Mr. Salim Hamdan has been found guilty of aiding terrorism. His trial verdict at Guantanamo Bay is, for some, vindication of the Bush administration's efforts to render justice on terrorist suspects. For others, it is a cruel attempt to extract some measure of retribution against individuals who are connected marginally at most to the U.S.-led war on terror.
The verdict is proof that the tribunals are not kangaroo courts, but it's not clear if the process can be considered real "justice." Equally significant, it is unclear if the cost to America's reputation is worth the costs of using this particular procedure.
Mr. Hamdan was captured in southern Afghanistan in November 2001 and taken to the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay half a year later. He was charged with supporting terrorism, being a member of al-Qaida, conspiring in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, and helping bin Laden after those attacks. That bill of particulars looked solid, especially since the car he was driving when stopped at a roadblock in Afghanistan contained two surface-to-air missiles. In fact, however, Mr. Hamdan was bin Laden's driver and bodyguard, a low-level member of his motor pool with a fourth-grade education. There was no evidence that he knew about the terror attacks in the U.S. or elsewhere.