If terrorist capture comes, can a debate over Guantanamo vs. federal court be far behind? Apparently not. This time, the debate is coming even before the terrorist's capture---or even his positive ident...

Yesterday, plaintiff-appellants in Allaithi v. Rumsfeld filed their petition for a rehearing en banc, two months after the D.C.

Here's a novelty: Guantanamo detainee Abdul Razak Ali---whose case we have written about a fair bit---has filed a reply brief in response to his own cert petition.

Here's the government's response to the GAO report, to which Wells linked yesterday, concluding that the Bergdahl trade violated the law. A statement from Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby...

So concludes this report from the Government Accountability Office, which apparently was written in response to a request by various Senators. The document opens:

Yesterday we flagged two amicus briefs filed on behalf of the petitioner in al-Bahlul v. United States by (1) the National Institute of Military Justice and (2) Professor David Glazier of Loyola Law Scho...

This morning Steve summarized the amicus brief he co-authored on behalf of the National Institute of Military Justice in support of the petitioner in al Bahlul v. United States.

On July 14, the en banc D.C. Circuit ruled in al Bahlul v. United States that "plain error" review applied to Bahlul's ex post facto challenge to his military commission convictions for conspiracy, mater...

Here it is. The seven-page, heavily redacted legal analysis was apparently released earlier today, as a consequence of the FOIA action brought by the New York Times and the ACLU.

With no more conflict motions for today, the Special Review Team swaps out and the normal prosecutors come back.

After agreeing Wednesday to reconsider the severance of Ramzi Binalshibh from the other four accused in the 9/11 case, Judge Pohl reconvenes the commission on Thursday with a full house—all five accused,...

Army Col. James Pohl starts Wednesday's brief session begins with a summary of where things stand in the case of United States v.