drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,

When we say justice, what should we mean?

An interersting take on the recent Military Tribunal Refusal to breach the US Commitment to Law And Order:
The decision by a U.S. military judge to dismiss war crime and terror-related charges against Canadian Omar Khadr was met with anger by one of the soldiers wounded in the Afghan firefight Khadr is alleged to have taken part in.

Layne Morris, who was a Special Forces sergeant in Afghanistan in 2002, was hurt in an attack on U.S. troops that saw his fellow sergeant Christopher Speer killed. Morris admitted being upset when he heard about the dismissal of charges, but said he felt better when he found out that the 20-year-old could still be punished for his actions. The military judge overseeing Khadr's arraignment ruled that he had no jurisdiction in the case. The dismissal seemed to stem from the wording, and the fact that Khadr had been classified as an "enemy combatant" and not and "alien unlawful enemy combatant."

[ cf U.S. Soldier Wounded In Firefight Involving Khadr Wants Justice ]

Should we set a precedence that foreign nationals would be allowed to steal americans because they had served in a military unit and killed and/or wounded other soldiers on the battlefield?

With one word _ "unlawful" _ the only two war-crimes trials against Guantanamo detainees fell apart in a single day, marking a stunning setback to Washington's attempts to try dozens of detainees in military court.
Defense attorneys and legal experts blamed the rush by Congress and President Bush last year to restore the war-crimes trials after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the previous system, declaring it unconstitutional. In a remarkable coincidence, it was Hamdan's lawsuit that wound up in the Supreme Court.

In both of Monday's cases, the judges ruled that the new legislation says only "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the military trials, known as commissions. But Khadr and Hamdan previously had been identified by military panels here only as enemy combatants, lacking the critical "unlawful" designation.
Prosecuting attorneys in both cases indicated they would appeal the dismissals. But the court designated to hear the appeals _ known as the court of military commissions review _ doesn't even exist yet, said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay.

[ cf Judges at Guantanamo Throw Out 2 Cases (emphasis mine) ]

Would this be but one more time the current administration had gone off half cocked?

Or was the current administration convinced that the Trials would all end with the Courts Throwing Flowers at the Liberators who had freed them all from the Rule Of Law.
Tags: law, trials, war

  • What if we had to be a nation of laws

    First off a h/t to a dear fiend, for Crackdown on herd-share farms over certification which is such a classical attack of the FeeMarketeers meets…

  • why do folks forget the clinton years?

    Essentially I agree with When The Magic Starts in that there is much that will need to be undone from the failure of the deregulation game that was…

  • Oil does not grow on trees.

    Let us start from the premise that fossil fuels are not like renewable products such as fruits, vegetables and other forms of…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.