US NAVAL BASE AT GUANTANAMO BAY, August 6, 2008 (AFP) - US military jurors are to resume deliberations on Wednesday in the trial against Osama bin Laden's driver, even though defense lawyers and rights advocates have dismissed the 'war on terror' tribunal system as fundamentally unfair.

Defense lawyers said the first full trial before the special military tribunals set up by President George W. Bush showed the system was skewed in favor of prosecutions, allowing hearsay evidence and information gathered during allegedly coercive interrogations.

As six military officers prepared for a third day of deliberations on whether Salim Hamdan conspired and assisted the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, defense lawyers told reporters the trial was 'lacking in certain fundamental rights that would be available in any other American courtroom.'

Asked if he had faith in the jurors weighing the evidence against his client, one of Hamdan's lawyers, Charles Swift said: 'It's not a problem with the people (on the jury), it's a problem with the system.'

Prosecutors and US military officials say the tribunal offers suspects a fair trial, arguing that accused terrorists cannot be treated as ordinary soldiers in uniform answering to a state army.

Hamdan, a Yemeni national with a fourth-grade education who has spent more than six years at the Guantnamo prison, remained anxious as he waited for the verdict, Swift said.

'He's tense,' he said. 'He's doing about as well as any client I've ever had at this stage in the proceedings.'

In a two-week trial at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prosecutors alleged Hamdan was part of bin Laden's inner circle and helped transport weapons.

Defense attorneys instead painted him as a minor figure with no involvement in Al-Qaeda plots.

Hamdan faces a possible sentence of life in prison if at least four of the six jurors find him guilty.

Rights advocates are predicting a guilty verdict on at least some of the counts, and defense lawyers are expected to appeal after raising objections to evidence presented by prosecutors.

Human rights groups slammed the trial as proof that the tribunal system should be scrapped in favor of regular civilian or military courts, saying dubious interrogations were allowed as evidence.

New York-based Human Rights Watch said that 'statements made at Guantanamo were allowed into evidence, despite reports that Hamdan had been subject to extensive sleep deprivation, sexual harassment, and other abuse.'

A fresh dispute over what constitutes a war crime arose Tuesday even as jurors weighed a verdict, with the prosecution asking the judge to change the instructions to the jury.

The judge, Navy officer Keith Allred, acknowledged he may have made a mistake but said it was too late to change course. He chose to let his instructions stand and prosecutors dropped their objection to avoid a mistrial.

The government prosecutors had argued that jurors should weigh if Hamdan helped transport surface-to-air missiles to be used against US forces. The judge had advised them to decide if the missiles were to be used against targets deemed off-limits by the rules of war, such as civilians, chaplains or medics.

In the end, the prosecutors relented, but asked that the point of law be clarified for future trials of Guantanamo inmates involving conspiracy charges.

Chief prosecutor Lawrence Morris told reporters the dispute showed the fairness of the tribunal system 'that fully litigates the issues.'

Even if he is cleared of the charges, Hamdan could remain behind bars at Guantanamo indefinitely as he is defined as an 'unlawful enemy combatant.'

The first US war crimes trial since World War II is seen as paving the way for cases against the most high-profile detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.