The military commissions’ appellate body has affirmed the military judge’s rulings in United States v. Al-Nashiri and ordered that pre-trial proceedings resume for the first time since February.
Latest in Court of Military Commission Review
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has issued a writ of mandamus in the 9/11 case, directing that Judge Scott Silliman of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) recuse himself from the case and vacating the CMCR's decision reinstating two charges against the 9/11 defendants that had previously been dismissed by the lower court. The opinion is available in full below.
In al Qosi's criminal appeal of his 2010 conviction, the Court of Military Commissions Review appears to have decided to find out what the defendant has been up to since his release.
On March 11, the Court of Military Commissions Review (CMCR)—the appellate court sandwiched between the military commissions and review at the D.C. Circuit court of appeals—issued a two-pronged order in the long-simmering appeal of the 2012 military commission conviction of Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi.
Last Friday's D.C. Circuit ruling in the Khadr case provides yet another striking illustration of how misbegotten an experiment the Court of Military Commission Review has turned out to be. As this post explains, not only does the CMCR suffer from inherent structural flaws that the political branches seem uninterested in fixing, but its substantive role in the military commission process has turned out to be not only woefully inefficient, but affirmatively counter-productive from both the government's and the defendants' perspectives. Simply put, the CMCR has become an object lesson in how not to create new non-Article III federal courts — and an expensive one, at that.