1. Bensayah v. Obama (D.C. Cir.) (argument preview)
Heads-up: The DC Circuit will hear oral argument inBensayah next Thursday, in a hearing that is closed to the public. This is an appeal of Judge Leon’s ruling denying habeas relief on the merits to one of the several GTMO detainees taken into custody in Bosnia (including Boumediene). It is the first occasion for the Circuit to address the substantive scope of the government’s detention authority (the case also raises some procedural issues) in connection with habeas proceedings, though it should be noted that the Circuit previously had the opportunity to say a few things on this topic in Parhat v. Gates via the Detainee Treatment Act direct review system (i.e., the system of direct judicial review of CSRT determinations that the Supreme Court held inBoumediene did not provide an adequate substitute for habeas review).
2. Al Maqaleh v. Gates (D.C. Cir.) (government’s brief, including an attached copy of the Bagram
The government’s brief challenging the decision by Judge Bates to extend habeas review to Bagram detainees who are not Afghans and who were not captured in Afghanistan is posted here. Of particular interest, the brief includes as an addendum (at pp. 78-85 of the pdf file) policy guidance setting forth the new procedures to be used in reviewing detainee status at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility.
3. Closure of Camp Cropper in Iraq (and the coming end of long-term military detention by the US in Iraq)
I normally don’t post news articles. But after writing up the Al Maqaleh entry above, I wanted to draw attention to this article in the Times noting the recent closure of the US detention facility at Camp Cropper in Iraq and the anticipated shutdown in the months ahead of the remaining US long-term military detention facilities in Iraq.
4. United States v. Kassir (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 15, 2009)
Following up on the post earlier this week describing the denial of Kassir’s post-verdict motions, Kassir has now been sentenced to life in prison. That in itself is interesting, given the mix of charges on which he was convicted: various material support counts, an explosives count, and conspiracy counts under 956(a) that did contemplate an agreement to commit violent acts abroad but that did not (so far as I can tell) allege a link between Kassir and any particular act of violence. I’ve written previously about the capacity of conspiracy liability to be used in this manner. If you are interested, see here.
Also interesting, for those who are not keeping up with the long-running saga of the Oregon training camp with which Kassir was associated: The press release for the sentencing has a brief summary of the current situation relating to co-defendants who remain in the UK fighting extradition to the US, including especially Abu Hamza:
KASSIR’s co-defendants ABU HAMZA and ASWAT are presently detained in England awaiting extradition to the United States. In addition to the charges against all three men, the Indictment charges ABU HAMZA with conspiracy and substantive offenses relating to a hostage-taking in Yemen in 1998, facilitating violent jihad in Afghanistan, and supplying goods and services to the Taliban in 2000 and 2001. ABU HAMZA was arrested in May 2004 by the Metropolitan Police at New Scotland Yard in London, England, on a warrant relating to these charges. Thereafter, ABU HAMZA was charged with terrorism offenses by the U.K. authorities, which resulted in a conviction in the U.K. on February 7, 2006. The extradition proceedings against ABU HAMZA were stayed pending completion of the U.K. criminal proceedings. After ABU HAMZA’s U.K. conviction was affirmed on appeal, the United States renewed its efforts to extradite ABU HAMZA to the United States. The extradition proceedings against ABU HAMZA are currently pending in the European Court of Human Rights.