LONDON (middleastonline.com) - Amnesty International attacked the conviction of Osama bin Laden's former driver at Guantanamo Bay Wednesday, and reiterated its call for all detainees to be tried in civilian, not military, courts.

""The conviction of Salim Hamdan under procedures that do not meet international fair trial standards compounds the injustice of his more than five years' unlawful detention in Guantanamo,"" Amnesty said in a statement.
Hamdan now faces possible life imprisonment after being found guilty of providing material support to terrorism. He was acquitted of more serious terrorist conspiracy charges.
The verdict, delivered by military jurors at the naval base in Cuba, was welcomed by the White House.
But the London-based international human rights group said the whole system of trying suspects before military jurors is ""fundamentally flawed"", adding all such tribunals should be stopped and suspects tried in civilian courts.
It also wants Guantanamo to be shut down entirely.
Meanwhile Reprieve, a British legal charity founded by lawyer Clive Stafford Smith who has a string of clients in Guantanamo, said Hamdan's trial was ""unjust and illegal"".
""Fighting terrorism is a deadly serious game but the show trial of Salim Hamdan looks like amateur hour,"" said its legal director Zachary Katznelson.
He charged that evidence gained through coercion had been at the heart of the prosecution case.
The Center for Constitutional Rights said the trial ""violated two of the most fundamental criminal justice principles accepted by all civilized nations: the prohibition on the use of coerced evidence and the prohibition on retroactive criminal law.""
""The trial will not create finality,"" it said. ""The decision to keep these cases out of the ordinary criminal courts will produce years of appeals over novel legal issues raised by the untested military commissions system.""
Human Rights Watch focused on ""irregularities"" permitting the introduction in court of prejudicial material not related to the accused and statements obtained under duress, among other ""fundamental flaws"" of the U.S. military commissions.
""A trial that depends on handicapping the defense can't possibly be fair,"" said Jennifer Daskal, an attorney for the group. ""The military judge tried at times to mitigate the commission's most unjust rules, but the flaws in the system won out.""
""The prosecution was able to introduce confessions by Hamdan that never would have been admitted in civilian or regular military courts,"" echoed Jonathan Drimmer, a legal expert and former prosecutor. ""It does undermine the administration's claim of a fair trial.""