Armed Conflict Courts & Litigation Criminal Justice & the Rule of Law Terrorism & Extremism

Appellant's Brief in Nashiri v. MacDonald

Wells Bennett
Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 3:14 PM
Remember Nashiri v. MacDonald? That's the civil lawsuit that Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Al-Nashiri, a defendant in a military commission case at Guantanamo, brought against Bruce MacDonald, the commissions' Convening Authority.   In short, Nashiri sought equitable relief, claiming that MacDonald unlawfully had attempted to prosecute Nashiri for offenses that did not occur within a conflict regulated by the laws of war.

Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Brookings

Remember Nashiri v. MacDonald? That's the civil lawsuit that Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Al-Nashiri, a defendant in a military commission case at Guantanamo, brought against Bruce MacDonald, the commissions' Convening Authority.   In short, Nashiri sought equitable relief, claiming that MacDonald unlawfully had attempted to prosecute Nashiri for offenses that did not occur within a conflict regulated by the laws of war.   A district court in Washington dismissed the action in May, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction; and that, even if it had jurisdiction, the court nevertheless should abstain from hearing the case. Al-Nashiri's lawyers have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  The Appellant's brief, which I have not yet read, was filed with that court yesterday.   You can find a copy here.

Wells C. Bennett was Managing Editor of Lawfare and a Fellow in National Security Law at the Brookings Institution. Before coming to Brookings, he was an Associate at Arnold & Porter LLP.

Subscribe to Lawfare