A Military Commission Judge sanctioned the government Monday for its misconduct in its prosecution of a Guantanamo Bay detainee.
Latest in Military Commissions
Military judge Col. Douglas K. Watkins issued a ruling on June 4 holding that military judges have "legal authority to grant administrative credit as a remedy for illegal pretrial punishment." The ruling came in the case of Majid Khan, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay who pleaded guilty in February 2012 to charges stemming from his helping to finance a 2003 al-Qaeda attack in Indonesia that killed 11 people. Khan was detained by the CIA from 2003-2006 and alleges that he was tortured while in custody. Col.
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit has denied a petition from three of the five defendants on trial before a military commission for their roles in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, who sought to disqualify a former military judge who presided over some of their proceedings at Guantanamo Bay. The petitioners—Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid M.
We are back with an interview-focused episode! Tune in as Professors Chesney and Vladeck interview Brigadier General John G. Baker, USMC. Gen. Baker is Chief Defense Counsel for the military commissions at Guantanamo.
And, yes, there’s frivolity at the end... Bills-themed frivolity!
A new military commissions judge in the Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri case has dismissed a series of government motions seeking to avoid turning over classified materials to Nashiri's defense team. In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit threw out more than three years of orders issued by the case's former, Col. Vance Spath. The government had requested "reconsideration" of 30 of Spath's now-vacated orders about classified evidence.
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.
Last month, the military commission for the matter of United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al. (i.e., the 9/11 trial) held a marathon three weeks of nearly back-to-back hearings. After being held up by delays in the publication and release of relevant transcripts, this post summarizes these proceedings and identifies several areas of potential interest, including testimony from two FBI special agents regarding their interviews with the defendants and their prior knowledge of alleged torture by the CIA.
With a new judge presiding, the military commission in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. (the 9/11 military commission) reconvened July 22-26. See here for previous coverage on Lawfare.
With a new judge presiding, the military commission in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, et al. (the 9/11 military commission) reconvened June 17-21. See here for previous coverage on Lawfare.
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.