Now that our president is finally watching his political power slip from his grasp, those who were once willing to jump on the boat of tacitly accepted the classification of enemy combatants as illegal criminals, the modern equivalent of Pirates, and stripping them of any rights or considerations under any law, many are now willing to swing the other way, and do what should have been done years ago, but for political reasons were considered impractical by all but the most tenaciously principled, and finally concede that what was being done to our enemies was nothing more than political expediency, perpetrated by a president drunk with power, while almost everyone in a position to do so was unwilling to oppose him.

It must be tough for lawyers who spend their lives following the law, to watch as all of what they put their faith in goes out the window as a result of one terrorist attack on the United States.  I imagine that's exactly what Osama bin Laden was thinking when he planned and helped orchestrate that attack.  For he knew, and I'm sure it was a calculated political decision, that George W. Bush would throw everything out the window, including the Constitution and the people of the United States, in order to get the job of destroying our enemies and reshaping the globe by whatever means necessary without regard the law or morality, done.  Bin Laden did a great job of revealing exactly who and what the United States of America really is when you strip away all the BS.  A picture that much of the world seemed to see quite clearly, but we citizens could comfortably ignore in a zone of complacency while we thought ourselves safe from any consequences.

I can't help but wonder, if the president, by some miracle had found some measure of success in Iraq, I wonder how many Iraqi children would now be classified as war criminals, perhaps we would have them by the thousands at this point languishing in Iraqi prisons and at Guantánamo awaiting their inevitable executions for their "war crimes". Though I imagine when we pull out of Iraq, the American forces which will maintain a presence there will see the necessity for supporting forces that do so.  After all we don't interfere in the internal political matters of sovereign nations, at least according to Dick Cheney circa 1983.

I don't see the actions of these military officers as particularly heroic, they're just doing what everyone else in our government is doing, putting a finger up in the political wind and blowing with the breeze, and using legal arguments, legal arguments they were quick to forget when the president was in favor, to hold themselves up as some kind of defenders of principal and law.

Child soldiers are a fact of life, and there are hundreds of thousands of them all across Africa, and no doubt they will become a force to be reckoned with in the future.  But the idea that a free society could look upon any children and say to ourselves "these are the people who should be held responsible" and anyone could actually take it seriously, is a terrifying prospect.  It's not unlike what we see happening with the lowest ranking young American soldiers (kids really) who after being placed in a horrendously untenable military situation begin acting out in ways that are considered criminal by civilian standards, are then are held responsible, while their superiors, most specifically our commander-in-chief, gets the equivalent of free pass from the people of the United States for his unconscionable criminality.

Yes, I'm glad I'm not a lawyer so these focused legal arguments do not become blinders preventing me from seeing the monstrosities are supposed liberal democracy is capable of, at least under the totalitarian auspices of a renegade president.

Unfortunately, it sounds like all they have to do is refile the charges. That's what "dismissed without prejudice" means.

Guardian:

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.

Reader JR [from war & piece], 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."

From my knowledge MG Altenburg is the epitomy of fairness.  He is politically adept and, once appointed, would not let anyone (even Rumsfeld) run roughshod over him.  

And he has integrity.  Were I being prosecuted, I would want him to be in charge, because I would be sure the charges were solid and warranted (but, I would not want him to try the case, as I would surely lose).  

And, he is an outstanding judge of character.  He was criticized for picking COL (ret.) Peter Brownback as the chief judge because they were friends.  But, they were friends because COL Brownback was an outstanding soldier, and, perhaps, the finest military judge in the Army.  

COL Brownback, like MG Altenburg will not bow to pressure.  He calls them like he sees them.  

So, yes, the Bush administration set itself up.  But, you have to give credit to players who have integrity.

But it seems to me that the distinction between "enemy combatant" and "unlawful enemy combatant" is anything but a technicality; it's the very heart of the case.

An enemy combatant, if the term is defined sensibly, is just a soldier on the other side.  We can capture enemy soldiers, we can even kill them during combat, but we don't get to prosecute them just for being on the other side and fighting back unless they do something that violates the rules of war.

I don't know the details of what this kid is accused of, but if he as a member of the Taliban, he may just have been defending his country against foreign invaders.  Even if the invaders were the "good guys", that doesn't make him a criminal; it just makes him a soldier.

Khadr's entire experience with Americans took place after he had already been indoctrinated, and consisted of being shot at and bombed by Americans.