Skip to content

Tag Archives: United States v. Al Bahlul

Military Commissions, Conspiracy, and al-Iraqi

By
Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 7:20 AM

Over the weekend, I blogged over at Just Security about the al-Iraqi case pending before the military commissions at Guantánamo—and, in particular, Saturday’s New York Times story reporting that the government has amended the charge sheet against al-Iraqi to add a charge of conspiracy. As readers likely know, the en banc D.C. Circuit will soon . . .
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 »

Oral Argument Preview: Al-Bahlul v. United States

By
Sunday, September 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Monday morning, an en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul v. United States. Lawfare has covered  extensively the ins and outs of this important case, in which a Guantanamo detainee appeals his 2009 conviction by military commission for providing material support to Al Qaeda, conspiracy, . . .
Read more »

Final Word on the Bahlul Brief

By
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Steve’s latest insightful and well-argued comments on Former Government Officials and Military Lawyers’ amicus brief in al Bahlul highlight one important difference between us, but obscure that issue with other arguments that are more easily resolved.  I’ll address these preliminary points first, and then address the really significant difference. Despite what Steve contends (citing Kevin . . .
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 »

Wiki Case Page: Al Bahlul Resources

By
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Over the next few weeks, we will be starting our rollout of the Lawfare Wiki Document Library. The library will have many facets, and we will be introducing it piece by piece, sometimes page by page. The first page, a kind of template for what we hope to do with a lot of cases in . . .
Read more »

DCCA to Al-Bahlul: Do You Want to Keep Pursuing Your Case?

By
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 5:01 PM

The D.C. Circuit wants to know whether Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al-Bahlul desires to continue challenging his conviction by a military commission.  And the appeals court wants an answer from the accused himself, as it made clear in an order issued today.   (The D.C. Circuit granted the government’s petition for en banc review; the full . . .
Read more »

Developments in United States v. Al-Bahlul

By
Monday, May 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Two interesting and related developments in the Al-Bahlul appeal now pending before the D.C. Circuit: first, it seems that in mid-April, the accused had passed a note to a JTF-GTMO guard, in which Al-Bahlul (among other things) said he wished to “withdraw the case filed to appeal/challeng[e] the military commission’s ruling.” You can find the April missive—which JTF-GTMO . . .
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 »

An Explainer on Hamdan II, Al-Bahlul, and the Jurisdiction of the Guantánamo Military Commissions

By
Friday, April 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM

As Wells noted on Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc in Al-Bahlul v. United States. This is a very important development, as the full appeals court will now determine whether military commissions may try defendants for pre-2006 instances of “standalone” conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. Al-Bahlul has . . .
Read more »

Bahlul Requests Clarification of D.C. Circuit’s En Banc Order

By
Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM

As Wells and Ben wrote yesterday, the D.C. Circuit granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc in U.S. v. Bahlul.   Today, the accused’s counsel asked the court to clarify instructions it issued in granting en banc review. The D.C. Circuit had asked the parties to brief two questions, in addition to those raised thus far: one, for purposes of considering . . .
Read more »

Breaking News: D.C. Circuit Grants En Banc Rehearing in Al-Bahlul

By and
Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Whoa.  This is very big news—though what it means is far less clear. The D.C. Circuit has granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc in the military commission case of U.S. v. Al-Bahlul.  It thus appears that a majority of the court’s seven active judges wish to explore the rulings of two three-judge panels, one in Al-Bahlul and . . .
Read more »

D.C. Circuit Orders Al-Bahlul To Reply to the Government’s Petition for En Banc Rehearing

By
Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 1:09 PM

As Steve noted on Tuesday, the government petitioned for rehearing in the military commission case of United States v. Al-Bahlul, asking the full D.C. Circuit to overturn: (1) a three-judge panel’s holding, in Hamdan II, that commissions lack jurisdiction to try, as regards pre-2006 conduct, material support for terrorism; and (2) another panel’s invalidation of Al-Bahlul’s conviction for standalone conspiracy.  The . . .
Read more »

DOJ Seeks Rehearing En Banc in Bahlul to Overturn Hamdan II

By
Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Back in January, we devoted a fair amount of attention to the DOJ Supplemental Brief in the al-Bahlul military commission appeal–and the rather significant internal debate within the Administration about whether to accept the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Hamdan II, or to seek to overturn it either by pursuing rehearing en banc in Bahlul (which is arguably a better . . .
Read more »

Convening Authority Rejects Prosecution Bid to Dismiss Conspiracy Charges in the 9/11 Case

By
Friday, January 18, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Whoa. Remember the Chief Prosecutor’s tactical recommendation to pull standalone conspiracy charges in the 9/11 case—in light of the D.C. Circuit’s analysis in Hamdan II, and the strong likelihood that the same court (or the Supreme Court) would follow Hamdan II, and invalidate conspiracy as a commission offense with respect to pre-2006 conduct? Well, the military commissions’ Convening . . .
Read more »

The Merits of DOJ’s Supplemental Brief in Al Bahlul

By
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Yesterday, we posted the government’s supplemental brief in the Al Bahlul military commission appeal in the D.C. Circuit, the headline of which was the government’s concession that Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion for the Court of Appeals in Hamdan II requires reversal of Bahlul’s conviction, as well. Without question, though, the far more interesting part of the brief is the . . .
Read more »

The Government’s Supplemental Brief in Al-Bahlul

By
Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM

…is available here.  In a nutshell: Hamdan II requires reversal of Bahlul’s convictions by military commission of providing material support for terrorism, conspiracy to commit war crimes, and solicitation to commit war crimes. Because the Court is bound by Hamdan II, the government respectfully submits that it would be appropriate for the court to dispense with holding oral argument and proceed . . .
Read more »

The Implications of Hamdan II for Bahlul

By
Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit filed a per curiam order in the case of Bahlul v. United States, ordering the parties to file briefs addressing the implications of the court’s decision in Hamdan II. The three-judge panel in Bahlul is composed of Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith Rogers, . . .
Read more »