Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABU WA' EL (JIHAD) DHIAB, Petitioner,
v. BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.

Civil Action-No. 05-1457 (GK)

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 4 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7 (j), Hearst Corporation, Inc., ABC, Inc., Associated Press, Bloomberg L. P., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., The Contently Foundation, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., First Look Media, Inc., Guardian US, The McClatchy Company, National Public Radio, Inc., The New York Times Company, Reuters America LLC, Tribune Publishing Company, LLC, USA TODAY, and The Washington Post ("Press Applicants" or "Intervenors") seek to intervene and to unseal twenty-eight videotapes that have been entered into the record of the above captioned matter.
Before filing their Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence, Intervenors conferred with counsel for Petitioner Abu Wa'el (Jihad) Dhiab ("Petitioner" or "Dhiab") and with the Government ("the Government'' or "Respondents") .

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 29
Petitioner consents to the intervention and does not oppose unsealing the videotapes. Intervenors' Mot. at 1 [Dkt. No. 263]. The Government does not object to Press Applicants' Motion to Intervene, but the Government opposes unsealing the videotapes. Intervenors' Mot. at 1; Resp'ts' Opp'n at 2.
Upon consideration of Intervenors' Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence, Respondents' Opposition to Press Applicants' Motion to Unseal Videotape Evidence, Intervenors' Reply, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated below, Intervenors' Motion to Intervene is hereby granted and Intervenors' Motion to Unseal is hereby granted, with modifications. I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background Wa' el (Jihad) Dhiab, a citizen of Syria, has been held by the United States Government in a detention facility at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since as early as 2002. 1 [Dkt. No. 1]. In 2009, the Guantanamo Review Task Force cleared Mr. Dhiab for release from his ongoing detention at Guantanamo Bay. [Dkt. No. 175]. To this day, he remains imprisoned there. In protest of his indefinite detention, Mr. Dhiab has been on a long-term hunger strike. [Dkt. No. 175].
Petitioner alleges that the "precise date" of his transfer to Guantanamo Bay is "unknown to [his] counsel, but known to Respondents." [Dkt. No. 1 at ~ 23].
-2-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 29
On April 9, 2013, the Government notified Mr. Dhiab's counsel that, in response to his on-going hunger strike, it had begun to feed Mr. Dhiab nasogastrically against his will. [Dkt. No. 17 5] . Mr. Dhiab continues to undergo enteral feeding when the Government deems it necessary. Alka Pradhan Decl. at <J[ 6 [Dkt. No. 256].
The Government has explained that when prisoners fail to follow instructions, resist guards (or "demonstrate the intent to resist"), cause a disturbance, or endanger themselves or anyone else, they are removed from their cells and taken to the medical facilities where enteral feeding takes place. Col.Bogdan Decl. at <J[ 7 [Dkt. No. 288]. The military officials in charge of the Guantanamo Bay facility sometimes employ a method called Forced Cell Extraction ("FCE") in order to accomplish the feeding. The FCE procedures practiced at the Guantanamo Bay facility are modeled on those used by military corrections facilities and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Col. Bogdan Decl. at <J[<J[ 4, 5.
In May of 2014, the Government disclosed that it possessed videotapes of Mr. Dhiab's forced-feedings and forcible cell extractions. [Dkt. No. 217] . Mr. Dhiab has left no doubt that he wants these videotapes to be made public. Intervenors' Mot. at 1 [Dkt. No. 263]; Cortney Busch Decl. at <J[<J[ 5-7 [Dkt. No. 287] (Paralegal's · declaration recounting Mr. Dhiab' s statements: "I
-3-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 4 of 29
want Americans to see what is going on at the prison today, so they will understand why we are hunger-striking, and why the prison should be closed. If the American people stand for freedom, they should watch these tapes. If they truly believe in human rights, they need to see these tapes.").
B. Procedural Background On July 22, 2005, Mr. Dhiab filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, asserting that his indefinite detention by the United States Government violated the U.S. Constitution, the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S. C. § 1350, and international law. [Dkt. No. 1] . His Petition further alleged that the conditions of his confinement violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [Dkt. No. 1] . On July 30, 2013, Mr. Dhiab and several other hungerstriking detainees submitted a motion to enjoin the Government from continuing to enterally feeding them. [Dkt. No. 17 5] . This Court denied the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Dkt. No. 183]. On February 11, 2014, our Court of Appeals held that this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo Bay detainees' challenges to the conditions of their confinement. See Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .
-4-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 5 of 29
Accordingly, on April 18, 2014, Mr. Dhiab again filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, requesting that the Court enjoin the Government from enterally feeding him and from forcibly extracting him from his cell. [Dkt. No. 203]. After Petitioner renewed his Motion, the Government disclosed that it possessed videotapes of Mr. Dhiab' s forced-feedings and FCEs. [ Dkt . No. 217] .
On May 13, 2014, Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion for an order compelling the Government to preserve videotapes of Mr. Dhiab's forced-feedings and forcible cell extractions and to produce those videotapes to Petitioner's counsel. [Dkt. No. 217]. On May 23, 2014, the Court granted Petitioner's Motion in part, and directed the Government to produce to Petitioner's counsel "all videotapes made between April 9, 2013 and February 19' 2014, that record both [Mr. Dhiab' s] Forcible Cell Extractions and subsequent enteral feeding." [Dkt. No. 225]. The Government complied with that Order, and later provided additional videotapes to Petitioner's counsel. [Dkt No. 250].
In a series of filings beginning June 14, 2014, Petitioner placed 28 videotapes in the judicial record for this case. [Dkt. Nos. 252, 262, 267]. The Government produced four additional videotapes to Petitioner and asserts that "they are substantially the same as the [other] 28 videos." Resp'ts' Opp'n at 4 n.3.
-5-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 6 of 29
The videotapes have been classified at the "secret" level, RDML Butler Decl. at ~ 7, based on the Government's belief that the contents of these twenty-eight videotapes "could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to national security if disclosed[,]" Id. at ~ 5. Thus, in accordance with the Court's standing protective order applicable to all Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas proceedings, the videotapes have been placed on the Court's docket under seal. [Dkt. No. 57 ~ 47] (requiring all documents containing classified information to be filed under seal).
On June 20, 2014, Intervenors filed their Motion to Unseal Videotape Evidence filed in this proceeding's record. Intervenors' Mot. at 8. Members of the news media may properly intervene for the purpose of seeking to unseal judicial records. See In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Lit., 624 F. Supp. 2d 27, 31 (D. D.C. 2009) ("Detainee Lit. I"); See also Wash. Post Co. v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 289-90 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Neither the Government nor Petitioner oppose Press Applicants' Motion to Intervene. Resp'ts' Opp'n at 2 n.1. Therefore, Intervenors' Motion shall be granted. II. Standard for Unsealing Judicial Records
A. The First Amendment Right to Judicial Records The First Amendment's express guarantees of free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to petition the government
-6-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 7 of 29

