The Hamdan Fiasco

More

You will get the gist from two very different posts in the blogosphere - Scott Horton's careful and enraged account of the case is here (he posted it before the sentencing), and Andy McCarthy's even angrier splutter is here. What does it tell you about the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies that they have managed to appall those who care about this country's reputation for justice and madden those who want to see all al Qaeda operatives, even very low-level functionaries like Hamdan, kept behind bars? I can't help thinking of Dick Cheney on television, asserting mastery in his gravelly unflappable voice, oozing competence and assurance, even as his pig-headed arrogance and ideological extremism have revealed his vice-presidency as a farrago of cockamamie, incompetent, know-nothing machoism. Just because you have the anal-retentive David Addington running your office doesn't mean you have anything under control.

Five and a half years (with time served), moreover, is not a crazy verdict when you examine the case. Even that judgment may well be overturned, as Scott explains. Hamdan is only still in jail at all because the government introduced new charges - inapplicable to a military commission - after the original, appropriate ones collapsed:

The military commissions exist to try war crimes. Conspiracy is a war crime. Indeed, Robert Jackson himself labored to make that point at Nuremberg and he succeeded. The conspiracy charges were therefore plainly within the competence of the commissions. And he was acquitted on these charges. But in the second round, “material support” charges were addeda crime invented after the fact, in violation of basic legal and constitutional norms. Notwithstanding vacuous Congressional pronouncements, “material support” is not a war crime. For obvious reasonsif it were a war crime, then the laws of war would be criminalizing entire populations that are enlisted in the support of the criminal regimes which not infrequently in human history have come to power.

If the administration had stuck to the Geneva Conventions, given all captives POW status (not full, but basic), constructed the kind of trials that the US did at Nuremberg, we would not only have been able to use the prosecution of many of these terrorists to broadcast the difference between them and us, we could have kept the guilty from ever being released - at least until Osama bin Laden surrendered. Instead, we have detained and tortured countless innocents, made a mockery of Western standards of justice, pulled the rug from under the Geneva Conventions - one of the greatest achievements of the civilized world - and allowed terrorists and their enablers to run free after a few months.

Could they have ballsed this up any more thoroughly?

Jump to comments

2006-2011 archives for The Daily Dish, featuring Andrew Sullivan

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Tracing Sriracha's Origin to a Seaside Town in Thailand

Ever wonder how the wildly popular hot sauce got its name? It all started in Si Racha.


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Where the Wild Things Go

A government facility outside of Denver houses more than a million products of the illegal wildlife trade, from tigers and bears to bald eagles.

Video

Adults Need Playtime Too

When was the last time you played your favorite childhood game?

Video

Is Wine Healthy?

James Hamblin prepares to impress his date with knowledge about the health benefits of wine.

Video

The World's Largest Balloon Festival

Nine days, more than 700 balloons, and a whole lot of hot air

Writers

Up
Down