Judges Toss Guantanamo Charges against Two Jihadis

Sometimes, it’s hard to determine who the bigger idiots are in the war between western liberal civilization and Fascislam. Earlier this week, some morons on the side of the latter thought they could blow up the fuel supplies at New York’s Kennedy airport, despite certain laws of chemistry that would make it virtually impossible. Now, it turns out that the US Congress can’t write a law that allows for kangaroo courts for Guantanamo prisoners that passes muster with military judges. The legislation allows military tribunals for “unlawful enemy combatants,” but military judges tossed all charges against two prisoners because their status was merely “enemy combatants.” With all the lawyers in Congress, one might have thought they could write a law that the military could follow.

The decision doesn’t mean that Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen and Omar Khadr, a Canadian who was 15 when he was arrested on an Afghan battlefield, can go home to their families now. White House spokesman Tony Fratto claimed, “In no way does this decision affect the appropriateness of the military commission system.” That isn’t entirely true, however. Since it appears that the military commission system was created with a law that cannot apply to those who are to be tried under it, the appropriateness is entirely doubtful. Logic has never been a strong suit with this administration.

Madeline Morris, a Duke University law professor told MSNBC, “The fundamental problem is that the law was not carefully written. It was rushed through in a flurry of political pressure from the White House . . . and it is quite riddled with internal contradictions and anomalies.” As an example of the mess Professor Morris cites, the prosecution will appeal the rulings. However, the court to which it must appeal, known as the court of military commissions review, doesn’t even exist yet.

So what’s the big deal about “unlawful?” “Enemy combatant” surely is bad enough. Except that the Geneva Conventions apply to lawful combatants. Professor Morris noted that the Military Commissions Act defines a lawful enemy combatant, in addition to a uniformed fighter belonging to a regular force — as “a member of a militia, volunteer corps or organized resistance movement belonging to a state party engaged in such hostilities and who meets four additional criteria.” This means the US government must actually prove their unlawful status in a court, and if it fails, Mr. Bush’s policy regarding these individuals unravels entirely.

The judge in charge of Mr. Khadr’s case, Colonel Peter Brownback, ruled, “The charges are dismissed without prejudice,” meaning the military can come back with a new charge sheet and try again. In all likelihood, the military would have to hold a new combat status review tribunal for each prisoner, secure a decision that the prisoner was an “unlawful enemy combatant,” and then issue new charges.

The real problem, though, with the situation was summed up by the chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay, Marine Colonel Dwight Sullivan. “It is not just a technicality; it’s the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work. It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values.” Colonel Sullivan clearly understands the Marine motto “Semper Fidelis” (Always Loyal) applies to the idea of America, not to the commanding officer of the day.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home