DOCSLIB.ORG

LEGAL MEMORANDUM No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LEGAL MEMORANDUM No LEGAL MEMORANDUM No. 203 | APRIL 17, 2017 The Case Law Concerning the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and Its Application to ISIS Charles D. Stimson and Hugh Danilack Abstract The Obama Administration’s determination that ISIS is an “associat- Key Points ed force” that falls under the AUMF has not been challenged in court in the detainee context, and it is not clear that the courts will agree. n President Donald Trump and his The Trump Administration should therefore not attempt to detain Administration are exploring the ISIS fighters at Guantanamo Bay until it is on a stronger legal foot- possibility of detaining ISIS terror- ists at Guantanamo Bay to further ing. Before using Guantanamo as a detention facility for members the war effort to destroy ISIS. of ISIS, it should study the case law and evaluate the litigation risk. n Given the fact that al-Qaeda and the Taliban still pose a substantial Military detention of the enemy during wartime is a lawful, tradi- national security threat to the United States and its partners and that tional means of incapacitating the we continue to be engaged in armed conflict with those groups and as- enemy to deprive it of additional sociated forces, an AUMF that includes ISIS should not disturb the ex- forces and shorten the war effort. isting legal authorities applicable to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This n Although the courts have ruled can be accomplished legislatively in a number of ways: either a stand- expansively on the scope of the alone AUMF specific to ISIS and associated forces or an AUMF that detention authority for individu- includes al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, and associated forces. als connected to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, it is not clear that he Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) continues to conduct they would extend that author- Thostilities against the interests of the United States and its allies. ity to ISIS. In fact, the dissent- ISIS poses a significant threat and must be defeated. In the effort ing opinions in several habeas cases suggest that the courts to achieve this goal, President Barack Obama argued that the 2001 are beginning to question the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) gave him the legal attenuation of detention author- 1 authority to use military force against ISIS. This justification has ity jurisprudence. proven somewhat controversial in the legal community, with distin- n This war is like no other. It will guished scholars both supporting and challenging the applicability require all lawful elements of 2 of the 2001 AUMF to ISIS. Now, President Donald Trump and his national power to defeat the Administration are exploring the possibility of detaining ISIS ter- enemies of the United States. rorists at Guantanamo Bay to further the war effort to destroy ISIS. n Considering the interests at stake, the Trump Administration should This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/lm203 support and Congress should The Heritage Foundation consider an AUMF that includes 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE ISIS before bringing any ISIS Washington, DC 20002 detainees to Guantanamo. (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. LEGAL MEMORANDUM | NO. 203 APRIL 17, 2017 The Obama Administration argued that ISIS is n Do not limit the methods of force that the Presi- an “associated force” that falls under the scope of dent can use, the 2001 AUMF, but this justification has not been challenged in a court of law. If an ISIS terrorist n Do not place express limits on authorized targets were detained at Guantanamo, it is very likely that other than by naming the enemy, and he would file a habeas petition in federal court to challenge the scope of the government’s detention n Do not limit the purpose of defeating the enemy authority. In such a case, the courts would have to and bringing the war to a successful conclusion.5 analyze closely whether ISIS falls into the covered class of individuals and organizations under the However, most of the AUMFs in U.S. history have 2001 AUMF as determined by the Supreme Court been far more limited than the broad authorizations of the United States and the lower federal courts. As enacted in the five declared wars. These AUMFs evidenced by the approach that they have taken in themselves have varied considerably in breadth their AUMF-detention jurisprudence, it is not clear and scope. For example, in the late 1790s, Congress that the courts would agree with the Obama Admin- authorized the President to use “particular armed istration’s justification. forces in a specified way for limited ends” against If the Trump Administration rushes to bring ISIS French naval vessels in the Quasi-War. Bradley and fighters to Guantanamo without a stronger legal Goldsmith write that the authorizations in the Qua- basis, those detainees might successfully challenge si-War did not authorize the President “to use all of not only their own detention under the AUMF, but the armed forces of the United States or to conduct also the Trump Administration’s entire legal jus- military incursions beyond specified military tar- tification for the authority to use all necessary and gets, and they limited the geographical scope of the appropriate force in the fight against ISIS. A review authorized conflict to the high seas.”6 In this way, of the Guantanamo habeas case law shows that the the Quasi-War AUMF was very limited. Trump Administration would be on more solid legal When one compares this authorization with the ground if it worked with Congress to craft an ISIS- Gulf of Tonkin Resolution—the primary congressio- specific AUMF before bringing any ISIS detainees to nal authorization for the Vietnam War—one sees a Guantanamo Bay. much broader mandate for the use of force. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized the President to AUMFs and Declarations of War: A use all necessary measures without restrictions on Historical Perspective resources, the method of force, or the authorized tar- Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives gets. It broadly allowed the President to repel attacks Congress the power “to declare War.” In the his- and prevent aggression in Southeast Asia without tory of the United States, Congress has declared procedural or timing limitation.7 Bradley and Gold- war 11 times relating to five different wars.3 It also smith argue that “[t]he Gulf of Tonkin Resolution has adopted over 40 authorizations for the use of is as broad as force authorization in declared wars military force.4 Every authorization is unique in its along the crucial dimension of resources, methods, breadth and scope, especially when a war is formal- targets, and purpose, and is arguably broader (or at ly authorized. least more open-ended) with respect to targets and As Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith write, purpose.”8 “The limited authorizations [for the use of military force]…stand in sharp contrast to authorizations in The 2001 AUMF and the Detention declared wars.” They argue that “[t]here are four cru- Authority cial differences between authorizations in declared The 2001 AUMF,9 which has been used to pros- wars and authorizations in more limited conflicts.” ecute the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Authorizations in declared wars: falls along the broader side of the spectrum when compared with AUMFs historically. It authoriz- n Do not restrict the resources available to es the President to “use all necessary and appro- the President, priate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, 2 LEGAL MEMORANDUM | NO. 203 APRIL 17, 2017 committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that not been challenged in court in the detainee context, occurred on September 11, 2001….” Using their and as evidenced by the approach the courts have five analytical components for evaluating AUMFs, taken in their AUMF jurisprudence, it is not clear Bradley and Goldsmith conclude that “the [2001] that the courts will agree.16 Thus, in a habeas case AUMF is as broad as authorizations in declared involving an ISIS terrorist detained at Guantanamo, wars with respect to the resources and methods the courts must closely analyze whether ISIS could it authorizes the President to employ, and with fall under the 2001 AUMF. respect to the purposes for which these resources can be used.”10 Thus, the 2001 AUMF follows the How the Courts Became Involved in standard format for an AUMF that gives the Presi- Defining the Enemy dent broad powers. To begin to answer this question, we must look However, the 2001 AUMF is unique in one other at how the courts have become involved in defining important respect. In authorizing the President to the enemy and how they have interpreted the 2001 use force against the nations, organizations, and per- AUMF through Guantanamo habeas cases. sons that are connected to the September 11 attacks, Rarely in the history of warfare, and certainly the 2001 AUMF describes but does not specifically not in U.S. history, have prisoners of war been able name the enemies targeted under the authoriza- to challenge their wartime military detention in tion.11 While the statute nominally gives the Presi- court. It would have been unheard of, for example, dent the authority to make the determination about for the 400,000 German POWs held by the U.S. in which organizations or persons fall under the class World War II to be able to challenge their detention of individuals covered by the AUMF, the courts have in court.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x : : SUFYIAN BARHOUMI, : : Petitioner, : : v. : Civil Action No. 05-cv-1506 (RMC) : BARACK OBAMA, et al., : : Respondents. : : : ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER EFFECTING RELEASE Shayana D. Kadidal (D.D.C. Bar No. 454248) Omar Farah (pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g)) J. Wells Dixon (pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g)) CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, New York 10012 (212) 614-6438 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioner Barhoumi Sufyian Barhoumi has been detained without charge at Guantánamo for fourteen years— longer than the duration of any prior military conflict in U.S. history or, to our knowledge, the history of modern warfare. His detention has gone on for too long, and is arbitrary and perpetual by any reasonable measure. This is particularly so where, as here, the individual whose liberty has been restrained has been approved for transfer but remains in custody because of bureaucrat- ic delay rather than what he allegedly did or who he allegedly associated with more than a dec- ade ago, and where—as the government does not dispute—he will likely remain detained, at minimum for the next four years, but perhaps for life absent a timely judicial order effectuating his release from Guantánamo. Far from offering a persuasive opposition to Petitioner’s motion, the government con- cedes his essential arguments warranting relief. The government does not dispute that Petitioner has been approved for transfer because his detention is “no longer necessary,” and no longer serves the only ostensible basis for his initial capture and detention, i.e., to prevent his return to the battlefield.
