Hamdan Sentenced to 5-1/2 Years
[Guest post by DRJ]
The AP describes the jury’s sentence of Bin Laden driver Salim Hamdan as “stunningly lenient:”
“Salim Hamdan’s sentence of 5 1/2 years, including five years and a month already served at Guantanamo Bay, fell far short of the 30 years to life that prosecutors wanted. It now goes for mandatory review to a Pentagon official who can shorten the sentence but not extend it.”
Hamdan could be eligible for release in as little as 5 months:
“It remains unclear what will happen to Hamdan once his sentence is served, since the U.S. military has said it won’t release anyone who still represents a threat. The judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, said Hamdan would likely be eligible for the same administrative review process as other prisoners.
Hamdan thanked the jurors for the sentence and repeated his apology for having served bin Laden.
“I would like to apologize one more time to all the members and I would like to thank you for what you have done for me,” Hamdan told the panel of six U.S. military officers, hand-picked by the Pentagon for the first U.S. war crimes trial in a half century.”
I guess this proves how close-minded those hand-picked Pentagon juries can be. (Yes, I know. It’s sarcasm. I don’t often do that but it seems appropriate here.)
The AP closed with this exchange between the judge and Hamdan:
“I hope the day comes that you return to your wife and daughters and your country, and you’re able to be a provider, a father, and a husband in the best sense of all those terms,” the judge told Hamdan.
Hamdan, dressed in a charcoal sports coat and white robe, responded: “God willing.”
Mercy, in every sense of the word.
— DRJ
I’m speechless… God help us all!
Rick (304cab) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:50 pmAnd yet those nice folks at the Paper of Record think his trial was a travesty of justice. Read this if you have a strong stomach.
Old Coot (43e1f1) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:52 pmbut … but … but … these trials are not fair !
JD (5f0e11) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:56 pmOver/under on his return to the battlefield? And will it be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or somewhere else?
Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:58 pmHow long a sentence did Hitler’s driver get again? Oiram?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:08 pm“I hope the day comes that you return to your wife and daughters and your country, and you’re able to be a provider, a father, and a husband in the best sense of all those terms,” the judge told Hamdan.
Hamdan, dressed in a charcoal sports coat and white robe, responded: “God willing.”
I wish I wasn’t so sure that Hamdan will likely end up like Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi. Al-Ajmi was a Kuwaiti former Gitmo detainee who was freed for lack of admissible evidence, and ended his life as a suicide bomber in Mosul.
As Debra Burlingame outlines in a magnificent piece, Al-Ajmi left behind a “love poem” that was part of a compiliation of detainee poetry published by anti-Gitmo attorneys intended to humanize them. The guys behind the book didn’t seem to grasp that Al-Ajmi’s poetry wasn’t about a loved one he might never see again, it was about punishing his Western captors, and the glory of eventual Islamist world domination.
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:36 pmI’m sure he was sincere.
NOT
Patricia (aaa977) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:52 pmJust out of curiosity….. did we go after Hitler’s driver 60 years ago?
Is anyone that old to remember?
Question him yes, prosecute Hamden?
What a waste of time and money.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:01 pmThen they say we’re monsters and torturers etc. This proves that the left routinely smears the US and specifically the US military.
Richard Romano (b96fd9) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:04 pmAnd, who pray Muhammed, appointed, hired, dug up or found this fine judge. What is his background?
If Obama’s driver had done something serious like steal a bike he would have gotten a stronger sentence.
disgusting!
Typical Whte Person (ab4893) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:07 pmon second thought perhaps Salame is a celibritard!
I wonder how long before he is in Afghanistan running around with a bomb belt strapped to his back.
We are getting to be as screwed up as the Euros who have pretty well finished giveing away their respective countries
Typical Whte Person (ab4893) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:12 pmHitler’s driver?
Another Drew (16e81f) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:12 pmDon’t remember…somebody probably just shot him (the Russians, most likely).
But, as I posted earlier,
we prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned his
Architect.
Life, in Spandau!
The Bush family has had connections with the Bin Laden family going way back. Should we prosecute them too?
Pure Silliness
Like I said before, question the Bush’s connections (yeah right)
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:22 pmBut arrest them? No.
