The NYT on the Hamdan ruling

Posted by: ST on August 7, 2008 at 2:02 pm

I’m buried under as usual today but I wanted to link up to Andy McCarthy’s slam of today’s NYT editorial, which is titled “Guilty as Ordered” (emphasis mine) in reference to the recent guilty ruling in Gitmo’s Hamdan trial.    As expected, the NYT is reflexively anti-Bush, strongly implying that he is a dicator prone to imperial rule.  Both McCarthy’s rebuttal, as well as NRO’s response, go a long way towards providing the details the NYT, of course, won’t. 

(Hat tip: ST reader Leslie)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One Response to “The NYT on the Hamdan ruling”


  1. NC Cop says:

    Yes, but this lowlife only got 5 1/2 years. Unbelievable. 5 1/2 years.

    Bin Laden’s Driver Gets 5 1/2 Years

    Salim Hamdan’s sentence of 5 1/2 years, including five years and a month already served at Guantanamo Bay, fell far short of the 30 years to life that prosecutors wanted.

    B-b-b-b-ut I thought that King George ordered his conviction? Surely, he would order more of a sentence then that, eh New York Times?? You must have something nice to say about him now, after all, he only gave your biggest fan a 5 1/2 year sentence.

    “I would like to apologize one more time to all the members and I would like to thank you for what you have done for me,” Hamdan told the panel of six U.S. military officers, hand-picked by the Pentagon for the first U.S. war crimes trial in a half century.

    If it weren’t so tragic, I could laugh……