by Eric Umansky - Among the many oddities of the U.S.'s first war crimes trial since World War II is this: The war crime for which Salim Hamdan was convicted, material support of terrorism, has never before been considered a war crime. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service put it in a report (PDF) last year, "Defining as a war crime the 'material support for terrorism' does not appear to be supported by historical precedent." Hamdan was not convicted of being involved in any plots against civilians. Rather, he was found to have supported al-Qaida " through his service as a driver ." There is little doubt that chauffeuring and occasionally serving as a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden violates criminal law. But "war crimes" are a different matter. International law offers a kind of bargain: Soldiers are allowed to do things that would normally be criminal—namely, kill their enemy. At the same time, they can be prosecuted under international law for acts the world has decided are particularly heinous, such as rape, genocide and torture. The problem with material support is that it’s never been considered one of those acts. "I can't see it being a violation of war to support combat," says David Glazier , a national security law expert at Loyola Law School and former naval officer. Glazier, who wrote a thoughtful post himself about the Hamdan verdict, thinks the government should have treated Hamdan either as a prisoner of war ...
Anytime
by Eric Umansky - Among the many oddities of the U.S.'s first war crimes trial since World War II is this: The war crime for which Salim Hamdan was convicted, material support of terrorism, has never before been considered a war crime. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service put it in a report (PDF) last year, "Defining as a war crime the 'material support for terrorism' does not appear to be supported by historical precedent." Hamdan was not convicted of being involved in any plots against civilians. Rather, he was found to have supported al-Qaida " through his service as a driver ." There is little doubt that chauffeuring and occasionally serving as a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden violates criminal law. But "war crimes" are a different matter. International law offers a kind of bargain: Soldiers are allowed to do things that would normally be criminal—namely, kill their enemy. At the same time, they can be prosecuted under international law for acts the world has decided are particularly heinous, such as rape, genocide and torture. The problem with material support is that it’s never been considered one of those acts. "I can't see it being a violation of war to support combat," says David Glazier , a national security law expert at Loyola Law School and former naval officer. Glazier, who wrote a thoughtful post himself about the Hamdan verdict, thinks the government should have treated Hamdan either as a prisoner of war ...