POL - Al Qaeda okay for Military tribunals

[Flasch186]

I agree!! I am glad, these terrorists represent no foreign sovereign nation and therefore Geneva conventions do not apply (I dont think that this should apply for Taliban suspects however). I dont think that this is a change of stance for me becuase members or fighters of the Taliban, at the time, did represent Afghanastan but Al Qaeda members, when proven to be fighting for Al Qaeda should get life sentences, IMO.

Court rules against terror detainee

Friday, July 15, 2005; Posted: 12:12 p.m. EDT (16:12 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court put the Bush administration's military commissions for terrorist suspects back on track Friday, saying a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison who once was Osama bin Laden's driver can stand trial.

A three-judge panel ruled 3-0 against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose case was halted by a federal judge on grounds that commission procedures were unlawful.

"Congress authorized the military commission that will try Hamdan," said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention do not apply to al Qaeda and its members, so Hamdan does not have a right to enforce its provisions in court, the appeals judges said.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled last year that Hamdan could not be tried by a military commission until a competent tribunal determined that he was not a prisoner of war.

"We believe the military commission is such a tribunal," said the appeals court.

President Bush created the military commissions after the September 11 attacks, opening a legal channel for alleged al Qaeda terrorists and their associates to be tried for war crimes.

But just 15 of the 520 detainees at Guantanamo Bay have been designated for such trials and only four have been charged.

The rest face indefinite detention, and the Bush administration refuses to grant any of the detainees prisoner-of-war status, a decision that has fueled international criticism of the United States.

Hamdan, a mechanic with a fourth-grade education, says he left his home country of Yemen looking for work and wound up in Afghanistan, working for bin Laden from 1997 until the U.S. attack in Afghanistan in 2001.

Hamdan denies conspiring to engage in acts of terrorism and denies he was a member of al Qaeda.

Hamdan's lawyers say he simply wanted to earn enough money to return to Yemen, buy his own vehicle and support his family as a driver.

The issue of military commissions has been eclipsed by alleged mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, putting the Bush administration -- and some of its loudest critics -- on the defensive.

Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, apologized a week after comparing interrogation at the Guantanamo Bay prison to the methods of Nazis and other repressive regimes.

Muslims protested overseas after U.S. officials acknowledged in May they had substantiated five cases in which military guards or interrogators mishandled the Quran. The human rights group Amnesty International condemned conditions at the prison camp, calling Guantanamo "the gulag of our time," a description that President Bush dismissed as "absurd."

[Leonidas]

I'm not any kind of legal expert, but the law of common sense seems to have some lapses here. The courts rule the Geneva Convention does not apply to these guys because they are not military prisoners of war, but they can be tried by a military tribunal, which in my own military experience a Courts Martial only applies to military personnel. So if you are exempt from the protections lawfully afforded military personnel, how can you still be subject to the legal system established for military personnel? And along those same lines, how can you be sure to have a fair trial under military law if you legally do not have the same rights as those that law was created for? I'm sure there's some ambiguous legal mumbo jumbo drafted to make this work, but it doesn't seem at all right to me in the realm of normal logic.