Military Commission

The military commission in United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, et al. (i.e., the 9/11 military commission) reconvened from April 29 to May 2. The parties discussed conflict of interest concerns, the disclosure of classified documents, and how to approach the determination of whether or not there is an armed conflict, among other issues. Before recessing until the next session in mid-June, presiding military judge, Col.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday issued its opinion in In Re: Abd al-Rahim Muhammed al-Nashiri. The court held that Col. Vance Spath, the judge in the al-Nashiri case, should have been disqualified from his position while seeking a job as an immigration judge with the U.S. Department of Justice. The court vacated every order Spath has issued since Nov. 2015 as well as related rulings by the Court of Military Commissions Review.

In a session cut short by a stay from the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), the military commission in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, et al. (i.e., the 9/11 military commission) reconvened on March 25-27. See here for previous Lawfare coverage.

Wednesday’s session opens up with Jim Harrington, counsel for Ramzi Binalshibh arguing in favor of 152JJJ, a request for testimonial immunity for Abu Zubaydah in connection with Binalshibh’s motion to hold the guards in contempt for poor camp conditions. Harrington recites the criteria for granting testimonial immunity: that the witness intends to invoke a right to refuse to answer a question, that the government would receive a tactical advantage from denying or objecting to immunity, and that the testimony pertains to otherwise unobtainable evidence.