also be sentenced to life time imprisonment?

If the driver knew that Bush was directly responsible for those war crimes and was in it for the money, yes, otherwise:

You're comparing apples with oranges...

[Andres]

If the driver knew that Bush was directly responsible for those war crimes and was in it for the money, yes, otherwise:

And if he would be sentenced by an Afghan court, you would assume that he had a fair trial?

[Husar]

And if he would be sentenced by an Afghan court, you would assume that he had a fair trial?

The US would probably not give him to an afghan court.

[Hosakawa Tito]

So....

A taxi driver who picks up and drives a criminal(which he is bound to do by law, btw) is now a criminal too?

Ask him what he had in the trunk ?

[KrooK]

We can't lost from watch who is our enemy.
who are not caring about any convension when they will not benefit from it.
They demand human rights but ... they never show it when torturing their victims.
They are murdering every prisoner or every civilian they caught but they are first to complain
when our forces kill civilian by mistake.
When I'm listenting to people yelling because law of terrorists are being broken - I think they should be send to Iraq and leave on street of Bagdad without weapons. I wonder if terrorist would show them human rights.
Every country and every nation has right to defend itself. Rule of law can be broken when
its necessary to defend nation or country. Thats why this judgement is right.
Terrorists must know that as long they break war rights they will not be under their protection.

At addition I would like to ask.... How human rights of war were being born?
Because when enemies behave with your soldiers same like you with enemy - it was bad option to torture prisoners. We have to show terrorists that we will not be playing with them.

[PBI]

The question is though, if we are to adopt the methods of the terrorists in order to combat them, why bother to combat them at all? We will have lost by default and achieved the terrorists' aims for them.

The struggle against Al Qaeda is first and foremost an ideological one, not military. This is the point Bush has always missed. The most important thing is that we show through our actions that our ideals are superior to theirs, by not engaging in the same sort of despicable methods they do. Actually convicting known terrorists is a secondary goal and is pointless if doing so means losing the ideological struggle.

[PanzerJaeger]

So, a guy who worked for enemy n° 1 of the US gets sentenced by a US court and they expect the international community to believe that this was a "fair trial"?

Is the White House trying to tell me that there isn't even the slightest air of this court being biased?

Did they ever hear about in propria causa nemo iudex (no person can judge a case in which he or she is a party)?

They could at least have had the decency to let him be judged by an international court, like the International Criminal Court (but therefore, the US should ratify its founding treaty...). Than I might have been willing to believe that the guy was been given a fair trial.

I sooo want to comment on that but I fear it would drag the thread towards the monestary.

[BigTex]

So a good portion of US administration should go to jail for giving weapons to Saddam? Guilty by association. If I've learned something from Tribesy here, that's when to say "bollox!"...

Comparing cold relations during proxy wars to a mad man's driver/bodyguard? Sorry, but that's a leap. You are completely disregarding prime motives during the cold war. The US administration was also removed by several levels of assiociation to what was going on compared to this man who was directly paid and worked directly for bin laden.

But don't let me interrupt here. Please let me hear how this man, a driver for a sociopathic terrorist, is compareable to US relations during the cold war.

Is life a fair sentence? Hell, he even said he was in it for the money.

So he was in it for the money? So that makes working for a terrorist organization ok? Blood money is a double edged sword, and this man just got stabbed by it. He has none of my sympathy, nor any of my concern. Sorry you gambled with your life and you got cuaght.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Lefties when a man's house is seized because he didn't have a license plate on his van in his driveway: It's the law and it's fair.

Lefties when bin Laden's Yemeni driver/bodyguard in Afghanistan (ie the crap about being a poor Afghan with a hungry family means nothing) is sentenced to jail: Oh noes! How unfair!



CR

[Husar]

Well, I think if he knew he was driving a wanted terrorist around then he had to see such a sentence coming if caught and has only himself to blame, if being the lookout for some rapist soldiers is wrong then being the driver of a wanted terrorist is just as wrong because it is supportive of the crimes commited by the "worse" ciminals.

[KarlXII]

I have a problem with the possible sentence he is facing, and that's life imprisonment. I also have a problem with the fact they did charge him (but did not convict him) with conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks. Material aid to terrorists is supplying money, RPG's, AK-47's, not driving Osama around. I believe he did it for the money.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh, I'll be obscure and throw in a quote from an Islamic Networking Site

Brother from Nigeria:

I am a 28 year old bother upon the qeedah of ahlul sunna wal jamaah.People describe me as easygoing,friendly and understanding.My intrests are Islam,reading,fiqh,Jihad and fighting i the cause of Allah, history, martialarts, mountains,computers,gadgets,internet,horse back riding,Driving fast bikes,current affairs, brainstorming, science,traveling,financial/investing,camping,walking,
jogging,and hiking and spending quality time with my mum ,my family and truest friends.

I will be living in early in 2007 to the arabian penuisala.I have alawys had a loveaffair with Horse

I am searching for a muslimah that has the right aqeedah,a good heart especially to her muslim brethren,good adab,easygoing,understanding,loves kids,compassionte,and a sweet romantic woman as well.
She should not be afraid of the blame of the blamers.Basically a devout muslimah.

Jazakumullahu khairun.

Why is it relevant? Because I think this is basically the kind of guy that was convincted in our trial. A Jihadist, sure. An adventurer. A small time Islamist with a 56k internet, a Koran, and a grudge.

But seven years, two wars, torture camps*, and trillions of dollars - and this is what the US administration has to show for it's effort? A second rate adventurer?



* Not prisons. Not detention camps. Torture camps.

The White House said the trial was fair and looked forward to more tribunals.

If I were the White House I'd close Gitmo if only to save me from further embarrasment like this.

[Sarmatian]

Comparing cold relations during proxy wars to a mad man's driver/bodyguard? Sorry, but that's a leap. You are completely disregarding prime motives during the cold war. The US administration was also removed by several levels of assiociation to what was going on compared to this man who was directly paid and worked directly for bin laden.

But don't let me interrupt here. Please let me hear how this man, a driver for a sociopathic terrorist, is compareable to US relations during the cold war.

Mad man definition and classification is open to debate. But I was trying to point out how entire logic of "guilty by association" is flawed. If we are to truly press that further, half the world's politicians would find themselves in jail. Well, there's a nice thought...

[BigTex]

Mad man definition and classification is open to debate. But I was trying to point out how entire logic of "guilty by association" is flawed. If we are to truly press that further, half the world's politicians would find themselves in jail. Well, there's a nice thought...

The man isnt just "guilty of association" he has moved past association. He was working for Bin Laden, driving and apparently being a bodyguard on occasions. That's way beyond just assiociating with him, which is what he went to trial for.