Nashiri’s Reply Brief, released on Friday, 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).
Latest in Terrorism Trials: Military Commissions
Last Wednesday, following more of the oft-renewed Administration calls to close Guantánamo, 10 Yemeni detainees were transferred to Oman—the biggest single transfer under the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the litigation surrounding Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri’s yet-to-be-commenced military commission trial pressed on. Last week, the government argued that abstention should prevent a decision on the merits of the effort to stop the trial before it happens.
With the ruling in Al Bahlul IV still outstanding, the D.C. Circuit is set to hear argument next month on the military commission trial – yet to take place – of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the Guantánamo detainee charged with planning the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, among other offenses. Nashiri’s challenge raises corollary questions to Al Bahlul about the scope of military commission jurisdiction.
Audio of the D.C. Circuit's en banc oral argument in Al Bahlul is available here. I haven't listened to it yet. I'll offer thoughts after I do.
For the first time since February, proceedings in military commissions case United States v. Mohammad et al resumed this morning at Guantanamo Bay.
What was already shaping up to be a busy (and important) few months for the D.C. Circuit vis-a-vis the Guantánamo military commissions just got a little busier.
The brief was submitted to the D.C. Circuit yesterday, by the Guantanamo detainee's lawyers. We thus await decision from the appeals court as to whether it will order en banc rehearing in this long-running military commissions case.
It almost certainly won't, in my view—but we'll see soon enough.
The government's (second) rehearing petition apparently was filed today in this long-running military commissions case. Offhand, it's not clear to me how the government can prevail---but we'll see.
A whopping two weeks of court time earlier had been reserved for pre-trial motions in United States v. Abd al Hadi al Iraqi---but not all of it will be filled with proceedings in the Guantanamo courtroom. The military judge's docketing order doesn't suggest a marathon, for one thing, but instead only sets a few motions for oral argument and allows for the calendar to be adjusted in light of in-court progress.
In a characteristically thoughtful post, my friend (and, in his words, "long-time sparring partner") Charlie Dunlap takes me to task for some of my comments in last week's Lawfare podcast with regard to the D.C.