On Monday, Omar Khadr’s US military defense lawyer, Lt. Col. Jon Jackson filed an emergency motion with the US Supreme Court asking them to halt his client’s upcoming trial. Jackson argued that the military commissions system at Guantanamo Bay is unconstitutional and will "provide young Omar, a Canadian citizen, second class justice. This kind of discrimination is something we cannot stand for as a country." One of these injustices he mentions is that the war crimes system is only applicable to non-US citizens like Khadr himself.
Jackson writes "The potential harm to petitioner is enormous - subjection to a trial on a potential life sentence that is entirely illegitimate ... (he) should not even have been charged, much less tried."
Jackson had originally filed a similar motion with a US federal court in March of this year. However, because said court had not (and still has not ruled) on his request, Jackson was forced to go the Supreme Court.
It appears that trying a child for war crimes isn’t as easy as one thought. Every time steps are taken in that direction, some type of obstacle is encountered. This time, it is Khadr’s US military lawyer who himself disagrees with the constitutionality of the war crimes tribunal suggesting that it is unfair and discriminatory. This is an individual who works for the system itself and says that it is not representative of what America stands for. When one of your own is protesting, something must be wrong.
The test now will be in regards to how the US Government will react, especially since there is only one week remaining before Khadr’s trial. Will they ignore Jackson’s voice and begin the war crimes trial of a child, or will they listen to what he is saying and finally treat Khadr with the high standard of justice he deserves?