Seven years ago, Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, was captured by the US in Afghanistan and sent to Guantanmo Bay. Today, they convicted him of "material support for terrorism". But despite the pretences of the Bush Administration, this was not justice; rather it was a show trial, a mockery of the judicial process in which any connection with justice was entirely accidental.
The internationally accepted standards for a fair trial are laid down in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They include impartial judges and juries, the right to legal assistance, and the right to properly challenge evidence put before the court. Other parts of our legal tradition bar the use of coerced and hearsay evidence as unreliable. Salim Hamdan had none of those protections. A partial judge, a jury whose career prospects depended on returning a conviction, restrictions on his right to representation, non-disclosure of evidence by the prosecution, secret rulings, the use of secret and hearsay "evidence" and coerced testimony... It's no surprise that this system resulted in a conviction - that was, after all, the point. What is surprising is that he was acquitted on one of the charges. And given the degree to which the deck was stacked against him, this can only mean that the prosecution's "evidence" must have been really, really bad.
As with the farcical trial of Saddam Hussein, the way this conviction was obtained has irrevocably tainted it. People will always be able to claim that this was victor's justice, a vile act of revenge by a nation desperate for someone to punish for September 11. And they wouldn't be entirely wrong. If the US wants these convictions to have any credibility, then it has to do them properly. And that means fair trials, in an ordinary courtroom, under normal standards of evidence. America would insist on such protections were any of its own citizens accused of terrorism overseas; it can do no less for those it accuses itself.
