Peter F Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Seems this terrorist scum couldn't be convicted of "aiding and supporting terrorism" because there is no such crime under international law. Certainly its a crime in the USofA but only since 2006 and not before. In short, neither the major conventions on the law of warnor prominent modern international tribunals nor leading international-law experts have identified material support for terrorism as a war crime. Perhaps most telling, before this case, no person has ever been tried by an international-law war crimes tribunal for material support for terrorism. Not surprisingly, therefore, even the U.S. Government concedes in this case that material support for terrorism is not a recognized international-law war crime. No treaty that the Government has cited or that we are aware of identifies material support for terrorism as a war crime. And the Government further admits: The “offense of providing material support to terrorism, like spying and aiding the enemy, has not attained international recognition at this time as a violation of customary international law.” To be sure, there is a strong argument that aiding and abetting a recognized international-law war crime such as terrorism is itself an international-law war crime. And there are other similar war crimes. But Hamdan was not charged with aiding and abetting terrorism or some other similar war crime. He was charged with material support for terrorism. And as the Government acknowledges, aiding and abetting terrorism prohibits different conduct, imposes different mens rea requirements, and entails different causation standards than material support for terrorism. If the Government wanted to charge Hamdan with aiding and abetting terrorism or some other war crime that was sufficiently rooted in the international law of war (and thus covered by 10 U.S.C. § 821) at the time of Hamdan’s conduct, it should have done so. (snip) In short, material support for terrorism was not an international-law war crime under 10 U.S.C. § 821 at the time Hamdan engaged in the relevant conduct. Because we read the Military Commissions Act not to sanction retroactive punishment for new crimes, and because material support for terrorism was not a pre-existing war crime under 10 U.S.C. § 821, Hamdan’s conviction for material support for terrorism cannot stand. We reverse the decision of the Court of Military Commission Review and direct that Hamdan’s conviction for material support for terrorism be vacated. So ordered. from "United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 3, 2012 Decided October 16, 2012 No. 11-1257 SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT On Petition for Review from the United States Court of Military Commission Review" pdf file found at http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/10/federal-appeals-court-vacates-hamdan-conviction.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Seems this terrorist scum couldn't be convicted of "aiding and supporting terrorism" because there is no such crime under international law. Certainly its a crime in the USofA but only since 2006 and not before. Shhh, if it was a crime anywhere outside the US, the US might get charged with it too. Best for all concerned if this terrorist get to have it's cake and eat it too don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.