Opinion ID: 2647074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: al-nashiri’s proceedings1

Text: Al-Nashiri, a Saudi national, was arrested in Dubai in 2002 and held in U.S. custody. In September 2006, AlNashiri was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where he remains in detention. The following year, a Combatant Status Review Tribunal determined that Al-Nashiri was an “enemy combatant.”2 Charges against Al-Nashiri alleging nine violations of the MCA were referred to the Military Commission Convening Authority in 2011. The charges included the three referenced al-Qaida terrorist plots, conspiring with Osama bin Laden and others between 1996 and 2002 to “commit Terrorism and Murder in Violation of the Law of War,” and other related charges. Following referral of these charges, Al-Nashiri formally requested that MacDonald not convene a military commission. Al-Nashiri principally argued that the commission could not try him for the alleged offenses because they “did not occur in the context of and were not associated with hostilities.” This argument was based on a statement by President Clinton in response to the U.S.S. Cole bombing suggesting that it was a peacetime attack; Congress’s failure to declare war or pass any other 1 In reviewing de novo the government’s motion to dismiss, we accept as true the factual allegations in Al-Nashiri’s Complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 2 Under the 2009 MCA, Al-Nashiri is now classified as an “alien unprivileged enemy belligerent.” 10 U.S.C. § 948c. AL-NASHIRI V. MACDONALD 7 authorization for the use of military force in response to the U.S.S. Cole bombing; President Bush’s failure to certify the existence of hostilities in Yemen until his War Powers Resolution report to Congress in September 2003; and the fact that Congress first recognized an armed conflict in Yemen in a 2009 Senate resolution.3 MacDonald issued orders convening a commission to try Al-Nashiri for the charges associated with the three terrorist plots. In response, Al-Nashiri filed suit in the Western District of Washington naming MacDonald, the sole defendant, in his individual capacity. The Complaint alleges that MacDonald’s military commission referral violated 10 U.S.C. § 950p(c); Article III § 2 of the Constitution; and the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments because the alleged offenses did not “occur,” as a matter of law, “in the context of and [were] not associated with hostilities.” He requested a declaratory judgment stating that “neither the President nor Congress certified the existence of an armed conflict subject to the laws of war in Yemen prior to September 2003” and 3 See, e.g., The President’s Radio Address, 36 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 2176, 2177 (Oct. 14, 2000) (containing President Clinton’s remarks in response to the U.S.S. Cole bombing in which he stated that “even when America is not at war, the men and women of our military risk their lives every day” and that “[n]o one should think for a moment that the strength of our military is less important in times of peace”); Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Efforts in the Global War on Terrorism, 39 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1247, 1247 (Sept. 19, 2003) (providing President Bush’s 2003 War Powers Resolution report to Congress in which he stated that the United States had undertaken “military operations against al-Qaida and other international terrorists in the Horn of Africa region, including Yemen”); S. Res. 341, 111th Cong. (2009) (enacted) (expressing concern about conflict between rebel forces and the Government of Yemen resulting in civilian displacement “since 2004”). 8 AL-NASHIRI V. MACDONALD that MacDonald “acted beyond his authority and in violation of the constitution by issuing orders to convene a military commission with the power to recommend the sentence of death for allegations relating to” the three bombing incidents. The district court dismissed Al-Nashiri’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that MCA § 7 and sovereign immunity barred the claims. In the alternative, the court reasoned that even if it had subject matter jurisdiction, principles of restraint articulated in Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975), counseled in favor of the court’s abstention from exercising equitable jurisdiction.