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.

and the west has chosen to show them by emulating them and engaging in torture, terror and criminal perfidy. gosh.

“Bush won’t be impeached and the thought of that is laughable. He is merely a scapegoat”

yoinks! bush is the flippin’ president whose name is forever attached to the illegal attack, invasion and war on a sovereign nation that did nothing to provoke that war of choice. he is the commander in chief that presided over war crimes, crimes against humanity, breaches of international law, the geneva conventions and on and sadly on. by your argument hitler was just a scapegoat for the allies. as for george sr. he at least had some international understanding and knew that an attempt at nation building in iraq would be both illegal and a quagmire (an opinion shared with then sec def cheney). beyond all of that, the very fact that indeed the war on terror has turned into a treasury raping clusterfuck is proof enough the george jr. is a feeble minded oaf. had a fraction of the resources squandered in iraq been spent in afghanistan, that war would likely have been long over, hearts and minds won. as it stands the longer it goes the better for the taliban, al qaeda and a growing culture of enmity to our culture and ways.

@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?

Do you think that if Bush is impeached and found guilty of the crimes that many (including myself) believe him to be guilty of, that his chauffeur should be held accountable for giving “material assistance” to a national criminal?

Welcome to the blog, we work at keeping it civil here – every now and again the discussion gets a bit rowdy in the heat of the moment as it were but that usually doesn’t last long and cooler heads from all quarters generally tend to prevail.

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.

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.

To me, Hamdan was convicted of Not Being an American. And that is it. I’m trying to think of what else to write, but I’m still so angry about this I can only swear.

It must be embarassing for the Americans to throw the book at a driver while Bin Laden is still free.