For the professional edge in your day-to-day practice, rely on the most timely, objective reporting on significant developments, trends, and emerging patterns in criminal law today—Criminal Law...
Oct. 20 — A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Oct. 20 reinstated the conspiracy conviction of Osama bin Laden’s propoganda chief by a 6-3 vote that featured four different concurrences and a 67-page dissent ( Bahlul v. United States , 2016 BL 349187, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1324, 10/20/16 ).
The splintered decision means that military commissions may continue to try terrorism conspiracy cases, even if those conspiracies aren’t offenses under the international “law of war.”
But the broader question of whether those commissions have the constitutional authority to do so remains unresolved.
“Bahlul’s conviction stands, but only four out of nine judges voted in favor of the key issue in the case: The authority of military commissions to prosecute non-international law of war offenses,” Jennifer Daskal, an associate professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, told Bloomberg BNA.
“That means the issue is not going away,” Daskal said.
Daskal is a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department.
Steven I. Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law whose teaching and research focuses on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law and national security law, says the lengthy decision with multiple concurrences puts everything back to square one.
“163 pages later, we’re back where we started,” Vladeck wrote in the online forum Just Security.
Vladeck said he isn’t surprised that the court couldn’t reach consensus on the “big constitutional question” given the way the oral argument played out.
Many of the judges seemed uneasy with the prospect of either ruling that Congress can’t authorize any domestic-law offenses to be tried by a military commission, or that Congress can authorize any crimes to be tried in a commission, as long as the offense is committed by an enemy belligerent, Vladeck said.
Four of the judges on the en banc panel agreed with the government’s argument that Congress has the constitutional authority to give military commissions the power to try unlawful enemy combatants regardless of whether those offenses also qualify as international war crimes.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a concurrence joined by Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas B. Griffith, said that Congress isn’t limited by foreign law in these types of cases.
“The Constitution does not give foreign nations (acting through the international law of war or otherwise) a de facto veto over Congress’s determination of which war crimes may be tried by U.S. military commissions,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The fact that Bahlul’s crime is being labeled a “domestic conspiracy” wasn’t convincing, in Kavanaugh’s view.
“The two most important military commission precedents in U.S. history—the trials of the Lincoln conspirators and the Nazi saboteurs—were trials for the offense of conspiracy,” Kavanaugh said.
Whatever boundaries one might put on Congress’s authority to establish offenses triable by military commission, the historically rooted offense of conspiracy to commit war crimes falls well within those limits, Kavanaugh added.
“An enemy of the United States who engages in a conspiracy to commit war crimes—in Bahlul’s case, by plotting with Osama bin Laden to murder thousands of American civilians—may be tried by a U.S. military commission for conspiracy to commit war crimes,” Kavanaugh said.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson agreed with Kavanaugh’s logic in a separate concurrence.
Two judges agreed that Bahlul’s conviction should stand, but did so for different reasons.
Judge Patricia A. Millett said in her separate concurrence that the court didn’t need to reach the larger constitutional question because Bahlul never raised it in the military hearing and couldn’t meet the high burden of proving he was entitled to reversal under plain-error review.
Judge Robert L. Wilkins in his concurrence contended that the conviction should stand because Bahlul failed to prove he was convicted of an inchoate conspiracy. Bahlul was convicted of conspiring to murder Americans in the 9/11 attacks, Wilkins said.
The three dissenting judges said that the case belonged in the civil court system from the beginning.
“The challenges of the war on terror do not necessitate truncating the judicial power to make room for a new constitutional order,” Judge David S. Tatel said in a dissent joined by Judges Judith W. Rogers and Cornelia T.L. Pillard.
“The exceptional authority the government seeks here falls outside the bounds established by more than a century of constitutional practice,” Tatel added.
Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul, sometimes called the Joseph Goebbels of al-Qaeda for his production of propaganda videos, was convicted in 2008 by a Guantanamo Bay military commission for soliciting others to commit war crimes, providing material support to a terrorist organization and conspiracy.
In an en banc decision in 2014, the D.C. Circuit overturned Bahlul’s material support and solicitation convictions but rejected Bahlul’s ex post facto challenge to his conspiracy conviction under a plain-error standard of review, ruling that he forfeited those arguments by failing to raise them in the court below ( 95 CrL 514, 7/23/14).
On remand, a divided three-judge panel vacated the conspiracy conviction, ruling that the military tribunal that convicted him didn’t have jurisdiction to hear what amounts to a purely domestic offense, as opposed to an international war crime, and further that the ex post facto argument wasn’t forfeited ( 97 CrL 291, 6/17/15).
The 2006 Military Commissions Act authorizes trial by military commission for “any offense made punishable by this chapter,” including conspiracy ( 10 U.S.C. § 948d).
Congress passed the MCA in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) ( 79 CrL 471, 7/5/06), which held that the military commissions established by President George W. Bush lacked the authority to try alleged alien terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay.
Michel Paradis, of the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, Washington, argued for Bahlul. Ian Heath Gershengorn, of the DOJ, Washington, argued for the government
To contact the reporter on this story: Lance J. Rogers in Washington at LRogers@bna.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)