[Allan from Fallbrook]

From the Wall Street Journal:

Jury Delivers Split Verdict
In Guantanamo Bay Trial
By JESS BRAVIN
August 6, 2008 12:41 p.m.

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — A military commission convicted Osama bin Laden’s former driver of supporting terrorism, the first verdict delivered here since President George W. Bush announced plans in November 2001 to try accused foreign terrorists in a separate system of offshore military courts.

The jury of six military officers also acquitted Salim Hamdan of the other charge prosecutors lodged, conspiracy to commit al Qaeda terrorist attacks, rejecting government efforts to paint the former driver as a significant member of Mr. bin Laden’s inner circle.

Associated Press
Salim Hamdan on trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“He was acquitted of the most serious charge, conspiracy, and he’ll never face that charge again,” said Michael Berrigan, the deputy chief defense counsel.

Prosecutors weren’t immediately available for comment, but the Pentagon spokesman here, Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, said, “Mr. Hamdan received a full and fair trial. The jury reached their decision based on the law and the facts presented in court.”

Both charges carry a potential life term. The jury will determine punishment after a sentencing hearing, set to begin at 2 p.m. Wednesday and likely to conclude by tomorrow.

The government plans eventually to try 80 Guantanamo prisoners by military commission, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of organizing the Sept. 11 attacks. The system has been fraught with internal problems and legal setbacks in the seven years since Mr. Bush first proposed it and its future under the next president remains unclear. Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama voted against the 2006 measure authorizing the trials; his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, supported it but has said he would like to close the Guantanamo base.

MORE

Associated Press
• Law Blog: Tough Times Ahead for the Prosecution?
• Bin Laden Driver Not Tied to Terror Acts
07/24/08
• Trial of Bin Laden’s Ex-Driver Opens
07/23/08Mr. Hamdan, 37 years old, bowed his head and appeared to weep softly after the verdict was read in the windowless courtroom built inside an old aircraft control building. A slight man wearing a charcoal blazer and the traditional headdress of his native Yemen, Mr. Hamdan has been at the center of a legal storm over due process and presidential powers that repeatedly has vexed the highest levels of all three branches of government.

In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down Mr. Bush’s initial effort to try Mr. Hamdan before a military commission that Congress had not approved, and which denied defendants significant rights, such as attending their own trials and appealing to an independent court. Congress responded by authorizing a modified version of the commissions, providing defendants several rights Mr. Bush initially sought to deny, including the possibility of Supreme Court review.

Critics have complained the new system still fell short of fairness. Mr. Hamdan’s attorneys say one example is the charge on which their client was convicted — providing material support for terrorism — which has been a civilian crime for years but they say has not been considered a war crime.

Even if Congress can declare it a war crime, defense attorneys say they will argue on appeal that Mr. Hamdan, who was captured in November 2001, cannot be tried for acts he committed before the law was passed.

“Is material support a war crime,” is the central legal issue remaining, Mr. Berrigan said.

Charles Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said the verdict was fair. “This judge provided this defendant a fair trial, despite the few troublesome rules in the Military Commissions Act — such as the rule that allows the government to attempt to introduce statements adduced by coercion,” said Mr. Stimson, now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Matthew Waxman, who preceded Mr. Stimson in the Pentagon detainee affairs job, said that “while this conviction is important,” many doubts remained about the commissions process.

“To be effective in combating terrorism, the trials need to be widely seen as legitimate. In terms of global perceptions, the government is starting with a big legitimacy deficit,” said Mr. Waxman, now a professor at Columbia Law School.

Mr. Hamdan was captured Nov. 24, 2001, at a checkpoint on the road to Kandahar by Afghan militiamen under the command of U.S. special forces, in a car the government said contained two surface to air missiles, although not their firing mechanisms.

Because only U.S.-led coalition forces had planes then in the Afghan skies, the government argued the missiles were evidence of conspiracy to shoot down military aircraft. Mr. Hamdan has denied knowing the missiles were in the car, which he said he had borrowed, but defense lawyers said that in any event, in a war zone it’s no crime to shoot at military targets fielded by one’s enemy.

The defense acknowledged Mr. Hamdan had frequent contact with Mr. bin Laden and his inner circle, and often was privy to their conversations, at least when he drove them around after major terrorist attacks. The chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, said the government made no claim that Mr. Hamdan was a major force within the terrorist network.

Rather, the dispute centered on whether what Mr. Hamdan did constituted a war crime. Defense lawyers insisted he was an unsophisticated functionary who declined terrorist training for the steady and relatively safe job of driving Mr. bin Laden, even though it sometimes involved other duties, such as serving as an armed bodyguard at al Qaeda press events.

Prosecutors contended that Mr. Hamdan knew that al Qaeda was a terrorist organization. His continued work for Mr. bin Laden was itself material support and illustrated his agreement with the conspiracy.

The trial featured testimony from the U.S. soldiers present at Mr. Hamdan’s capture, including an intelligence operative who appeared under the code name Sergeant Major A. Several current and former Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who interrogated Mr. Hamdan testified, including Ali Soufan, who has been described as a top counterterrorism investigator. Mr. Soufan relayed how he led Mr. Hamdan to disclose details about the al Qaeda organization, but testified that he had no knowledge that the defendant had planned or participated in any terrorist act.

The prosecution’s case was highlighted by several audio-visual moments. Early on, prosecutors screened video of Mr. Hamdan’s initial Army interrogations after his capture, in which he sat handcuffed in a primitive hut and offered misleading answers regarding his activities in Afghanistan.

