Jury ends second day of deliberations in Hamdan trial (Roundup)

Aug 5, 2008, 21:55 GMT

Washington - A military jury ended its second day of deliberations on Tuesday in the case of Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Hamdan, who faces up to life in prison if convicted of conspiracy and supporting terrorism.

The six-person jury consisting of US military officers met Tuesday morning, ending their closed-door deliberations without rendering a verdict, and are expected to meet again Wednesday morning, Lieutenant Catherine Pully, a spokeswoman for the commissions, said by telephone from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Hamdan's case is the first to go to trial in the military commissions ordered by President George W Bush, and also the beginning of the first US military tribunals since World War II.

The prosecution and defence wrapped up closing arguments and the jury began deliberating on Monday.

Hamdan, 37, was captured in 2001 in Afghanistan and has been held at Guantanamo since May 2002. He is among the 20 of Guantanamo's 265 detainees facing war crimes charges.

The US government alleges that Hamdan, a Yemeni, was a member of al-Qaeda terrorist network leader Osama bin Laden's inner circle and was aware of terrorist plots. The defence argued that Hamdan merely served as a driver and was not involved in terrorism.

In written answers to questions posed by Hamdan's defence attorneys, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said that Hamdan was a low-level driver and mechanic who was not educated and in no position to support terrorism or have knowledge of potential plots.

Mohammed, who is also held at Guantanamo, refused to testify in court. He and four co-defendants are set to be tried later this year in connection with the September 11 attacks and face the death penalty if convicted.

The Miami Herald reported Tuesday that prosecutors argued the judge, Navy Captain Keith Allred, had incorrectly issued instructions to the jury by refusing to declare that the killing of lawful combatants by unlawful combatants constituted a war crime.

The defence replied that any change in instructions would be grounds for a mistrial.