Posted on 10/16/2012 4:33:54 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday overturned the terrorism conviction of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden whose case has been one of the most tangled to emerge from the war crimes trials of detainees held by the military at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The court found that Mr. Hamdan’s conviction by a military commission for providing material support for terrorism could not stand because, under the international law of war in effect at the time of his actions, there was no such defined war crime. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The decision was by Judges Kavanaugh (appointed by G.W. Bush), Sentelle (appointed by Reagan) and Douglas Ginsburg (also appointed by Reagan).
Only one answer ... send him to live with the judge....
May be a “keep them in Guantanamo, don’t try them” message there.
Question? Does the USA as to prosecuting anti USA persons involved with terrorist activities beholden to some ‘international’ law. If so the USA is bye-bye as an independent and free nation.
It’s past time, they never leave the field of battle.
Shocker!
How the F do you prosecute a non-citizen apprehended on a FOREIGN battlefield in US civilian court?
Dumb question, but why does it say “Friday?” Which Friday?
Think that through.
We prosecute non citizens, such as a murderer, caught in FOREIGN lands by catching them and bringing them here to face justice, just like we do with any number of violent criminals who commit heinous crimes against American citizens and property on foreign soil.
Not uncommon, and being in say, France, doesn't protect you if we find you, capture you, and bring you here.
Been legal for about 250 years or so...
It may be that the court finished writing the opinion Friday but it was not available to the public until Monday or Tuesday. But I’m just guessing.
Why capture them?
Just shoot terrorists and be done with it.
Let Mr. Executive Order himself sign the rendition order, but do not hold your breath for it, he is too busy signing environmental executive orders in order to destroy our economy.
IF the murder was committed America and the criminal fled, they are committed crimes under our jurisdiction (although we still must request that a foreign government relinquish him to us).
Recall that President Obama let Roman Polanski walk. The Democrats War on Women continues.
This notion challenges whether there can be military courts for non-citizens.
Better let the war criminals of WWII all go free now.
He actually served his entire sentence (at Gitmo), and was released (to Yemen) before the court decided.
Not what the Court ruled.
After 9/11, Congress passed a specific law allowing military commissions to try non-US terrorists on a long list of charges, which included "material assistance" to a terrorist organization. Before 9/11, there had been only an old, general statute which said the military could try foreigners for "war crimes in violation of the law of nations." The Court held that, under the Constitution's ex post facto clause, no one can be tried for "material assistance" unless their acts were committed after that post-9/11 law was passed; because "material assistance" was never recognized as a war crime under international law, it was not covered by the old law.
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.