GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba – On June 1 the first war crimes hearing under the Obama Administration took place as Canadian born terror suspect, Omar Khadr, lost his bid to fire his lawyers. Khadr, a Canadian national and only remaining westerner in Guantanamo, was shot and arrested at the age of fifteen in Afghanistan after a firefight. Khadr has been a detainee in Guantanamo Bay for the past six years. Despite Khadr’s lawyers’ argument that he was a child soldier fighting for Al Qaeda under the influence of his father, he remains accused of five war crimes, including killing a U.S. serviceman with a grenade.

Khadr’s charges have been dropped and re-filed multiple times amid uncertainty regarding the future of the court itself. A military judge ordered Khadr to appear before him after months of infighting between his Chief Defense lawyer and other counsel. Each side accused the other of severe misconduct. Khadr sought to fire both of his Pentagon-appointed lawyers, saying “Right now I can’t trust them . . . They’ve been accusing each other and pointing fingers at each other. . . I want to erase all of them.” Khadr has stated that he will only trust his Canadian Lawyers, but the military commission will only classify them as “foreign military consultants.”

A new trial date has not been set and the Obama administration has not announced whether Khadr’s case will remain in the military tribunal system. The judge made clear that switching lawyers would not guarantee Khadr any delays.

The Canadian government has refused to make a decision on repatriation of Khadr until the U.S. decides if it will drop the charges. Justice Department Lawyer Doreen Mueller has argued that the refusal to repatriate Khadr, if held to violate his rights under the Canadian Constitution, is a justifiable infringement to protect national security. Conversely, Federal Court Justice James O’Reilly ruled that Ottawa’s refusal to seek Khadr’s return violates his constitutional right to fundamental justice under Canada’s international human rights obligations. Furthermore, O’Reilly argued that the Canadian Government was complicit in Khadr’s mistreatment when federal officials questioned him in 2004, with knowledge that he was prepared for questioning using sleep deprivation. The Canadian Government contends that “mere knowledge does not equate to participation.”

Khadr stated that “It’s not the first unfairness” he is going through and that he is “expecting more unfairness.”