[JURIST] A US district court judge on Thursday rejected a bid [PDF text] to stay the trial of Guantanamo Bay detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan [DOD materials; JURIST news archive], ruling that a civilian court should refrain from review until the military commission had issued a "final judgment." Hamdan's lawyers had argued [motion, PDF; memorandum, PDF] that the military trial should be postponed until the court rules on the jurisdiction and legality of Hamdan's military commission, but the Department of Justice responded [JURIST report] that Boumediene v. Bush [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] only gave detainees the right to challenge their detention, not to challenge their trials once they became defendants. In his written opinion released on Friday, Judge James Robertson explained:

Hamdan's focus now is not on post-trial habeas, of course. What he seeks is pre-trial relief to avoid being subjected to a trial that, in his submission, will be unlawful. His claims of unlawfulness, however, are all claims that should or must be decided in the first instance by the Military Commission, and then raised before the DC Circuit, as necessary, on appeal. The Supreme Court's decision in Councilman requires federal courts to give "due respect to the autonomous military judicial system created by Congress." Councilman involved courtmartial proceedings against a US service member, to be sure, and not a military commission, but its central rationale is applicable here. Councilman requires the courts to respect the balance that Congress has struck in creating a military justice system, "a critical element of which is the Court of Military Appeals consisting of civilian judges completely removed from all military influence or persuasion." [citations omitted]