Al-Nashiri Order Dismissing Charges Relating to French Oil Tanker

We flagged news coverage of this important military commissions ruling earlier, when the item in question was not yet available.  You'll now find the real thing here (and here). The military judge's order seemingly came down to this: the prosecution had asserted---but ultimately did not submit proof of---facts that, in its view, supported military commission jurisdiction over charges regarding an attack on the M/V Limburg, a French oil tanker.  According to Judge Vance Spath, that precluded the government from carrying its burden on the motion to dismiss:

8. The Commission need not reach any conclusions of law based on both parties’ legal arguments raised in their written filings and oral arguments. While the facts argued by the Prosecution may be easily susceptible of proof, the Prosecution failed to request an evidentiary hearing and offer any documentary or testimonial evidence into the record to factually support their assertion of jurisdiction as to the charges and specification involving the MV Limburg. The Prosecution has thus failed to meet its burden of persuasion in this interlocutory matter. (See R.M.C. 905c(2)(B).)

Cue the United States' motion to reconsider in five, four, three . . .