ILNews

Indianapolis attorney to represent accused USS Cole bomber mastermind

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A week after the federal government announced it would seek the death penalty against the prime suspect in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, the Department of Defense has appointed an Indianapolis attorney to represent the man who will face the first military tribunal under President Barack Obama’s administration.

The April 27 order from the Office of Military Commissions names Richard Kammen from Kammen Maryan & Moudy as learned counsel for accused bomber, Abd al-Rahim Hussein Mohammed Al-Nashiri of Saudi Arabia, in a capital military commission at Guantanamo Bay.

This would be the first of its kind since President Obama in March announced that military tribunals could be used at Guantanamo, a reversal of his 2009 freezing of such proceedings at the Cuba naval base. Charges are that Al-Nashiri was in charge of the planning and preparation for the attack on USS Cole in Yemen that killed 17 sailors and wounded several dozen more. He also is alleged to have a role in planning another attempted attack and one in France.

The order appointing Kammen refers to his experience counseling Al-Nashiri in the past.

“As you indicated in your request for Mr. Kammen's services, my decision to fund Mr. Kammen is the most expeditious way to provide Mr. Al-Nashiri the assistance of learned counsel and to avoid significant delay in processing the case,” wrote Bruce MacDonald with the Convening Authority for Military Commissions. “Mr. Kammen's prior relationship with Mr. Al-Nashiri, including multiple visits to meet with him in Guantanamo, participation in investigation of the case in foreign countries, and other work done by Mr. Kammen on behalf of Mr. Al-Nashiri will benefit the interests of both the defense and the government.”

The order details that Kammen will receive $178 per hour.

A 1971 graduate of New York University School of Law who’s been practicing in this state since then, Kammen is a nationally recognized expert on the death penalty and has represented many clients in the state and federal capital systems.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT