The dismissed cases have no real effect on the prisoners' freedom: The administration has said that even those never charged with specific crimes will be held for the duration of the war on terrorism, regardless of judicial procedures created to try them.
Prosecutors in both cases asked the judges for 72 hours to decide whether to appeal their rulings. But the panel created by the Military Commission Act to review decisions hasn't yet been created -- a point many lawyers noted as further evidence that the commissions are a poor substitute for established judicial forums.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Thursday June 07, 2007 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 2 inches; 69 words Type of Material: Correction
Guantanamo cases: An article in Tuesday's Section A about dismissal rulings in two Guantanamo cases misquoted John D. Hutson, a former Navy lawyer and now dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire. In assessing the significance of detainees who have faced trial at Guantanamo Bay, Hutson said, "We aren't exactly talking about Himmler and Goering, so far," not "Hitler and Goering," as it appeared in the article.
Defense Department officials were discussing whether to hold another round of the status review tribunals for detainees they intend to try, officials in Washington said Monday.
Not all detainees would necessarily have to face the review panels. Many are likely to be transferred once arrangements can be made with other countries to receive and detain them. The commissions' chief prosecutor, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, has said he envisions charging about 75 of the prisoners, with the rest to be held "for the duration of the war on terror."
The Pentagon could rewrite the rules for the status reviews to elicit determinations on the lawfulness of each prisoner's alleged combat activities. But rewriting the rules would take months, as would new status hearings, said retired Army Col. Fran Gilligan, a legal scholar now with the commissions' prosecution office.
The newly reconstituted commissions had taken up only one case before Monday, in which Australian David Hicks pleaded guilty to drastically reduced charges in March in exchange for the right to serve the last few months of his sentence in his native Adelaide.
Although Hicks' plea deal was widely denounced as a sham intended to answer mounting demands from the Australian government for his return, the Bush administration cited it as proof that the new system worked.
Army Col. Peter Brownback, the military judge in Khadr's case, brought the motion to dismiss the charges against Khadr, who fired his legal team last week. Khadr was accused of throwing a grenade that killed an Army special forces medic in July 2002.
Hamdan was charged with conspiracy and supporting terrorism for helping bin Laden and other Al Qaeda figures.
The charges against both prisoners were dismissed "without prejudice," meaning the government can bring a new case if it can classify the men as unlawful combatants.