Oiram,
The Soviets took Berlin at the end of WWII and they reportedly took Hitler’s personal staff including his chauffeur to Russia for extended interrogations:
Care to guess what the Soviets did with these people after they were through with them?
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:39 pmSo Russia does it and that makes it o.k. Is that what your saying DRJ.
Didn’t you do a post about Totalitarian countries sprouting from left ideologies, when was it yesterday.
As a matter of fact I think you accused me of censorship at one point on that post regarding gorrilas. Off topic, I know, but I’m still a little sore about that DRJ.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:44 pmOiram,
I’m not saying what the Soviets did was okay, Oiram. Quite the opposite, nor is it comparable to what Americans have done in this war. You asked what happened to Hitler’s driver and I responded with the best information I could find.
And, off-topic, weren’t you arguing that I should have changed my tone in the gorilla post? Instead of saying what I thought, didn’t you suggest that I should censor myself to avoid hurting groups that support species preservation?
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:51 pmThanks for that info DRJ. It pointed quite a bit out to me.
As far as “Gorrilas in the mist” I don’t feel like researching the site here, I’m sure your better at finding past comments than I am.
But as I recall, I was telling you in your Gorrlilas post that you had shed a negative light on environmentalists. I didn’t ask you to not write it. I would never do that.
Then on your post, you know what I will look it up.
Totalitarians, Leftists, and Censorship
DRJ comments:
Oiram’s point on the gorilla thread seems like an example of Ralph Peters’ point, i.e., that censorship is acceptable to promote a result. In Oiram’s comment, he felt the work done by environmentalists to protect nature and endangered species is so important that we shouldn’t criticize them or their work for fear it will make their mission more difficult.
I’LL GIVE YOU A PASS, YOU DID SAY “SEEMS”.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 4:06 pmOiram,
I understand you are upset about the gorilla discussion but it was not my goal to antagonize you. However, now I’m curious: Did I misunderstand your point? I thought your point was that I should have written the post a different way to avoid hurting the environmental cause.
If it helps any, I think environmental efforts are important and valuable, and as I said then I think there is merit in preserving some species. But I also think examples like the gorilla story hurt environmentalists because it makes them look foolish and causes people to doubt their judgment. Shining a light on foolishness helps everyone and, in the long run, it will help environmentalists be more responsible and successful in promoting their cause.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 4:20 pmIn the practice of making friends, and influencing people, Oiram, it does not tend to be helpful to distort what others say.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/7/2008 @ 4:20 pmDRJ said #19
“In the practice of making friends, and influencing people, Oiram, it does not tend to be helpful to distort what others say.”
Couldn’t agree with you more DRJ
Hope you read my comment on the totalitarian post.
8/5/2008
Totalitarians, Leftists, and Censorship
It was comment #112.
[Here’s a link to Oiram’s comment #112 on the other thread. — DRJ]
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 4:36 pmAt the end of the sentence, Hamdan is still detai ned, isn’t he?
gp (78ea4b) — 8/7/2008 @ 4:49 pmgp – Maybe. He can be if he is considered a threat.
Oiram – I realize you may be upset and offended by our recent discussion but that was not my intent. If I have a questionable tone, it’s not directed at you and it’s likely due to the strep throats and sour dispositions of everyone in my household. Plus, I’m not the author of comment 19.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 4:55 pmYeah, just think of the radical Islamic chauffering he’s scheming of right now.
jpe (bd88bc) — 8/7/2008 @ 5:18 pmOiram seems to acting out with extra stupidity today.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/7/2008 @ 5:31 pmAll 5,000 of them? Oiram, you realize they’re a player in the construction business in the Middle East and perfectly legitimate businessmen who disowned Osama years ago. If you can pinpoint to me which one of them knew of 9/11 and provided material support in that, I’d be happy to prosecute.
Anon (db8e0c) — 8/7/2008 @ 7:15 pmAnon, Oiram knew how vapid his analogy was, he was trolling.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/7/2008 @ 7:32 pmI know he was trolling, but I think you’re assuming too much – this stuff gets passed around the left so much they repeat this without even thinking about it.
I say 50/50 chance he comes back and defends it.