carry with them an implicit right of public access to particular government information. Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia,
448 u.s. 555, 575-76 (1980). Our Court of Appeals has held that
"[t] he first amendment guarantees the press and the public a general right of access to court proceedings and court documents unless there are compelling reasons demonstrating why it cannot be observed." Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F. 2d 282, 287 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (emphasis added).
As Judge Hogan explained in Detainee Lit. I, 624 F.Supp.2d at 35, in order to determine whether a particular proceeding and related judicial records are subject to the public's right of access, courts apply a two-part test, commonly referred to as the test of "experience and logic," Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise II"). The first prong of that test asks whether there is a history of access to the proceeding. Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8-9. The second prong considers whether public access "plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Id. Failure at either stage of the test is fatal to a First Amendment public access claim. See United States v. El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158, 161 (D.C. Cir. 1997) . 2

2

In addition to the First Amendment right of access to

judicial records, the Supreme Court has recognized a common law

right "to inspect and copy judicial records." Nixon v. Warner

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also In re

-7-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 8 of 29
The public's right of access, once established, is a
qualified one. Limits on the public's right to acc.ess judicial
records are appropriate only upon the demonstration of an
"overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential
to preserve higher values.n Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior
Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984) ("Press-Enterprise In) . "The
[overriding] interest [must] be articulated along with findings
specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the
closure order was properly entered.n Id.
The party seeking closure must show a "substantial
probabilityn of harm to an "overriding interestn which has been
identified; even a "reasonable likelihoodn of harm does not
suffice. Press Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 14 (California statute
providing for closure of preliminary hearings "upon finding a
reasonable likelihood of substantial prejudicen placed "a lesser
NBC, 653 F.2d 609, 612 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Although courts traditionally avoid constitutional questions if adequate statutory or common law relief is available, our Court of Appeals has made clear that courts should look first to the Constitutional right of access where judicial records are at issue. Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 288 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("Appellant also claims that there is a common law right of access to court records and documents. Like our sister circuits, however, we reach the constitutional issues raised in the appeal because of the different and heightened protections of access that the first amendment provides over common law rightsn) . Because the Court finds that Intervenors have a Constitutional right of access to the videotapes at issue, it need not reach Intervenors' common law claim.
-8-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 9 of 29
burden on the defendant than the 'substantial probability' test which . . is called for by the First Amendment.").
Any limit on public access that a court does impose must be "narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Press Enterprise I, 4 64 U.S. at 510. Complete closure of the judicial record is proper only in the absence of any alternatives that would provide adequate protection. Robinson, 935 F.2d at 290.
B. Court Discretion to Seal Judicial Records In a trio of cases--Bismullah, Parhat, and Ameziane--our Court of Appeals developed the standard for determining whether information on the docket of Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas cases may be sealed from public disclosure. In order to keep judicial records under seal, "the [G]overnment first must demonstrate what kind of information requires protection and why, and then must show exactly what information in the case at hand it seeks to protect." Ameziane v. Obama, 699 F.3d 488, 495 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original). First, in Bismullah v. Gates, 501 F.3d 178, 187-89 vacated 554 U.S. 913 (2008), reinstated, Order, No. 06-1197 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 22, 2008), petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, 551 F.3d 1068 (D.C. Cir. 2009) the Court of Appeals considered how and when to protect the sensitive information common to the Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas cases and made clear that "[i]t is the court, not the Government, that has discretion to seal a
-9-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 10 of 29
judicial record, which the public ordinarily has the right to inspect and copy." (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court rejected a Government proposal that would have granted it the authority to determine unilaterally whether unclassified information is "protected" and therefore kept under seal. Id.
Second, in Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, 852-53 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals further explained that in order to maintain records under seal, the Government must provide an "explanation tailored to the specific information at issue" rather than "spare, generic assertions of the need to protect information." The Court rejected the Government's motion to protect from public disclosure "all nonclassified record information that it has labeled law enforcement sensitive, as well as the names and identifying information of all U.S. government personnel mentioned in the record." Id. at 235 (internal quotation marks omitted.) The Court concluded that "[b] y resting its motion on generic claims, equally applicable to all of the more than one hundred other detainee cases now pending in this court, the government effectively 'proposes unilaterally to determine whether information is protected.'" Id. (citing Bismullah, 501 F.3d at 188).
Third, in Ameziane v. Obama, 699 F.3d 488, 494-95 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing Parhat, 532 F.3d at 853) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court set out a two-part test to govern the
-10-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 11 of 29
sealing of judicial records in detainee cases: the Government must put forth "at a minimum, [1] a specific, tailored rationale for protecting a general category of information, and [2] a precise designation of each particular item of information that purportedly falls within the category described.'" The Court observed that "the narrower the category for which the government seeks protection, the more likely the government's rationale will be sufficiently tailored[,]" although, the government need not provide "a .Specific and distinct rationale addressed. to each detainee's situation." Arneziane, 699 F. 3d at 495. III. ANALYSIS
A. Whether the Qualified Right of Access to Judicial Records Extends to Classified Documents
The Court is well aware, as the Government has emphasized, that in no case involving Guantanamo Bay detainees has any court ordered disclosure of classified information over the Government's opposition. However -- to be clear -- that does not mean that in a given factual situation no court has the discretion to do so if warranted. Quite the contrary. Our Court of Appeals has stated that it is the judiciary's responsibility, when ruling on an issue as overwhelmingly important as diminution of our precious First Amendment rights, to ensure that classification of the items in question, i.e., the FCE
-11-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 12 of 29

videos, is proper. 3 See McGehee v. Casey, 718 F.2d 1137, 1148 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Following the two-step test of Press-Enterprise II, Judge Hogan in Detainee Lit. I first determined that "access to habeas proceedings has been historically available." Detainee Lit. I, 624 F.Supp.2d at 35. Recognizing that "the D.C. Circuit has been silent on the issue," Judge Hogan noted that "other Circuits have opined and uniformly held that the public has a First Amendment right of access to civil proceedings and records," Id. at 36, and concluded that "[a] petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a civil proceeding[,]" Id. at 35 (citing Fay v. Noia,
372 u.s. 391, 423 (1963)).
Under Press-Enterprise II' s second prong, the Court found "that 'public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning' of these habeas proceedings." Detainee Lit. I, 62 4 F.Supp.2d at 36 (quoting Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8). "Publicly disclosing the factual returns [produced in the habeas proceedings] would enlighten the citizenry and improve

3

The fact the judicial records sought are videotapes, rather

than written documents, does not affect the analysis. See, e.g.,

In re ABC, 537 F. Supp. 1168, 1170 n.4 (D.D.C. 1982) (the right

of access "extends to records which are not in written form, for

example, videotapes"); cf. United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d

143, 153-54 (2d Cir. 2001) (videotape relied upon by court

subject to common law access right even though not admitted into

evidence); Application of CBS, Inc., 828 F.2d 958 (2d Cir. 1987)

(common law access right applies to videotape of deposition

presented to jury); United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814 (3d

Cir. 1981) (same).

-12-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 13 of 29

perceptions of the proceedings' fairness." Id. at 37 (citing New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 728 (1971) (Stewart, J., concurring) (observing that in the areas of national defense and international relations, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power ... may lie in an enlightened citizenry")). Moreover, "[d]isclosing the factual returns to the public would also benefit both parties.
The government's detention decisions would gain the legitimacy that accompanies transparency." Detainee Lit. I, 624 F.Supp.2d at 37. 4
Respondents deny that the qualified right of access identified by the Court in Detainee Lit. I extends to the videotapes at issue here. They contend, first, that the history of access to habeas corpus proceedings and records does not extend to classified information. Second, pointing to dicta in Detainee Lit. I, 624 F.Supp.2d at 37 ("any positive role would be severely diminished if the public gains access to classified information"), the Government argues that when a document has been deemed classified by the Executive Branch, that fact alone should bind the court to conclude that public access would not play a significant positive role. Resp'ts' Opp'n at 18-21.

4

While the factual returns at issue in Detainee Lit. I were

not classified, the Government argued that they should have been

deemed "protected" and therefore not subject to public access.

624 F.Supp.2d at 38.

-13-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 14 of 29

By applying the test of experience and logic directly to

classified information, the Government misreads Press Enterprise

llr 478 U.S. at 8-9. Courts must consider the history and

virtues of access to particular proceedings, not the information

that may arise during those proceedings. See Press-Enterprise II

478 U.S. at 8-9 (comparing the history and virtues of open jury

trials with the necessary "secrecy of grand jury proceedings"J.

Once the right of access to a proceeding has been established,

courts may use narrowly tailored measures to protect compelling

interests, like the safeguarding of sensitive information. See

Robinson, 935 F.2d at 290 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

In addition to misconstruing Press-Enterprise II, the

Government's arguments, if accepted, would displace the Court's

power to seal its own record, putting that authority in the

Government's hands alone. However, the Court of Appeals in

Busmillah, 501 F. 3d at 188, clearly stated that "[i] t is the

court, not the Government that has discretion to seal a judicial

record."

