| The crux of the matter is that Khadr, like every other detainee at Gitmo, is not classified as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant" - which is the basis for Bush's war trial system.
MY GOD! Could they really have missed it that easily??
In the ruling by Army Col. Peter Brownback, the judge said he had no choice but to throw out the charges. The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, said he had no choice but to throw the Khadr case out because he had been classified as an "enemy combatant" by a military panel years earlier — and not as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant."
The Military Commissions Act, signed by Bush last year, specifically says that only those classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants can face war trials here, Brownback noted during the arraignment in a hilltop courtroom on this U.S. military base.
Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, who represented the defense, further adds this: The chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, said the ruling in the case of Canadian detainee Omar Khadr could spell the end of the war-crimes trial system set up last year by Congress and
President Bush after the Supreme Court threw out the previous system.
Now even more strange: The prosecution can appeal...but the court designed to hear the appeal DOES NOT EVEN EXIST.
Ok, apologies for the emotions & the weird fonts & all, but somebody tell me this is just my imagination or crazy talk.
Update:
Sullivan says this is not just a technicality: Sullivan said the dismissal of Khadr case has "huge" impact because none of the detainees held at this isolated military base in southeast Cuba has been found to be an "unlawful" enemy combatant.
"It is not just a technicality — it's the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work," Sullivan told journalists. "It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values."
I must add that Khadr, a Canadian citizen, will remain at Gitmo.
Update II:
Khadr was only 15 when he was arrested for killing an American soldier. Personally, I grieve for the soldier, but I question the legality of charging enemy soldiers of, well, basically doing what they were supposed to do: battle their enemies.
This is not a defense of Al Qaida. But if you start charges soldiers with war crimes because they are, well, soldiers following orders, then isn't that what Al Qaida & other groups are doing who have video-taped "trials" & executions of American soldiers?
Aren't you - we or really George Bush giving Al Qaida legal grounds on which to justify their war crimes trials?
I'm sure the lawyers in the group are saying DUH, but I throw the question out there to facilitate discussion. |