. . . and in any case it’s fun to whack them.
Anon (db8e0c) — 8/7/2008 @ 7:40 pmNYT tonight: “The military judge, Capt. Keith J. Allred of the Navy, had already said that he planned to give the driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, credit for at least the 61 months he has been held since being charged, out of more than six years in all. That would bring Mr. Hamdan to the end of his criminal sentence in five months. After that his fate is unclear, because the Bush administration says that it can hold detainees here until the end of the war on terror.”
So he might not be free for awhile. We’ll see if the next POTUS frees the detainees. Probably will be popular with the Dems.
gp (78ea4b) — 8/7/2008 @ 7:41 pmThe NYT had the ridiculous editorial piece that claimed Hamdan’s verdict was “ordered”. I guess they did not have the common sense to rewrite their prewritten BDS laden screed to reflect the actual facts.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/7/2008 @ 7:45 pmThis really weirds me out. He is sentenced to 66 months with credit for 61 months of time served. Yet, after completion of the remaining five months of his sentence he can still be detained indefinitely as an unlawful combatant. Somehow, I feel that Alberto Gonzalez, the most worthless of AGs, should be on trial at Guantanamo, as well, for gross subversion of the war on terror and gross waste of our country’s defense resources.
nk (e38352) — 8/7/2008 @ 7:56 pmnk, you don’t understand the difference evidently. He was sentenced to 66 months for the war crime of giving material support to terrorism. Being a combatant is a different issue.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/7/2008 @ 7:58 pmAnd the difference when it comes to the protection of our country is …?
nk (e38352) — 8/7/2008 @ 8:01 pmNK,
I’m not strong in this area so I may be completely wrong. However, it’s my understanding Hamdan can only be held past his sentence if the tribunal/governing body finds he is a continuing military threat. So the sentence is a criminal matter but the continuing threat is a military determination … and there should be no difference when it comes to the protection of our country, which is why I think criminal trials are inappropriate.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 8:03 pmDRJ, the confusion people demonstrate on this issue means that we have people advocating that terrorists have more rights than legitimate prisoners of war.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/7/2008 @ 8:06 pmThe judge, can we follow the democrat presidential candidate approach:
find out where he lives, find out where his kids go to school, find out where his office is; picket him all the time. Call him a racist in signs if you see him. Call him an injustice. Call him whatever you want to call him, but in his face all the time.
/sarc/
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:14 pmI’m curious if anyone knows the answer to this question:
Before they returned a sentence, were the jurors made aware of the likelihood that Hamdan’s previous incarceration would be credited against it? Or were they under the misimpression that he would actually serve a minimum of 66 months from now?
Beldar (b07b27) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:06 pmAnd here it is, if we trust the WaPo to get such facts right:
I am reluctant to second-guess juries’ decisions on such matters, and I haven’t seen the any of the evidence (either damning or mitigatory), but especially if the jurors knew that Hamdan would get the time-served credit, that makes this an extraordinarily lenient sentence in my judgment.
Beldar (b07b27) — 8/8/2008 @ 1:02 am12–Speer didn’t get life, he got 20 years.
Alan (c61d4e) — 8/8/2008 @ 4:10 amAnyway, my impression was that Hamdan wasn’t “just” bin Laden’s driver; he was also his bodyguard. Hamdan isn’t small fry. I think his sentence was way too lenient.
Alan (c61d4e) — 8/8/2008 @ 4:18 amBeldar @37:
As am I. Even though I would maintain that I would rather appear in a military court if innocent, and a civilian court if guilty…that does seem extraordinarily lenient in light of past behavior of previously released detainees.
OTOH, maybe the jury knows something we don’t…and my brain is getting a krink in it trying to figure out what it is.
EW1(SG) (02bd5b) — 8/8/2008 @ 4:30 amI think IF I see this Terrorist on my street, I’m going to shoot first and then shoot any ACLU lawyer that tries to defend him.
PCD (5c49b0) — 8/8/2008 @ 5:17 amHamdan thanked the jurors for the sentence and repeated his apology for having served bin Laden.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/8/2008 @ 5:48 amIf he is as innocent as he would like us to believe, why is he thanking the jurors for the “unfair” sentence. I mean if he is innocent he should be discharged and acquitted, right? He should be crying foul play and insisting on his innocence. This gratitude is all too suspicious.
Lovet – Common courtesy. Didn’t your mother teach you to always be polite.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/8/2008 @ 5:53 am#43
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/8/2008 @ 6:01 amHow so Daley?
Are you starting of the day deliberately obtuse Lovey?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/8/2008 @ 7:09 amAlan @ #38…
Another Drew (722aad) — 8/8/2008 @ 7:53 amThanks for the clarification…
Of course, having Russian jailers (25% of the time) could seem like a “life” sentance.
I’ll bet Speer would have traded places with Hamden at any time at GTMO.
I’d be willing to bet that any (or almost any) criminal in a federal facility would trade places in fat camp (GiTMO)
Lord Nazh (899dce) — 8/8/2008 @ 7:56 am#45
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/8/2008 @ 8:09 amWhats your problem? Don’t you think it’s too early in the day to pick a quarrel? Why the name calling? Did you have a nightmare last night?
EW1(SG) wrote (#40):
I’d still very much like to see the judge’s instructions to the jurors on how they should exercise their sentencing discretion. As for what they saw and heard that influenced them, the press reports suggest that they heard evidence of Hamdan’s cooperation with interrogators after he was captured and a plea for his return from his wife on behalf of their family.
This, also from the WaPo article, makes me angry:
Any reasonably competent prosecutor — and I presume the prosecution got the last word during final argument, so it should have have the chance — could easily expose this argument as incredibly craven and wrong-headed. Ten times as much? Yes, those are, quite literally, the wages of sin, and the greed for such rewards has inspired crime everywhere and forever. That’s not an argument in mitigation, it’s damning proof of culpability in my judgment. It’s the kind of argument that ought to be rammed back down the defense lawyer’s throat, ungently. And if these jurors bought it, then they let their common sense betray them.
But, again, experience tells me that it’s more likely that their verdict was a direct result of their common sense and their shared perceptions of the defendant than of any lawyer-talk. And on that score, the most inferentially powerful suggestion I’ve seen so far was in the NYT story on the sentence:
I would start off as being extremely skeptical whenever a NYT reporter imputes subjective thoughts and opinions and sentiments to a Navy captain serving as a judge in such a proceeding. But it is indeed very likely that Captain Allred had a substantial exposure to Hamdan on repeated occasions, with the opportunity to observe him during moments both intense and trivial. Similarly, I don’t know how much combat experience the six officers who made up the jury have, but it seems reasonable to presume that at a bare minimum, they must have considerable empathy with and knowledge of the risks and costs our armed forces are undergoing in combating terrorists. And I would frankly expect them, like Captain Allred, to be reasonably proficient at assessing whether any particular individual was likely to be a continuing threat. That’s not to say they couldn’t possibly be fooled by a brilliant performance in which Hamdan was concealing his bloodthirst for slitting infidel throats upon release, but I expect most such terrorists in fact aren’t brilliant actors, and that at least some of these officers have indeed seen and dealt with prisoners of whom that is an accurate description.
So I come back around to this: I trust the jury system, not because it’s perfect, but because it’s the best anyone’s yet developed, and it works pretty well most of the time. I certainly am inclined to give these particular jurors credit as being well-endowed with patrotism and common sense. And while my own reaction, from the vastly less knowledge I have about Hamdan and his situation, was that a longer sentence would have been more appropriate, I think I’m going to twist my own arm to trust their reaction instead.
Beldar (b07b27) — 8/8/2008 @ 9:44 amHow many families whose husbands, wifes, other relatives, never came home from the Pentagon, the Twin Towers, and that field in Shanksville, PA. Allred’s comment is in extreme bad taste and disrespect to the 3,000 casualties lost on September 11th as well as other efforts wrought by his boss in Afghanistan.
narciso (c36902) — 8/8/2008 @ 9:44 amAnother Drew’s comment (#12) describing Albert Speer as “Hitler’s architect” is true, but so materially incomplete as to be seriously misleading. By the last year of the war, Speer was directing Germany’s entire war economy. He was extremely good at his job, such that up until the final months, notwithstanding the Allies’ best efforts and despite most of it being driven literally underground, production of German war materiél continued to rise. It’s fair to claim that Speer’s evil genius — and it was evil; he knew of the death camps — kept Hitler’s regime going for much longer than it otherwise would have, and was a but-for cause of literally millions of additional deaths. I think that Speer was extremely fortunate to escape a death sentence at Nuremburg, but in no meaningful way can Speer be compared to Hamdan, and he certainly wasn’t just Hitler’s architect.
Beldar (b07b27) — 8/8/2008 @ 10:04 amNarciso (#50): I’d agree with you if there were any evidence that Hamdan had any direct role in the deaths from September 11. He didn’t. He heard it talked about from the backseat.
I don’t know Captain Allred. But I would wager a large sum of money that he’s at least as conscious in his daily life of the tragedy of 9/11/01 as you or I. And the uniform he wears and the flag he salutes gives him presumptive credibility that I think you may to too quick to discard.
Beldar (b07b27) — 8/8/2008 @ 10:08 amI meant to write: “may be too quick to discard.”
Beldar (b07b27) — 8/8/2008 @ 10:09 amYes, Beldar (@ #51), I am fully aware of Albert Speer’s complicity in the horror of Nazi Germany.
Another Drew (722aad) — 8/8/2008 @ 10:21 amI used his “architect” position to illustrate what I thought was the ridiculous demand for a court case against “Hitler’s driver”.
Also, IIRC, his 20-yr sentence was a reflection of his assistance to the prosecutors in building cases against some of his former associates. If he was just another Nazi sychophant, he probably would have been hanged. But then, Werner wasn’t hanged either, or jailed, and he knew how those missiles he was so fond of were made.
These are the realities of “real politik”.
If it wasn’t for the evil ends of his enterprise, he could be considered one of the great giants of 20th-Century,
German Industry.
Another Drew (#54): I’m sorry, I may be being quite dense here, but I think I still don’t understand you.
You’re saying Hamdan was no more “only bin Laden’s driver” than Speeer was “only Hitler’s architect,” i.e., that both are far more complicit and responsible in their respective principal’s bad acts than those job titles would suggest?
If so, we agree on Speer, but I’m unpersuaded as to Hamdan. Both Speer and Hamdan knew they were helping very evil men. Both confessed their guilt and professed repentance and cooperated with prosecutors. But Speer was helping Hitler in essential, irreplaceable, and colossal ways. I’m unaware of any evidence that could support such a claim about Hamdan.
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, with whom I rarely find myself in disagreement, is apoplectic about this sentence. He asks: “Did we really fight for seven years so a top aide to Osama bin Laden could get six months?” Well, no. But Hamdan wasn’t a “top aide” — or if he was, the prosecution team obviously failed to persuade the jurors of that.
Beldar (b07b27) — 8/8/2008 @ 10:59 amIt’s an argument against intent: he was a salaried worker, not a member of the conspiracy.
It’s a fine argument, and it won.
jpe (08c1dd) — 8/8/2008 @ 11:06 amI don’t think that they are strictly comparable.
Another Drew (722aad) — 8/8/2008 @ 11:08 amHowever, I vote with Andy on this as to the lack of severity of the sentance.
Lacking a definitive orginizational chart of A-Q, I don’t know if we will ever know the range of responsibilities that Hamdan was tasked, or how complicite he may have been in the more spectacular events conducted by that orginization.
But, I do diminish any description of him as just “Osama’s driver”. I think that is an insult to our intelligence.
I think our primary failure is to even attempt a judicial process with this group. I revert back to my training as a grunt in the AF, that non-uniformed combattants are to be shot, summarily.
End of issue.
Beldar,
Like you, I trust the jury system and I’m not apoplectic about Hamdan’s sentence. Of course, I was initially very confused how a jury could render this verdict after hearing evidence that Hamdan was Bin Laden’s trusted driver and that he was caught carrying SAM missiles in his car trunk. However, I think this information might have something to do with the jury’s mercy:
It seems to me that military personnel might be more likely to offer mercy to cooperative captives, especially in this kind of war.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/8/2008 @ 11:35 amJPE (#56): The argument I quoted was made during sentencing. You’re correct that the jurors had already acquitted Hamdan of any participation in a conspiracy, and yes, the fact that his motivation was greed rather than ideology does tend to show he was not a co-conspirator.