The Fourth Circuit, in In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d

383, 391-92 (4th Cir. 1986), concluded that although the

Executive has the sole authority to determine what information

is properly classified for its purposes, only the judiciary has

the discretion to seal or unseal a judicial record. While the

Court admitted to being "troubled

by the risk that

. -14-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 15 of 29
disclosure of classified information could endanger the lives of both Americans and their foreign informants, [it was] equally troubled by the notion that the judiciary should abdicate its decision-making responsibility to the executive branch whenever national security concerns are present. History teaches us how easily the spectre of a threat to 'national security' may be used to justify a wide variety of repressive government actions. A blind acceptance by the courts of the government's insistence on the need for secrecy, without notice to others, without argument, and without a statement of reasons, would impermissibly compromise the independence of the judiciary and open the door to possible abuse." Id. (emphasis added).
B. Application of Press Enterprise II and Parbat to the Twenty-Eight Video Tapes
The Government identifies five means by which release of the videotapes would give rise to a substantial probability of harm to a compelling interest: (1) the videos could aid the development of countermeasures to FCEs; (2) depictions of camp infrastructure in the videos could allow detainees or others to disrupt the camp; (3) detainees might respond to release of the videos by deliberately trying to behave in such a way that necessitates greater use of the FCEs; (4) the videos could "inflame Muslim sensitivities overseas" or be used as propaganda; (5) release of the videotapes could subject Mr.
-15-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 16 of 29
Dhiab to "public curiosity" and "could affect the practice of other states in this regard, which would in turn dilute protections afforded U.S. service personnel in ongoing overseas contingency operations and future conflicts." Resp'ts' Opp'n at 27.
1. The Government's Burden In order to seal the judicial record and defeat the public's qualified right of access, the Government carries a heavy burden. It must put forth "at a minimum, [1] a specific, tailored rationale for protecting a general category of information, and [2] a precise designation of each particular i tern of information that purportedly falls within the category described." Ameziane, 699 F. 3d at 494-95 (citing Parhat, 532 F. 3d at 853) (internal quotation marks omitted). The reasons it gives for protecting the information must demonstrate a "substantial probability of harm" to an "overriding interest." Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 14. As already noted, the fact that the Government has unilaterally deemed information classified is not sufficient to defeat the public's right. See Bismullah, 501 F.3d at 188. Even when the Government's reasons for classification point to a substantial probability of harm, the Court must assure itself that the justifications given are "rational and plausible." See McGehee, 718 F.2d at 1149. The Government must provide "reasoned
-16-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 17 of 29

and detailed explanations" and courts "must

satisfy

themselves

that the [Government] in fact had good reason

to classify." Id. at 1148-49.

In short, it is our responsibility, as judges, as part of

our obligation under the Constitution, to ensure that any

efforts to limit our First Amendment protections are scrutinized

with the greatest of care. That responsibility can not be

ignored or abdicated.

Therefore, when the sealed facts are already public,

maintaining documents under seal is only appropriate when,

despite what the public already knows, the documents' release

would still give rise to a substantial probability of harm. See

Robinson, 935 F.2d at 291-92 (unsealing a plea agreement because

Government's concerns that "release of a plea agreement may

threaten an ongoing criminal investigation~ or the safety of the

defendant and his family" were unfounded when "the fact that the

plea agreement was entered into in exchange for McWilliams'

cooperation was already within the public knowledge."); see also

In re The Herald Co., 73.4 F.2d 93, 101 (2d Cir.1984) ("Though

the basis for apprehending harm to the defendant is apparent,

the record raises a question as to whether the information

sought to be kept confidential has already been given sufficient

public exposure to preclude a closure order on this account.").

-17-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 18 of 29

Our Court of Appeals has cautioned that while "it is our

customary policy to accord deference to the President in matters

of foreign affairs

[the] detainee cases are unique."

Ameziane, 699 F.3d at 494 (emphasis added) (internal citations

and quotation marks omitted) . "Because of the independent role

carved out for the judiciary, and our concomitant obligation to

balance the needs of the government against the rights of the

detainee, and also to preserve to the extent feasible the

traditional right of public access to judicial records grounded

in the First Amendment, we exercise greater caution in deciding

to defer." Id. The Court must give deference when it is due, but

"deference is not equivalent to acquiescence." Campbell v. U.S.

Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 30 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

This Court viewed the initial 28 videos made by the

Government, and has read, re-read, and carefully analyzed the

Declaration of Rear Admiral Richard W. Butler, which contains

the Government's justification for opposing disclosure of the

forced-feeding and FCE videos in this case, as well as Exhibit 1

attached to his Declaration.

