[ndt]

"...it seems that in arguing to do so, the court thinks the administration presented facts at variance with their previous presentations..."

If you consider totally different charges to be "facts at variance".

He was held because he was planning to set off a dirty bomb, his civilian charges are basically aiding and abetting and have no mention of it.

[ndt]

"are basically aiding and abetting"

Just to clarify, that is not accurate. They are more detailed and involve training camps etc. but the point is that main contention "dirty bomb" is not there.