Last Friday's sessions in the Al Nashiri military commission case were quick. The first came quite early in the morning to resolve an outstanding issue from Thursday's closed session: whether the defense can interview Navy TJAG Nanette DeRenzi for purposes of the defense's pending unlawful influence motion.
Matt Danzer is a graduate of Columbia Law School, where he was a member of the Columbia Law Review and served as president of the National Security Law Society. He also works as an editor for the Topic A public policy blogs on Roll Call. He graduated from Cornell University in 2012 with a B.S., with honors, in Industrial and Labor Relations.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
At the outset of Wednesday's session in the Al Nashiri military commission---the criminal proceeding against a Guantanamo detainee accused of plotting, among other things, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole---Judge Vance Spath added an extra wrinkle to the ongoing "unlawful influence" debate surrounding Change 1 to the Regulation for Trial by Military Commissions. The latter requires that judges assigned to the commissions relocate to Guantanamo Bay for the duration of their cases. It seems that Lt. Gen.
The Al Nashiri military commission proceedings returned Monday for what is scheduled to be two weeks of pre-trial motion hearings. After an off-the-record session in the morning, the commission picked up in the afternoon session with AE 332, a defense motion to dismiss for unlawful influence and violation of due process for failure to provide an independent judiciary.
After the ups and downs of this week's hearings in the military commissions case of United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al., Thursday provided a much more straightforward series of motions brought on behalf of one accused 9/11 plotter only, Mustafa Al-Hawsawi. I overview some of Thursday's highlights, including courtroom discussion Hawsawi's motions, below.
Editor’s Note: This post represents a modest adjustment in Lawfare‘s military commissions coverage, one made necessary in part because of the surge in criminal hearings at Guantanamo in the coming weeks and months. For a full explanation, please see the first post in this series.
Editor's Note: This post represents a modest adjustment in Lawfare's military commissions coverage, one made necessary in part because of the surge in criminal hearings at Guantanamo in the coming weeks and months. Previously, when Lawfare writers have been unable to live-blog Guantanamo proceedings by visiting a CCTV observation facility at Fort Meade, they have turned as a "backup" measure to the transcripts---thereafter producing a digest based on those.
Findings, Conclusions and Areas of Dispute Between the SSCI Report, the Minority, and the CIA: Part Five
Here is the fifth and final installment in our running, side-by-side comparison of the twenty findings and conclusions of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's Study on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program---along with responses by the Committee Minority and the CIA.