UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW [Panel not yet assigned] ) ) BRIEF ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ) ) CMCR Case No. ____________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Tried at Guántanamo Bay, Cuba, on ) 9-12 August 2010, Appellee, ) 25-31 October 2010 ) v. ) Before a Military Commission convened by ) Hon. Susan J. Crawford OMAR AHMED KHADR, ) ) Presiding Military Judge Appellant. ) COL Peter E. Brownback, USA (ret.) ) COL Patrick J. Parrish, USA ) ) DATE: 8 November 2013 ) TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW Samuel T. Morison Appellate Defense Counsel Capt Justin Swick, USAF Assistant Appellate Defense Counsel Office of the Chief Defense Counsel 1620 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 Tel: (703) 696-9490 x181 Email: [email protected] Dennis Edney 234 Wolf Ridge Close Edmonton, Alberta, T5T 5M6, Canada Tel: (780) 489-0835 Email: [email protected] Law Society of Alberta (ID: 7997) Civilian Defense Counsel (pro hac vice) Counsel for Omar Ahmed Khadr TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... iv ISSUES PRESENTED ..................................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE......................................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ...................................................................................................... 3 A. The Capture of a Child Soldier (July 2002) ............................................................ 3 B. Omar’s Journey to Afghanistan (1986-2002) .......................................................... 5 C. Omar’s Mistreatment in Custody (2002-2005) ....................................................... 8 D. “Get ready for a miserable life” ............................................................................ 14 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 16 ERRORS AND ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 18 I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE THE MILITARY COMMISSION LACKED SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CHARGED CONDUCT. ................................................................... 18 A. Controlling precedent requires that the offenses charged in a military commission be violations of the international law of war. .................................... 18 B. Material support for terrorism is not a war crime triable by military commission. ........................................................................................................... 20 C. Conspiracy is not a war crime triable by military commission. ............................ 21 D. As charged by the government and construed by the commission, murder in violation of the law of war is not a war crime triable by military commission. .... 22 E. As charged by the government and construed by the commission, the MCA’s new version of spying is not a war crime triable by military commission. .................. 24 II. THE MILITARY COMMISSION FUNDAMENTALLY MISCONSTRUED THE “IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR” ELEMENT COMMON TO THE MURDER AND SPYING CHARGES IN THIS CASE. ....................................... 26 A. The commission’s erroneous interpretation of “in violation of the law of war” ignores the settled meaning of the phrase. ............................................................ 26 B. Appellant did not violate the law of war which renders his murder-related convictions invalid. ............................................................................................... 29 C. Appellant did not violate the law of war which renders his spying conviction invalid. ................................................................................................................... 35 ii III. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT. ................................................... 39 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 44 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 14(i) .............................................................. 45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................................... 46 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases Al Bahlul v. United States, 2013 WL 297726 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013) (per curiam), en banc rev. granted and panel order vacated, No. 11-1324 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 23, 2013) (en banc) ............................................................................................ 21 Ayuda v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 153 (D.C. Cir. 1990) .................................................................... 22 Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) ............................................................................... 28 Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798) .................................................................................................. 20 Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917) ............................................................................ 26 Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) ............................................................................ 39 Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) .................................................................................... 20 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) .................................................................... 39 Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990) ............................................................................. 31 Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, 532 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................. 1 Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) .......................................................................................... 19, 26 Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641 (2012)......................................................................................... 2 Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010)..................................................................................... 43 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) ......................................................................... 2, 19, 20 Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .................................................... passim Harbury v. Deutch, 233 F.3d 596 (D.C. Cir. 2000), rev’d on other grounds sub nom, Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) ............................................................................ 40 Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) ................................................................................... 28 In re Sealed Case, 223 F.3d 775 (D.C. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 24 Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128 (1954) ....................................................................................... 40 Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960) ................................................... 39 Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) .......................................................................................... 27 Maxwell v. Snow, 409 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 22 Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) ...................................................................................... 43 Mohammed v. Obama, 704 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009)................................................................. 41 Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952) ............................................................................. 40 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) ......................................................................................... 43 iv Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) ........................................................................ 20, 30 Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329 (1941) ......................................................................................... 28 TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) ...................................................................................... 26 United States v. Ali, 718 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 21 United States v. Castro, 704 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 28 United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 28 United States v. Jenrette, 744 F.2d 817 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ............................................................... 40 United States v. Kelley, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983)................................................................ 40 United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768 (1979) .............................................................................. 34 United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ................................................................ 40 United States v. Spinner, 152 F.3d 950 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ..............................................................