Here is the lengthy, en banc (well, sort of–considering recusals, retirements, new judges, etc.) Court of Military Commission Review opinion in U.S. v. Hamdan. This is the first post-trial appeal the court has completed in its history.
We’ll provide additional analysis after we’ve had time to more fully digest the opinion, but the bottom line is that, 17 months after the initial oral argument in this case, the CMCR unanimously decided Hamdan’s appellate issues on such matters as whether the military commissions have jurisdiction under the US Constitution to try offenses that haven’t traditionally been considered law of war offenses lacked the requisite merit that would necessitate reversal of his military commission conviction for providing material support for terrorism.
UPDATE: Here is Professor Robert Chesney’s Lawfareblog analysis of the opinion, in which he notes some shortcomings in the court’s reasoning. Also of interest, the court cites NIMJ’s own advisors Professors Richard Rosen and David Glazier in the opinion.
We’re still awaiting the decision in US v. al Bahlul. I’d guess we’ll see that opinion shortly.