Guantanamo Bay Case Thrown Out

The Guardian ^ | mark Oliver and agencies

[Parmenio]

The US military's system of tribunals at Guantánamo Bay was thrown into chaos today after a military judge threw out all charges against a young Canadian detainee. One senior military official said the ruling in the case of Omar Khadr could have a "huge impact" on the controversial tribunals at the US navy's detention centre in Cuba, the Associated Press reported. The judge said Mr Khadr… did not meet the definition of those subject to trial under the new laws in effect at the tribunals.

[Parmenio]

This is a bizarre and incoherent ruling, worthy of the late Rehnquist court. It can potentially affect nearly every case at Guantanamo. There appears to be a way to resume prosecutions however:

"While Col Brownback dismissed the charges, he left open the possibility that they could be re-filed if Mr Khadr went back before a review board and was formally classified as an "unlawful enemy combatant".

[Dark Wing]

ping

[sono]

So much for the weeping and the gnashing of teeth over the unfairness of military tribunals.

[Brilliant]

Apparently, the statute is defective. Why is it that Congress can’t get this right? They’ve re-written that statute over and over again, and every time they do, it’s still defective.

Are they just terminally incompetent? Can’t they do anything right? When will the media point out their failings?

[HaveHadEnough]

Col Brownback had rejected a prosecution argument that Mr Khadr clearly met the definition of an "unlawful" combatant because he fought for al-Qaida, which was not part of the regular, uniformed armed forces of any nation.

That's the definition? How is anyone supposed to start a revolution against Communist dictatorships (Cubans fighting in the Bay of pigs battle?) and not be declared an unlawful enemy combatant?

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

Mr Khadr has been accused of killing a US soldier with a grenade and wounding another in a battle at a suspected al-Qaida compound in Afghanistan in 2002.

Col Brownback had rejected a prosecution argument that Mr Khadr clearly met the definition of an "unlawful" combatant because he fought for al-Qaida, which was not part of the regular, uniformed armed forces of any nation.

The prosecution also said it was prepared to produce a video of Mr Khadr wearing civilian clothes while planting a roadside bomb, as evidence he was an unlawful combatant.

Not clear if this is a technicality that is easily remedied, that is the military simply overlooked declaring these people "unlawful" combatants, or something more serious.

[SFC Chromey]

-Sorry for the thread hi-jack-

“That’s the definition? How is anyone supposed to start a revolution against Communist dictatorships (Cubans fighting in the Bay of pigs battle?) and not be declared an unlawful enemy combatant?”

To the Cuban Commie gov’t they would be unlawful enemy combatants.

[PghBaldy]

It APPEARS that is the case- the govt goofed - it would have been easy to show he was an alien unlawful enemy combatant, or whatever the tongue-twister is. If so, it is a collossal mistake. HOPEfully, it has not and will not be repeated.