Here is a link (courtesy of Lawfare) to the Hicks case decision from U.S. Court of Military Commissions Review (USCMCR) . The Feb. 18, 2015 decision (I am a little tardy), after finding that Hicks waiver of appellate review . . . didn’t waive appellate review, set aside his guilty plea to providing material support to terrorism, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(25) (2006), and the sentence based on Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc). If you’ll recall, here (Lawfare), Al Bahlul found that (as summarized by Judge Kavanaugh):
A military commission may not try the offense of material support for terrorism for conduct that occurred before enactment of the 2006 Act. All seven judges likewise conclude that a military commission may not try the offense of solicitation for conduct that occurred before enactment of the 2006 Act. The Court is unanimous that those two offenses were not war crimes triable by military commission at the time of Bahlul’s conduct in 2001. Therefore, all seven judges agree that we must vacate Bahlul’s material support for terrorism and solicitation convictions as ex post facto violations.
Since Hicks has long since been released from Gitmo, this doesn’t do much for him. His defense counsel should get an astro-turf rug in front of his door (sorry, bad Code 45 tradition). WSJ coverage here.