The six- person jury of military officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines convicted Salim Ahmed Hamdan of providing material support for terrorism, but acquitted him of charges of conspiracy to support terrorism. They will determine his sentence in separate proceedings later this week. Their decision came after two weeks of proceedings, at times bizarre, in which they listened stonefaced to testimony from several FBI agents, an investigator from the Navy Criminal Investigative Service, experts on war crimes law, a university professor specializing in central Asian history, military officers who served in Afghanistan, and even testimony from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/1. The prosecution tried to portray Hamdan as a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle who knew full- well al- Qaida's intentions and helped make the 9/1. They said he was a committed ideologue who pledged . They claimed that he had never sworn a loyalty oath to bin Laden. They also said he was a cooperative witness who offered to help U.
You are here: Home LEGAL RESOURCES Significant Court Opinions Significant U.S. Supreme Court Opinions. Hamdan v Rumsfeld, 548 US 557 (2006), holding military commissions convened under the President’s Military Order of November 13, 2001 This. The prosecutor's case relied on Hamdan's signed confessions and a transcript of a chat-room conversation from a jihadi website in which Hamdan says he was not. S. Hamdan was a salaried employee. Brian Mizer, part of Hamdan's four- man defense team, adding that much of the time Hamdan was working for bin Laden, he didn't even know where he was driving. This is a classic case of guilt by association. Ironically, although he was sitting in the dock, Hamdan did not have much riding on the trial. Even if the jury had acquitted him of all charges, he could be imprisoned indefinitely at Guant. But they mounted a spirited and vigorous defense nonetheless, both to defend their client and also to expose the flaws in a system they believe makes a mockery of justice. The prosecution, too, knew that it was the heavily criticized military commissions and the Bush administration's . Although it had requested, and the government was ordered to provide, all records relating to Hamdan's confinement in Afghanistan and at Guant. The prosecution provided some 6. Some continued to trickle in as the trial was under way. Others never arrived at all. The documents arrived in what the defense said were . So the defense team was left . Berrigan added that the defense still didn't have the names of all the agents who interrogated Hamdan while he was in U. S. Things began looking up for the defense when the military judge presiding over the trial, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, sanctioned the government for not providing the documents. Not long after, he ruled that he would not permit into the trial statements Hamdan made to interrogators because there was evidence that they were coerced. However, the government wanted to put Robert Mc. Fadden, a special agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, on the stand to testify about a March 2. Hamdan. The prosecutor argued that he could provide . The judge allowed the government to make its case. Without the jury present, Mc. Fadden, square- jawed, calm and with a dry sense of humor, described what he said was a cordial, friendly and . The defense scrambled to show that Mc. Fadden's testimony shouldn't be admitted by arguing that even though Mc. Fadden may not have used coercion, Hamdan had been sexually harassed by a female interrogator and subjected to a program of sleep deprivation in the days prior to Mc. Fadden's interrogation. The judge ruled in favor of the prosecution and allowed Mc. Fadden to testify. Unfortunately the public will never know Judge Allred's rationale. In a document that must be embarrassing to even the most staunch defenders of the military commissions, four of the five pages of Allred's opinion were redacted in a sea of black ink. Negotiations to bring Mohammed and others to the courthouse proved difficult, in part because of security concerns. The government maintains that because of the interrogation techniques Mohammed was subjected to, anything he says is presumptively classified. In addition, only one of Hamdan's four lawyers had the necessary clearance to interview Mohammed and other high- level detainees. In the end, Mohammed said he didn't want to appear, but he agreed to answer written questions presented to him by Hamdan's defense team. Mohammed depicted Hamdan as a low- level servant and denied that Hamdan had advance knowledge of or played any role in planning the 9/1. His nature was more primitive (Bedouin) person and far from civilization. He was not fit to plan or execute. But he is fit to change trucks' tires, change oil filters, wash and clean cars, and fasten cargo in pick up trucks. He could tighten bolts, and could select the best car maintenance shop. We fight humans not ghosts. We have interests in life .. So from the 9/1. 1 operation you need to be practical. It is illogical to think that everyone from Al- Qaeda is a conspirator or a terrorist. Because we have business projects, educations, . On the contrary, we are a realistic organization on earth. Some of the most compelling testimony might have come from Special Forces psychologist Col. What he said on the stand remains unknown. Trial observers asked the court for a redacted transcript of the testimony and Judge Allred requested that of the clerk, but as with the discovery for the defense, it has yet to be produced. As of Tuesday, it was still being reviewed by those responsible for declassification. However, what we do know from defense counsel is that Banks was in Afghanistan as part of the implementation of a secret interrogation regime based on the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape program (SERE) when Hamdan was held there. The SERE program was also used to advise the military on interrogation techniques at Guant. Despite the secrecy shrouding Banks' testimony, Hamdan's defense team later revealed that Banks testified that Hamdan, apparently under such threat, had begged interrogators not to rape his wife or kill his family, and that in the days when U. S. Hamdan, squandered that offer, and wondered whether Hamdan might have led the U. S. In its closing arguments, the defense reiterated its claim that Hamdan was a lowly driver, a . Defense counsel emphasized that Hamdan had been a cooperative witness, and had the U. S. But Mc. Millan added that under the prosecution's theory of providing material support to terrorism, thousands of people could be tried, including.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |