Summary

Appeal on Jurisdiction

The Military Judge’s reason for failing to make the appropriate jurisdictional finding himself, that he would be taking evidence even though jurisdiction had not yet been established, is contrary to accepted legal practice in the American system of law. It is perfectly normal for a court or tribunal to exercise jurisdiction in order first to determine its own jurisdiction.
Source: Wikisource

Appeal on Jurisdiction

On 7 February 2002, the President determined that members of al Qaeda and the Taliban were not lawful combatants. Congress was well aware of that fact, and recognized in enacting section 948a (1) (A) (ii) that a finding by the CSRT process that an individual is an "enemy combatant," given the Presidential determination, is actually a finding that the individual is an "unlawful enemy combatant" under the law of war.
Source: Wikisource

Appeal on Jurisdiction

In other words, Congress unequivocally provided that the accused’s status as an unlawful enemy combatant may be determined either as a matter of fact if he has Aengaged in hostilities or purposefully and materially supported hostilities,@ or if he has been determined to be such a person by a CSRT or Aother competent tribunal.@ The statutory word Aor@ makes sense only if the Military Judge has the ability to make a determination of jurisdiction based on a showing of fact by the prosecution, in the absence of a determination by the prior administrative tribunal
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature