US Person thought he would be able to ignore the star chamber being held in Guantanamo, but the American Military Commission is such a blot on America's record of constitutional government and respect for individual rights that Salim Ahmed Hamdan's predictable conviction cannot be passed without comment. What is was surprising is that the verdict against Hamdan for aiding terrorism rendered by US military officers was split. Military men subject to the weighty influence of command and the extreme need for a vindicating result were not able to agree on the more serious charges facing Hamdan of conspiring to kill US soldiers . The sentence handed down, five and half years, when the prosecution asked for thirty years, reflects the serious problems with the case despite secret evidence, coercion, and self incriminating statements made by a defendant without benefit of the usual warnings. It really does not make common sense that simply driving a terrorist, even if that terrorist is the big cheese, should constitute a war crime. The Congressional Research Service in a report issued last year found no historical precedent for making the material support of terrorism a war crime. Apparently the officers sitting in judgment had similar problems with the concept. Hamdan has already been detained for five years and will get credit for that time toward his sentence. But in the bizarre world of the "Global War Against Terror" he may not go free in six months because he has been designated an "enemy combatant". Only if a Pentagon status review board determines he is no longer a danger can he go free. In the meantime his conviction will no doubt be appealed to the US Court of Appeals as allowed by the Supreme Court in Hamden v. Rumsfeld (2006). This Catch 22 situation exemplifies perfectly how ill conceived and poorly executed the tribunal system is. As Senator John Kerry has noted, the US justice system is perfectly capable of trying these individuals and doing so in a manner that protects our system of government and respects the rule of law. Allowing a military commission to try suspected terrorists focuses international attention on the ambiguous legal position of the detainees[1] and elevates their brand of violent jihad to an undeserved status of a legitimate military force too dangerous to be brought to justice using traditional standards of due process. The US military can accomplish many missions, but is the last institution that should be asked to mete out justice to an international criminal conspiracy.
[1] In Hamdan the Supreme Court ruled, contrary to the position of the governement, that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to members of Al-Qaeda. It stated that detainees were entitled to a minimum of legal protections, and should be afforded "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples". A defendant being free of torture, coercion, and self incrimination is recognized as fundamental in any criminal law process.