Skip to content

Tag Archives: James Connell

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 »

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 »

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 »

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.

One More Small Adjustment to the Schedule in the 9/11 Case

By
Tuesday, July 24, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Judge James Pohl has tweaked the calendar in United States v. Mohammed a bit.  Earlier, the court had pushed back an upcoming August session, in light of Ramadan; that postponement left in place a separate hearing, which had been set for September 8.    The commission changed this back-to-back schedule in an order entered yesterday, according to a statement just released by defense lawyer . . .
Read more »

Hearing Postponed in the 9/11 Case

By
Monday, July 16, 2012 at 2:16 PM

That’s the word from defense counsel James Connell III: the military commission has granted the defense’s request and rescheduled the August 8-12 motions session for August 22-26.  In seeking the continuance, defense lawyers had argued that the August 8-12 hearing would overlap with Ramadan.  In his statement, Connell does not say whether Judge James Pohl’s ruling will affect the timing of a . . .
Read more »

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 »

9/11 Defense Counsel on “Issues of Abuse”; KSM Files Torture Claim With UN Special Rapporteur

By
Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 11:47 AM

James Connell III, a lawyer for 9/11 accused Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, has released this statement regarding residual issues related to torture and coercion.  In particular, he says that he and other lawyers expect to raise, at one or more motions hearings at Guantanamo, matters related to “presumptive classification,” whereby (among other things) detainees cannot publicly testify about their experiences during interrogation by intelligence personnel.   (In filings related to a proposed protective order, prosecutors have . . .
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 »

Upcoming Motions Hearing Postponed in the 9/11 Case

By
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM

That’s the word from a member of the defense team, James Connell.  His statement provides as follows: This afternoon, the Guantanamo Bay military commission entered an order (AE035C) continuing the hearing scheduled for June 12-15 until August 8-12, 2012. Two defendants had requested such a continuance, one had opposed it, and two had taken no position. . . .
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 »

Should the 9/11 Defendants Be Tried Separately?

By
Friday, May 18, 2012 at 1:00 PM

So asks Judge James Pohl,  in an order he reportedly issued yesterday in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al.  A statement from James Connell, a lawyer for 9/11 defendant Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, describes the order in this way:  Yesterday afternoon, the Guantanamo Bay military commission issued an unusual order for the prosecution to show cause why defendants in . . .
Read more »

Defense Counsel File Motions Closed-Door Military Commission Proceedings

By
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Defense counsel for the five alleged 9/11 co-conspirators  have filed several motions challenging the closed-door nature of some military commission proceedings. Although the filings haven’t been released (they need to be reviewed and redacted first), the defense attorneys released two statements regarding them. The first, dated Friday, April 19th, says: Today defense attorneys for alleged . . .
Read more »