Case could turn on eyewitness

That lack of clarity halted the arraignments of Khadr and Yemeni terrorism suspect Salim Ahmed Hamdan five months ago, when the judges hearing the cases threw out the charges. The Court of Military Commission Review ruled in September that new status hearings were unnecessary and that the commissions had jurisdiction over the detainees. However, that ruling has been appealed to a federal court in Washington.

During his arraignment, Khadr appeared more relaxed and collaborative with his attorneys than in previous appearances before the commissions. He wore the white linen tunic and pants issued to the most compliant detainees who reside at a communal camp within the Guantanamo sprawl of prisons and cellblocks. His beard was trimmed and his short, wiry hair covered with a black skullcap.

Even if the war-crimes charges are dropped, the Pentagon could -- and likely would -- continue to detain Khadr here indefinitely on the grounds that he could pose a threat to U.S. or other forces if freed.

Khadr was the only one of four enemy fighters surrounded and bombarded by U.S. forces who survived the July 27, 2002, attack. There were no known witnesses to him throwing the grenade that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher J. Speer, and the Pentagon has never disclosed details of how investigators concluded Khadr threw it.

Despite the new information and the pending federal appeal on whether the commissions have primary jurisdiction in the case, the lead prosecutor, Marine Maj. Jeff Groharing, argued that he should be allowed to present evidence that Khadr was an unlawful enemy combatant.

The government's evidence includes a videotape purported to show Khadr building explosive devices at an Al Qaeda training camp. Government witnesses had been brought to Guantanamo at considerable expense and effort, Groharing told the presiding judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback III.

"It shows the enormous political pressure . . . to get these trials moving," Kuebler said of Groharing's argument, adding that the prosecutor was "practically pounding on the table."

Jennifer Daskal, senior counter-terrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch, said the courtroom and behind-the-scenes maneuvering were disturbing.

"It is totally outrageous that the prosecution would try to push ahead with a hearing on whether or not Khadr was an unlawful enemy combatant, while all the time withholding from the defense potentially exculpatory information," she said.