Guardian:

The US military's system of tribunals at Guantánamo Bay was thrown into chaos today after a military judge threw out all charges against a young Canadian detainee.
One senior military official said the ruling in the case of Omar Khadr could have a "huge impact" on the controversial tribunals at the US navy's detention centre in Cuba, the Associated Press reported.

The judge said Mr Khadr - who was captured in Afghanistan as a suspected Taliban fighter in 2002 when he was aged 15 - did not meet the definition of those subject to trial under the new laws in effect at the tribunals.

Army Colonel Peter Brownback, the tribunal judge, said a military review board had labelled Mr Khadr an "enemy combatant" during a 2004 hearing in Guantánamo.

However, the Military Commissions Act adopted by the US Congress in 2006 said only "unlawful enemy combatants" could be tried in the Guantánamo tribunals.

Today Col Brownback said Khadr did not meet that strict definition. "The charges are dismissed without prejudice," the military judge said before adjourning the proceedings.

Shortly afterwards, the chief of military defence lawyers at Guantánamo Bay said the ruling had "huge" impact, because none of the remaining Guantánamo detainees has been found to be an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

Today's turn of events at the tribunal is the latest legal setback for the Bush administration over the detainees at the prison camp on the southern tip of Cuba. ...

Reader JR, an Air Force veteran, comments, "This subtle but profound ruling constitutes a revolt by career military officers, especially military lawyers, who have previously compromised their integrity and oath of office to support a President and Administration who lied and violated US and international law to take the nation to war and keep it mired there for years. Note that the courageous ruling is by an Army colonel and the implications quote a Marine colonel -- two officers at the end of their careers who have nothing to lose by placing institutional integrity ahead of loyalty to a commander-in-chief who has none. Sadly, the generals and admirals who should have made such stands over the last five+ years sat mute."

Posted by Laura at June 4, 2007 01:50 PM