Friday, October 19, 2012

Blog Entry #8


The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the crimes made by Salim Hamdan, who was the driver and body guard for Osama Bin Laden, stated that the accusations of “providing material support for terrorism” was not a valid charge because at the time the crimes were committed it was not yet an international war crime. This is a “set back” for the broader military commissions system. Due to other members of terrorism training camp that supported Al Qaida this will likely be the same ruling for their cases as well. Mr. Hamden was convicted of providing material support for terrorism in 2008 and sentenced to 66 years in prison, but his lawyers challenged his verdict until it got to the United States Court of Appeals.

The government is also trying to make the courts closed that no news or video reports would be allowed inside. Civilian lawyers are fighting against this saying that they are trying to hide how the terrorist feel or how they remembered being treated by the C. I. A. interrogation practices.

          It is questionable to whether or not providing material support for terrorism and conspiracy to aid terrorism are offenses under the laws of armed conflict. Another member of Al Qaida, Ali al Bahlul, was convicted of providing material support terrorism and conspiracy charges in 2008 and is likely going to have his case reviewed in the United States Court of Appeals as well.

          These technicalities are no reason for these people who were active members of a terrorist organization to be excused of their involvement in the terrorist organization. These are just loop holes that lawyers are taking to get their clients ruling overturned. Once a verdict has been reached it is unfair to overturn it because of a technicality. If it was wrong then, it is still wrong today.

 

10/19/12 10:43 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment