Here is a link to a notice filed by the Government in Baker v. Spath, et al., informing the court that:

Shortly before 1 p.m. on November 3, 2017, the Convening Authority sua sponte deferred the remaining term of Petitioner’s sentence of confinement pending final action by the Convening Authority on the contempt findings. See Rule For Military Commission 1101(c). The deferral is effective immediately and notice of the Convening Authority’s decision has been served on Petitioner.

10 Responses to “Convening authority defers BGen Baker’s confinement”

  1. k fischer says:

    So, what does that mean Hal?  Haaal?  What does that all mean?

  2. Zachary D Spilman says:

    Deferment is the postponement of the running of the sentence.

    So Baker served 3 days, faces 18 more (if the convening authority approved it).

  3. k fischer says:

    So, did this affect the hearing today scheduled at 1400hrs?

  4. Don Rehkopf says:

    [Judge] Lamberth said he would grant an unspecified “reasonable amount of time” to Rishikof to settle the issue of Baker’s conviction. Baker’s attorneys had argued that Spath lacked the authority to convict Baker under the Military Commissions Act of 2009. But Lamberth left himself open to stepping in should Rishikof dither or uphold the conviction.

    More HERE.

  5. Zachary D Spilman says:

    I’m told the hearing proceeded and Judge Lamberth neither granted nor denied the petition.

  6. k fischer says:

    The past 30 days has resulted in quite a few top 10 Military Justice story contenders.

  7. Don Rehkopf says:

    “I’m not going to stand down, I’m simply going to give the military time to clean up its own act,” Lamberth said. “And its first step was a good one.”
    Read more here:

    Full article HERE.

  8. Maz says:

    Here’s an interesting article by a civilian attorney on the issues, he links to but does not comment at any length on Maj Spilman’s parsing of the statutory authority for findings of contempt in military commissions vs. courts-martial.

  9. OMC_Alum says:

    Isn’t this one of those “likely to repeat, yet evade review” issues? 

  10. Tami a/k/a Princess Leia says:

    k fischer,
    Answer the captain’s question!  Deferment is postponement of the punishment.  So Baker doesn’t have to serve anymore arrest in quarters at this point, though he may have to in the future, depending on what the convening authority does, and also the habeas petition.  Spath didn’t have authority to find Baker in contempt of court.