Skip to content

Tag Archives: Ammar Al Baluchi

Statements by Prosecution and Defense on This Week’s 9/11 Case Hearing

By
Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 10:57 AM

The Chief Prosecutor issued this earlier this morning. Hello to all of you. Due to the Judge’s decision to take up the joint defense motion requesting he inquire into possible defense conflicts of interest (AE 292), I have no update on the procedural posture of the case. As filings become available, they will be posted on the . . .
Read more »

Defense Seeks a Temporary Pause in the 9/11 Case

By
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

The lawyers’ reason is twofold, apparently: first, a possible lapse in the security of computer networks operated by military commission defense counsel; and second, the disclosure of privileged defense emails to prosecutors by court security personnel.  James Connell III, an attorney for 9/11 accused Ammar al-Baluchi, explained the pause request in a statement released earlier today.   Note that in the statement’s final paragraph, he attributes the continuance order in Al-Nasihiri to similar defense fears, in . . .
Read more »

Docketing Orders for Upcoming Sessions in 9/11 and Al-Nashiri Cases

By
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Mark your calendars. Here’s the agenda for the next hearing in the 9/11 case, which is set to begin on April 22 and to conclude on April 26.   From that document: 3. The Commission will hear argument on the following motions during the session: a. AE 008: Defense Motion to Dismiss For Defective Referral (witness . . .
Read more »

Preservation of Audiovisual Equipment Ordered in the 9/11 Case

By
Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 11:19 AM

That’s the word from James Connell III, an attorney for 9/11 accused Ammar al-Baluchi. The commission’s ruling—issued yesterday in connection with the case’s much-discussed “who pressed the button” episode—is not yet available, on account of the usual GTMO security scrub.  But here’s how Connell summarizes the state of play: Today [February 6], the military judge responsible . . .
Read more »

Motions Hearing in the 9/11 Case: 1/29 Session

By
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Your correspondent returns to Fort Meade’s Smallwood Hall, for Lawfare’s CCTV coverage of a second day of hearings in United States v. Mohammed et. al.  The day’s motions are different, but our format remains the same: you’ll find regular posts on our Events Coverage page, and links to those posts below, in this post—which will remain . . .
Read more »

9/11 Defense Counsel on Today’s Al-Bahlul Decision from DCCA

By
Friday, January 25, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Here’s the word from James Connell III, lawyer for 9/11 accused Ammar al-Baluchi.  Note his surmise that the “conspiracy charges issue” may not be up for argument before the military commission until later this spring: Today, the D.C. Circuit court vacated the military commissions convictions of Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul, including a conviction . . .
Read more »

An Amended Hearing Agenda, and More Conspiracy Charge News in the 9/11 Case

By
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Fresh from a security scrub are these two items in United States v. Mohammed et. al.: first, an Amended Docketing order, wherein Judge James Pohl excises two previously scheduled defense motions to compel discovery from the agenda for next week’s hearing, and adds in five other defense requests—including one to compel discovery related to “White . . .
Read more »

What the Convening Authority’s Decision Means: Withdrawal Is off the Table, but Dismissal Is Still an Option

By
Friday, January 18, 2013 at 5:23 PM

As Wells noted, the Guantánamo Military Commission Convening Authority has declined to adopt Chief Prosecutor Brig. Gen. Mark Martins’s recommendation to withdraw the conspiracy charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 defendants. Withdrawal, which can be done for any reason and at any time prior to trial findings being announced, would normally lead . . .
Read more »

On the Constitution’s Presumptive Application in the 9/11 Case

By
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Judge James Pohl apparently has rejected the defense’s bid, in the 9/11 case, to presume (subject to rebuttal) the Constitution’s application to military commission proceedings. We don’t have the court’s order yet, but we do have this statement from James Connell III, lawyer for 9/11 accused Ammar al-Baluchi.  It provides, in full: Today, the military . . .
Read more »

Agenda for the Next Session in the 9/11 Case

By
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Fresh from the Guantanamo security scrub: an amended docketing order for the upcoming hearing, late this month, in United States v. Mohammed et. al.  Judge James Pohl has set forth 23 motions for argument: a. AE 018: Government Motion for Privileged Written Communications Order/AE 049: Government’s Renewed Motion for Privileged Written Communication. b. AE 032: Joint . . .
Read more »

