Skip to content

Category Archives: Terrorism Trials

Terrorism Trials

9/11 Case Motions Hearing: August 11 Session

By
Monday, August 11, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Today your correspondent will observe, via CCTV, pre-trial proceedings in the case of United States v. Ramzi Binalshibh.  That’s the prosecution against only one of the five men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks.  The military judge has severed Binalshibh’s case, for the moment, from that against the other four; today, military prosecutors will ask the . . .
Read more »

Chief Prosecutor Statement on This Week’s Hearing in the 9/11 Case

By
Monday, August 11, 2014 at 5:00 AM

You can find the whole thing here, and the opening paragraphs below. And that’s a good a reminder as any, that today Lawfare returns to Fort Meade, for almost-live-blog coverage of pre-trial proceedings in United States v. Mohammed et al.   From the statement: Good evening. On the eve of continuing pre-trial sessions this week, I wish to . . .
Read more »

Chief Prosecutor Statement on this Week’s Hearings in Al-Nashiri

By
Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Here y’are.  Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, the Chief Prosecutor at Guantanamo, opens his statement as follows: Good afternoon. This Friday will mark sixty-nine years since the signing of the London Agreement and Charter by representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France, thus establishing the International Military Tribunal for the trial . . .
Read more »

8/6 Motions Hearing #2: MRIs and Skype

By
Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 10:19 AM

When the court returns from recess, the parties move into argument on AE277, the defense’s motion for a judicial order compelling an MRI of Al-Nashiri’s brain to determine if he has brain damage. The defense presents two lines of argument. First, Rick Kammen, Al-Nashiri’s Learned Counsel, says his client needs the MRI for medical treatment, and . . .
Read more »

Al-Nashiri Motions Hearing: August 6 Session

By
Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 9:48 AM

This week’s pre-trial session in United States v. Al-Nashiri came to a close yesterday; courtesy of new Lawfare contributor Zoe Bedell, you’ll find summaries of the day’s key developments in our “Events Coverage” section, and links to those summaries below.  Enjoy. 8/6 Motions Hearing #1: Tu Quoque 8/6 Motions Hearing #2: MRIs and Skype

8/6 Motions Hearing #1: Tu Quoque

By
Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Judge Spath begins today’s hearings noting that Al-Nashiri is not present. The court first hears testimony from the Guantanamo Staff Judge Advocate who had received Al-Nashiri’s waiver, Captain G, who walks through the standard certifications that the waiver was voluntary. The proceedings quickly turn contentious. Learned Defense Counsel Richard Kammen then stands and questions Captain . . .
Read more »

8/5 Motions Hearing #4: On the MCA’s Constitutionality and Statutes of Limitation

By
Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Judge Spath then moves to AE 295, a defense filing and the penultimate item on the agenda.  It’s a constitutional broadside against the commissions’ authorizing legislation. Major Hurley rises for the defense and asks that all charges be dismissed against al-Nashiri, “because the Military Commissions Act of 2009 is unconstitutional, specifically because it is designed . . .
Read more »

Programming Note: Military Commissions Coverage This Week

By
Tuesday, August 5, 2014 at 9:03 AM

A little update from Lawfare HQ, regarding our remaining coverage of this week’s pre-trial motions hearings in the military commission case of United States v. Al-Nashiri: circumstances have conspired to keep your correspondent away from live-blogging the proceedings today, tomorrow and Thursday. As a consequence, and per our usual practice, Lawfare will await the issuance of transcripts each . . .
Read more »

Al-Nashiri Motions Hearing, August 4 Session

By
Monday, August 4, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Today your correspondent returns to Fort Meade, to take in CCTV-broadcasted, pre-trial hearings in the military commission case of United States v. Al-Nashiri.  The hearing gets underway at Guantanamo at 0900. As always, we’ll post dispatches on the day’s events, in our “Events Coverage” section.  You’ll find links to those posts below, too. 8/4 Session #1: . . .
Read more »

