If the Bush administration intended its Guantánamo military commission to be “a kangaroo court,” said The Washington Post in an editorial, it has to be in shock. The commission, set up to try some of Guantánamo’s detainees, last week convicted Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver, of aiding al Qaida, but acquitted him of conspiracy. In a “stunning” rebuke to government prosecutors, the military judge then sentenced Hamdan to 66 months in detention, with credit for the 61 months he’s already served. Prosecutors portrayed Hamdan, a Yemeni captured in Afghanistan in 2001, as a “hardened al Qaida operative deserving of life imprisonment.” Clearly, though, the judge and jury agreed with defense lawyers, who described Hamdan as a simple, barely literate man who took the job driving the famous sheikh to feed his family. The sentence was “measured, thoughtful, and fair—or as fair as a hopelessly flawed system could produce.”
How heartwarming, said Andrew C. McCarthy in National Review Online. For protecting bin Laden, transporting weapons, and aiding and abetting a terrorist network that “has killed thousands of Americans and continues plotting to kill more,” Hamdan theoretically will get to go home in five months. This sentence is “stunningly unjust.” An enemy combatant captured on the battlefield, Hamdan had no right to a trial—let alone to a bon voyage party during which the military judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, wished Hamdan well when he returns to his family. Perhaps because of liberal carping, the military commission’s jurors and judge clearly bent “over backwards to be fair.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
