June 4, 2007
AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO STOP TRYING TO TEACH THE FISH TO RIDE A BICYCLE:
Guantanamo Bay case thrown out (Mark Oliver, June 4, 2007, Guardian Unlimited
Army Colonel Peter Brownback, the tribunal judge, said a military review board had labelled Mr Khadr an "enemy combatant" during a 2004 hearing in Guantánamo.However, the Military Commissions Act adopted by the US Congress in 2006 said only "unlawful enemy combatants" could be tried in the Guantánamo tribunals.
Today Col Brownback said Khadr did not meet that strict definition. "The charges are dismissed without prejudice," the military judge said before adjourning the proceedings. [...]
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". [...]
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.
Of course, even the lawful combatants we've captured have never been considered to have any right to trial at all, so not hearing "cases" is the best option. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 4, 2007 12:52 PM
I am quite confused. It was not an order of release, it seems. Does this mean we can just hold him without trial?
Posted by: Bob at June 4, 2007 2:16 PM"I am quite confused. It was not an order of release, it seems. Does this mean we can just hold him without trial?"
With any luck.
Posted by: John at June 4, 2007 2:56 PMGentlemen: If he is not a war criminal, then he is a prisoner of war. Prisoners of war are released at the cessation of hostilities, not before.
I would have to know facts beyond what the article discloses to figure out what is going on here. The detainee might still be a war criminal, what we now like to call a "unlawful combatant, if he was fighting unlawfully, such as sans uniform of the equivalent, or feigning surrender--something like that.
A catch here is tha the seems to have been fighting for the Taliban, which were sufficiently organized and in control of enough of Afghanistan to gain previleged belligerency, so he might not be a war crimnal just because of the alQaeda connection.
Another catch is that the enemy and the axis of weasels grant privileged belligerency to all kind of sand-critter bandits. Pretty much anyone killing Jews or Americans gets a free pass.
I'm starting to get an uncomfortable feeling about this. It may be that we are sumbitting to the weasels' definitions because we lack the will to defy them.
Posted by: Lou Gots at June 4, 2007 3:50 PMLou - indeed. It is entirely possible that the military (the JAG corps) is getting tired of having to carry all the political water. And from what we have read, there are more than a few George Voinovichs in its ranks, as well as frustrated officers trying to thread the needles from the Court.
Posted by: ratbert at June 4, 2007 4:19 PM"Gentlemen: If he is not a war criminal, then he is a prisoner of war. Prisoners of war are released at the cessation of hostilities, not before."
That's all that matters - he's a prisoner of war. Prisoners of war get put on trial if we feel like charging them with war crimes. Even if he had a trial and was found innocent of war crimes, he's still a prisoner of war. We still hold him until the end of hostilities. Anything else would be suicidally stupid.
Posted by: John at June 5, 2007 12:59 PM