Pathetic is the word that springs immediately to mind - can you imagine the howls of outrage that would ring across the land if Bush’s chauffeur was put on trial for war crimes over his bosses decision to permit the torture of prisoners?

Are you kidding? Of COURSE we should charge a man who knew the intimate details of the 9/11 attacks and yet refused to tell anyone.

Here’s a quote from the article in The Guardian:
“Defence lawyers did not dispute during the trial that Hamdan provided assistance to bin Laden’s network. Rather, they argued that Hamdan was a low-level player in the al-Qaida network, not the indispensable aide he was depicted as by Pentagon prosecutors”

Let me reiterate a key statement there: defence lawyers did not dispute during the trial that he provided assistance to bin Laden.

The driver wasn’t charged for killing hundreds. He wasn’t convicted for plotting. He was charged with “guilty of material support for terrorism.” He knew about the plot, didn’t inform anyone, and thus the lives of thousands of innocent Americans were lost.

By the way, yes I’m a Conservative and am new to this blog. I hope to have many a discussion with others here - intellectually of course…I won’t resort to name-calling as I actually enjoy having a real discussion with the opposing faction.

FL,

Well he was indeed convicted of that. He was convicted by a jury of 6 Officers of the Armed forces holding him, not of his peers. He was convicted on evidence extracted through coercion if not outright torture. He was convicted after being held without charge or trial, incommunicado from his friends relatives and any lawyers and subjected to “enhanced interrogation” techniques. When he was charged and when he finally did get a lawyer, his lawyer, like the judge, prosecution and jury, were members of the armed forces holding him.

Evidence in the trial could be withheld from disclosure from his defense team, could be based on hearsay and could be extracted from him and others based on coercion or torture.

That is not the stuff of our Western system of justice, the one we defend and send soldiers to die defending. That is the stuff of Soviet Gulags, of Kafka-essque show trials and, indeed, if the rough, eye-for-an-eye justice of those we currently fight as enemies - radical Wahabist Islam.

There is nothing to be proud of in this. It is a sign the once great and free USA has sunk into authoritarianism and proto-facism. It is a sign that the Land of the Free no longer is.

That is rather the point of SL’s post.

“Those who give up a little freedom for temporary security deserve nioether freedom nor security” - Ben Franklin.

@Mike - I can see what you mean about it not being a jury of his peers, however (there’s always gotta be a however :) ), the war againt terrorism cannot be fought without showing Jihadists that the world stage will not tolerate their criminal acts. Torture, in my opinion is maybe not a good thing but it certainly isn’t bad (please read on so I don’t get shot out behind the barn). Specifically, what I mean is yes, waterboarding is OK. Using a cat of 9 tails is not. I don’t think that torture of this sort is necessarily bad because the driver obviously had information revealing whether he was involved or not…and obviously he wasn’t giving it to them unless they had to go to extremes in order to obtain it. The system we are so proud of in the Western World was obtained through great leadership and perseverance. We can’t keep this system by letting criminals run free - especially one who knew the intimate details of bin Laden’s plan.

@stageleft - Bush won’t be impeached and the thought of that is laughable. He is merely a scapegoat that the Democrats have decided to attack. As the standing figure of freedom during the 9/11 attacks, I couldn’t think of a better person to forge forward and lead the war on terrorism. For the sake of argument, please bear with me here. Think about this situation: after 9/11, Bush introduced plans to invade Afghanistan as it was where al-Qaeda had a home base. The government aided these terrorists and provided massive funding for them to carry out their operations. Also, for those who believe Iraq is a mistake and that Geroge Bush went in for oil - hear me out. President Clinton made a speech in 1998 (I believe) which struck down Saddam’s regime. He called for action to be taken against this very serious threat. I could go on for hours but I’ll spare everyone the history lesson. Besides, if Bush wanted oil that badly, why would his father have taken it back during the Gulf war?

I agree, Bush will not be impeached.

Having said that, Bush will be remembered as one of the (if not THE) worst Presidents ever to afflict the US. The two favoured arguments of his ever waning band of supporters (CLINTON did TOO!, and “It WASNT JUST HIS FAULT!”) are enough to get his fans through the next few months, but they have never played well in history. Bush, put simply, has left NO positive legacy.

The economy? Health policy and level of care? International relations? The Environment? US reputation and image? Each of these areas has suffered catastrophically under his “stewardship”, and the ONLY thing you can say in his defense was that it wasn’t ENTIRELY his fault ALL the time.