Chickens Roosting On the White House

We seem to be having a wonderful run of judges with excellent judgment. This morning, with delight I discovered that the judge over the two detainees leading off for the federal illegal prosecution (under rules that would not obtain in a U.S. court of law) threw out the two cases. No surprises here, it was incompetence on the part of the prosecution, they didn't file the charges correctly. At no point were the detainees styled as "unlawful", a necessary category for prosecution by the tribunal. The judge is praiseworthy, and the government's future attempt to prosecute unlawfully is very much in doubt.

In both of Monday's cases, the judges ruled that the new legislation says only "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the military trials, known as commissions. But Khadr and Hamdan previously had been identified by military panels here only as enemy combatants, lacking the critical "unlawful" designation.

"The fundamental problem is that the law was not carefully written," said Madeline Morris, a Duke University law professor. "It was rushed through in a flurry of political pressure from the White House ... and it is quite riddled with internal contradictions and anomalies."

Prosecuting attorneys in both cases indicated they would appeal the dismissals. But the court designated to hear the appeals — known as the court of military commissions review — doesn't even exist yet, said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay.

Army Maj. Beth Kubala, spokeswoman for the Office of Military Commissions that organizes the trials, said "the public should make no assumption about the future of military commissions."

She said they will continue to operate openly and fairly and added that dismissals of the charges "reflect that the military judges operate independently."
(snip)
The distinction between classifications of enemy combatants is important because if they were "lawful," they would be entitled to prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions.

A Pentagon spokesman said the issue was little more than semantics.

Now we have the judge in Scooter Libby's case making a decidedly sound ruling.

"No one was ever charged. Nobody ever pleaded guilty," attorney William Jeffress said. "The government did not establish the existence of an offense."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who has a reputation as a tough judge, didn't accept that. By that reasoning, Walton said, witnesses benefit if they aggressively obstruct investigations so prosecutors can't make their case.

"I just can't buy in on that being good social policy," said Walton, who has a reputation as a tough sentencing judge. "It's one thing if you obstruct a petty larceny. It's another thing if you obstruct a murder investigation."

Its the inevitable outcome of appointing based on other factors than merit, that you will wind up with appointees unable to perform the jobs they hold. It would seem we have a few prosecutors at Gitmo and defense for the government in Libby's case who just can't carry that water.

It's sure to win these incompetents a Medal of Freedom in return for their failures. And the public interest is served despite the cretin in chief's best efforts.