Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
U.S. to Press Fight of Detainee’s Appeal
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: January 9, 2013
WASHINGTON The Obama administration, after a high-level debate among its legal team, told a federal appeals court on Wednesday that the conviction of a Guantánamo Bay prisoner by a military commission in 2008 was valid even though the charges against him including conspiracy and material support for terrorism were not recognized as war crimes in international law.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided to press forward with the case, fighting the appeal of a guilty verdict against the prisoner, a Yemeni man named Ali al-Bahlul. In an unusual move, Mr. Holder overruled the recommendation of the solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who had wanted to drop the case because the appeals court had rejected the same legal arguments in another case several months ago, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.
The chief prosecutor of the military commissions system, Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, had also urged the Justice Department to drop the case and pointedly did not sign the 22-page brief to the court on Wednesday. It concedes that the judges must side with Mr. Bahlul at this stage because of the earlier ruling in the other case, but argues that the earlier ruling was wrong.
General Martins also announced on Wednesday that he was abandoning the conspiracy charge in the death penalty case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others accused of being accomplices in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
remainder: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/us/us-to-press-fight-of-detainees-appeal.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 932 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
U.S. to Press Fight of Detainee’s Appeal (Original Post)
Jefferson23
Jan 2013
OP
atreides1
(16,070 posts)1. How do we know?
Holder and his band couldn't find one single thing to nail Arpaio...how are we expected to believe they know what they're doing in this case?
Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)2. K&R
Some background.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/conviction-overturned-bin-ladens-former-driver
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for a three-judge DC Circuit panel that Hamdan could not be prosecuted for acts that were not crimes at the time they were committed. That's because the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing laws ex post factoafter the fact. The government cannot make something a crime after you've already done it and then charge you for doing it. But that's exactly what Congress seemed to do in 2006 when it made "material support for terrorism" a war crime and encouraged the military to prosecute Gitmo detaineeswho had already been imprisoned for yearsfor committing it.
"This is a massive blow to the legitimacy of the military commissions system," says Zachary Katznelson, a senior attorney at the ACLU. The commissions "have been trying people for years for something that isn't even a war crime."
War crime or not, prosecutors love material support charges because they're vague and relatively easy to prove. Material support often involves conduct that might not necessarily be violentlike driving bin Laden's car or cooking his foodthat somehow helps a terrorist group.
It's not just a few Gitmo detainees who have faced these charges. Every single detainee at Gitmo who has been convicted by military commission has been at some point charged with material support for terrorism. Now a federal judgeone appointed by Bush!says that's all bogus. And it's not just material support charges that could be affected. Conspiracy charges, which were also not a war crime under United States law before 2006, could be thrown out for similar reasons.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for a three-judge DC Circuit panel that Hamdan could not be prosecuted for acts that were not crimes at the time they were committed. That's because the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing laws ex post factoafter the fact. The government cannot make something a crime after you've already done it and then charge you for doing it. But that's exactly what Congress seemed to do in 2006 when it made "material support for terrorism" a war crime and encouraged the military to prosecute Gitmo detaineeswho had already been imprisoned for yearsfor committing it.
"This is a massive blow to the legitimacy of the military commissions system," says Zachary Katznelson, a senior attorney at the ACLU. The commissions "have been trying people for years for something that isn't even a war crime."
War crime or not, prosecutors love material support charges because they're vague and relatively easy to prove. Material support often involves conduct that might not necessarily be violentlike driving bin Laden's car or cooking his foodthat somehow helps a terrorist group.
It's not just a few Gitmo detainees who have faced these charges. Every single detainee at Gitmo who has been convicted by military commission has been at some point charged with material support for terrorism. Now a federal judgeone appointed by Bush!says that's all bogus. And it's not just material support charges that could be affected. Conspiracy charges, which were also not a war crime under United States law before 2006, could be thrown out for similar reasons.
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2012/11/10/conservative-judges-demolish-the-false-legitimacy-of-guantanamos-terror-trials/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/dispute-over-clothing-dominates-guantanamo-hearing.html?_r=0
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)3. Thanks for the link Solly. I 'm always struck by the type of conservative judges that did not buy
into these twisted versions of the law. Good thing they're around.
Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)4. You're welcome. I keep up with the trials/decisions, etc..
I guess I always will. I can't just move on.