A lead prosecutor for the war crimes tribunal at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay said the U.S. military lost a year's worth of records pertaining to the detention of Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Hamdan's legal counsel requested access to the records to support their claim that his detention left him mentally unfit to stand trial. One of the prosecutors, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Timothy Stone, told the court that it handed over all of the records detailing Hamdan's prolonged isolation and treatment at Guantanamo bay “with the exception of the 2002” records. Lawyers for Hamdan said the records include details they say indicate their client was coerced into making statements that could be used against him in his war crimes trial.
The Supreme Court declared the prior tribunal system enacted by U.S. President George Bush unconstitutional based on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The military dismissed charges against Hamdan twice, but refilled amended charges in both circumstances.
Military authorities captured Hamdan in Afghanistan in November 2001 with two anti-aircraft missiles in the trunk of his car. The U.S. government claims he worked as a key al-Qaida operative providing support to bin Laden. He faces a life term for conspiracy to commit and providing material support for terrorist activities against the United States.
His legal counsel asked the court Thursday to drop all charges on the grounds that the conspiracy charges were not defined as war crimes in 2001. Legal precedence holds the use of ex post facto law, a law that retroactively defines a crime, a violation of normally recognized inalienable rights in a democratic society. The Justice Department relies on the prosecution of Nazi members during the Nuremberg tribunals, saying that organization was declared a criminal organization following World War II.
This brings about questions of jurisdiction. The British government Thursday approved the extradition of the radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri to the United States to face terrorism charges. Abu Hamza is wanted by U.S. authorites for organizing a “training camp” in Oregon and plotting to take Western hostages in Yemen in 1998. He also faces charges for funding trips to al-Qaida camps in the Middle East. British authorities imposed a seven-year sentence on Abu Hamza for inciting racial hatred and murder. The United States says they will not seek the death penalty and will not send him to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
Why not? Taking a case like Hamdan, the argument could be presented that he was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan at the height of U.S.-led operations there. But where does the battlefield in the so-called “war on terror” end and where does it begin? When did the “war on terror” start? Prosecutors in the Hamdan case say he entered the war in 1996 when he came into employment with bin Laden while al-Qaida was gaining momentum. Couldn't you take the “war on terror” then back to the 1980's when Hezbollah targeted U.S. Marines in Lebanon? Or the 1950's when the father of radical Islam, Sayid Qutb, wrote “Milestones”, his seminal work? Or the 1920's when the Muslim Brotherhood began to emerge in Egypt?
The U.S. captured Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Pakistan in 2003. Pakistan is a key U.S. ally and the Pakistani government repeatedly refused to allow the U.S. military operational capacity on its soil, so does the battlefield in the “war on terror” not extend into Pakistan? But KSM is at Guantanamo Bay and not subject to the civilian courts.
These factors and the continued duplicity in prosecuting suspected terrorist leaders by the U.S. government makes the continued use of the war crimes tribunal at Guantanamo Bay something that completely defies logic.
