That may well have been the cause, but I'm not sure that is a sufficient justification for the delays. Those cases were cases to determine whether habeas corpus was available. It was the position of the government that habeas corpus was not available. Of course, in any piece of litigation there's always the possibility of legal challenges from the defence--and you see that once cases start--but simply because the defence may raise an issue to delay the trial is not a sufficient justification, I would say. The case could have proceeded earlier. It's not as if the case started earlier and then was stopped because of these matters. What happened was that a lot of these matters were litigated before this case even started, and the case could have started in advance of them.
What you're pointing to is other problems with the system. The fact that there is no habeas corpus, in itself, isn't somehow an excuse or justification for the delay of the trial of Mr. Khadr, in my view. It just compounds the problem. It is an added unfortunate facet of the case.