9/11 Military Commission Motions Hearing Preview

By and
Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 3:07 PM

The motions hearing that begins tomorrow in the 9/11 military commissions case is far too sprawling to preview motion by motion. Instead, we’ve broken it up thematically. Nearly all of the 25 motions on which Military Judge James Pohl will hear arguments fall into one of three categories. There are, first, a series of threshold . . .
Read more »

Court Will Hear Argument from Media and ACLU During 9/11 Case’s Next Session

By
Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 11:35 AM

That’s the word from James Connell III, an attorney for 9/11 defendant Ammar al Baluchi, a.k.a. Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.  The lawyer’s statement is below the fold.

Two Developments in the 9/11 Case

By
Friday, July 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Development the first: the defense’s objection to the upcoming August 8, 2012 hearing has cleared security review.  You can read the defense’s arguments as to why that hearing must be postponed – it falls in the middle of Ramadan – and why no court proceedings should be held on Fridays generally, here. Up second is yesterday’s statement from James Connell . . .
Read more »

Defense Objects to August Hearing in the 9/11 Case

By
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Another development in commissions-land, apart from al-Qosi’s completion of his sentence and landing back in Sudan: the Miami Herald’s Carol Rosenberg also informs us (and the docket shows) that the 9/11 defendants wish to postpone their upcoming, August-12 hearing session at Guantanamo.  Though both are indicated on the docket, neither the defendants’ delay request nor . . .
Read more »

All Together Now: All 9/11 Accused Now Agnostic About Severance

By
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Reviewing the docket in United States v. Mohammed, we learn of two filings that have completed security screening and now are available to the public.  Up first is the government’s “Reply to the Defense’s Response to Military Judge’s Order to Show Cause,” in which prosecutors lay out some purported flaws in the arguments advanced by 9/11 defendant . . .
Read more »

KSM Response On Separate Trials in the 9/11 Case

By
Sunday, June 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM

The Department of Defense has unsealed Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s response to Judge Pohl’s show cause order – in which the commission had asked the government to explain why the 9/11 defendants should not be tried separately. (At the moment, the case is proceeding on a joint basis, with all five accused to face trial together.) . . .
Read more »

Response Regarding Severance in the 9/11 Case: a Shrug from Al-Hawsawi

By
Friday, June 15, 2012 at 10:57 AM

You’ll recall that three 9/11 defendants earlier responded to Judge Pohl’s inquiry regarding separate trials for each of the five accused. Of this group, only Ammar al-Baluchi (aka Ali Abdul Aziz Ali) had opposed a joint trial.  His written opposition is now available, and argues that al-Baluchi’s trial strategy will be to demonstrate that his “logistical . . .
Read more »

Responses from Three 9/11 Defendants on Severance

By
Saturday, June 2, 2012 at 8:23 AM

According to the Miami Herald’s Carol Rosenberg, only three of the 9/11 defendants weighed in on the question, put to the prosecution by Judge James Pohl, of why the men should not be tried separately. Rosenberg reports that only James Connell III, lawyer for Ammar al-Baluchi (aka Ali Abdul Aziz Ali), sought a separate trial . . .
Read more »

A “Gag Order” Regarding Members’ Identities in the 9/11 Case?

By
Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

The latest statement from the defense in United States v. Mohammed et al: The prosecution in the 9/11 Guantanamo Bay case is seeking a gag order barring media or military commissions observers from reporting information about military officers the Pentagon assigns to hear the case.  “This gag order is yet another layer of secrecy the prosecution . . .
Read more »

Detainee Defense Counsel Files Complaint Over Woods Correspondence Order

By
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 1:02 PM

There apparently hasn’t been any press about this yet, but there’s a new lawsuit filed over Rear Admiral David Woods’ order last year requiring all attorney-client communications at Guantanamo to  be reviewed before they are delivered to the detainee. We’ve posted before about the earlier case raising this issue, that brought by Mustafa Ahmed  Al . . .
Read more »