Driver for Osama bin Laden has conviction reversed
By Carol Cratty
A federal appeals court Tuesday tossed out the conviction of a driver for Osama bin Laden, dealing a blow to the U.S. military commissions system.
Salim Hamdan was convicted in 2008 of providing material support for terrorism. In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the conviction.
The court noted that Hamdan was found guilty based on conduct that took place from 1996 to 2001, but the charge of material support for terrorism only came into effect with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
"Because we read the Military Commissions Act not to retroactively punish new crimes, and because material support for terrorism was not a pre-existing war crime," the court wrote, "Hamdan's conviction for material support for terrorism cannot stand."
Hamdan received a sentence of five and a half years in prison and got credit for having served almost all of that while detained before his military commission trial. He was transferred to his native Yemen in 2008, released from jail there in January 2009, and continued to appeal his conviction.
"It was important to him to have his name cleared of the conviction and he thought the principle was important," Harry Schneider Jr., one of Hamdan's lawyers, told CNN. Schneider said Hamdan realized many other detainees at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be affected by the decision.
J. Wells Dixon, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights who co-authored an amicus brief supporting Hamdan's appeal, said the court's decision is an important one and will lead to more appeals.
"I think today's decision is reflective of a larger problem," Wells told CNN. "The military commission system involves uncharted territory. It's a second-rate system that we make up as we go along."
Zachary Katznelson, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the decision "strikes the biggest blow yet against the legitimacy of the Guantanamo military commissions, which have for years now been trying people for a supposed war crime that in fact is not a war crime at all."
He added, "The government should prosecute any Guantanamo prisoners against whom it has sufficient legally obtained evidence in federal court, where the law is clear and prisoners have the legal rights necessary to ensure trials are fair, transparent, and viewed as legitimate. Anything less fails to live up to the standard of American justice."
Seven detainees have been convicted by military commissions, including Hamdan. Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale said all seven men were convicted of material support for terrorism. While most of the cases involved more than one charge, Hamdan and Australian David Hicks were found guilty only of material support for terrorism.
Bryan Broyles, the deputy chief defense counsel for the military commissions, said three other pending cases involve charges of material support for terrorism. The highest-profile case does not involve that charge. That is the case involving self-proclaimed 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others charged in the 2001 terror attacks.
"The bottom line for us is, this is what we've been saying since 2006, that material support is not a proper charge," Broyles told CNN. "When we can get our grievances aired before an actual judicial body we win."
But Broyles hastened to add he thinks military prosecutors will look for other charges they can bring against Guantanamo detainees in place of material support for terrorism or conspiracy to commit material support for terrorism.
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said only that department officials are "reviewing the ruling."
The ruling affects only military commission cases and does not apply to suspects convicted in the federal court system, in which material support charges have been allowed since the 1990s.
Human rights groups have called for terror suspects to be tried in the federal court system rather than before military commissions. That call was repeated in the wake of the court ruling.
"The Obama administration must work with Congress to overturn restrictions on transferring detainees to the United States for prosecution in civilian courts," said Raha Wala of Human Rights First.
CNN's Larry Shaughnessy contributed to this report.
@natlsecuritycnn on Twitter
Where do you draw the line? If I'm reading this correctly it says we cannot convict someone close to the perpetrator of acts of terror simply for being close to him. There has to be evidence he contributed to a plot against the U.S. Or another country. This raises many questions. How involved otherwise was the suspect? In matters of war can we afford mercy? What accountability must he take if any?
Well, the next time I guess someone agrees to be the driver in a bank heist, he will have court presidence to get him/her off the hook! Bravo!
Military tribunals are nothing more than kangaroo courts! When other countries use them, we yell and scream. This makes us look really bad!
I don't think a kangaroo has ever been successfully prosecuted.
When Salim was convicted, I said what in the hell could a Driver know and how in the hell could he be convicted or Terrorist Crimes. Some of you that reads the newspaper probably knew more facts & could have provided more information than Hamlin. If Bush's Chauffer wasn't charged with any crime, then Osama's Driver should not have been charged
Except, in this case, Im pretty sure he knew who he was driving, and that he planned to kill women and children. Tough case in terms of the law. You have civilian law, then the law of war. They are different. this man's situation straddtled the line, I give you that.
