The status of a Canadian citizen accused of murder, conspiracy, and other terrorist related charges will be determined by a military court Thursday at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Omar Khadr, 21, will face a Military Commissions Review board to determine whether he is eligible for prosecution by the war crimes tribunal sitting at the naval detention facility. He faces the war crimes tribunal for allegedly killing Sgt. Christopher Speer with a hand grenade during conflict in Afghanistan in 2002. Khadr was 15 at the time.
On June 4, the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review under Army Col. Peter Brownback dismissed charges against Khadr. Brownback dismissed the charges because prosecutors had designated the two detainees as "enemy combatants." The tribunal established to handle Gauntanamo Bay cases was set up to try "unlawful enemy combatants," and Brownback contested that international law requires a different legal process for "legal enemy combatants." If determined an "unlawful enemy combatant," Khadr faces charges of murder, conspiracy and spying.
Critics argue that designation should conform to internationally recognized standards. The Bush administration formed a congressionally mandated war crimes tribunal to try suspected terrorists. The legal designations outlined in the legislation codifies war crimes outside of international benchmarks. One analyst said that in order to proceed, the U.S. government needs to determine if Khadr violated the laws of war and is void from prisoner-of-war protections under the Geneva Conventions. “That should be a very high bar to jump for the prosecutor if this proceeding is to be regarded as one following international standards or due process,” said the analyst.
If Khadr's trial commences, he will be the first detainee to face the military tribunal for war crimes. David Hicks, an Australian citizen, pled guilty to reduced charges prior to full examination by the tribunal. Khadr's defense issued an appeal in D.C. Circuit Court challenging the authority of the tribunal. Another test before the U.S. Supreme Court next year will challenge the constitutionality of the process as well.
