Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed claims from a military commissions defendant alleging that he has been denied satisfactory medical care at Guantanamo Bay. The defendant, known as Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, had filed a motion to dismiss the case on multiple grounds, including alleged 8th amendment violations.
Latest in Military Commission
Last Week at the Military Commissions: 9/11 Commission Debates Who Gets to Determine When Hostilities Began
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.
Defense counsel on behalf of Guantanamo detainee Moath Hamza Ahmed Al-Alwi have filed a reply in further support of their petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in Al-Alwi v. Trump. The government's brief opposing certiorari is available here.
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.
The military commission for Majid Shoukat Khan, who pleaded guilty to charges related to his role as a low-level al-Qaeda operative in 2012, reconvened on April 1, after a hiatus since July 2018.
Last Week at the Military Commissions: Bug Sweeps, Defendants’ Sixth Amendment Confrontation Rights, Existence of Pre-9/11 Hostilities and More
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.
On March 21, the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) upheld Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul’s conviction and life sentence for conspiracy to commit war crimes. The court also dismissed Bahlul’s challenge that the military commission that convicted him lacked jurisdiction because the appointment of the convening authority (CA) for the military commissions was statutorily and constitutionally improper.
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.
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.
All the accused, except one, appeared in court after a day’s recess in the trial against the alleged orchestrators of the September 11th attacks. Only Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi exercised his right not to be present at the proceedings.