White House defends US terror tribunals

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

White House defends US terror tribunals

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration argued Friday
that discrepancies between the nation's new terror law
and the way it is being carried out should not stall
one of the Pentagon's first terrorism trials.

Arguing before the newly formed U.S. Court of Military
Commission Review, government attorneys urged judges
to look beyond the letter of the law when deciding
whether the military undermined its terrorism tribunals
at Guantanamo Bay.

The case hinges on a single word: unlawful. Before
terror suspects can be prosecuted before military
commissions, the law requires they be deemed "unlawful
enemy combatants." But Guantanamo Bay tribunals have
simply been calling them "enemy combatants."

Lawyers for Omar Khadr argue that's a fatal flaw in the
government's case and that Khadr can't go before a
military commission. If the three-judge appeals court
agrees, it could force the Pentagon to redo tribunals
for dozens of detainees.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070824/ap_on_go_ot/terror_appeals_court_3

[struggle4progress]

1. Khadr case goes to new U.S. review commission

Aug 25, 2007 04:30 AM
Michelle Shephard
Staff Reporter

WASHINGTON– ...

Government lawyers argued yesterday before a newly created military appeals commission that charges against Khadr should not have been dismissed and implored the panel not to delay the case further.

While yesterday's hearing in a packed courtroom near the White House set a precedent as the first case to go before the Court of Military Commission Review, in practical terms it means Khadr is still likely months from seeing any resolution of it ...

At issue was essentially the absence of one word – "unlawful." The military commissions as signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush last October were mandated to hear cases against "unlawful enemy combatants." ...

"The difference between an unlawful enemy combatant and a lawful enemy combatant is the distinction between being guilty and not guilty. It's not just a word, it's a point of criminality," Canadian lawyer Nathan Whitling said outside of court yesterday ...

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/249724

[Demeter]

2. Always defending the Indefensible n/t

[zara]

3. Call 'em inquisitions and make Dick Cheney "Judge"...

jury and executioner? : (

[Supersedeas]

4. begin by stripping words of their plain meaning....

[gratuitous]

5. Aw come onnnnnn

Geez laweez, you're gonna get all nit-picky over every last word in a law? Sheesh. Just try 'em, fry 'em and be done with 'em. They're terrorists! Dubya hisself said so, and if you can't take the word of the Commander in Chief, then you obviously hate the troops. We can keep running these military tribunals until we get all the combatants, even the ones who claim to be American citizens, you know.

Now, knock off all this judicial activism and give us the blood we're thirsting for. Church starts in half an hour.