At the risk of hyperbole, I'm posting this incredible story I just saw.
The AP is reporting that a military judge has thrown out terrorism charges against Omar Khadr, a detainee at Guantanamo.
That's a serious blow to Bush's whole war-crimes trial system that he's put up by itself.
However, what may be more stunning is that this ruling could throw out THE ENTIRE WAR-CRIMES TRIAL SYSTEM. And how? Because a technicality which appears to have been caused by the Bush Administration itself.
Get it? They create a system which ignores international human rights and American system of laws, but then they screw up that whole screwed up system with a screw up!!
Update: Lawyer says this is not just a technicality. See Notes at end.
Update 6: As predicted by the defense lawyer of this case, the judge in the trial of Bin Laden's driver threw out those charges as well on the same grounds - that he did not have jurisdiction.
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.
Update III: Additional background on Military Commissions Act
Congress created the Military Commissions Act in response to a Supreme Court ruling which last June threw out a previous military tribunal system that was set up in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In Hamden vs. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that Bush violated both American miliatry codes as well as the Geneva convetions.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay "violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions."
Update IV: Application of MCA, questions that it pertains to US Citizens, and preventing prosecution of those who abuse the MCA
There's some controversy as to whether MCA applies to US citizens. Here's to hoping we don't have to test this, but I suspect the courts will decide.
The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."
While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien unlawful enemy combatants, earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.
However, what's as interesting (& yeah, many of you know this), is that there are provisions in the MCA to prevent prosecution of those who abuse the MCA - and these provisions are retroactive.
As Human Rights Watch stated, this basically gave US officials a get out of jail free card - after they jailed others & tortured them:
Notably, the legislation narrows the scope of the War Crimes Act, decriminalizing certain past acts. Previously, the War Crimes Act criminalized all violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, as well as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Anyone responsible for any Common Article 3 violation, including the cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment of detainees, could be prosecuted under the law.
The MCA revises this portion of the War Crimes Act, replacing the blanket criminalization of Common Article 3 violations with a list of "grave breaches" of Common Article 3, which are specified and defined in the legislation. And the law is amended retroactively to November 26, 1997, meaning that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law.
Looks like the lawyers for Bushies knew this act was garbage & were doing some CYA....
Update 5: How Bush's war crimes trials compromise American soldiers' safety and can lead to more unfortunate events like today's executions.
As I stated above, the charges against Omar Khadr are suspect IMHO because they are accusing him of doing that which he was supposed to do: that is to fight the enemy and follow his commander's orders.
Are we really going to put a soldier on trial for following orders and for, well, being a soldier?
If so, then are we - or really George Bush handing Al Qaida the rationale to defend today's cowardly execution of 3 soldiers?
I grieve for those soldiers and it angers me to think that their safety could have been compromised in any away by the zealous acts of Bushco.
The Geneva Conventions are not an "antiquated" set of rules. They protect the lives of soldiers and civilians caught in course of combat. They not only protect our enemies - but they also protect our soldiers.
So even if you didn't believe in humane treatment of enemy combatants, you treat them respectfully to safeguard your own soldiers.
And, yes, these guys are terrorists and bad folks, but by violating their human rights, Bush put the human rights of American soldiers at risk.
my 2 cents....
Update 6: Dominos...Charges against Bin Laden's driver dismissed.
As Sullivan predicted, Khadr's ruling paved the way for the charges against Bin Laden's driver to be dismissed.
Military judges dismissed charges Monday against a Guantanamo detainee who chauffeured Osama bin Laden and another who allegedly killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, marking a stunning setback to Washington's attempts to try detainees in military court.
A judge said he did not have jurisdiction to try bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, under a 2006 U.S. law authorizing the tribunals for foreign terrorism suspects. It was the second major legal victory for Hamdan, who last year won a U.S. Supreme Court challenge that scrapped the first Guantanamo tribunal system.
From a Frameshop perspective, that means that Bush screwed up royally & just let 380 "terrorists" escape justice.
That's not 100% true - starting with the idea that all these men are dangerous terrorists. Many appear to be innocent or just grunts making a living or following orders.
However, the point is that Bushco's incompetence is once again highlighted by their careless classification of these detainees.
The meme should be: How can Bush & the GOP protect us from the terrorists if they let them off because of a technicality?