logo
Fourth Military Judge in Sept. 11 Case Retires

Fourth Military Judge in Sept. 11 Case Retires

New York Times4 days ago

The fourth judge in the long-running Sept. 11 case at Guantánamo Bay has retired and the chief judge for the military commissions assigned himself on Monday to oversee it.It is unclear whether Col. Matthew S. Fitzgerald, the chief judge, will hold hearings in the death-penalty case or just manage it on an interim basis, as other chief judges have done. The next session is scheduled to start on July 14.
A notice on Monday said that Colonel Fitzgerald was replacing Col. Matthew N. McCall, who had served in that role from the summer of 2021 until his recent retirement. Colonel Fitzgerald is also presiding in the destroyer Cole bombing case, Guantánamo's other capital prosecution.
Both Colonel McCall and Colonel Fitzgerald were in law school at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon.
Five men are charged in the case. They were detained between 2002 and 2003 but were held in secret C.I.A. prisons until their transfer to Guantánamo in 2006, one reason for the long delays in getting the case to trial.
In his time on the case, Colonel McCall presided over fact-finding hearings on torture and the handling of secret evidence, and made consequential rulings that splintered the case into three separate tracks.
He severed the case of one defendant, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, in September 2023 after a military mental health panel found him not mentally competent to stand trial. In April, Colonel McCall threw out the self-incriminating statements of another defendant, Ammar al-Baluchi, as tainted by torture and inadmissible at his trial, depriving prosecutors of key evidence.
Colonel McCall also validated as lawful the guilty plea agreements of the other three defendants, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi. The military court of appeals upheld his finding last year, and prosecutors are seeking to overturn the guilty pleas in federal court.At issue is whether former Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III acted too late and beyond the scope of his authority when he rescinded the three deals in the summer of 2024, two days after a senior Pentagon appointee had signed them.Colonel McCall postponed his retirement twice to help the case reach trial. Two of the three other judges also retired from the service while serving as judge in the case. Another left the bench to take up a command position in the Marine Corps.
Other military judges have been named to the case, but they were mostly previous chief judges who assigned themselves as a caretaker until the next judge arrived.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Associated Press

time13 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

Why Steel Users Don't Make More of a Fuss About Tariffs
Why Steel Users Don't Make More of a Fuss About Tariffs

Bloomberg

time32 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Why Steel Users Don't Make More of a Fuss About Tariffs

Iron and steel mills employ about 85,700 people in the US. That's less than half as many as in 1990 but slightly more than in 2016 and 2017. Have the increased tariffs on steel imposed by Donald Trump starting in March 2018, partly continued by his successor Joe Biden and just this week ratcheted by Trump to 50%, played a role in this improvement? Yes, probably. Employment in US iron and steel mills and ferroalloy manufacturing fell after George W. Bush increased steel tariffs in 2002, albeit more slowly than in the preceding two years, so there are clearly forces at work apart from tariffs. Still, the sector's jobs gains after March 2018 were impressive. Employment was up a seasonally adjusted 6,300, or 7.7%, as of July 2019. It began falling after that, but in February 2020 — just before the Covid-19 pandemic sent steel demand and production plummeting — the gain was still 3,800. This March, employment was 3,400 higher than in March 2018.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store