Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
MiamiHerald.com
April 15, 2008 By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for a Canadian detainee asked a civilian appeals court Tuesday to intervene in his terrorism case. If the court agrees, it would provide new judicial oversight on the Bush administration's terrorism prosecution system.
But the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit questioned whether it had the authority to get involved.
The case was brought by Omar Khadr, who is accused of the grenade killing of a U.S. soldier in a July 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.
Khadr was among the first detainees scheduled to be tried under the new military commission system. But a military judge ruled last year that he couldn't face trial because he had been designated an enemy combatant -- not an ''unlawful'' enemy combatant as the law requires. Lawful combatants are afforded prisoner-of-war status and other rights.
A special appeals court overturned that decision and set Khadr's case back on track for trial. His lawyers are asking a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court to intervene and settle whether Khadr's trial can proceed.
Since most, if not all, Guantánamo Bay detainees were regularly labeled enemy combatants without the ''unlawful'' tag, attorney Karl Thompson argued, the civilian court needs to resolve the issue before dozens of detainees face trial.
The 2006 terrorism law strips civilian courts of most authority over Guantánamo Bay cases. The appeals court can only review final decisions and Justice Department attorney John De Pue said no final decision has been made.
Chief Judge David B. Sentelle seemed to agree. The court can only get involved when the law allows, he said, and the new law doesn't expressly give that authority. The court did not immediately rule on whether to dismiss the appeal.
April 15, 2008 By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for a Canadian detainee asked a civilian appeals court Tuesday to intervene in his terrorism case. If the court agrees, it would provide new judicial oversight on the Bush administration's terrorism prosecution system.
But the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit questioned whether it had the authority to get involved.
The case was brought by Omar Khadr, who is accused of the grenade killing of a U.S. soldier in a July 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.
Khadr was among the first detainees scheduled to be tried under the new military commission system. But a military judge ruled last year that he couldn't face trial because he had been designated an enemy combatant -- not an ''unlawful'' enemy combatant as the law requires. Lawful combatants are afforded prisoner-of-war status and other rights.
A special appeals court overturned that decision and set Khadr's case back on track for trial. His lawyers are asking a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court to intervene and settle whether Khadr's trial can proceed.
Since most, if not all, Guantánamo Bay detainees were regularly labeled enemy combatants without the ''unlawful'' tag, attorney Karl Thompson argued, the civilian court needs to resolve the issue before dozens of detainees face trial.
The 2006 terrorism law strips civilian courts of most authority over Guantánamo Bay cases. The appeals court can only review final decisions and Justice Department attorney John De Pue said no final decision has been made.
Chief Judge David B. Sentelle seemed to agree. The court can only get involved when the law allows, he said, and the new law doesn't expressly give that authority. The court did not immediately rule on whether to dismiss the appeal.