In the past we held enemy prisoners of war until the war was over, not return them to their armies to kill more of us. We need an actual winning strategy.
What kind of a backward country holds people without trial for years? The USA judicial system is totally screwed up.
If they were on the winning side, do you think for one second they would give you a trial after capturing you? Nope, they would behead you on a videotape and send it to your family.
If these were considered prisoners of war I would agree with you. But if the were prisoners of war we wouldn't be able to charge them, nor keep them in cages without charge, nor torture them. Actually even without being pow's they stil should not be tortured nor held without charge. It's a farce of a system and merely brings down the moral authority of the U.S.. Oh, nevermind, we lost that moral authority during the Bush regime didn't we.
Its just too bad it wasnt thrown out because driving someone to work isnt supporting terrorism except in some twisted mind. It was thrown out on a technicality basically.
"driving someone to work isn't a crime"? I guess there's a lot of getaway drivers for robberies who'll love to hear that. After all, all they were doing was driving someone to work. You cannot for a minute believe this guy didn't know who Bin Laden was and what he was about. He was a rockstar terrorist known everywhere in the mideast LONG before 9/11. I'm trying to decide if you are truly a re-tard or are just naiive. I'm thinking it's a healthy dose of both.
You (wobbles) have a twisted mind. There's a big difference between driving someone around and to work than a Bank Robbing Crew. The Driver of a Bank robber, many times is the leader & plotter of the actual robbery. In the case of Hamlin everybody, in their right mind, knows he was neither participant nor the ring leader he was just the driver. Many times the driver knows absolutely nothing about the business contacts of his employer
Is this the ACLU website?
might as well be. It's the ivory tower liberal sight, which amounts to about the same thing. You won't find any of them who spent a day in uniform of who ever had any danger in their lives, so everything is a game to them. And every one of them considers themselves to be the intellectual elite of this country.
Now why should American's respect the U.S. inJustice racket?
You know they are using him for new Intel, right!
KILL HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Salim Hamdan was convicted in 2008 of providing material support for terrorism. In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the conviction."
Convicting this guy of anything, is like throwing the guy that refills the vending machines at Penn State for hanging with Sandusky..
Exactly, what next – hang his kids babysitter?
Osama bin Laden was our guy, right up until the 9/11 attacks. He was on the CIA payroll and it follows that his driver was also our guy. At some point in the very near future, the entire house of cards that was erected in the wake of 9/11 is going to come tumbling down, at near freefall acceleration, and its going to take out A LOT of well know names in US politics, the military and the corporate media, who have COLLUDED with and ENABLED state sponsored terrorism and mass murder.
At some point Nik get your facts straight. A bit of history education won't hurt you at all.
The accusations of "support for terrorism" by the BUSHIES against this illiterate driver for OSAMA were and are PATHETIC. The main reason why they charged this guy was to SHOW "progress" in rounding up terrorists and Hamdan was an easy catch. An equally pathetic step would have been, in 1945, to charge HIT LER'S DRIVER with GENOCIDE, because they couldn't get their hands on Hit ler. But of course, the BUSHIES had to show how "tough" they were, so they lock up a chauffeur!
9/11...terrorism...Bin Laden seem to be a never ending story!
After over ten years of the infamous event and a year since the assasination of the leader of the genocide, the annual mourning ceremony continues along with various rumors and speculations about the most sought-after human in recent decades.
One of the rumors deserves merits as to the possibility of Osama bin Laden being still alive and well that may not just be ruled out as a joke these days in 21st century world, such as: Two skeptical veterans find it hard to believe Bin Laden had been killed after over ten years of manhunt (disgrace to US intel!). One vet speculated, "he might be running a hotel business in Africa and is possibly sponsoring anti-American terrorist plot". The other vet concurred and added, "he must have transformed his appearance to black already".
Now, the final question is: when will the "terrorism business" be ended?
so the guy got a job as a driver and suddenly he,s a terrorist,what a world
Perhaps this is a sign of our Justice system starting to recover from a long period of injustice and maddnes.
Oh, I hope you are right.
I bet he's behind the wheel of a cab in NYC within the month. Just what we need, another stinky, unbathed cabbie who can't speak english.
