Skip to content

Tag Archives: Quirin

Confusing the Issues in al Bahlul

By
Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 10:11 PM

For the two people still following the exchange between me and Peter Margulies over the bottom-side briefing in the al Bahlul D.C. Circuit military commission appeal, I wanted to offer a very quick (and hopefully final) word in response to Peter’s surreply from this afternoon, in an effort to crystallize the true points of departure between . . .
Read more »

Why Article III Matters: A Reply to Peter Margulies on al Bahlul

By
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 10:23 PM

I must confess that I don’t fully understand Peter Margulies’ response to my post from earlier today. My post argued that the bottom-side briefing in the D.C. Circuit in al Bahlul offers a relatively weak (and, in my view, already debunked) explanation for why Congess can allow allow military commissions to try enemy belligerents for wholly domestic offenses without . . .
Read more »

Article III and the Bottom-Side Briefing in al Bahlul

By
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Jane already flagged the merits brief filed by the U.S. government on September 17 in al Bahlul v. United States, the major challenge to the power of the Guantánamo military commissions to try non-international war crimes that was remanded by the en banc D.C. Circuit to the original three-judge panel back in July (and in which oral argument is . . .
Read more »

Military Commission Prosecutor’s Filings Regarding 9/11 Conspiracy Charges

By
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM

The Guantánamo military commissions yesterday released—after a security review—a pair of important filings by the Office of the Chief Prosecutor (OCP), regarding the ongoing controversy over the conspiracy charges against the five 9/11 defendants. (For background, see our prior coverage here, here, and here; and Chief Prosecutor Brig. Gen. Mark Martins’s podcast with Ben on the decision . . .
Read more »

Detention, the AUMF, and the Bush Administration — Correcting the Record

By
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 3:06 PM

It is now well known that the Obama administration has embraced almost all of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies without substantial modification.  One such policy is military detention without trial.  The Obama administration has argued, however, that its legal rationale for military detention is different than the Bush administration legal rationale.  State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh described . . .
Read more »