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Mental Health Evaluations in the Guantánamo Military Commissions System: an Analysis of All Detainee Cases from Inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 64 (2019) 34–39 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Law and Psychiatry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijlawpsy Forensic mental health evaluations in the Guantánamo military commissions system: An analysis of all detainee cases from inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal Clinical Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States ABSTRACT Even though the Bush Administration opened the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, little remains known about how forensic mental health evaluations relate to the process of detainees who are charged before military commissions. This article discusses the laws governing Guantánamo's military commissions system and mental health evaluations. Notably, the US government initially treated detaineesas“unlawful enemy combatants” who were not protected under the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, allowing for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In subsequent legal documents, however, the US government has excluded evidence obtained through torture, as defined by the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Using open-source document analysis, this article describes the reasons and outcomes of all forensic mental health evaluations from Guantánamo's opening to 2018. Only thirty of 779 detainees (~3.85%) have ever had charges referred against them to the military commissions, and only nine detainees (~1.16%) have ever received forensic mental health evaluations pertaining to their case.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified//For Public Release Unclassified//For Public Release
    UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE --SESR-Efll-N0F0RN-­ Final Dispositions as of January 22, 2010 Guantanamo Review Dispositions Country ISN Name Decision of Origin AF 4 Abdul Haq Wasiq Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 6 Mullah Norullah Noori Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 7 Mullah Mohammed Fazl Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 560 Haji Wali Muhammed Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war, subject to further review by the Principals prior to the detainee's transfer to a detention facility in the United States. AF 579 Khairullah Said Wali Khairkhwa Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 753 Abdul Sahir Referred for prosecution. AF 762 Obaidullah Referred for prosecution. AF 782 Awai Gui Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 832 Mohammad Nabi Omari Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 850 Mohammed Hashim Transfer to a country outside the United States that will implement appropriate security measures. AF 899 Shawali Khan Transfer to • subject to appropriate security measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Center for Constitutional Rights Organizational Report
    The Center for Constitutional Rights’ Report to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of the United States Submitted 3 October 2019 The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach. The Center for Constitutional Rights has special consultative status with ECOSOC and welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Universal Periodic Review of the United States’ compliance with international human rights law. 0 CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Report to the UN Universal Periodic Review of the United States Submitted 3 October 2019 The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is pleased to submit its report to the Universal Periodic Review regarding the United States’ compliance with international human rights law. CCR condemns the U.S.’ continued disregard for international human rights, which, coupled with rising xenophobia and white nationalism, threatens the protection of human rights worldwide. This report considers developments since the U.S.’ Second Review in 20151, and provides brief updates and analysis on four areas of deep concern: 1) the continued, arbitrary, and indefinite detention of Muslim men at the Guantánamo Bay prison; 2) the suspension of human rights for non-white refugees and asylum seekers; 3) the legalized repression of human rights defenders, including advocates for Palestinian rights, Indigenous water protectors, and Black activists organizing for racial justice; and 4) the legalized discrimination and heightened criminalization of queer and transgender people.
