Skip to content

Tag Archives: Bahlul

Article III and the al Bahlul Remand: The New, New NIMJ Amicus Brief

By
Monday, August 18, 2014 at 12:59 PM

On July 14, the en banc D.C. Circuit ruled in al Bahlul v. United States that “plain error” review applied to Bahlul’s ex post facto challenge to his military commission convictions for conspiracy, material support, and solicitation–and then upheld the first of those charges under such deferential review (while throwing out the latter two). One of the potentially unintended consequences of the Court . . .
Read more »

Handicapping al Bahlul

By
Sunday, September 29, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Raff already outlined the issues the en banc D.C. Circuit (minus Judge Srinivasan) will confront in tomorrow’s oral argument in al Bahlul v. United States, and I have very little of substance to add to Jen Daskal’s thorough analysis over at Just Security, or Marty Lederman’s addendum thereto. Instead, I thought I’d take a slightly different tack, . . .
Read more »

My Last Word on the New Bahlul Amicus

By
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Thanks to his “sur-reply”, I finally understand the premise of Peter Margulies’s argument—and his amicus brief—in al Bahlul with regard to why the en banc D.C. Circuit can affirm Bahlul’s conspiracy conviction even though conspiracy is not a war crime under international law: Because Bahlul was actually tried for murder, even though no one in . . .
Read more »

Three Questions for Peter Margulies on the New Bahlul Amicus Brief

By
Monday, July 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM

There’s a lot to say about Peter Margulies’ reply to my and Kevin Heller’s criticisms of the “former government officials’” amicus brief in al Bahlul–the military commission appeal currently pending before the en banc D.C. Circuit, where the central question is whether the commission lawfully had jurisdiction to try and convict Bahlul of “conspiracy.” To put . . .
Read more »

The Two Fundamental Flaws in the New Bahlul Amicus Brief

By
Friday, July 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Raff already flagged yesterday’s filing of an amicus brief in support of the government in the Al Bahlul military commission appeal before the en banc D.C. Circuit by “former government officials, former military lawyers, and scholars of national security law,” a group that includes Ben, Ken, and two of my casebook co-authors–among others. At the . . .
Read more »

Al-Bahlul Counsel to DCCA: I’m Workin’ On It

By
Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Here is the latest development in the Al-Bahlul appeal before the D.C. Circuit. Readers may recall that in May, the court received conflicting statements from detainee and counsel—one from Mr. Al-Bahlul himself expressing his desire to withdraw his case, and another shortly thereafter from his defense counsel explaining that misinformation had  caused his client to . . .
Read more »

The D.C. Circuit “Clarifies” Scope of Bahlul En Banc Rehearing

By
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 8:04 PM

As Raff noted last week, the lawyers for the defendant-appellant in United States v. al-Bahlul–the military commission case in which the D.C. Circuit surprisingly granted rehearing en banc–had moved to “clarify” the scope of such rehearing, including whether it encompasses two constitutional challenges to Bahlul’s conviction (on First Amendment and equal protection grounds, respectively) that were . . .
Read more »

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

By
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:26 PM

You’ll find a copy here. The Chief Prosecutor’s statement naturally overviews the week’s proceedings; one portion, however, addresses an issue not formally included on the docket but likely of interest to Lawfare readers: Conspiracy as a Separate, Stand-Alone Offense  The accused in this case have filed a motion to dismiss all charges (Appellate Exhibit  107).  The most current . . .
Read more »

DCCA Vacates Al-Bahlul’s Convictions

By
Friday, January 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM

As expected.  You’ll find the three judge panel’s one-page per curiam order here. From the order: Upon consideration of the supplemental briefs filed by the parties and, in particular, the supplemental brief filed by the Government on January 9, 2013, advising the Court that it takes the “position that Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d . . .
Read more »

Bahlul Update: Age-Old Memorandum on the Gimpel and Colebaugh Military Commission

By
Friday, August 24, 2012 at 3:29 PM

The government has just posted a memorandum from March 12, 1945 in the Bahlul docket concerning the question of whether participation in a conspiracy to commit an offense against the law of war is punishable in a military commission. The letter from government counsel John F. De Pue accompanying the 1945 memorandum explains that it . . .
Read more »

Peter Margulies on Material Support Charges In Military Commissions

By
Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 8:21 AM

Here’s a timely new article as the D.C. Circuit considers the military commission appeals in Hamdan and Bahlul–both of which challenge convictions based on, among other charges, material support for terrorism. Peter Margulies of Roger Williams School of Law has this article up at SSRN, entitled “Defining, Punishing, and Membership in the Community of Nations: Congressional Power to . . .
Read more »

Bahlul Files Reply Brief

By
Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul has filed his reply brief in his appeal of his military commission conviction in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. You’ll recall that Al Bahul requested his appeal to be heard initially en banc, but that motion was denied. The government filed its respondent . . .
Read more »

Government Files Brief, Reams of Paper, in Bahlul

By
Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 9:23 AM

We noted last week that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul’s petition for an initial hearing in that court en banc. The government has now filed its respondent brief in the case (and quite a lengthy one, at that), as well as two separate supplements. The government frames . . .
Read more »

Hamdan, And Bahlul, And Suleiman, Oh My!

By
Monday, March 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Some court documents came in over the weekend: Salim Ahmed Hamdan has filed his reply brief in his appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court. You can read it in full here. The summary of the argument is excerpted here: The Government now admits that the crime of which Petitioner was convicted, Providing Material Support for Terrorism . . .
Read more »

Undue Delay at the CMCR re the Viability of Material Support and Conspiracy Charges and the Ability to Raise Constitutional Arguments in Commission Proceedings

By
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Last week I drew attention to the undue delay in resolving Salim Hamdan’s appeal from his military commission conviction, noting that it put in issue the general viability of material support as a charge in the commission system – something that matters a great deal for the larger, ongoing debate regarding the utility of the . . .
Read more »