Latest in Guantanamo Bay
We are happy to report that Episode 7 of the National Security Law Podcast ("The Less Prep the Better") has just gone live. In about 42 minutes, we discuss:
- the Trump allegation about being wiretapped
- the Trump allegation about GTMO recidivism (and the Spicer follow-up about just when judges got involved in ordering GTMO releases)
- the Vault7/Wikileaks mess
It’s Wednesday morning and we’re back at Guantanamo Bay for more pre-trial hearings in the case of the five men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks.
The week in military commission procceedings continued on June 3.
Memorial Day sessions at Guantanamo Bay resume for the afternoon.
After a brief hiatus, the 9/11 military commissions kicked back in action on Memorial Day.
This case's focus shifted to AE 386, the primary concern being how Touhy applies. First, does the CIA Touhy regulation exceed congressional delegation of power under 5 USC §301? Second, does the CIA Touhy regulation even govern the military commission process? And third, does the CIA Touhy regulation impose an unconstitutionally nonreciprocal burden on the defense?
Walid bin Attash's attorney makes her own motion to withdraw from the case, citing that invasions of attorney-client privilege, lack of access to evidence, torture, failed motion for family visitation, and more, have undermined her credibility with her client.
Pre-trial hearings in the 9/11 military commission case begin again, but abruptly stall once more on the question of whether Walid bin Attash can fire his attorneys.
Nashiri’s Reply Brief responds to the government’s contention that Nashiri’s petition does not sound in habeas at all, and is therefore barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2).
Here is the statement from Chief Prosecutor Brig. Gen. Mark Martins at the close of a two-week series of pre-trial sessions in the military commissions case against five alledged 9/11 conspirators, United States v. Mohammad et al.