A Nugget of Real News in General Martins’s Statement

By
Monday, August 4, 2014 at 7:36 AM

Last night, Wells posted a statement by Military Commissions Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins about the weeklong Nashiri hearing getting under way today at Guantanamo. The statement contains the following sentence: “I also assess at the present time that there are no additional prosecutions against Guantanamo detainees that would be made possible by the existence in the military . . .
Read more »

Chief Prosecutor’s Statement on this Week’s Hearing in Al-Nashiri

By
Sunday, August 3, 2014 at 10:45 PM

The Chief Prosecutor’s statement regarding the week-long hearing, which gets underway tomorrow, can be found here.  It opens: I wish to report that observers of military commissions, including family members of those killed in terror attacks, have expressed keen interest in last month’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia . . .
Read more »

The Most Redacted Judicial Opinion I’ve Ever Seen

By
Wednesday, July 30, 2014 at 9:27 AM

The Guantanamo cases have nothing on this opinion from the 7th Circuit in the Daoud case. (hat tip: Josh Blackman)

“Omar Khadr’s Lawyers in U.S. Threatened Over Release of Court Documents”

By
Friday, July 25, 2014 at 4:59 PM

That is the headline to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press, which I came across today. The piece concerns recent proceedings in Omar Khadr’s (stayed) appeal before the Court of Military Commission Review.  It opens thus: TORONTO – A U.S. military commission court is threatening to strip the security clearance from Omar Khadr’s Pentagon-appointed lawyers as part . . .
Read more »

A Severance Order in the 9/11 Case

By
Friday, July 25, 2014 at 9:59 AM

The Washington Post reports of a new ruling from the military judge yesterday—which I have yet to see, and which isn’t yet available on the military commissions’ website.  The gist: A military judge ruled Thursday that one of the five defendants being tried at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for their alleged roles in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks be . . .
Read more »

Ruling from U.S. District Court for D.C. in Ameziane v. Obama

By
Monday, July 21, 2014 at 3:54 PM

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has denied Djamel Ameziane’s petition for habeas relief and granted the government’s motion to dismiss in Amezaine v. Obama. You can find the court order here and the full memorandum opinion from Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle here. Money quote: Because it is undisputed that petitioner is no longer “in custody” for . . .
Read more »

Al Bahlul and Article III: A Reply to Marty and Steve

By
Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Marty and Steve’s post on al Bahlul (and Steve’s post here) is right that the D.C. Circuit’s decision should not be read as a green light for inchoate conspiracy charges in military commissions.  However, Marty and Steve go off course in magnifying the modest issues remanded to the panel in al Bahlul, particularly the impact . . .
Read more »

A Brief Reply to Jack and Peter on Al Bahlul

By
Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM

This morning, Marty Lederman and I have posted a detailed analysis of Monday’s en banc D.C. Circuit decision in al Bahlul—and what it portends for the future of military commissions, especially with respect to offenses not recognized as international war crimes. As Marty and I conclude, “Monday’s decision . . . underscores the serious constitutional . . .
Read more »

Bahlul and the Power of Congress to Define International Law

By
Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:00 AM

In Al-Bahlul, the en banc D.C. Circuit resolved some quite important issues regarding military commissions, but declined to address other no less important ones. Among other things, the full court opted to remand the question of Congress’s Article I power to make inchoate conspiracy an offense triable by commission. When a three-judge panel once more . . .
Read more »

A Rough Overview of Today’s Ruling in Al-Bahlul

By and
Monday, July 14, 2014 at 7:45 PM

This morning, the full D.C. Circuit resolved military commission defendant Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al-Bahlul’s’s long-running appeal, in split fashion: by rejecting al Bahlul’s challenge to his conspiracy conviction, but also by vacating his convictions for material support and solicitation. Now it seems additional arguments regarding the conspiracy count will be considered further, by the . . .
Read more »

En Banc D.C. Circuit Opinion in Al-Bahlul

By
Monday, July 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM

I am thumbing through the long-awaited and seemingly split ruling, which opens as follows: Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. Opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. Opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part . . .
Read more »