Later, the prosecution showed a 26-minute film about the Sept. 11 attacks it had a contractor produce for $20,000. While reminding viewers of the horrific attacks, it did not specifically implicate Mr. Hamdan, and defense lawyers unsuccessfully sought to bar showing of grisly portions, arguing they were prejudicial.

Prosecutors put on 14 witnesses, including two who testified under code names. The defense called eight witnesses, including two who testified in closed session because the subjects were said to be classified.

The trial unfolded under extraordinary secrecy. Because it was held at this remote offshore base, no members of the public could attend. The cost and difficulty of covering the proceedings left few correspondents on the base to witness the trial from start to finish. Officials say no recording has been made of the proceedings, and no transcript will be provided for months, at the earliest. Courtroom sketches had to be approved by a military censor, who often had the sketch artist blur facial details.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

From the Wall Street Journal:

Jury Delivers Split Verdict
In Guantanamo Bay Trial
By JESS BRAVIN
August 6, 2008 12:41 p.m.

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — A military commission convicted Osama bin Laden’s former driver of supporting terrorism, the first verdict delivered here since President George W. Bush announced plans in November 2001 to try accused foreign terrorists in a separate system of offshore military courts.

The jury of six military officers also acquitted Salim Hamdan of the other charge prosecutors lodged, conspiracy to commit al Qaeda terrorist attacks, rejecting government efforts to paint the former driver as a significant member of Mr. bin Laden’s inner circle.

Associated Press
Salim Hamdan on trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“He was acquitted of the most serious charge, conspiracy, and he’ll never face that charge again,” said Michael Berrigan, the deputy chief defense counsel.

Prosecutors weren’t immediately available for comment, but the Pentagon spokesman here, Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, said, “Mr. Hamdan received a full and fair trial. The jury reached their decision based on the law and the facts presented in court.”

Both charges carry a potential life term. The jury will determine punishment after a sentencing hearing, set to begin at 2 p.m. Wednesday and likely to conclude by tomorrow.

The government plans eventually to try 80 Guantanamo prisoners by military commission, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of organizing the Sept. 11 attacks. The system has been fraught with internal problems and legal setbacks in the seven years since Mr. Bush first proposed it and its future under the next president remains unclear. Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama voted against the 2006 measure authorizing the trials; his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, supported it but has said he would like to close the Guantanamo base.

MORE

Associated Press
• Law Blog: Tough Times Ahead for the Prosecution?
• Bin Laden Driver Not Tied to Terror Acts
07/24/08
• Trial of Bin Laden’s Ex-Driver Opens
07/23/08Mr. Hamdan, 37 years old, bowed his head and appeared to weep softly after the verdict was read in the windowless courtroom built inside an old aircraft control building. A slight man wearing a charcoal blazer and the traditional headdress of his native Yemen, Mr. Hamdan has been at the center of a legal storm over due process and presidential powers that repeatedly has vexed the highest levels of all three branches of government.

In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down Mr. Bush’s initial effort to try Mr. Hamdan before a military commission that Congress had not approved, and which denied defendants significant rights, such as attending their own trials and appealing to an independent court. Congress responded by authorizing a modified version of the commissions, providing defendants several rights Mr. Bush initially sought to deny, including the possibility of Supreme Court review.

Critics have complained the new system still fell short of fairness. Mr. Hamdan’s attorneys say one example is the charge on which their client was convicted — providing material support for terrorism — which has been a civilian crime for years but they say has not been considered a war crime.

Even if Congress can declare it a war crime, defense attorneys say they will argue on appeal that Mr. Hamdan, who was captured in November 2001, cannot be tried for acts he committed before the law was passed.

“Is material support a war crime,” is the central legal issue remaining, Mr. Berrigan said.

Charles Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said the verdict was fair. “This judge provided this defendant a fair trial, despite the few troublesome rules in the Military Commissions Act — such as the rule that allows the government to attempt to introduce statements adduced by coercion,” said Mr. Stimson, now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Matthew Waxman, who preceded Mr. Stimson in the Pentagon detainee affairs job, said that “while this conviction is important,” many doubts remained about the commissions process.

“To be effective in combating terrorism, the trials need to be widely seen as legitimate. In terms of global perceptions, the government is starting with a big legitimacy deficit,” said Mr. Waxman, now a professor at Columbia Law School.

Mr. Hamdan was captured Nov. 24, 2001, at a checkpoint on the road to Kandahar by Afghan militiamen under the command of U.S. special forces, in a car the government said contained two surface to air missiles, although not their firing mechanisms.

Because only U.S.-led coalition forces had planes then in the Afghan skies, the government argued the missiles were evidence of conspiracy to shoot down military aircraft. Mr. Hamdan has denied knowing the missiles were in the car, which he said he had borrowed, but defense lawyers said that in any event, in a war zone it’s no crime to shoot at military targets fielded by one’s enemy.

The defense acknowledged Mr. Hamdan had frequent contact with Mr. bin Laden and his inner circle, and often was privy to their conversations, at least when he drove them around after major terrorist attacks. The chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, said the government made no claim that Mr. Hamdan was a major force within the terrorist network.

Rather, the dispute centered on whether what Mr. Hamdan did constituted a war crime. Defense lawyers insisted he was an unsophisticated functionary who declined terrorist training for the steady and relatively safe job of driving Mr. bin Laden, even though it sometimes involved other duties, such as serving as an armed bodyguard at al Qaeda press events.

Prosecutors contended that Mr. Hamdan knew that al Qaeda was a terrorist organization. His continued work for Mr. bin Laden was itself material support and illustrated his agreement with the conspiracy.

The trial featured testimony from the U.S. soldiers present at Mr. Hamdan’s capture, including an intelligence operative who appeared under the code name Sergeant Major A. Several current and former Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who interrogated Mr. Hamdan testified, including Ali Soufan, who has been described as a top counterterrorism investigator. Mr. Soufan relayed how he led Mr. Hamdan to disclose details about the al Qaeda organization, but testified that he had no knowledge that the defendant had planned or participated in any terrorist act.

The prosecution’s case was highlighted by several audio-visual moments. Early on, prosecutors screened video of Mr. Hamdan’s initial Army interrogations after his capture, in which he sat handcuffed in a primitive hut and offered misleading answers regarding his activities in Afghanistan.

Later, the prosecution showed a 26-minute film about the Sept. 11 attacks it had a contractor produce for $20,000. While reminding viewers of the horrific attacks, it did not specifically implicate Mr. Hamdan, and defense lawyers unsuccessfully sought to bar showing of grisly portions, arguing they were prejudicial.

Prosecutors put on 14 witnesses, including two who testified under code names. The defense called eight witnesses, including two who testified in closed session because the subjects were said to be classified.

The trial unfolded under extraordinary secrecy. Because it was held at this remote offshore base, no members of the public could attend. The cost and difficulty of covering the proceedings left few correspondents on the base to witness the trial from start to finish. Officials say no recording has been made of the proceedings, and no transcript will be provided for months, at the earliest. Courtroom sketches had to be approved by a military censor, who often had the sketch artist blur facial details.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

From the Wall Street Journal:

Jury Delivers Split Verdict
In Guantanamo Bay Trial
By JESS BRAVIN
August 6, 2008 12:41 p.m.

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — A military commission convicted Osama bin Laden’s former driver of supporting terrorism, the first verdict delivered here since President George W. Bush announced plans in November 2001 to try accused foreign terrorists in a separate system of offshore military courts.

The jury of six military officers also acquitted Salim Hamdan of the other charge prosecutors lodged, conspiracy to commit al Qaeda terrorist attacks, rejecting government efforts to paint the former driver as a significant member of Mr. bin Laden’s inner circle.

Associated Press
Salim Hamdan on trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“He was acquitted of the most serious charge, conspiracy, and he’ll never face that charge again,” said Michael Berrigan, the deputy chief defense counsel.

Prosecutors weren’t immediately available for comment, but the Pentagon spokesman here, Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, said, “Mr. Hamdan received a full and fair trial. The jury reached their decision based on the law and the facts presented in court.”

Both charges carry a potential life term. The jury will determine punishment after a sentencing hearing, set to begin at 2 p.m. Wednesday and likely to conclude by tomorrow.

The government plans eventually to try 80 Guantanamo prisoners by military commission, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of organizing the Sept. 11 attacks. The system has been fraught with internal problems and legal setbacks in the seven years since Mr. Bush first proposed it and its future under the next president remains unclear. Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama voted against the 2006 measure authorizing the trials; his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, supported it but has said he would like to close the Guantanamo base.

MORE

Associated Press
• Law Blog: Tough Times Ahead for the Prosecution?
• Bin Laden Driver Not Tied to Terror Acts
07/24/08
• Trial of Bin Laden’s Ex-Driver Opens
07/23/08Mr. Hamdan, 37 years old, bowed his head and appeared to weep softly after the verdict was read in the windowless courtroom built inside an old aircraft control building. A slight man wearing a charcoal blazer and the traditional headdress of his native Yemen, Mr. Hamdan has been at the center of a legal storm over due process and presidential powers that repeatedly has vexed the highest levels of all three branches of government.

In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down Mr. Bush’s initial effort to try Mr. Hamdan before a military commission that Congress had not approved, and which denied defendants significant rights, such as attending their own trials and appealing to an independent court. Congress responded by authorizing a modified version of the commissions, providing defendants several rights Mr. Bush initially sought to deny, including the possibility of Supreme Court review.

Critics have complained the new system still fell short of fairness. Mr. Hamdan’s attorneys say one example is the charge on which their client was convicted — providing material support for terrorism — which has been a civilian crime for years but they say has not been considered a war crime.

Even if Congress can declare it a war crime, defense attorneys say they will argue on appeal that Mr. Hamdan, who was captured in November 2001, cannot be tried for acts he committed before the law was passed.

“Is material support a war crime,” is the central legal issue remaining, Mr. Berrigan said.

Charles Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said the verdict was fair. “This judge provided this defendant a fair trial, despite the few troublesome rules in the Military Commissions Act — such as the rule that allows the government to attempt to introduce statements adduced by coercion,” said Mr. Stimson, now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Matthew Waxman, who preceded Mr. Stimson in the Pentagon detainee affairs job, said that “while this conviction is important,” many doubts remained about the commissions process.

“To be effective in combating terrorism, the trials need to be widely seen as legitimate. In terms of global perceptions, the government is starting with a big legitimacy deficit,” said Mr. Waxman, now a professor at Columbia Law School.

Mr. Hamdan was captured Nov. 24, 2001, at a checkpoint on the road to Kandahar by Afghan militiamen under the command of U.S. special forces, in a car the government said contained two surface to air missiles, although not their firing mechanisms.