    [Show full text]
  • Al-Bihani V. Obama (Mem
    Case: 09-5051 Document: 1223587 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 1 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 2, 2009 Decided January 5, 2010 No. 09-5051 GHALEB NASSAR AL-BIHANI, APPELLANT v. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:05-cv-01312-RJL) Shereen J. Charlick argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs were Reuben Camper Cahn, Steven F. Hubachek, and Ellis M. Johnston, III. Matthew M. Collette, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Ian Gershengorn, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Douglas N. Letter and Robert M. Loeb, Attorneys. R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance. Case: 09-5051 Document: 1223587 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 2 2 Before: BROWN and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment filed by Senior Circuit Judge WILLIAMS. BROWN, Circuit Judge: Ghaleb Nassar Al-Bihani appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and seeks reversal or remand. He claims his detention is unauthorized by statute and the procedures of his habeas proceeding were constitutionally infirm. We reject these claims and affirm the denial of his petition. I Al-Bihani, a Yemeni citizen, has been held at the U.S. naval base detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Al-Bihani V. Obama, 590 F.3D 866 (D.C
    NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GHALEB NASSAR AL BIHANI, Petitioner, BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED .... STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHEREEN J. CHARLICK . ¯ STEVEN F. HUBACHEK ELLIS M. JOHNSTON, III Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. 225 Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 234-8467 Counsel for Petitioner TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ....................................prefix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................... ................................... i-ii OPINIONS .BELOW ........................................................... 1 JURISDICTION 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS .............................2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE - 2 A. District Court Proceedings ................. .................. ¯ .......2 B. Appellate Proceedings .............................................. 3 ARGUMENT 7 THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE PETITION AND REAFFIRM THE TEACHING OF HAMDI AND BOUMEDIENE: THE DETENTION POWER GRANTED BY THE AUMF IS COEXTENSIVE WITH, AND LIMITED BY, THE DETENTION POWER RECOGNIZED UNDER THE LAW. OF WAR .................................7 A. Introduction ....’ ..................................... - ............. 7 B. The Court Should Reaffirm Hamdi and Boumediene: the Law of War Informs and Limits the AUMF’s Authorization of Detention AUthority ..................10 C. Section 5 of the 2006 MCA Does Not Preclude Application of Law of War Principles In Analyzing the Detention Authority
    [Show full text]
  • The Al Qaeda Network a New Framework for Defining the Enemy
    THE AL QAEDA NETWORK A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR DEFINING THE ENEMY KATHERINE ZIMMERMAN SEPTEMBER 2013 THE AL QAEDA NETWORK A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR DEFINING THE ENEMY KATHERINE ZIMMERMAN SEPTEMBER 2013 A REPORT BY AEI’S CRITICAL THREATS PROJECT ABOUT US About the Author Katherine Zimmerman is a senior analyst and the al Qaeda and Associated Movements Team Lead for the Ameri- can Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project. Her work has focused on al Qaeda’s affiliates in the Gulf of Aden region and associated movements in western and northern Africa. She specializes in the Yemen-based group, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia, al Shabaab. Zimmerman has testified in front of Congress and briefed Members and congressional staff, as well as members of the defense community. She has written analyses of U.S. national security interests related to the threat from the al Qaeda network for the Weekly Standard, National Review Online, and the Huffington Post, among others. Acknowledgments The ideas presented in this paper have been developed and refined over the course of many conversations with the research teams at the Institute for the Study of War and the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project. The valuable insights and understandings of regional groups provided by these teams directly contributed to the final product, and I am very grateful to them for sharing their expertise with me. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Kimberly Kagan and Jessica Lewis for dedicating their time to helping refine my intellectual under- standing of networks and to Danielle Pletka, whose full support and effort helped shape the final product.
    [Show full text]
  • 16 April 2008 JDIMS/Ndrcreferencename: Mohammed
    SECRET // 20330416 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STATES COMMAND HEADQUARTERS , JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO U.S. NAVAL STATION , GUANTANAMO BAY , CUBA APOAE09360 JTF- GTMO- CDR 16 April 2008 MEMORANDUMFORCommander, UnitedStates SouthernCommand, 3511NW Avenue, Miami, FL 33172 SUBJECT: Recommendationfor Transfer Out ofDoD Control ( TRO) for Guantanamo Detainee, ISN 000684DP ( S ) JTF - GTMO Detainee Assessment 1. S //NF) PersonalInformation: JDIMS/NDRC ReferenceName: Mohammed Tahamatan Current/ True Name andAliases: MuhammadAbdallah TahaMaatan, Muhammad Abdallah, Muhammed Abdullah Muttan, Muhammad al-Palestini, Muhammad Abdallah Palas, Taha Matan Place of Birth: Burka, West Bank (WE) Date ofBirth: 1 December 1979 Citizenship: WestBank InternmentSerial Number (ISN) 000684DP 2. (U //FOUO) Health: Detainee is on a list ofhigh-risk detainees from a health perspective Detainee is in general good physical health. However, he has diagnosis of major depression. Detainee has medical conditions that are not life threatening. He has a history of a Hunger Strike . He has a history of anxiety and depression, and is followed by behavioral health. 3. ( U ) JTF- GTMO Assessment : a. (S) Recommendation : JTF -GTMO recommends this detainee for Transfer Out of Control ( TRO ) . JTF -GTMO previously recommended detainee for Transfer Out of Control ( TRO ) on 9 October 2007 . b . ( / ) Executive Summary: Detainee is assessed to be a member of a Faisalabad, Pakistan ( PK ) cell created by senior al-Qaida member Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, aka (Abu Zubaydah ), ISN - 010016DP (GZ- 10016), after hostilities in CLASSIFIED BY : MULTIPLE SOURCES REASON : E.O. 12958, AS AMENDED , SECTION 1.4 ( C DECLASSIFY ON : 20330416 SECRET 20330416 SECRET NOFORN 20330416 JTF - GTMO -CDR SUBJECT : Recommendation for Transfer Out of Control (TRO ) for Guantanamo Detainee , ISN 000684DP (S ) Afghanistan (AF) with the purpose of returning to Afghanistan to conduct improvised explosive devices (IED) attacks against US and Coalition forces.
    [Show full text]
  • The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: an Empirical Study
    © Reuters/HO Old – Detainees at XRay Camp in Guantanamo. The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empirical Study Benjamin Wittes and Zaahira Wyne with Erin Miller, Julia Pilcer, and Georgina Druce December 16, 2008 The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empiricial Study Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 The Public Record about Guantánamo 4 Demographic Overview 6 Government Allegations 9 Detainee Statements 13 Conclusion 22 Note on Sources and Methods 23 About the Authors 28 Endnotes 29 Appendix I: Detainees at Guantánamo 46 Appendix II: Detainees Not at Guantánamo 66 Appendix III: Sample Habeas Records 89 Sample 1 90 Sample 2 93 Sample 3 96 The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empiricial Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he following report represents an effort both to document and to describe in as much detail as the public record will permit the current detainee population in American T military custody at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba. Since the military brought the first detainees to Guantánamo in January 2002, the Pentagon has consistently refused to comprehensively identify those it holds. While it has, at various times, released information about individuals who have been detained at Guantánamo, it has always maintained ambiguity about the population of the facility at any given moment, declining even to specify precisely the number of detainees held at the base. We have sought to identify the detainee population using a variety of records, mostly from habeas corpus litigation, and we have sorted the current population into subgroups using both the government’s allegations against detainees and detainee statements about their own affiliations and conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified
    UNCLASSIFIED Departmentof Defense 1 Office for the AdministrativeReview of the Detentionof Enemy Combatantsat U.S.NavalBase GuantanamoBay, Cuba 22 August2007 JARABH, SAEEDAHMED MOHAMMEDABDULLAH SAREM Subject: UNCLASSIFIEDSUMMARYOF EVIDENCEFOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWBOARDINTHE CASE JARABH, SAEEDAHMEDMOHAMMED ABDULLAHSAREM 1. AnAdministrativeReviewBoardwill be convenedto reviewyour case to determineifyour continueddetentionis necessary. 2.The Administrative Review Board will conduct a comprehensive review of all reasonably available and relevant information regarding case . At the conclusion of this review the Board will make a recommendation to: ( ) release you to your home state ; ( ) transfer you to your home state, with conditions agreed upon by the United States and your home state ; or (3 ) continue your detention under United States control. 3. The followingprimary factors favor continued detention: a Commitment 1. The detaineewas a Yemenimemberof alQaida. 