Skip to content

Tag Archives: United States v. Al Bahlul

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 »

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 »

Government Files Response in Al Bahlul v. United States

By
Thursday, September 18, 2014 at 6:57 AM

Last month Guantanamo detainee Ali al Bahlul filed his opening brief in Al Bahlul v. United States, in a bid to overturn his conviction for conspiracy to commit war crimes, the single military commission conviction against Bahlul that the D.C. Circuit left standing in its July 14, 2014 en banc ruling (the court vacated his convictions for material support and . . .
Read more »

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 »

A Nugget of Real News in General Martins’s Statement

By
Monday, August 4, 2014 at 7:36 AM

Last night, Wells posted a statement by Military Commissions Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins about the weeklong Nashiri hearing getting under way today at Guantanamo. The statement contains the following sentence: “I also assess at the present time that there are no additional prosecutions against Guantanamo detainees that would be made possible by the existence in the military . . .
Read more »

The Lawfare Podcast, Episode #84: Bahlul, Bahlul, Bahlul

By
Saturday, July 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM

It was a big week at the D.C. Circuit, which handed down the en banc decision in the Al Bahlul military commission case. It’s a complicated decision: a mess of a procedural history, lots of separate opinions, very little clarity, and strange areas of unanimity. It’s also got big implications for the future of military commissions.  So in . . .
Read more »

Bahlul: A Longer View

By
Tuesday, July 15, 2014 at 6:46 AM

Steve says of yesterday’s Bahlul decision. Whether or not you agree with the result of today’s decision, the D.C. Circuit has done no one any favors–not the government, which will still be terribly uncertain as to which cases it can and can’t bring; not the defendants, for obvious reasons; not the public; and, most importantly, not the commissions–the fragility . . .
Read more »

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 »