- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Listening to the discussion and Glenn's question about a terrorist possibly being acquitted by a jury made me think of another situation the preventive detention system might be designed to deal with. Regarding Hamdan:
A jury of six military officers Thursday sentenced Osama bin Laden's former driver to 5½ years in prison after his conviction on charges of providing material support to al Qaeda.
After Salim Hamdan serves his sentence, he could still be kept as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said after the verdict Wednesday that Hamdan was now a "convicted war criminal" and that he was "no longer considered an enemy combatant."
But on Thursday, Whitman said Hamdan's status would revert to "enemy combatant" when his sentence is completed.
As an enemy combatant, Hamdan can be held indefinitely by the United States, although he would be eligible to appeal to an administrative review board to determine whether his status as an enemy combatant should continue.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/hamdan.trial/index.html
This didn't happen - Hamdan was instead sent to Yemen where he served the remainder of his sentence (5 years was considered served) and then released in January. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112403159.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/world/middleeast/12yemen.html?ref=world)
Might the preventive detention system also be designed to encompass those with relatively short sentences, such as Hamdan or the Buffalo Six (whose sentences range from 8-10 years)? Or might some of those who "cannot be tried" be those who, if they were tried and convicted, would likely receive short sentences? The system wouldn't be necessary for someone who could be convicted and given a long sentence, such as Moussaoui, who was sentenced to life in prison.