2. A source stated the detainee was a member of al Qaida and will go back to jihad when he leaves Guantanamo. 3. The detainee stated that in 1992 he re -discovered religion and became interested injoiningthe jihadin Chechnyaor Kashmir. To payfor expenses, the detainee helpedhimselfto the cashbox at hisfather'sjewelrystore. The detaineehad consultedhis fatherregardingjihad and was told no. 4. In May 2002 , the detainee stated he had traveled to Afghanistan twice. The first trip was in late 2000 where he claimed that he worked with three separate Islamic charities. The second trip was in September or August of 2001. 5. The detaineestatedhetraveledto Afghanistanbecauseheintendedto go to the Chechen border to help refugees. 6. The detaineecitedthe Koranandthe possibilityofexpandinghisgoldbusinessas motivationfor travelto Afghanistan. The detaineemadehisown travel DMO Exhibit 1 Page of 4 UNCLASSIFIED 232 UNCLASSIFIED Subject: UNCLASSIFIEDSUMMARYOFEVIDENCEFORADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWBOARDINTHECASEOFJARABH, SAEEDAHMEDMOHAMMED ABDULLAHSAREM arrangements .
    [Show full text]
  • 09-5051 Document: 1236118 Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 1
    Case: 09-5051 Document: 1236118 Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 1 [ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED] CASE NO. 09-5051 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT GHALEB NASSAR AL-BIHANI, APPELLANT, v. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPELLEES. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRIEF FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC OONA HATHAWAY WALTER DELLINGER YALE LAW SCHOOL JUSTIN FLORENCE 127 Wall Street MICAH W.J. SMITH New Haven, CT 06510 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP (203) 436-8969 1625 Eye St. NW Washington, DC 20006 STEPHEN I. VLADECK (202) 383-5300 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 (202) 274-4241 Dated: March 22, 2010 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Case: 09-5051 Document: 1236118 Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 2 Additional Counsel MARGERY F. BAKER DEBORAH LIU PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION 2000 M Street, NW Suite 4000 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 467-4999 DEVON CHAFFEE HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 100 Maryland Avenue, NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20010 (202) 370-3306 JOANNE MARINER HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118 (212) 290-4700 Case: 09-5051 Document: 1236118 Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 3 RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici curiae make the following disclosures: The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law certifies that it has not issued shares to the public, and has no parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate that has issued shares to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emerging Law of Detention the Guantánamo Habeas Cases As Lawmaking*
    January 22, 2010 The Emerging Law of Detention The Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking* © Reuters/Pool New – Guantanamo guard stands inside a doorway at Camp 6 dentention facility at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base. by Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney & Rabea Benhalim * The authors received substantial assistance on this paper from The Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law, whose members provided helpful comments on a draft manuscript and whose partnership with Brookings on national security law has become invaluable in so many ways. In addition, we benefited from detailed comments from David Remes. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 Historical Context for the Current Habeas Litigation 9 Burden of Proof 13 The Scope of the Government’s Detention Authority 16 Is Detainability, Once Established Permanent? 23 Evidentiary Presumptions 32 The Court’s Treatment of Hearsay Evidence 35 The Admissibility and Weight of Involuntary Statements 51 Mosaic Theory and the Totality of the Evidence 61 Would Difference Judges Have Reached Difference Results? 65 Issues on Appeal 73 Conclusion 81 Appendix I 86 Appendix II 88 The Emerging Law of Detention: The Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking EXECUTIVE SUMMARY resident Obama’s decision not to seek additional legislative authority for detentions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba—combined with Congress’s lack of Pinterest in the task—means that, for good or for ill, judges must write the rules governing military detention of terrorist suspects. As the United States reaches the president’s self-imposed January 22, 2010 deadline for Guantanamo’s closure with the base still holding nearly 200 detainees, the common-law process of litigating their habeas corpus lawsuits has emerged as the chief legislative mechanism for doing so.
    [Show full text]