Because only U.S.-led coalition forces had planes then in the Afghan skies, the government argued the missiles were evidence of conspiracy to shoot down military aircraft. Mr. Hamdan has denied knowing the missiles were in the car, which he said he had borrowed, but defense lawyers said that in any event, in a war zone it’s no crime to shoot at military targets fielded by one’s enemy.

The defense acknowledged Mr. Hamdan had frequent contact with Mr. bin Laden and his inner circle, and often was privy to their conversations, at least when he drove them around after major terrorist attacks. The chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, said the government made no claim that Mr. Hamdan was a major force within the terrorist network.

Rather, the dispute centered on whether what Mr. Hamdan did constituted a war crime. Defense lawyers insisted he was an unsophisticated functionary who declined terrorist training for the steady and relatively safe job of driving Mr. bin Laden, even though it sometimes involved other duties, such as serving as an armed bodyguard at al Qaeda press events.

Prosecutors contended that Mr. Hamdan knew that al Qaeda was a terrorist organization. His continued work for Mr. bin Laden was itself material support and illustrated his agreement with the conspiracy.

The trial featured testimony from the U.S. soldiers present at Mr. Hamdan’s capture, including an intelligence operative who appeared under the code name Sergeant Major A. Several current and former Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who interrogated Mr. Hamdan testified, including Ali Soufan, who has been described as a top counterterrorism investigator. Mr. Soufan relayed how he led Mr. Hamdan to disclose details about the al Qaeda organization, but testified that he had no knowledge that the defendant had planned or participated in any terrorist act.

The prosecution’s case was highlighted by several audio-visual moments. Early on, prosecutors screened video of Mr. Hamdan’s initial Army interrogations after his capture, in which he sat handcuffed in a primitive hut and offered misleading answers regarding his activities in Afghanistan.

Later, the prosecution showed a 26-minute film about the Sept. 11 attacks it had a contractor produce for $20,000. While reminding viewers of the horrific attacks, it did not specifically implicate Mr. Hamdan, and defense lawyers unsuccessfully sought to bar showing of grisly portions, arguing they were prejudicial.

Prosecutors put on 14 witnesses, including two who testified under code names. The defense called eight witnesses, including two who testified in closed session because the subjects were said to be classified.

The trial unfolded under extraordinary secrecy. Because it was held at this remote offshore base, no members of the public could attend. The cost and difficulty of covering the proceedings left few correspondents on the base to witness the trial from start to finish. Officials say no recording has been made of the proceedings, and no transcript will be provided for months, at the earliest. Courtroom sketches had to be approved by a military censor, who often had the sketch artist blur facial details.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

From the Wall Street Journal:

Jury Delivers Split Verdict
In Guantanamo Bay Trial
By JESS BRAVIN
August 6, 2008 12:41 p.m.

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — A military commission convicted Osama bin Laden’s former driver of supporting terrorism, the first verdict delivered here since President George W. Bush announced plans in November 2001 to try accused foreign terrorists in a separate system of offshore military courts.

The jury of six military officers also acquitted Salim Hamdan of the other charge prosecutors lodged, conspiracy to commit al Qaeda terrorist attacks, rejecting government efforts to paint the former driver as a significant member of Mr. bin Laden’s inner circle.

Associated Press
Salim Hamdan on trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“He was acquitted of the most serious charge, conspiracy, and he’ll never face that charge again,” said Michael Berrigan, the deputy chief defense counsel.

Prosecutors weren’t immediately available for comment, but the Pentagon spokesman here, Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, said, “Mr. Hamdan received a full and fair trial. The jury reached their decision based on the law and the facts presented in court.”

Both charges carry a potential life term. The jury will determine punishment after a sentencing hearing, set to begin at 2 p.m. Wednesday and likely to conclude by tomorrow.

The government plans eventually to try 80 Guantanamo prisoners by military commission, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of organizing the Sept. 11 attacks. The system has been fraught with internal problems and legal setbacks in the seven years since Mr. Bush first proposed it and its future under the next president remains unclear. Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama voted against the 2006 measure authorizing the trials; his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, supported it but has said he would like to close the Guantanamo base.

MORE

Associated Press
• Law Blog: Tough Times Ahead for the Prosecution?
• Bin Laden Driver Not Tied to Terror Acts
07/24/08
• Trial of Bin Laden’s Ex-Driver Opens
07/23/08Mr. Hamdan, 37 years old, bowed his head and appeared to weep softly after the verdict was read in the windowless courtroom built inside an old aircraft control building. A slight man wearing a charcoal blazer and the traditional headdress of his native Yemen, Mr. Hamdan has been at the center of a legal storm over due process and presidential powers that repeatedly has vexed the highest levels of all three branches of government.

In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down Mr. Bush’s initial effort to try Mr. Hamdan before a military commission that Congress had not approved, and which denied defendants significant rights, such as attending their own trials and appealing to an independent court. Congress responded by authorizing a modified version of the commissions, providing defendants several rights Mr. Bush initially sought to deny, including the possibility of Supreme Court review.

Critics have complained the new system still fell short of fairness. Mr. Hamdan’s attorneys say one example is the charge on which their client was convicted — providing material support for terrorism — which has been a civilian crime for years but they say has not been considered a war crime.

Even if Congress can declare it a war crime, defense attorneys say they will argue on appeal that Mr. Hamdan, who was captured in November 2001, cannot be tried for acts he committed before the law was passed.

