289. Under the MCA 2006, two detainees were convicted by military commissions and one detainee entered into a plea agreement. Salim Ahmed Hamdan was convicted for providing material support for terrorism in 2008, but his conviction was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in October 2012.630 Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul was originally convicted of conspiracy, solicitation and providing material support for terrorism in 2008.631 However, his convictions for solicitation and providing material support for terrorism were vacated on appeal by the en banc Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in July 2014 and a panel of the same court vacated his remaining conviction for conspiracy in June 2015.632 David Hicks agreed to plead guilty to providing material support for terrorism pursuant to a plea agreement in 2007, but his conviction was vacated by the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) in February 2015.633 290. Pursuant to the MCA 2009, five detainees entered into plea agreements. Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi pled guilty in July 2010 to conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. A request for a new trial before the CMCR was denied, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit subsequently dismissed the appeal of this decision, on jurisdictional grounds.634 Omar Ahmed Khadr pled guilty in October 2010 to murder in 630 Hamdan was sentenced to 66 months’ confinement, but he received credit for 61 months and seven days for the time he spent in detention prior to his trial. He was transferred to Yemen on 24 November 2008. He remained in prison there until being released on 27 December 2008. United States Court of Military Commission Review (en banc), United States of America v. Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Case No. 09-002, 24 June 2011, <https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/s3fspublic/uploads/2011/06/hamdan.pdf>; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. United States of America, “On Petition for Review from the United States Court of Military Commission Review”, Case No. 11-1257, 16 October 2012, <http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/722A4A4B384D5EC985257A99004D77C0/$file/11-1257-1399811.pdf>. 631 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul, AE 074, Findings Worksheet, 31 October 2008. 632 In July 2014, the court, sitting en banc, vacated Bahlul’s convictions for material support for terrorism and solicitation as violative of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the US Constitution, and remanded Bahlul’s remaining challenges to his conspiracy conviction to the original panel. After a de novo review, the panel concluded, in June 2015, that his conviction for inchoate conspiracy had to be vacated. At the time of writing, the US government had petitioned the court for a rehearing en banc of the June 2015 ruling. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul v. United States of America, “On Petition for Review from the United States Court of Military Commission Review”, Case No. 111324, 12 June 2015, <https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/al-bahlul.pdf>; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul v. United States of America, “Petition of the United States for Rehearing en Banc”, Case No. 11-1324, 27 July 2015, <https://www.justsecurity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/Petition-for-Rehearing-En-Banc-27-July-2015.pdf>. 633 Hicks was sentenced to seven years’ confinement, but his sentence was reduced to nine months. After sentencing, he was transferred to Australia to serve his remaining sentence and was released on 29 December 2007. His conviction was vacated by the CMCR in February 2015 based on al Bahlul v. United States (en banc), which vacated Al Bahlul’s material support conviction. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. David Matthew Hicks, AE 030, “Appellate Exhibit 030 Military Judge Mark-up of the Pre-Trial Agreement”, 30 March 2007; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Hicks, AE 026, “Member Instructions”, 30 March 2007; United States Court of Military Commission Review, David M. Hicks v. United States of America, 18 February 2015, <http://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/Hicksv.United%20States_13-004%20Decision_(2015.02.18).pdf>. 634 Al Qosi was sentenced to 14 years, but his sentence was reduced to two years. He was released to Sudan in July 2012. The United States CMCR based its decision to deny his request for a new trial “principally (…) on the ground that the record contains no evidence that an attorney-client relationship exists between CAPT McCormick and Al Qosi. Without such a relationship, CAPT McCormick may not initiate litigation, file any pleading or seek any relief on behalf of Al Qosi”. One should note, however, that Captain McCormick had been appointed by the military commissions’ then-Chief Defense Counsel as al Qosi’s appellate defence counsel, and that the 2014 decision of the CMCR also denied her application for funding to travel to Sudan to consult with Al Qosi, and allow him to make “an informed decision on whether he wanted her to represent him and whether she should challenge his military commission conviction”. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction due to the lack of “evidence that al Qosi authorized Captain McCormick to pursue these 125