Discourse.net

According to wire service reports, the 'military tribunal' hearing the Hicks case is enjoined from proceeding pending a decision by the Supreme Court decision on the legality of the process.

US District Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly said in her ruling that the parties "are enjoined from going forward with any and all legal proceedings associated with the military commission process."

She said the suspension will remain in effect "pending the issuance of a final and ultimate decision by the Supreme Court in that case."

This is the same Hicks case discussed in Is the Trial of David Hicks a War Crime?.

Of course, all bets are off if the Senate -- which has apparently agreed a very watered down version of the Bingaman Amendment to the Graham Amendment (with a vote scheduled today) were to cut off review in courts.... The new version is called the "Graham-Levin" Amendment, and although I'm uncertain if I've seen the final text, what I have seen does not look good.

When a text appears, look out for these issues:

• Can a detainee be heard to complain of being tortured? Or subjected to "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment?
• Can a detainee be heard to complain that he is in fact a POW?
• Can a detainee be heard to complain that he has been found not to be an enemy combatant, but is still being held?
• Can the rules of the tribunal be challenged for failing to meet minimum standards of due process?