But it emphatically does not show “innocence,” or even lesser culpability. If he were merely a “salaried” worker making the normal salary for that work, then he might could have used that to argue against stiff punishment. But the fact that he was being paid a premium, and that that premium was what motivated him to stay in his position even after he was aware of his employer’s murderous and evil acts, ought to count in favor of a stiffer sentence.
I don’t agree that “the argument worked.” I think it’s more likely that the jurors didn’t buy that argument (during sentencing), but thought that 66 months was appropriate even for someone who well knew he was giving assistance to someone engaged in very evil actions. But I do concede that such is only my guess, having not seen the evidence or interviewed the jurors myself.
Beldar (b07b27) — 8/8/2008 @ 11:35 amDRJ (#58): I agree that it’s likely that mitigating evidence (like that of Hamdan’s cooperation) was probably given great weight, and we should indeed remind ourselves that the sentence is a “net” determination from the jury: They may have thought that both evidence of culpability and of mitigation was very powerful, and that when they were offset, the evidence of culpability didn’t outweigh the evidence of mitigation by very much.
Beldar (b07b27) — 8/8/2008 @ 11:39 amI dunno – if I wanted Hamdan dead but didn’t want to bother with the hassle of the appeals process I think I might consider time served with a little hug and pat on the back followed by “thanks for all your help and cooperation” as he gets on the plane headed back to Jihadiville to be a workable solution.
I suppose shouting “the first check is in the mail” as the plane door closes on him might help but I doubt that it would be necessary.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/8/2008 @ 11:45 am“Whats your problem? Don’t you think it’s too early in the day to pick a quarrel? Why the name calling? Did you have a nightmare last night?”
Lovey – Can you explain what was hard to understand in my original comment? I try not to go too fast for you.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/8/2008 @ 11:56 amI’m late to this discussion, Beldar. Is this debate over the sentence or the conspiracy acquittal? I might come to a different conclusion if I heard the evidence but IMO the sentence is easier to understand than the acquittal on the conspiracy charges.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:06 pmHow did I show myself to be impolite? Or didn’t know the meaning of the word you used?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:11 pm#64
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:19 pmMy last comment was to Daley in comment #61.
Or didn’t know the meaning of the word you used? Should read “Or don’t you know the meaning of the word you used.?”
Lovey – Your 42 If he is as innocent as he would like us to believe, why is he thanking the jurors for the “unfair” sentence…..
My 43 Lovet – Common courtesy. Didn’t your mother teach you to always be polite.
Your 44 – #43
How so Daley?
My 45 – Are you starting of the day deliberately obtuse Lovey?
Your 48 – #45
Whats your problem? Don’t you think it’s too early in the day to pick a quarrel? Why the name calling? Did you have a nightmare last night?
My conclusion is that you didn’t understand either the word “common” or “courtesy” or were pretending to be stupid.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:24 pmHiding from me makes you impolite. Don’t be afraid.
Qur’an!
Oh no! Run! Run!
Icy Truth (db73ab) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:26 pm#67
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:45 pmHey Icy, I threw a challenge to you and till now you are unable to take it up. Who’s chicken now?
It’s a reasonable sentence. The guy was OBL’s driver. He did not commit the terrorist acts or plan them.
TCOisbanned (7786e5) — 8/8/2008 @ 4:52 pmTo provide an analagous situation, POW’s in American custody are subject to the UCMJ.
They can be sentenced to imprisonment for UCMJ violations, and they can continue to be held as POW’s even after completing their sentence.
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:00 amI suspect that the hardened criminals in San Quentin would kill to be transferred to Gitmo.
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:03 amIt might just be a coincidence but if I were Putin I’d take this as proof that we are a bunch of pussy-asses led by a boob.
nk (e38352) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:02 pmIf I were Putin, I’d assume most Americans don’t have the stomach for more military deployments and won’t support anything suggested by the Bush Administration.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:32 pm