Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bin Laden driver's conviction reversed by appeals court
Reuters ^ | October 16, 2012 | By Terry Baynes

Posted on 10/16/2012 8:29:19 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, by a military commission on charges of providing material support for terrorism.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that supporting terrorism was not a war crime at the time of Hamdan's alleged conduct from 1996 to 2001 and therefore could not support a conviction.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: binladen; binladendriver

1 posted on 10/16/2012 8:29:28 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

um... huh?

wait. is this satire? ..

OMG ITS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Supporting terrorists was OK before???


2 posted on 10/16/2012 8:32:42 AM PDT by Mr. K ("The only thing the World would hate more than the USA in charge is the USA NOT in charge")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

This is why it doesn’t belong in the USA courts. It belongs in the Military courts....period.


3 posted on 10/16/2012 8:34:00 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

What is the point of taking prisoners? He should have been sweated out and then disposed of hundreds of thousands of dollars ago.


4 posted on 10/16/2012 8:35:21 AM PDT by Slump Tester (What if I'm pregnant Teddy? Errr-ahh -Calm down Mary Jo, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that supporting terrorism was not a war crime at the time of Hamdan's alleged conduct from 1996 to 2001 and therefore could not support a conviction.

The Court's next action: reversing the Nuremberg verdicts.

5 posted on 10/16/2012 8:36:01 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

NO what you DO to POS ANIMALS like this is you capture them “Sweat ‘em” AND “Pump ‘em for info” THEN you pump a BACON laced BULLET through their WORTHLESS HEADS!


6 posted on 10/16/2012 8:36:27 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

I suppose this will elicit yawns from the metro crowd who are yearning for more socialism. But the majority of US citizens will want take it as a punch in the gut and will crawl over broken glass to vote against this administration who is more like those judges than the challengers.


7 posted on 10/16/2012 8:43:53 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Slump Tester

What was the point of killing Osama if you’re going to let his minions loose.


8 posted on 10/16/2012 8:44:33 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
NO what you DO to POS ANIMALS like this is you capture them “Sweat ‘em” AND “Pump ‘em for info” THEN you pump a BACON laced BULLET through their WORTHLESS HEADS!

That takes care of the noodle-brained judges, but what about the muzzie terrorist?


9 posted on 10/16/2012 8:45:34 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few, and let another take his office.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
...overturned the conviction ... by a military commission ...
10 posted on 10/16/2012 8:49:27 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is it just me, or is Hillary! starting to look like Benjamin Franklin?.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Slump Tester
What is the point of taking prisoners?

Diversity?

11 posted on 10/16/2012 9:11:21 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

Probably now the DIM-witted, pin-headed, brain-addled judge will allow him to remain in the USA, give him US citizenship and allow him to sue the USA for harassing him. It would only be “fair”...wouldn’t it? Vote nobama, LIB and DIM for more of this BS.


12 posted on 10/16/2012 9:30:19 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Will sope Photoshop competent FReeper please post the Martsupial Magistrate Court In Session pictures.

Pleeeze!


13 posted on 10/16/2012 9:31:43 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

Oops! “Sope” should be “some”. Sorry.


14 posted on 10/16/2012 9:33:14 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that supporting terrorism was not a war crime at the time of Hamdan’s alleged conduct from 1996 to 2001 and therefore could not support a conviction.”

Osama Bin Laden would also be covered under this same type of ruling, along with the 19 who flew the planes on September 11, 2001. Why do liberals insist upon giving Constitutional Rights to thugs, who are not citizens of our nation, and commit their crimes overseas. These are prisoners of war captured on the battle field.
15 posted on 10/16/2012 10:13:01 AM PDT by Yulee (Village of Albion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
At Volokh Conspiracy: D.C. Circuit Panel Reverses Conviction of Bin Laden's Driver, which points out that Hamdan served his complete sentence, and now lives in Yemen.

I seem to recall some aspect of the law, as it was being passed, that aimed to make it retrospective. The date of retrospection was, again, IIRC, to the date of passage of some international treaty. Guess I could read the appellate opinion and refresh my recollection on the retrospective law that is kicking around in my brain.

16 posted on 10/16/2012 10:26:15 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

Leave the Spelling and Grammar to the concern trolls, most of us do better than we think we can. Besides tweets and twits and auto correct have brought a whole new way to misspell almost every word.

17 posted on 10/16/2012 10:44:01 AM PDT by itsahoot (I'll write in Palin in 2012. That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I said, "I seem to recall some aspect of the law, as it was being passed, that aimed to make it retrospective."

Turns out, my memory conflated the Detainee Treatment Act (which "allows" harsh interrogation techniques and aimed to protect US agents who executed waterboarding orders) with the Military Commissions Act, which made a war crime out of giving material support to terrorists.

Separately, reading the opinion that is the subject of the OP, the court says that the US could, right now, hold Hamdan as an enemy combatant. The issue isn't whether or not he can be detained, the issue decided in the instant case is whether or not Hamdan can be convicted of a particular war crime, for acts perpetrated before the statute was passed.

18 posted on 10/16/2012 11:12:52 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson