A U.S. military jury found Osama Bin Laden's former driver guilty of five counts of material support to a terror organization in the September 11, 2001, attacks.
In a split verdict, jurors found Salim Hamdan not guilty of conspiracy to aid a terror organization, in this case al Qaeda.
There were eight charges in all, and Hamdan was acquitted of conspiracy, the most serious one. How does that justify "...Found guilty in Terror Trial," which is the headline on their home page? (Link goes to BBC article that also says "found guilty".)
Last line in the BBC article:
However, defence lawyers had feared a guilty verdict was inevitable and said the system was geared to convict.
In George Bush's pentagon? No way!
More here, with at least a (homepage) headline that reflects reality, "Bin Laden's Driver Found Guilty in Split Verdict."
"This is not a day the administration should glory in. It's a day that America should be ashamed of," deputy chief defense counsel Michael Berrigan said after testimony ended in the two-week trial. "Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, this process will go away and we'll have real trials."
The NYTimes says he faced only two charges. How weird. The BBC and CNN both say eight.
Sheesh! The LATimes says there were ten charges! Does anybody actually know?