“Is material support a war crime,” is the central legal issue remaining, Mr. Berrigan said.

Charles Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said the verdict was fair. “This judge provided this defendant a fair trial, despite the few troublesome rules in the Military Commissions Act — such as the rule that allows the government to attempt to introduce statements adduced by coercion,” said Mr. Stimson, now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Matthew Waxman, who preceded Mr. Stimson in the Pentagon detainee affairs job, said that “while this conviction is important,” many doubts remained about the commissions process.

“To be effective in combating terrorism, the trials need to be widely seen as legitimate. In terms of global perceptions, the government is starting with a big legitimacy deficit,” said Mr. Waxman, now a professor at Columbia Law School.

Mr. Hamdan was captured Nov. 24, 2001, at a checkpoint on the road to Kandahar by Afghan militiamen under the command of U.S. special forces, in a car the government said contained two surface to air missiles, although not their firing mechanisms.

Because only U.S.-led coalition forces had planes then in the Afghan skies, the government argued the missiles were evidence of conspiracy to shoot down military aircraft. Mr. Hamdan has denied knowing the missiles were in the car, which he said he had borrowed, but defense lawyers said that in any event, in a war zone it’s no crime to shoot at military targets fielded by one’s enemy.

The defense acknowledged Mr. Hamdan had frequent contact with Mr. bin Laden and his inner circle, and often was privy to their conversations, at least when he drove them around after major terrorist attacks. The chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, said the government made no claim that Mr. Hamdan was a major force within the terrorist network.

Rather, the dispute centered on whether what Mr. Hamdan did constituted a war crime. Defense lawyers insisted he was an unsophisticated functionary who declined terrorist training for the steady and relatively safe job of driving Mr. bin Laden, even though it sometimes involved other duties, such as serving as an armed bodyguard at al Qaeda press events.

Prosecutors contended that Mr. Hamdan knew that al Qaeda was a terrorist organization. His continued work for Mr. bin Laden was itself material support and illustrated his agreement with the conspiracy.

The trial featured testimony from the U.S. soldiers present at Mr. Hamdan’s capture, including an intelligence operative who appeared under the code name Sergeant Major A. Several current and former Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who interrogated Mr. Hamdan testified, including Ali Soufan, who has been described as a top counterterrorism investigator. Mr. Soufan relayed how he led Mr. Hamdan to disclose details about the al Qaeda organization, but testified that he had no knowledge that the defendant had planned or participated in any terrorist act.

The prosecution’s case was highlighted by several audio-visual moments. Early on, prosecutors screened video of Mr. Hamdan’s initial Army interrogations after his capture, in which he sat handcuffed in a primitive hut and offered misleading answers regarding his activities in Afghanistan.

Later, the prosecution showed a 26-minute film about the Sept. 11 attacks it had a contractor produce for $20,000. While reminding viewers of the horrific attacks, it did not specifically implicate Mr. Hamdan, and defense lawyers unsuccessfully sought to bar showing of grisly portions, arguing they were prejudicial.

Prosecutors put on 14 witnesses, including two who testified under code names. The defense called eight witnesses, including two who testified in closed session because the subjects were said to be classified.

The trial unfolded under extraordinary secrecy. Because it was held at this remote offshore base, no members of the public could attend. The cost and difficulty of covering the proceedings left few correspondents on the base to witness the trial from start to finish. Officials say no recording has been made of the proceedings, and no transcript will be provided for months, at the earliest. Courtroom sketches had to be approved by a military censor, who often had the sketch artist blur facial details.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Casca: Where to begin? First off, at 43, I’m a little young to be a “retiree”. I was invalided out of the Army in 1988 as a result of being involved in a helicopter crash. I spent five years in (three as a Ranger), and then sayonara. So, while I had planned being a lifer, it didn’t work out that way.

I have friends in Iraq, Colombia and Afghanistan. While no one divulges anything of a sensitive nature, I get enough information to have a good sense of what is going on. All of us came up during the Reagan years (military wise), so there are no illusions about politicos or why we are doing what we are doing.

As far as the comparison between a civil war/insurgency in Central America and WWII, well, there really isn’t one. Our goal was extremely simple: Win the hearts and minds of the people and thus eliminate support, aid and sustenance to the FMLN movement. Our first step was getting the government of El Sal and the right wing death squads (such as Mano Blanco) to stop killing and torturing their own people. I’m sure the SD and Gestapo had proven methods of torturing, but the Salvadoran government and military didn’t. At least I don’t think they did: Nailing a baby’s head to a wall seems extremely ineffective.

There is also a huge difference between torture and interrogation. The information and intel yielded under torture is not, generally speaking, of high value. The subject will tell you virtually anything to get the pain to stop and the nature of the questions will eventually led him to give you the information he believes you want. We got more solid intel by breaking someone down over several days with intensive questioning and using a variety of psyops then by tying them to a chair and going after them with a phone book and a 2 liter of Bubble Up.

When I brought up the question regarding Gitmo and prosecutions, it was solely because that was one of the stated intents of that facility’s existence. We are warehousing all of those supposed terrorists, but gaining little intel and putting almost none of them away, in terms of incarceration.

As far as the number of them that will “live to fight another day”: Why are so many now slated for release? Is it because the Administration is bowing to outside pressure from NGOs, or is it because only a miniscule number of them are even remotely tied to terrorist organizations? I’ll let you and your bulls**t detector go look that one up.

