The Washington Post reports : The Center for Constitutional Rights, a private group which has been deeply involved in detainee issues, praised Tuesday’s decision but said it does not go far enough.

The screen comes alive with James Connell III---who responds to the court’s pending inquiry, regarding material that isn’t subject to the government’s information privilege but that still comes within th...

Our fourth day commences, as expected, with presence matters. Prosecutor Robert Swann discharges what appears to be his recurring duty: establishing that the day’s two no-shows, Mustafa al-Hawsawi and R...

Its Thursday, October 18---the fourth in this week's five-day hearing in United States v. Mohammed et al.  The proceedings are set to resume shortly.

I somehow missed the D.C. Circuit habeas appeal of Guantanamo detainee Abdul Qader Ahmen Hussein, whose case is to be argued today. It appeals this decision from a year ago by U.S. District Judge Reggie ...

Peter Margulies of Roger Williams School of Law writes in with the following comments on the Hamdan decision:

[UPDATE: A reader points out that when discussing this subject back in 2011, the question had arisen as to whether this was indeed the best reading of 2339B(d) for the 1996-2004 period.  I had responded ...

In his post on yesterday's decision in (what I think we should all call) Hamdan II, Jack writes "The historical arguments for a conspiracy charge in military commissions under the laws of war, while not ...

Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins has released these remarks regarding proceedings in the 9/11 case, today and yesterday.

We return, and KSM is ready to talk---through a translator. The red-bearded Baluch holds forth about “national security.”  The government told you, Judge Pohl, that you must consider national security, ...

We return refreshed from lunch, and discover that audio has been restored here at Smallwood.  There’s also this bit of news: Walid Bin Attash still isn’t coming to court today.  (There had been some spec...

Five brief thoughts on yesterday’s Hamdan decision: First, I am less confident than Steve and Ben that this opinion forecloses conspiracy claims in military commissions.  The historical arguments for a ...

KSM’s presence is upon us---that is, both KSM himself, and his rights under the Military Commissions Act.  He’s in the courtroom, camouflage vest and all, and Mark Martins wants Judge Pohl to confirm tha...

We pick up where yesterday left off---with the ACLU’s Hina Shamsi, who continues her First Amendment-based challenge to the government’s proposal for an order protecting certain national security informa...

It wouldn’t be a military commission without some preliminary matters, the first of which is attendance.  (No surprise here: the court’s approach to the issue requires a brief inquiry at the commencement...

In cybersecurity circles I often hear that firms are increasingly taking matters into their own hands in the face of cyber-exploitations or cyber-attacks by taking retaliatory steps against the computer ...

We're back at Smallwood Hall here at Fort Meade, where we'll take in a third day of piped-in-from-GTMO hearings in United States v. Mohammed et al.

I largely agree with Steve’s excellent post on the D.C. Circuit’s Hamdan decision today. In particular, and most importantly, I agree that the logic of the opinion strongly indicates that military commis...