Swift made the argument to a military jury tasked with delivering justice for Hamdan. But ultimately, Hamdan's historic case amounted to a show trial, whose outcome -- a much lesser finding of guilt than the Bush administration prosecutors wanted -- only underscored the fundamentally flawed system at Guantánamo. As Michael Berrigan, deputy chief defense counsel for the military commissions, put it after the judge in the case barred some testimony against Hamdan that had been coerced, "Even show trials sometimes get off script."

Every one seems to be assuming that this show trial went off script, that the government really wanted a full conviction and harshest sentence against Hamdan. But is that what the government really wanted?

These are true show trials because the whole world is watching, very skeptically. What the government, or the Bush Administration rather, wants and needs is at least some degree of credibility for them. Starting them off with low level detainees like Hamdan, convicting them fully and awarding the harshest sentences -- with the whole world watching -- would remove any semblance of credibility. But starting off with the low level detainees first, acquitting them or convicting only of minor offenses with a lenient punishment, makes them seem a bit more credible. "See," they will argue, while pretending to be shocked, "the system isn't really rigged after all." Later, when the real baddies have their turn, and the media spotlight is dimmed, they can stage their kangaroo court trials and pro forma convictions.

The point to never forget about this administration is that things are never, but never, as they seem.

The beauty of what's going on at Gitmo is that it shows that kangaroo courts and disregard of the Geneva Conventions in the modern world are not only criminal, they are also ineffectual at achieving policy goals.

Should refuse to participate in this travesty of justice. When you join the military you take an oath to defend the Constitution. Not to support whatever nutjob is currently acting as President.

americans know what their country is. perhaps they always did, but now they also know that the whole world knows they know.

could we have less talk from american liberals about american ideals? there is no restoration of honor possible to a country, for a country reflects the character of it's people, and the american majority have always been perfectly comfortable with dishonor. it began with "all men are created equal" from a slave holder. and everyone who stood between america and a 'bag of gold' has a clear idea of american honor. it is the honor of politicians who rule them, on behalf of rich men who got that way by merciless greed. even americans have sense enough not to let their own young people be alone with a politician, too bad they are not strong enough or smart enough to be equally protective of their nation.

now some poor driver is being passed through the 'legal process' designed to put a coat of powder on the face of power. even some of the legal participants show signs of distaste at their roles, but washing your hands after the fact is well known to be inefficacious in preserving a reputation.

let's hear much less about america's virtues, for they are superficial. the american reality is oppression abroad and at home, in service of the rich. it was designed that way and the design has been brilliantly successful.

Americans like to have this image of their country as "a champion of human rights and the rule of law".

In fact, America has always been rather selective about this - if it didn't suit its geo-political aims then human rights and the rule of law were conveniently forgotten about (e.g. Central America, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan), only to be vociferously championed again in countries perceived as obstructing American interests (e.g. Russia, China, Iran). In fact some countries (e.g. Iraq) have swapped between good guy and good bad status, not because of change in that country, but because of a change in the US's strategic goals.

But in general, I would say America set a good example when it came to human rights and the rule of law.

But no longer.

The long list of abuses perpetrated at Guantanamo and elsewhere has knocked America off its lofty perch and it's an awful long climb back from here.

With no shortage of irony, Judge Allred interrupted, asking, "Geneva Conventions?! What Geneva Conventions?"

That's really the crux of it. Would the US consent to these kinds of show trials being conducted on American citizens captured by a foreign power? That's really the sniff test. Not unlike waterboarding -- if proponents of waterboarding aren't willing to undergo it, is it really the kind of technique our agents should be applying? Would we want American citizens to be waterboarded (e.g., would we respect waterboarding if it was used against Americans?)

Seems fairly obvious that the US wouldn't accept these trials or coercive interrogations perpetrated on our own citizens, so how can there be any justification for them at all? How can they do anything but undermine America's reputation abroad? It leaves "justice" squarely in the domain of what you can get away with, keeps it tied inexorably to power.

As for the image of American virtue and support of human rights and international law? Hah. Long dead -- it's like John McCain's "maverick" cult -- best invoked rhetorically without much inquiry. Best taken on faith, which is likely why it's so popular among the reactionary movement in this country, which relies on faith in unbridled executive power, and not much else. Therein lies the death of even a shadow democracy, even as a deluded people think they're free and fair.

If you believe that Hamdan case projects America and our former rule of law in a bad light, take a look at Pakistani professor Aafia Siddiqui’s treatment by our government. After you read these excerpts from an article by ondelette in the blog Humanity Against Crimes, I know you will want to read and learn more and then see this picture (see sig) of the professor and what she looks like under US “care.” This case really stinks and makes me cry for the nation and government I once respected.

http://humanityagainstcrimes.blogspot.com/

One of the psychological coercions that many of the former Guantanamo inmates, and other inmates have alleged that U.S. interrogators subjected them to has been the sounds of a woman screaming, which they are usually told is their wife. They are often told she is being subject to abuse, including rape. Moazzam Begg, a former prisoner of both Guantanamo and of Bagram, in Afghanistan, related (Begg, Enemy Combatant) that he at some point decided it was not his wife he heard at Bagram, at a later point he decided it wasn't a tape, either, but a woman prisoner. The United States has repeatedly denied that there are female prisoners at Bagram, nevertheless, in early July of this year, Yvonne Ridley, a British correspondent, and an activist for Cage Prisoners, made a plea to free the prisoner known only as "Prisoner 650", whom she cast as "The Grey Lady of Bagram", in reference to her ghost detainee status.

As usually happens with any story like this, it continues to get stranger, and the U.S. government's behavior continues to become completely inappropriate. A short while later, also in July, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), a respected human rights group in Asia which tracks abuses in Central, South, and Southeast Asia, and elsewhere, put out an urgent appeal, in which they linked the Grey Lady and Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani Ph.D. who went missing in early 2003, along with her three children, and has long been believed by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others, to be in secret detention in United States custody.

Then suddenly, the United States, which had maintained that it didn't know her whereabouts, even though there were assurances to her family by Pakistani authorities that she was in custody, did an about face, and claimed that she had been arrested in Ghazni, Afghanistan, southwest of Kabul, carrying bottles of liquids supposedly for making explosives, with a copy of, or xeroxes from the Anarchist's Arsenal in her purse, and her eldest son (currently 12). We note in passing, just for completeness, that the Anarchist's Arsenal is available from Amazon books. Allegedly, American officials, consisting of U.S. military and FBI agents, arrived to question her, and she allegedly grabbed a gun that had been put on the floor near her (she was allegedly behind a cloth screen), and began yelling and shot twice, allegedly at the Afghani officer, and yelled "Allah Akbar" and "Get the fuck out of here." The U.S. military shot back and supposedly wounded her in the chest (although she now has a wound in the lower abdomen), after which they wrestled her to the ground, which supposedly required several American males to do, she was finally subdued when she passed out from her injury. For completeness, and also because it came up in court, she weighs less than 50 kilos.

Yes, court. She was then supposedly treated in Afghanistan, extradition was approved by the Afghan government, and she arrived in New York City to be arraigned in court on charges of attempting to kill a U.S. federal officer, on August 3rd. She was apparently too weak to do this, she answered affirmatively when asked if she understood the charges, but then shook her head "in disbelief". The judge made a remark at the speed with which she was extradited, saying that he couldn't get a person extradited from the Bronx to Manhattan in that time. A bail hearing was set for August 11th. Her lawyers asked for medical treatment, claiming that she was "oozing", and that she was exceedingly weak (the new photo of her does not look at all healthy, she looks emaciated and her skin color is not good, her nose has been broken at some point). The judge ordered medical care for her as well. (see photo at sig)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/05/PH2008080503673.html