I thought Dershowitz wrote an excellent piece on torture using his potential nuke threat as a rationale for torturing to gain information. I still didn’t agree with him, though. The senior NCOs and officers I worked with down south were all former Vietnam hands who had faced the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong. They were very familiar with both torture and interrogation and, almost universally, chose interrogation as the best means to gain solid and usable intel. They were all products of the HARD school of experience and most of them were Special Forces. Not a gentle bunch and not squeamish, either. You use those means that are most effective. Our record in that war speaks for itself, and we were able to accomplish it without sacrificing our honor or humanity. Both of which were in very short supply amongst the Nazis, whose record speaks for itself as well.

At some point, with torture and rendition, you become what you behold. So what is the gain if we “win” the War on Terror and sacrifice all that we hold dear in the process?

There are only a handful of us left from the group I served with. We’ve lost people in Somalia, Iraq, South America and Afghanistan. All of us believe in this country in a way you probably don’t understand. I think of the quote: “For those that fight for it, Freedom has a flavor the sheltered never know”.

It is easy to pontificate about torture and whether waterboarding is or isn’t, along with whether or not rendition is acceptable, and do so from the comfort of your den. It is quite another to have seen these things firsthand. I’m sure it pains your towering intellect to have to deign to deal with us mere mortals and our decided lack of neuronal plasticity, but someone of us actually do know of what we speak and why some things are just WRONG. No need to reason or argue about it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Casca: Where to begin? First off, at 43, I’m a little young to be a “retiree”. I was invalided out of the Army in 1988 as a result of being involved in a helicopter crash. I spent five years in (three as a Ranger), and then sayonara. So, while I had planned being a lifer, it didn’t work out that way.

I have friends in Iraq, Colombia and Afghanistan. While no one divulges anything of a sensitive nature, I get enough information to have a good sense of what is going on. All of us came up during the Reagan years (military wise), so there are no illusions about politicos or why we are doing what we are doing.

As far as the comparison between a civil war/insurgency in Central America and WWII, well, there really isn’t one. Our goal was extremely simple: Win the hearts and minds of the people and thus eliminate support, aid and sustenance to the FMLN movement. Our first step was getting the government of El Sal and the right wing death squads (such as Mano Blanco) to stop killing and torturing their own people. I’m sure the SD and Gestapo had proven methods of torturing, but the Salvadoran government and military didn’t. At least I don’t think they did: Nailing a baby’s head to a wall seems extremely ineffective.

There is also a huge difference between torture and interrogation. The information and intel yielded under torture is not, generally speaking, of high value. The subject will tell you virtually anything to get the pain to stop and the nature of the questions will eventually led him to give you the information he believes you want. We got more solid intel by breaking someone down over several days with intensive questioning and using a variety of psyops then by tying them to a chair and going after them with a phone book and a 2 liter of Bubble Up.

When I brought up the question regarding Gitmo and prosecutions, it was solely because that was one of the stated intents of that facility’s existence. We are warehousing all of those supposed terrorists, but gaining little intel and putting almost none of them away, in terms of incarceration.

As far as the number of them that will “live to fight another day”: Why are so many now slated for release? Is it because the Administration is bowing to outside pressure from NGOs, or is it because only a miniscule number of them are even remotely tied to terrorist organizations? I’ll let you and your bulls**t detector go look that one up.

I thought Dershowitz wrote an excellent piece on torture using his potential nuke threat as a rationale for torturing to gain information. I still didn’t agree with him, though. The senior NCOs and officers I worked with down south were all former Vietnam hands who had faced the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong. They were very familiar with both torture and interrogation and, almost universally, chose interrogation as the best means to gain solid and usable intel. They were all products of the HARD school of experience and most of them were Special Forces. Not a gentle bunch and not squeamish, either. You use those means that are most effective. Our record in that war speaks for itself, and we were able to accomplish it without sacrificing our honor or humanity. Both of which were in very short supply amongst the Nazis, whose record speaks for itself as well.

At some point, with torture and rendition, you become what you behold. So what is the gain if we “win” the War on Terror and sacrifice all that we hold dear in the process?

There are only a handful of us left from the group I served with. We’ve lost people in Somalia, Iraq, South America and Afghanistan. All of us believe in this country in a way you probably don’t understand. I think of the quote: “For those that fight for it, Freedom has a flavor the sheltered never know”.

It is easy to pontificate about torture and whether waterboarding is or isn’t, along with whether or not rendition is acceptable, and do so from the comfort of your den. It is quite another to have seen these things firsthand. I’m sure it pains your towering intellect to have to deign to deal with us mere mortals and our decided lack of neuronal plasticity, but someone of us actually do know of what we speak and why some things are just WRONG. No need to reason or argue about it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Casca: Where to begin? First off, at 43, I’m a little young to be a “retiree”. I was invalided out of the Army in 1988 as a result of being involved in a helicopter crash. I spent five years in (three as a Ranger), and then sayonara. So, while I had planned being a lifer, it didn’t work out that way.

I have friends in Iraq, Colombia and Afghanistan. While no one divulges anything of a sensitive nature, I get enough information to have a good sense of what is going on. All of us came up during the Reagan years (military wise), so there are no illusions about politicos or why we are doing what we are doing.