Let's be honest here...
If the foreigner of another race was clean and spoke perfect English, you'd still have a big problem with him.
Nothing but thinly veiled racism...
If he's been so cr@pped on, you should make it up to him by letting him move in with you.
Then you should sign up to be a cabbie and stop complaining.
I HiGHLY suspect Benghazi was a false flag so we can justify boots on the ground in Libya because not only was the mission very very immoral and violent (those poor Libyans must have been so terrified, imagine, bombs raining down for 30 days, wondering if your house is next), but it has been a total failure, chaos rules there now and they are killing all the black Africans living in the country now (Gadaffi loved Africa). Anyway, I predict we'll be sending in troops soon in the name of avenging the Benghazi. I mean c'mon, they didn't know to have more protection of the consulate??? I mean, they know the country is totally unstable and full of terrorists (they are the new joke of a government), so how could something like this even happen? How could it not have just been allowed to happen? I just dont buy they could be that stupid so I conclude there was a reason. I've noticed that history repeats itself, and I'm learning from history.
This was supposed to be a reply to "NorCalMojo" below.
Are you on drug or you just try to bail out Obama and this "try-from-behind" administration and then blame on the GOP product!
Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation...
Not good for Obama. First the Benghazi fiasco, now this.
He's used up all his pass-the-buck cards.
Ouch
Gee whiz NorCalMojo, this hurts and how especially after all the killing I did. As my foreign policies point out, the only good Muslim is a dead one! Mytt Robmey feels the same way, fortunately!!!!!!!! No who wins next month's election, the Muslims lose!
So vote third party! Quit voting for death and destruction and creation of more terrorism with our bombings.
There are several third party candidates which are ignored by the mainstream press owned by the same corporations that own the Rep & Dem parties,. Ever thought it very peculiar that there are no third-party candidates at the debates? The corporate press wants you to #1 Think these parties don't exist or are a joke, and #2 That you must vote for the lesser of two evils or the more evil will win. But we'd better start taking the risk and voting for sincere 3rd parties or the Dems & Reps will continue to stir the hornets nest and endanger our children, you think it's bad now (the terrorism), just wait until we see the effects of our drone wars. The only way this is going to change is to vote third party. Quit letting them rule you with fear!
If I recall correctly, it was Obama who originally wanted to try terrorism suspects in Federal Court, where their convictions would actually stand up, and that he was pressured out of it by the Congressional Republicans. So he's been spineless on this, sure, but voting for the alternative will hardly bring about a better policy.
How is this bad for Obama? Hamdan was convicted in 2008, & the last time I checked, we had a different president in office, now what was his name? Hmm, it'll come to me eventually. Obama has nothing to do with the Federal Court of Appeals, those judges were appointed long before he came along. The policy for Hamdan was set in motion long before the last Presidential election. So I fail to see your point, unless it's just to try to score some cheap political points, which I say, you fail.
Ex post facto law (trying someone for violating a law that was not in force when the incident occurred) was what the nazis were hanged at nuremburg. Nice to see it is as illegal now as it was then. Plus now as then, torture was administered to secure confessions. This is the reason goering and the other nazis never gave confessions BUT Hoess and other mid and lower level nazis who were in the custody of the soviets said whatever the prosecutors wanted to hear.
My point: shoot upon capture or obey the frappin law. No kangaroo courts or drumhead trials.
Hess was never in the custody of the Soviets!
I saw the words "conviction" and "reversed" and assumed this was an article about Mitt Romney. Zing!
Zing?
More like "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
What a joke of a country! Change the president and change the verdicts. The system is as corrupt as the dictators this system supports around the world.
Do you live here? If so, go live somewhere else. You'll be much unhappier.
I don't live in the USA, and I am much happier. Now, go back to your trailer.
How exactly is it "corrupt" to disallow charging people retroactively for crimes that weren't crimes at the time they were committed? You boggle my mind.
Care to provide the details that changed the conviction. Nothing changed. The guy provided good intel, so they set him free. "We don't negotiate with terrorists" my a$$.
"The ruling affects only military commission cases and does not apply to suspects convicted in the federal court system, in which material support charges have been allowed since the 1990s."
It was a crime, just one not allowed for consideration in the tribunal. Had Hamdan gone to trial in the Federal system, his conviction would stand.
um i guess your not from the US since obama took over in 2008 and the conviction was 2008 and he is still in power. No POTUS change over between conviction and overturn.
uhh, Dubhly, Obama was ELECTED in 2008 but he only took office in January, 2009. You are wrong, but I suspect that facts are irrelevant to you. You would probably try to find a way to blame Obama for the extinction of the dinosaurs if you could. Nope, on second thought, I guess you wouldn't. By your lights the earth is probably 6,000 or so years old and the dinosaur fossils were put there by "God" during the creation to sow doubt among those of weak faith. Idiot...
Obviously, you didn't pass Civics. Elections are held during and "even" year and the president and congress is sworn in and takes office in the odd year. So, Obama was elected in November 2008 and took office on Jan 20, 2009. You may want to at lease Google things before you post next time.
Facts seem to elude you my friend.
Or do you just avoid them if they conflict with your opinion?
So do you have any proof of any of this or are you just pulling it directly from your ass?
I suppose if he was convicted in a federal court to begin with this would be a non-issue. If anything I blame the prosecutors since it is law 101 that retroactively making something a crime is hard to do and usually will get a conviction tossed. They gambled... and lost.
No worries tho. They will find another way to keep him locked up and try him in court with different laws. Maybe this time they will grow a brain and look at what the law says. Not what their various know-nothing political masters tell them to do.
Ummm he has been free for some time now. Already served his sentance.
good he can be Obama's driver now!
I D I O T
Good one Larry......you so funny
Why do we even give sandni ggers a trial? They should just lined them up and blast them. Good luck getting Obama to do that. They are hid brothers.
Your rantings are ugly and useless.
Yeah right, "brothers", our first African American president was also the first to launch a full scale attack on an African country. Were you not paying attention? We dropped bombs on that country 24-7 for over 30 days. And he even knew that the terrorists we were supporting were also RACIST terrorists that, as soon as they started getting control, started murdering and torturing and terrorizing all the black Africans, and they still are. Or werre you not paying attention to that either? Or is your attention selective? Just look on the internet; it's all there. Also, I suggest doing some research on what kind of man Qadaffi really was. Republicans aren't the only ones that will mislead us into a war. Do some research. I'd suggest informationclearinghouse. info for starters. Search for Qadaffi; you'll be shocked.
But I suppose a bigot wouldn't even find it disturbing when somebody kills people of other races, so I just wasted my time.
Are you the guy that made FOX shut down their comments forum?
That's the LIBERAL court system implemented by O BUM MA!!!! Bow to our enemies and threaten and bully our allies and soldiers!!!
@Ed Pokorski – too bad silly things like fact get in the way of your comment. The ruling was made by three judges
Brett M. Kavanaugh – appointed by President Bush
Douglas H. Ginsburg – appointed by President Reagan
David B. Sentelle – appoint by Reagan
So now... how exactly did Obama set up a liberal court system to affect this judgment again?
Please, don't get Ed Pokorski all confused by the facts.
Thanks for the info!
Wow!
They are doing their jobs as the founding fathers envisioned!
this is a textbook case of the way that truth has a liberal bias. that's why our so-called "conservatives" won't have anything to do with truth.
Deep thinking ... really, can't go deeper
it is a little scary how stupid people are.
Blame O for Jr's mess.
idiot
This was not "W"'s problem. Slick Willy failed to act when Sudan offered him up. He could have dropped in ocean between Sudan and Afghanistan. Plus UBL stopped in Bahrain (one of our friends) to refuel. Slick Willy has a lot to answer on his lack of attention to detail.
'Pokorski'? That's Polish right?
Now, what were you trying to say, without the ignorant accent this time.
Sneering at the President's name automatically reduces your argument to white noise.
Barry Soetero?
Totally wrong Ed...actually bass ackward.....Obama wanted to try them in civilian court. Many on the right freaked and said with the rules of the court any conviction would be hard to come by.Looks like the military tribunal your side insisted on is working much better!!!!!!! Nice try though......you have that republican imagination that is so fascinating
So he didnt hear anything about their plans and didnt feel the need to alert the humans about this? Just as guilty as the rest. Send in the drones!
