The fight over the Khadr case represents the latest problem for the Bush administration’s military commissions system, which exists outside the traditional military and civilian rules of justice. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that President Bush’s plan to try Guantanamo Bay detainees in military commissions violates U.S. and international law. 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! By Pete Yost THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON – A military appeals court sided with the Pentagon on Monday, overruling a judge who threw out terrorism charges against a Guantanamo Bay detainee. The U.S. Court of Military Commission Review ruled that a military court set up by the Bush administration was the proper venue for deciding whether Canadian citizen Omar Khadr is an “unlawful enemy combatant” and trying him on terrorism charges. The ruling reverses a military judge’s June 4 ruling that the tribunal system created by Congress did not have authority to try detainees unless they were first determined to be unlawful enemy combatants. That ruling threatened to force the Pentagon to start over with tribunals for a number of detainees. Pentagon officials argued that the June 4 ruling was just a matter of semantics and was insufficient to dismiss the case. Monday’s decision, the first ever by the newly formed appeals court, agreed. The appeals judges, who are military officers, said the trial judge “erred in ruling he lacked authority … to determine whether Mr. Khadr is an `unlawful enemy combatant’ for purposes of establishing the military commission’s initial jurisdiction to try him.” The decision was written by Navy Capt. John W. Rolph, deputy chief judge of the military appeals court. Concurring were the panel’s other two judges, Army Col. Paul P. Holden Jr. and Air Force Col. David Francis.