As far as the comparison between a civil war/insurgency in Central America and WWII, well, there really isn’t one. Our goal was extremely simple: Win the hearts and minds of the people and thus eliminate support, aid and sustenance to the FMLN movement. Our first step was getting the government of El Sal and the right wing death squads (such as Mano Blanco) to stop killing and torturing their own people. I’m sure the SD and Gestapo had proven methods of torturing, but the Salvadoran government and military didn’t. At least I don’t think they did: Nailing a baby’s head to a wall seems extremely ineffective.

There is also a huge difference between torture and interrogation. The information and intel yielded under torture is not, generally speaking, of high value. The subject will tell you virtually anything to get the pain to stop and the nature of the questions will eventually led him to give you the information he believes you want. We got more solid intel by breaking someone down over several days with intensive questioning and using a variety of psyops then by tying them to a chair and going after them with a phone book and a 2 liter of Bubble Up.

When I brought up the question regarding Gitmo and prosecutions, it was solely because that was one of the stated intents of that facility’s existence. We are warehousing all of those supposed terrorists, but gaining little intel and putting almost none of them away, in terms of incarceration.

As far as the number of them that will “live to fight another day”: Why are so many now slated for release? Is it because the Administration is bowing to outside pressure from NGOs, or is it because only a miniscule number of them are even remotely tied to terrorist organizations? I’ll let you and your bulls**t detector go look that one up.

I thought Dershowitz wrote an excellent piece on torture using his potential nuke threat as a rationale for torturing to gain information. I still didn’t agree with him, though. The senior NCOs and officers I worked with down south were all former Vietnam hands who had faced the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong. They were very familiar with both torture and interrogation and, almost universally, chose interrogation as the best means to gain solid and usable intel. They were all products of the HARD school of experience and most of them were Special Forces. Not a gentle bunch and not squeamish, either. You use those means that are most effective. Our record in that war speaks for itself, and we were able to accomplish it without sacrificing our honor or humanity. Both of which were in very short supply amongst the Nazis, whose record speaks for itself as well.

At some point, with torture and rendition, you become what you behold. So what is the gain if we “win” the War on Terror and sacrifice all that we hold dear in the process?

There are only a handful of us left from the group I served with. We’ve lost people in Somalia, Iraq, South America and Afghanistan. All of us believe in this country in a way you probably don’t understand. I think of the quote: “For those that fight for it, Freedom has a flavor the sheltered never know”.

It is easy to pontificate about torture and whether waterboarding is or isn’t, along with whether or not rendition is acceptable, and do so from the comfort of your den. It is quite another to have seen these things firsthand. I’m sure it pains your towering intellect to have to deign to deal with us mere mortals and our decided lack of neuronal plasticity, but someone of us actually do know of what we speak and why some things are just WRONG. No need to reason or argue about it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Casca: Where to begin? First off, at 43, I’m a little young to be a “retiree”. I was invalided out of the Army in 1988 as a result of being involved in a helicopter crash. I spent five years in (three as a Ranger), and then sayonara. So, while I had planned being a lifer, it didn’t work out that way.

I have friends in Iraq, Colombia and Afghanistan. While no one divulges anything of a sensitive nature, I get enough information to have a good sense of what is going on. All of us came up during the Reagan years (military wise), so there are no illusions about politicos or why we are doing what we are doing.

As far as the comparison between a civil war/insurgency in Central America and WWII, well, there really isn’t one. Our goal was extremely simple: Win the hearts and minds of the people and thus eliminate support, aid and sustenance to the FMLN movement. Our first step was getting the government of El Sal and the right wing death squads (such as Mano Blanco) to stop killing and torturing their own people. I’m sure the SD and Gestapo had proven methods of torturing, but the Salvadoran government and military didn’t. At least I don’t think they did: Nailing a baby’s head to a wall seems extremely ineffective.

There is also a huge difference between torture and interrogation. The information and intel yielded under torture is not, generally speaking, of high value. The subject will tell you virtually anything to get the pain to stop and the nature of the questions will eventually led him to give you the information he believes you want. We got more solid intel by breaking someone down over several days with intensive questioning and using a variety of psyops then by tying them to a chair and going after them with a phone book and a 2 liter of Bubble Up.

When I brought up the question regarding Gitmo and prosecutions, it was solely because that was one of the stated intents of that facility’s existence. We are warehousing all of those supposed terrorists, but gaining little intel and putting almost none of them away, in terms of incarceration.

As far as the number of them that will “live to fight another day”: Why are so many now slated for release? Is it because the Administration is bowing to outside pressure from NGOs, or is it because only a miniscule number of them are even remotely tied to terrorist organizations? I’ll let you and your bulls**t detector go look that one up.

I thought Dershowitz wrote an excellent piece on torture using his potential nuke threat as a rationale for torturing to gain information. I still didn’t agree with him, though. The senior NCOs and officers I worked with down south were all former Vietnam hands who had faced the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong. They were very familiar with both torture and interrogation and, almost universally, chose interrogation as the best means to gain solid and usable intel. They were all products of the HARD school of experience and most of them were Special Forces. Not a gentle bunch and not squeamish, either. You use those means that are most effective. Our record in that war speaks for itself, and we were able to accomplish it without sacrificing our honor or humanity. Both of which were in very short supply amongst the Nazis, whose record speaks for itself as well.

At some point, with torture and rendition, you become what you behold. So what is the gain if we “win” the War on Terror and sacrifice all that we hold dear in the process?

There are only a handful of us left from the group I served with. We’ve lost people in Somalia, Iraq, South America and Afghanistan. All of us believe in this country in a way you probably don’t understand. I think of the quote: “For those that fight for it, Freedom has a flavor the sheltered never know”.

It is easy to pontificate about torture and whether waterboarding is or isn’t, along with whether or not rendition is acceptable, and do so from the comfort of your den. It is quite another to have seen these things firsthand. I’m sure it pains your towering intellect to have to deign to deal with us mere mortals and our decided lack of neuronal plasticity, but someone of us actually do know of what we speak and why some things are just WRONG. No need to reason or argue about it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Casca: Where to begin? First off, at 43, I’m a little young to be a “retiree”. I was invalided out of the Army in 1988 as a result of being involved in a helicopter crash. I spent five years in (three as a Ranger), and then sayonara. So, while I had planned being a lifer, it didn’t work out that way.

I have friends in Iraq, Colombia and Afghanistan. While no one divulges anything of a sensitive nature, I get enough information to have a good sense of what is going on. All of us came up during the Reagan years (military wise), so there are no illusions about politicos or why we are doing what we are doing.

As far as the comparison between a civil war/insurgency in Central America and WWII, well, there really isn’t one. Our goal was extremely simple: Win the hearts and minds of the people and thus eliminate support, aid and sustenance to the FMLN movement. Our first step was getting the government of El Sal and the right wing death squads (such as Mano Blanco) to stop killing and torturing their own people. I’m sure the SD and Gestapo had proven methods of torturing, but the Salvadoran government and military didn’t. At least I don’t think they did: Nailing a baby’s head to a wall seems extremely ineffective.

There is also a huge difference between torture and interrogation. The information and intel yielded under torture is not, generally speaking, of high value. The subject will tell you virtually anything to get the pain to stop and the nature of the questions will eventually led him to give you the information he believes you want. We got more solid intel by breaking someone down over several days with intensive questioning and using a variety of psyops then by tying them to a chair and going after them with a phone book and a 2 liter of Bubble Up.

When I brought up the question regarding Gitmo and prosecutions, it was solely because that was one of the stated intents of that facility’s existence. We are warehousing all of those supposed terrorists, but gaining little intel and putting almost none of them away, in terms of incarceration.

As far as the number of them that will “live to fight another day”: Why are so many now slated for release? Is it because the Administration is bowing to outside pressure from NGOs, or is it because only a miniscule number of them are even remotely tied to terrorist organizations? I’ll let you and your bulls**t detector go look that one up.

I thought Dershowitz wrote an excellent piece on torture using his potential nuke threat as a rationale for torturing to gain information. I still didn’t agree with him, though. The senior NCOs and officers I worked with down south were all former Vietnam hands who had faced the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong. They were very familiar with both torture and interrogation and, almost universally, chose interrogation as the best means to gain solid and usable intel. They were all products of the HARD school of experience and most of them were Special Forces. Not a gentle bunch and not squeamish, either. You use those means that are most effective. Our record in that war speaks for itself, and we were able to accomplish it without sacrificing our honor or humanity. Both of which were in very short supply amongst the Nazis, whose record speaks for itself as well.

At some point, with torture and rendition, you become what you behold. So what is the gain if we “win” the War on Terror and sacrifice all that we hold dear in the process?

There are only a handful of us left from the group I served with. We’ve lost people in Somalia, Iraq, South America and Afghanistan. All of us believe in this country in a way you probably don’t understand. I think of the quote: “For those that fight for it, Freedom has a flavor the sheltered never know”.

It is easy to pontificate about torture and whether waterboarding is or isn’t, along with whether or not rendition is acceptable, and do so from the comfort of your den. It is quite another to have seen these things firsthand. I’m sure it pains your towering intellect to have to deign to deal with us mere mortals and our decided lack of neuronal plasticity, but someone of us actually do know of what we speak and why some things are just WRONG. No need to reason or argue about it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: In the Army we had both CRI (cranial rectal inversion) and HUA (head up ass). Both can be terminal, although generally not fatal.

Well, at least you’re not a former Marine.

Hoo-ah.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: In the Army we had both CRI (cranial rectal inversion) and HUA (head up ass). Both can be terminal, although generally not fatal.

Well, at least you’re not a former Marine.

Hoo-ah.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: In the Army we had both CRI (cranial rectal inversion) and HUA (head up ass). Both can be terminal, although generally not fatal.

Well, at least you’re not a former Marine.

Hoo-ah.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: In the Army we had both CRI (cranial rectal inversion) and HUA (head up ass). Both can be terminal, although generally not fatal.

Well, at least you’re not a former Marine.

Hoo-ah.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: In the Army we had both CRI (cranial rectal inversion) and HUA (head up ass). Both can be terminal, although generally not fatal.

Well, at least you’re not a former Marine.

Hoo-ah.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

So, if you were 15 when the Wall came down, that puts your birthdate in 1974, correct? I was born in 1965 and went into the Army in 1983. Very different world in a lot of ways, not the least of which was the presence of a very motivated Soviet Union and all of its little playmates.

I spent three years in country with a military advisory unit in El Salvador (along with time in Honduras and Guatemala) and will tell you that the Soviets and Cubans were very actively involved in that part of the world, providing weapons, training and intel to insurgent (National Liberation Front) movements throughout Central and South America.

Cuba was not nearly as benign during those days, hence my reference to their involvement in Angola during the bad old days of the 1970s.

The Soviets were also in full throat, and Vietnam had only emboldened them as to what a fully supported insurgent movement could accomplish.

I’m not familiar with Hammes, so the reference is lost on me.

[Author]

Posts