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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT