Military Commissions Seal
You are here:  Home   CASES
Military Commissions
  
Select a case to enable search field.
 
You searched for:
Charges Pending/Active
USS Cole: Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu Al-Nashiri (2)
 

Document type
 
Info button

  Refine your search further
Date range
FROM
 
TO
 
 
 

Filed by

 

USS Cole: Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu Al-Nashiri (2)
 
Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu Al-Nashiri (Saudi Arabian)
Al-Nashiri is charged with perfidy, murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, terrorism, conspiracy, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, and hazarding a vessel. The charges arise out of an attempted attack on the USS THE SULLIVANS in January 2000, an attack on the USS COLE in October 2000, and an attack on the MV Limburg in October 2002.

In August 2014, Mr. al Nashiri's military trial judge dismissed the charges and specifications stemming from the M/V Limburg bombing. The Government immediately appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR). Two military judges and one civilian judge were assigned to hear the Government's interlocutory appeal. In September 2014, Mr. al Nashiri moved to recuse the two military judges. He alleged that military judges are assigned to the CMCR in violation of the Appointments Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, and cannot be freely removed in violation of the Commander-in-Chief Clause, id. cl. 1. The CMCR denied Mr. al Nashiri's motion in October 2014. Mr. al Nashiri then filed a petition requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus and prohibition disqualifying the military judges on his CMCR panel. On June 23, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion, denying Mr. al Nashiri's petition because he could adequately raise his constitutional challenges on appeal from final judgment.

A charge is merely an accusation; an accused is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
 
The Office of Military Commissions is committed to the goal of transparency. Please be advised that some posted materials may be redacted in part or in whole through a review conducted by the DoD Security Classification/Declassification Review Team and any relevant non-DoD federal departments or agencies to prevent the release of classified and/or protected information in accordance with Chapters 17 and 19, Regulation for Trial by Military Commission.

Legend
Sort by (Showing 10 of 1960 results)
File Description   File Date   Designation   Arrow button  
Defense Reply to Government Response to Defense Motion to Abate Proceedings Until Critical Members of Defense Team Receive Appropriate Security Clearances 07/29/2016 AE350B
Order on Government Motion For The Commission To Lift The Abatement Of All Proceedings It Ordered in AE340J 07/29/2016 AE340L
Defense Reply to Government Response to Defense Motion to Dismiss Because Convening Authority's Dual Judicial and Prosecutorial Responsibilities Violate Due Process, or In the Alternative, to Abate Proceedings Until the Convening Authority is Removed From Those Roles 07/29/2016 AE352D
Government Response To Defense Motion To Abate Proceedings And For Appropriate Relief Due To Destruction Of Evidence Referenced In AE 092 07/28/2016 AE092U
Defense Reply to Government Response to Defense Motion to Dismiss Charge IV, Specification 2; Charge V, Overt Act 26; and Charges VII-IX Pursuant to RJR Nabisco v. European Community 07/28/2016 AE351B
Government Response To Defense Motion To Compel Discovery (Ex Parte Communications with U.S.C.M.C.R.) 07/28/2016 AE355A
Notice to the Defense of The Government's Ex Parte, In Camera, and Under Seal Classified Motion Under 10 U.S.C. § 949p-4(b) and M.C.R.E. 505(f)(2) 07/27/2016 AE092T
Government Response To Defense Motion To Dismiss For Violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) Regarding Mohsen Al-Fadhli 07/27/2016 AE353A
Government's Forty-Third Notice Relating To Its Efforts To Comply With The Commission's 24 June 2014 Discovery Order (AE120AA) 07/27/2016 AE120PPPPP
Government Response To Defense Motion To Dismiss Because The Convening Authority's Dual Judicial And Prosecutorial Responsibilities Violate Due Process, or in the Alternative To Abate The Proceedings Until The Convening Authority Is Removed From Those Roles 07/27/2016 AE352A (AMENDED COPY)

Show All Page: 1 of 197
Number of result per page: Previous Next