This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/us/pentagon-wont-drop-conspiracy-charge-against-khalid-shaikh-mohammed.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Pentagon to Keep Charge of Conspiracy in 9/11 Case Military Prosecutor Battles to Drop Conspiracy Charge in 9/11 Case
(about 13 hours later)
WASHINGTON — In the latest twist in a high-level debate that has divided national security officials in the Obama administration, the Pentagon announced Friday that the top official overseeing the military commissions system would not drop the charge of conspiracy against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the four other defendants in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.WASHINGTON — In the latest twist in a high-level debate that has divided national security officials in the Obama administration, the Pentagon announced Friday that the top official overseeing the military commissions system would not drop the charge of conspiracy against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the four other defendants in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The chief prosecutor for the tribunals, Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, said last week that he was seeking to have the charge dismissed. But on Friday, the Pentagon unexpectedly said that Bruce MacDonald — the military commissions’ “convening authority” who oversees the tribunals system — was refusing to withdraw the conspiracy offense because the Justice Department was still arguing in a different case that the charge was legitimate.The chief prosecutor for the tribunals, Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, said last week that he was seeking to have the charge dismissed. But on Friday, the Pentagon unexpectedly said that Bruce MacDonald — the military commissions’ “convening authority” who oversees the tribunals system — was refusing to withdraw the conspiracy offense because the Justice Department was still arguing in a different case that the charge was legitimate.
Further ratcheting up tensions, General Martins has apparently told the military court, in filings that were not yet posted on a tribunal Web site but were referred to by a lawyer for one of the detainees, that prosecutors would nevertheless stand down and not fight a motion by defense lawyers as they seek to get the judge to dismiss the charge anyway.Further ratcheting up tensions, General Martins has apparently told the military court, in filings that were not yet posted on a tribunal Web site but were referred to by a lawyer for one of the detainees, that prosecutors would nevertheless stand down and not fight a motion by defense lawyers as they seek to get the judge to dismiss the charge anyway.
The extraordinary back and forth added a new chapter to an internal administration dispute over whether to abandon conspiracy and other idiosyncratic American-style charges as offenses that may be brought before a military commission even though international law does not recognize them as war crimes.The extraordinary back and forth added a new chapter to an internal administration dispute over whether to abandon conspiracy and other idiosyncratic American-style charges as offenses that may be brought before a military commission even though international law does not recognize them as war crimes.
In October, the federal appeals court in Washington vacated the guilty verdict by a tribunal in 2008 against a former driver for Al Qaeda on the ground that the charge “material support for terrorism” was not an international war crime.In October, the federal appeals court in Washington vacated the guilty verdict by a tribunal in 2008 against a former driver for Al Qaeda on the ground that the charge “material support for terrorism” was not an international war crime.
The ruling raised the question of whether the government should keep fighting the appeal before the same court of another detainee who was also convicted by a tribunal of American-style offenses, including conspiracy. General Martins argued that the Justice Department should drop that case and allow the verdict against the second detainee to be vacated because pressing forward with arguments that had already lost could delegitimize the tribunals system.The ruling raised the question of whether the government should keep fighting the appeal before the same court of another detainee who was also convicted by a tribunal of American-style offenses, including conspiracy. General Martins argued that the Justice Department should drop that case and allow the verdict against the second detainee to be vacated because pressing forward with arguments that had already lost could delegitimize the tribunals system.
The prosecutor was backed by top lawyers at the State Department and the Pentagon, as well as the solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. But last week Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided to press on with the case before the appeals court. General Martins then announced that he was nevertheless seeking the dismissal of the conspiracy charge in the Sept. 11 tribunal case to focus on the “legally sustainable charges,” like attacking civilians.The prosecutor was backed by top lawyers at the State Department and the Pentagon, as well as the solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. But last week Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided to press on with the case before the appeals court. General Martins then announced that he was nevertheless seeking the dismissal of the conspiracy charge in the Sept. 11 tribunal case to focus on the “legally sustainable charges,” like attacking civilians.