You didn’t have to be an ACLU attorney to see this one coming. Lawyers for Omar Khadr intend to argue that his case should be thrown out because he was not read his rights.

Khadr’s defense team does not want to go to trial, arguing the proceedings before the United States war crimes commissions at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, are unfair.

But Parrish, who has been on the job for a little more than two weeks, has already shown his determination to press on.

On the weekend, he rejected a request from Khadr’s defense lawyers to postpone Wednesday’s hearing to give them more time to assess the implications of last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on detainee rights.

In a 5-4 decision, the court placed a question mark over the Bush administration’s policy on holding foreign terror suspects, saying they have a “habeas corpus” right under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

Against that backdrop, navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, Khadr’s military-appointed defense lawyer, will use Wednesday’s hearing to argue that the entire case against the Toronto-born accused terrorist should be thrown out on grounds U.S. authorities have never told him of his rights.

Khadr is accused of throwing a hand grenade which killed a United States soldier in Afghanistan in July 2002. During the ensuing firefight he was wounded, only to have his life saved by US medics, before being shipped to Guantanamo. Now the Supreme Court will once again be forced to intervene in a military matter as they will be forced to rule wether Khadr’s “civil rights” were violated when military personnel didn’t read him his rights.

While liberals cheered the Supreme Court decision granting enemy combatants rights never conferred upon them in our nations history, conservatives warned of the consequences of the ruling:

One last thought…will the US Military now have to read everyone they capture their Miranda rights? Will they have to collect and preserve evidence the same way cops do? How can they not if the people they capture will now be going to regular US criminal courts? The bottom line…it will be impossible to get convictions but that’s just a minor inconvenience if you are an exalted justice of the US Supreme Court.

Will liberals still cheer their “victory” if the Supreme Court further rules that detainees have rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as well?

Hat Tip GatewayPundit

Exit Question: How will Obama react to this considering his support for criminal prosecution of terrorists, as opposed to military prosecutions?

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Barack Obama, Features, Supreme Court, Terrorism