UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE MILITARY C OI'\1MlSSION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AE057C v. ORDER KIIALID SHAIKH MOIIAMMED W ALID MUHAMMAD SALIH MUBARAK BIN' AIT ASH, RAMZI BINALSHIBH, ALI ABDUL AZIZ ALI, MUSTAFA AHMED ADAM ALIIAWSAWI Defense Motion of Mr. Mohammad, Mr. bin al Shibh, Mr. al Baluchi, and Mr. al Hawsawi to Recognize that the Constitution Governs the Milita ry Commissions 15 January 20 13 I. Fou r of the fi ve Accused in thi s case fil ed a mot ion request ing that thi s Commission find the Constituti on "is presumed to apply in [Cotlun iss ion] proceedin gs." The fou r Accused also move the Commission to find the Govern ment generall y bears the bu rden of rebutt in g thi s presumpt ion, and the Govern ment' s standard to meet the standard required to rebut the presumpt ion is that application of a part icu lar Constituti onal ri ght in Comm iss ion proceedin gs would be " impract icable and anomalous." A fifth Accused, Mr. bin Attash, later joined th e mot ion. The Govern ment opposes the mot ion in its response. The four Accused who fil ed the origin al mot ion then fil ed a reply, not joined by M r. bin Attash, and Mr. al Baluchi later fil ed a supp lement to the ori gin al mot ion. 2. The Defense' s requested reli ef, that the Commiss ion "ho ld that the Constituti on is presumed to apply in these proceedin gs," presents a nonjustic iable question with two correlated components. a. First, the Defense is requestin g an advisory op ini on that is not within the prov ince of thi s Commission to dec ide. In order fo r a court (an Art icl e I court, including a mili tary I UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEAS E App ellate Exhibit 057C (KSM et al.) Page 1 of3 UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE commiss ion, or an Art icl e 111 court) to decide a case, "there must be 'a real and substantial controversy adm itt ing of spec if ic relief throu gh a decree of a conclus ive character, as di stingu ished from an op ini on adv isin g what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts .'" Federal Express Corp. v. Air Line Pilots Ass '11, 67 F.3d 96 1, 963-64 (D.c. Cir. 1995), qu ot in gAetnQ LIfe Ills. Co. v. Ha worth, 300 U.S . 227 , 24 1 ( 1937). Accord ingly, wh il e it may be appropriate to decide di screte Constitution al app licat ion question s in future mot ions, no spec ific Const itut ional issue "admitt in g of spec ific relieF' is before this Comm ission in th is motion. b. Second, the issue is not yet ripe for deci sion. ( l) Deciding th is issue wou ld result in a premature judgment based on a theoret ical di spute over the applicab ili ty of the U.S . Const itut ion on di screte sub issues w ithin the Comm ission proceedin gs . Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 ( 1967) . Issues are ripe for deci s ion when they present concrete, di screte controvers ies wh ich seek spec ific, deliverable relief based on law, whether that law is Const itut ional or otherw ise, and when failure to decide wou ld present hardship to the part ies . Id. at 148-49 . See also Americal/ Petroleum Illstitute v. Ellvironmental Protection Agency, 683 F.3d 382, 386 (D.C. C ir. 20 12) ("The ripeness doctrine generall y deals w ith when a federal court can or should decide a case. Part of the doctrine is subsu med into the Oudic ial] requirement of standing, wh ich requires a pet iti oner to all ege il/ter alia an injury-in -fact that is ' immin ent' or 'certa inl y impendin g. "') (2) In its mot ion, the Defense s imply seeks to inc lud e or exclude a part icular lin e of argument, w ithout reference to a definite, tangible legal issue to be decided wh ich can result in a spec ific legal remedy. Moreover, there is no hardship to either party imposed by requiring each party to make its best Const itut ional, statutory, regu latory, and in temat ionall egal arguments on any part icu lar di screte legal issue properl y before thi s Commiss ion; doin g so 2 UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE Appellate Exhibit 057C (KSM et aL) Page 2 of 3 UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE requires the part ies to adjust the ir liti gat ion strate gies and legal in terpret ive theories, but no spec ific legal di spossess ion resu lts by th is Commiss ion's deci sion not to render advisory op ini ons on issues not yet ripe for deci sion. C. Because the issue of general Const itu tional applicabili ty to the Comm ission proceedin gs is nonjustic iable, th is Comm ission need not consider the burden all ocat ion and legal standard subissues. 3. The Defen se Motion is DENIED. So ORDERED th is 15" day of January 20 13. //origillal siglled// JAMES L POHL COL, JA US Army M ili tary Judge 3 UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE Appellate Exhibit 057C (KSM et al.) Page30f3