USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 1 of 65 [Oral Argument Scheduled for May 3, 2012] No. 11-1257 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Appeal From The Court Of Military Commission Review (Case No. CMCR-09-0002) REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER SALIM AHMED HAMDAN Adam Thurschwell Harry H. Schneider, Jr. Jahn Olson, USMC Joseph M. McMillan OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DEFENSE Charles C. Sipos COUNSEL MILITARY COMMISSIONS Rebecca S. Engrav 1099 14th Street NW Angela R. Martinez Box 37 (Ste. 2000E) Abha Khanna Washington, D.C. 20006 PERKINS COIE LLP Telephone: 202.588.0437 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant Telephone: 206.359.8000 SALIM AHMED HAMDAN Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant SALIM AHMED HAMDAN USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 2 of 65 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES The Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases is set forth in Petitioner-Appellant Salim Ahmed Hamdan’s Principal Brief filed on November 15, 2011, and is hereby incorporated by reference. DATED: March 8, 2012 By: /s/ Charles C. Sipos One of the attorneys for Salim Ahmed Hamdan -i- USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 3 of 65 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES.........................................................................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................... iv GLOSSARY OF TERMS .......................................................................... xi SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT.............................................................................................. 3 I. MST Is Not Triable by Military Commission ........................ 3 A. There Is No “U.S. Common Law of War”...................... 5 1. A “U.S. common law of war” is barred by United States v. Hudson....................................... 5 2. Neither the federal courts nor the United States military recognize a “U.S. common law of war” ............................................................ 7 B. Congress’s General War Powers Do Not Authorize It to Punish a “U.S. Common Law War Crime”........................................................................... 10 1. The Define and Punish Clause, not Congress’s general war powers, determines the scope of military commission jurisdiction over war crimes............................... 11 2. The Government’s historical evidence does not establish that MST is a common law war crime ............................................................ 14 3. The doctrine of a “U.S. common law of war,” if accepted, would violate the separation of powers between Article I and Article III courts................................................................... 17 -ii- USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 4 of 65 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page C. Punishing MST by Military Commission Is Not “Necessary and Proper” to Comply with Obligations Under International Law ........................ 21 II. Hamdan’s Conviction Violated the Ex Post Facto Principle................................................................................. 25 A. The Ex Post Facto Clause Applies and Must Be Enforced........................................................................ 25 B. The Government’s Suggestion That the Ex Post Facto Principle Does Not Fully Apply Should Be Rejected ........................................................................ 25 C. The Government Fails to Support Its Expansive Definition of the Offense or Its Claim That Such Conduct Has Long Been Condemned as a Crime....... 31 D. Petitioner Did Not Have Fair Notice Under Any Authority Cited by the Government ........................... 36 1. International Law............................................... 36 2. U.S. Common Law and Domestic MST Statute................................................................. 39 III. Hamdan’s Military Commission Violated Equal Protection .............................................................................. 43 A. Application of Equal Protection to Criminal Trials at Guantanamo Is Not “Impracticable or Anomalous” .................................................................. 43 B. The Government’s Reliance on Immigration and Fourth Amendment Cases to Support Its “Rational Basis” Argument Is Misplaced ................... 45 C. The MCA Cannot Survive Strict Scrutiny.................. 49 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 50 -iii- USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 5 of 65 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES* Page FEDERAL CASES Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010)........................................................45, 50 Al-Madhwani v. Obama, 642 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2011)......................................................44, 45 Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964)..............................................................................28 *Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).............................................................. 3, 43, 44, 45 Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798) .............................................................29, 30 Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988)..............................................................................45 Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986)..............................................................................20 Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)....................................................................................16 *Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)............................................................ 8, 12, 13, 15, 36 Ex parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. 243 (1863)..................................................................................8 Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)..............................................................................48 * Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks. -iv- USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 6 of 65 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Ford v. Surget, 97 U.S. 594 (1878)..................................................................................8 Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)..............................................................................46 Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)................................................................................45 *Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).................................. 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 30, 34, 37, 40 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)..............................................................................50 *In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)................................................................ 12, 13, 15, 36 Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950).................................................................. 44, 45, 50 Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2009)......................................................44, 45 Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1840)......................................................................................8 M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)................................................................................22 Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U.S. 341 (1952)..........................................................................8, 16 Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977)..............................................................................29 -v- USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 7 of 65 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976)................................................................................49 Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745 (D.C. Cir. 1979)..............................................................48 Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991)..............................................................................20 Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009)........................................................44, 45 Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)............................................................................23, 24 *Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001)................................................ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 41 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)..............................................................................48 The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635 (1862) ......................................................8 United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955)..........................................................................24, 25 United States v. Comstock, ___ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010)......................................................22 United States v. Curtis, 32 M.J. 252 (C.M.A. 1991) .....................................................................9 United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984) .............................................................46, 47 -vi- USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 8 of 65 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page United States v. Ferreira, 275 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2001)............................................................48