The Lawfare Podcast, Episode #97: Bahlul, Bahlul, Bahlul, Part Deux
By now you know: Wednesday morning saw oral argument in Al Bahlul v. United States---the first since the D.C. Circuit's en banc decision, and the matter's remand to a three judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Judith Rogers, David Tatel, and Karen LeCraft Henderson. On Wednesday afternoon, I sat down for post-argument analysis of the long-running military commissions case with Lawfare's Steve Vladeck, and Kevin Jon Heller of Opinio Juris.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
By now you know: Wednesday morning saw oral argument in Al Bahlul v. United States---the first since the D.C. Circuit's en banc decision, and the matter's remand to a three judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Judith Rogers, David Tatel, and Karen LeCraft Henderson. On Wednesday afternoon, I sat down for post-argument analysis of the long-running military commissions case with Lawfare's Steve Vladeck, and Kevin Jon Heller of Opinio Juris. The discussion was wide ranging, and touched on (among other things) the significance of the Supreme Court's Quirin ruling, and the case's potential consequences for future military commission trials of suspected terrorists. I should add that this marks the second Lawfare Podcast about the case. The first was"Bahlul, Bahlul, Bahlul;" we hope you'll enjoy this episode, "Bahlul, Bahlul, Bahlul, Part Deux."
-(1).jpeg?sfvrsn=143eb65_5)
.jpg?sfvrsn=d5e57b75_5)
