You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Supreme Court declines to enter fray on detainee trials
2007-05-01
The US Supreme Court has helped clear the way for the next round of special trials by military commissions at the terror detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. On Monday, the court declined to take up a joint appeal filed by former Osama bin Laden driver Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen and Omar Khadr, a Canadian national, who faces murder charges for allegedly throwing a hand grenade that killed a US soldier in Afghanistan. Mr. Khadr was 15 years old at the time.

Following the recent guilty plea by Australian David Hicks, Khadr and Mr. Hamdan are designated as the next detainees slated for commission trials at Guantánamo. Last week, Khadr's case was formally referred to a military commission for trial.

While Mr. Hicks's guilty plea technically provided the first conviction under the new military commission process, that process remains largely untested in the crucible of an ongoing trial.
Posted by:Steve White

#6  The central charge in the Khadr case is that he engaged in a firefight with US and Afghan forces during an assault on a suspected Al Qaeda compound on July 27, 2002. After the firefight, US soldiers entered the compound. Commission documents say Khadr then threw a grenade that killed US Army Sgt. Christopher Speer. Khadr's charge sheet also says he converted land mines into improvised explosive devices and planted the devices beside roads to kill US and coalition forces. He is also alleged to have provided material support to a terror organization by becoming an Al Qaeda fighter. He allegedly received Al Qaeda training in the use of rocket-propelled grenades, rifles, pistols, hand grenades, land mines, and other explosives.

One more reason to begin enforcing the Geneva Conventions precisely and to have executed this worthless piece of camel-sh&t on the spot.

If this doesn't deserve being stood up against a wall and shot or hanged by the neck until dead, very little does.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2007-05-01 23:52  

#5  The JAG, Public Defender and Appellate Attorney Permanent Employment Act.
Posted by: Shaiter Thrick2337   2007-05-01 09:44  

#4  If they ain't a citizen, they don't get constitutional rights.

How fucking black and white to you need to get?
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-05-01 09:38  

#3  They also asked the justices to determine whether alleged enemy combatants facing military commission trials are protected by basic constitutional rights, including the right to file habeas corpus challenges in US federal courts

Answers: No and no.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-05-01 09:12  

#2  Yeah, I'll bet Ruthie Baby was dripping wet to get this one.

tu, that's a mental image I really don't need, ok?
Posted by: Raj   2007-05-01 09:09  

#1  Three justices, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented from the action. They said the issue deserved the court's immediate attention.

Yeah, I'll bet Ruthie Baby was dripping wet to get this one.
So, Mahmoud...ya need another sheet? How about a nice necktie?
Posted by: tu3031   2007-05-01 09:04  

00:00