The latest Guantánamo military commission case to make headlines—the new charges against Encep Nurjamen (a.k.a. Hambali)—is shrouded in an unusual amount of secrecy. But when that veil is lifted, it reveals a charge sheet containing a legal flaw significant enough for the Pentagon’s newly appointed senior official in charge of such matters—Convening Authority Harvey Rishikof—to demand a do-over.… continue »
Given the importance of tonight’s prime-time debate between US presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, we’re again running our list of vital national security questions we want to see both candidates answer. The list below was originally compiled by a group of Just Security’s editors and contributors ahead the Commander-in-Chief Forum that took place earlier this month.… continue »
The DC Circuit’s recent ruling in In re Al-Nashiri missed an opportunity to clarify an important question in the current US military commissions: when did the armed conflict against al Qaeda start. The defendant, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, had brought a pre-trial challenge to his prosecution for his alleged role in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.… continue »
According to a provocative new amicus brief filed by the Hoover Institution’s Adam White and UVA Law Professor Aditya Bamzai in opposition to certiorari in Akbar v. United States, a case challenging the constitutionality of the military death penalty (about which I blogged at length in May), the answer is yes.… continue »
After a very long delay, and a couple of new presidential appointments of military judges to the court (resolving one of the two serious structural problems Steve has described elsewhere), the Court of Military Commission Review has finally issued its decision in the government’s interlocutory appeal on the MV Limburg aspect of the case against Abd al-Rahim Hussain al-Nashiri.… continue »
Anyone who’s been following the military commission prosecution of the five alleged 9/11 plotters at Guantánamo Bay is likely familiar with some of the absurd happenings in the case. From the discoveries that attorney-client meeting rooms were wired for surveillance, that microphones in the courtroom could capture and record supposedly confidential attorney-client conversations, that the government could search defense counsel’s computers, and that the FBI was actually investigating at least one of the five legal defense teams while the prosecution ensued, the case has felt a bit like a three-ring circus to those of us watching.… continue »
As one of those who spends parts of his Tuesday and Friday mornings trolling PACER for new D.C. Circuit rulings (which appear there before they’re posted on the Court of Appeals’ public website), two of the decisions for which I’m especially keeping an eye out are the en banc D.C.… continue »
Last week Steve wrote about the then-not-yet public provision in the Senate version of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would permit Guantánamo detainees to plead guilty to criminal charges in Article III courts without ever stepping foot on US soil.… continue »
One of the more curious tidbits to emerge from the Senate Armed Services Committee’s draft of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (which the Committee approved last Thursday by a 23-3 vote) is a provision that (apparently) would allow Guantánamo detainees to “to plead guilty to criminal charges in Article III courts via teleconference and authorizes the government to transfer such detainees to third countries to serve out their sentences.” Our best efforts notwithstanding, the actual text is apparently still not available (thanks, SASC!).… continue »
This post is the latest installment of our “Monday Reflections” feature, in which a different Just Security editor examines the big stories from the previous week or looks ahead to key developments on the horizon.
The fix is in, as they say.… continue »
