The government’s reply to the writ petition filed by two Navy JAGs in the bin al Shibh case (discussed here) is now online.

The government argues broadly that, inter alia, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain interlocutory matters in MCA cases.  Not surprisingly, the government also disputes some of the factual assertions made by the defense. The competency issue at first glance appears to be one of those disputed; but on closer examination, the government does not appear to challenge the defense’s assertion that bin al Shibh may not be competent to “conduct or cooperate intelligently in his own defense.” The government has agreed to continue bin al Shibh’s competency hearing for sixty days.

The government brief can be found here: [PDF].

7 Responses to “Government’s response filed in bin al Shibh case”

  1. The Bluebook says:

    Strange that there is no citation for the following sentence:“The full Congress is likely to pass the Defense Authorization bill sometime in October or November.”

  2. No Man says:

    Is it just me or is the (pink) elephant in the room the 4 year gap from apprehension to incarceration at GITMO?

  3. LTC Slade says:

    No Man, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

  4. A. Nonny Mousse, Esq. says:

    Slade,

    It’s the entire reason the Supreme Court is even involved in Guantanamo. See Hamdan and Boumediene contra, e.g., Eisentrager.

  5. LTC Slade says:

    The Sup. Ct. is involved b/c some other country detained these folks before we did? I think not…

  6. No Man says:

    LTC Slade:

    What does a 4 year gap have to do with whether this individual is competent to stand trial? I don’t know, what happened during those 4 years?

  7. LTC Slade says:

    No, I understand why the four year gap is important to the competency issue…but how is it a pink elephant? I’d say it’s front and center…whether the defense chooses to stress it or not is up to them. I’d imagine they know more about what happened during those four years than you or I do.