Yesterday the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review decided In re Mohammad, No. 24-001 (per Lisa M. Schenck, J.), which concerned the validity of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III's purported rescission of pretrial agreements in a military commission case. Excerpt:
We deny the writ of mandamus and prohibition for two reasons. First, we conclude that although the Secretary had authority to replace BG (Ret.) [Susan K.] Escallier with himself as the convening authority for future PTAs, the Secretary has not taken any actions on future PTAs. Advisory decisions on writs of mandamus and prohibition are not permitted. And second, we agree with the military judge that the Secretary did not have authority to revoke respondents’ existing PTAs because the respondents had started performance of the PTAs.
Dawn, the leading Pakistani newspaper, has this column by Nasir Iqbal, summarizing the challenges facing the country's legal system, notably including its Supreme Court. If you have been struggling to understand the current state of play, this grim account is must reading. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court will in due course decide the Military Trials Case. That decision will be a flashpoint for the future of the country's democracy.
Judging by this report about a case in Papua New Guinea's National Court, we'll soon find out.
The Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal has published the proceedings of the first International Military Justice Forum: Gwenaël Guyon, Jean-Paul Laborde & Stéphane Baudens (eds.), Military justice. Contemporary Challenges, History and Comparison. The volume has numerous fascinating and worthwhile articles.