There is a very good case for drone attacks being a violation of another nation's sovereignty. So to put it to the test I ask you, if Canada identified that Mexican drug gangs were hiding out in Washington State after commuting serious crimes in British Columbia would you say it is within their right to send drones into American airspace and bomb them even though the house they are hiding in is next to a school? These are the things you should be asking yourself before condoning the bombing of citizens of another country without a formal declaration of war issued by the Congress of the United States.
Stephen: It is not comparable.
Amen! And I read the other day about an investigation by Stanford and New York University (easily found on the internet but totally ignored by the mainstream press, surprise) in which they found for every terrorist we kill with drones, we kill 50, yes 50, innocent men, women, children, and I suppose babies too. And that's not to mention how many homes we destroy, and for poor people that's all they have. And even if one is the type that doesn't care about minorities, the poor, or people who live in other countries (I certainly do), they should consider, do they really think angering people all over the world by killing innocents, or supporting killing and/or apartheid (Israel) , we are really making ourselves safer in any way?????? Imagine the situation we are creating for our children. Drones and murder is just plain evil and bad for ALL sides. Republicans and Democrats are nearly identical when it comes to international relations, and I can't justify supporting killing. And there are several 3rd party sincere candidates; I'm voting for one and I suggest all who are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils (and I do mean evil) Things won't change until this happens. And a vote for either of these parties is a vote for more killing. I just can't vote for the lesser of two evils anymore., It's just not right. Look up the study; you will be shocked. Obama is out of control and Romney will be no better,.
whats needed is russia to nuke ireland reduce every women child and man in ireland to ashes.
What ?
If the tables were reversed, would Al Qaeda or the Taliban have given out the same measure of justice?
Doesn't matter. We're better than those groups.
Cw you left out the word "supposedly" .
so you are saying we should be more like them?
The measure of a society is how it treats its prisoners.
I agree, but I'd add, how many prisoners they have as well.
I just noticed, ah, commenting to Stephen again!
Hello Stephen, people like you give me hope!
Good day!
Easy to overcome this judicial hurdle. Simply take no prisoners.
The world you dream of sounds so democratic and free.
Oh well – we're still free to hit him with a drone missile.
Along with 50 innocents, but I suppose that doesn't bother you.
That's the statistic. That's what Stanford and NY Universities found in a recent study.
And they found out that all the people in those areas where we attack live in constant fear, I mean, very real,
very constant fear. They are afraid to go outside even or to ever congregate with friends and family. And if they
go to help those after we drop a bomb, we come around and bomb them also. Most of the people in those areas aren't terrorists, just people like you and I, with families, friends, dreams and desires, just trying to earn a living off the land; they don't deserve this. And the best way to make somebody hate you is to drop a bomb on their friends and family,. Go find the study, the mainstrem press won't tell you about it, so you have to find these things yourself. Or don't you care?
We're not "free" to hit him with a drone missile. Actually that is against international law, but we can do it because we have everybody scared to stand up to us, scared we'll choke them economically or send drones over their homes next.
If he has already been released .... who cares, and why is any US court wasting any time on this thing?
Civil rights only for those who fight and kill Americans.
They are taking time with it because it gets to the heart of a serious judicial issue concerning the application of legal standards to military detainees. The question would have to be handled sooner or later and, as noted in the article, the original conviction was appealed by the convicted man's lawyers.
I'm sorry, but was there any evidence of him killing "infidels"? Or was just the guy who was paid to drive him around and was able to support his family from doing a job of driving. Well maybe taking a bullet for OBL too.
we will never know that .. cause the evidence against a terrorist is national secret .. that's what a communist would say .. have said .. will say .. I hardly believe the dude was that innocent but I think this proves to anyone, the justice system in the US still is above bigotry and emotional behavior .. It's good news, despite years of degradation retardation under GOP rules, objective thinking still win on the long run. I wonder for how long ...
" the justice system in the US still is above bigotry and emotional behavior" Your really believe that? If we were these kangeroo courts wouldn't be permitted in the first place. We still permit conviction based on torture, based on hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay and other factors. No our system is no better than the kangeroo courts of other despotic countries.
Nice wonder how long before he started killing 'the Infidels"