10 U.S.C. § 948d

Jurisdiction of military commissions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any offense made punishable by this chapter, sections 904 and 906 of this title (articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or the law of war, whether such offense was committed before, on, or after September 11, 2001, and may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when specifically authorized under this chapter. A military commission is a competent tribunal to make a finding sufficient for jurisdiction.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2022 · leading case: Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 10× “See 10 U.S.C. § 948d (2006); 10 U.S.C. § 821 (2000); Hamdan v.”

In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “For starters, the MCA explicitly empowers military commissions to make findings sufficient to determine their own jurisdiction, see 10 U.S.C. § 948d, and permits a presiding military judge to “hear[] and determin[e] motions raising defenses or objections which are capable of…”

Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “” The Military Commissions Act links the commission’s jurisdiction to an individual’s status as an “unlawful enemy combatant” by giving it “jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant,” 10…”

Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 10 U.S.C. §§ 948d(a), 950v(b)(28) (2006).”

Mohammed Jawad v. Robert Gates, 832 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Although Ja-wad agrees that his CSRT and ARB determinations found him to be an enemy combatant, he maintains that section 7(a) should apply only to detainees who are determined to be unlawful enemy combatants because the 2006 MCA provides that military commissions have…”

United States v. Al-Nashiri, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (M.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “Personal jurisdiction relates to whether an accused is an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent (AUEB) 3 and therefore a person subject to the Military Commissions Act (MCA) who may be prosecuted by a military commission, see 10 U.S.C. §§ 948d, 948a(7); whereas subject-matter…”

Al-Baluchi v. Esper, 392 F. Supp. 3d 46 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “3d at 125 (citing 10 U.S.C. § 948d ). C. The Court Need Not Resolve Other Jurisdictional Disputes Aside from whether the Court should exercise jurisdiction, the parties disagree about whether the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction at all.”

Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashiri, 47 F.4th 820 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “§ 948b(a); see also 10 U.S.C. § 948d (providing jurisdiction of military commissions).”

Abd Al-Nashiri v. Bruce MacDonald, 741 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2013). “” 10 U.S.C. § 948d. We note that after briefing in this appeal, the Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, denied without prejudice Al-Nashiri’s motion to dismiss based on his claim that the Convening Authority exceeded his authority.”

Hamdan v. Gates, 565 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D.D.C. 2008). “In Section 3(a)(1) of that Act, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 948d(a), Congress gave military commissions juris *132 diction to try “alien unlawful enemy combatant[s].”

United States v. Hamdan, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (M.C. 2011). “” 10 U.S.C. § 948d(a) and (c) state, respectively: (a) JURISDICTION.”

Al-Nashiri v. Obama, 76 F. Supp. 3d 218 (D.D.C. 2014). “An “unprivileged enemy belligerent” is defined under the Military Commissions Act as an individual who is not a citizen of the United States, who is not a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention, and who: “(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its…”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— 10 U.S.C. § 948d(a) — 8 cases

Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “See 10 U.S.C. § 948d (2006); 10 U.S.C. § 821 (2000); Hamdan v.”

Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “” 10 U.S.C. §§ 948d(a), 950v(b)(28) (2006).”

In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “For starters, the MCA explicitly empowers military commissions to make findings sufficient to determine their own jurisdiction, see 10 U.S.C. § 948d, and permits a presiding military judge to “hear[] and determin[e] motions raising defenses or objections which are capable of…”

Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “” The Military Commissions Act links the commission’s jurisdiction to an individual’s status as an “unlawful enemy combatant” by giving it “jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant,” 10…”

Mohammed Jawad v. Robert Gates, 832 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “Although Ja-wad agrees that his CSRT and ARB determinations found him to be an enemy combatant, he maintains that section 7(a) should apply only to detainees who are determined to be unlawful enemy combatants because the 2006 MCA provides that military commissions have…”

— 10 U.S.C. § 948d(c) — 1 case

Bismullah Ex Rel. Bismullah v. Gates, 551 F.3d 1068 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

— 10 U.S.C. § 948d(e) — 2 cases

Bismullah ex rel. Bismullah v. Gates, 514 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.