What's going on at Guantanamo?
A military judge presiding over a tribunal at Guantanamo threw out the case today of one of the detainees over the definition of his status. (NYTimes, AP)
Frankly, I'm not entirely clear on the significance of the status definitions. I'm assuming that "unlawful" enemy combatant marks a higher and substantially more difficult to prove standard.
However, this decision has extremely broad ramifications as all of the detainees currently facing tribunals share the same status. In other words, the whole system just ground to a halt.
Oh, and then there's this.
(I'm sure somebody out there will background the status definitions. If I see it, I'll link it here.)
Frankly, I'm not entirely clear on the significance of the status definitions. I'm assuming that "unlawful" enemy combatant marks a higher and substantially more difficult to prove standard.
However, this decision has extremely broad ramifications as all of the detainees currently facing tribunals share the same status. In other words, the whole system just ground to a halt.
Oh, and then there's this.
Under the new war-crimes trial system, the prosecution has 72 hours to appeal, but the court designated to hear the appeal _ known as the court of military commissions review _ doesn't even exist, Sullivan noted.
(I'm sure somebody out there will background the status definitions. If I see it, I'll link it here.)
posted by mikevotes at
2:01 PM
3 Comments:
This is what happens when people who don't play by the rules are forced to write down the rules... a complete pooch-screw.
Time to get congress to roll back the Torture and Kangaroo Court Act that was passed in the run up to the 06 election... You know, there's a REASON why the Greatest Generation came up with these rules together in the first place! Morons...
By
-epm, at 10:26 PM
I'm still not sure how much of a "technicality" this is, whether the inclusion of the word "unlawful" was just an oversight or whether it represents some higher standard of evidence.
In normal times, this would be all we talk about.
By
mikevotes, at 7:35 AM
No, I don't think this is a technicality. I think it's fundamental to the classification, like the difference between illegal immigrant and immigrant.
It appears congress specifically and intentionally applied the distinction of "unlawful" in their attempt to separate the bad actors from the real terrorists. This sort of distinction is too fine a resolution for the Bush-mind to conceive.
If the military just reclassifies all the 380 detainees, slapping on "unlawful" to their enemy combatant titles, it will only serve to add brilliant clarity to the fact that this whole Gitmo thing is a perversion of developed Western civilization.
By
-epm, at 9:54 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home