In reviewing Rear Admiral Butler's justifications for

closure, the Court finds -- as it will now detail -- that most

of them are unacceptably vague, speculative, lack specificity,

or are just plain implausible.

-18-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 19 of 29

2. The Government's Concerns

a. Development of Countermeasures

At several points, the Declaration relied on by the

Government refers to the possibility that "detainees and other

enemies" may develop countermeasures to the FCE and forced-

feeding procedures. RDML Butler Decl. at ~ 12; accord. Id. at ~~

11-14. Nowhere does the Government specify what these

"countermeasures" may be or what form they might take.

Paragraph 13 discusses enteral feeding videos, which

depict, among other things, "the layout of the enteral feeding

space, location of equipment that [according to the Government]

could be used as a weapon, and the number of personnel involved

[in the enteral feeding process] . " The declaration states that

the "release of any footage of this type provides the enemy with

opportunity to search for weaknesses and vulnerabilities

exposing FCE and medical personnel to possible attack."

(emphasis added). Paragraph 13 also states that "[p]ublic

release of FCE videos could

provide detainees with the

ability to devise new ways to thwart the enteral feeding

process [.]" However, the detainees subjected to forced-feeding

are already intimately familiar with the enteral feeding process

and facilities. Moreover, the Government has already released

substantial information relating to the feeding process,

including the layout of and equipment in the enteral feeding

-19-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 20 of 29

space. 5 It strains credulity to conclude that release of these videos has a substantial probability of causing the harm the Government predicts.
Paragraphs 11, 12, 14, and 17 of the Declaration all amount to a claim that release of the "videos" "poses risk to military personnel as detainees and other enemies armed with such information can develop countermeasures to FCE tactics and procedures [, ] " Id. at '][ 12. Paragraph 17, in particular, claims that upon release of the "videos" detainees could obtain information from relatives that would help them develop FCE "countermeasures." This statement is particularly difficult to understand. The fact of the matter is that all detainees' communications with outsiders are closely monitored by the personnel at Guantanamo Bay. 6

5

See, e.g., DVIDS, Joint Medical Group (Apr. 10, 2013),

available at http://www.dvidshub.net/image/920530/joint-medical-

group#.U9Qkv4BdWvO

(picture

of

feeding

chair);

http://www.dvidshub.net/image/920537/joint-medical-

group#.U9QlL4BdWvO (picture of enteral feeding preparation kit);

http://www.dvidshub.net/image/920535/joint-medical-

group#.U9QldiBdWv0

(same) ;

http://www.dvidshub.net/image/920549/joint-medical-

group#.U9Pq3oBdWvO (gallery of sixteen images showing1 among

others, "medical stay area inside the Joint Medical Group"); see

also Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Joint Medical Group,

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF DETAINEES ON HUNGER STRIKE (March 5, 2013)

[Dkt. 203-7] .

6

P. Finn & J. Tate, Guantanamo Bay detainees' family members

may be allowed to visit, Wash. Post (May 11, 2011), available at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/Guantanamo-bay-

detaineesfamily-members-may-be-allowed-to-

visit/2011/05/11/AFGAMtsG_story.html (reporting that the "[a] 11·

-20-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 21 of 29

More generally, it is not sufficient to say that release of the videotapes "poses risk to military personnel" because enemies "can develop countermeasures." RDML Butler Decl. at <JI 12; see also Id. at <JI 14 ("Divulging videos of [FCEs and enteral feedings] could reasonably be expected to result in the development of countertactics") . The Government's burden is to show a "substantial probability" of harm to a compelling interest. Press Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 14 (statute providing for closure of preliminary hearings "upon finding a reasonable likelihood of substantial prejudice" placed "a lesser burden on the defendant than the substantial probability test which . is called for by the First Amendment.").
Furthermore, the Government's claim that release of the videos would lead to unspecified FCE "countermeasures" is implausible. The detainees are already familiar with the tactics used to extract them from their cells and enterally feed them, and detailed descriptions of the procedures are publicly available on the internet. 7

conversations [between detainees and their families] are

monitored by the military").

7

See Joint Task Force Guant2mamo Bay, Cuba, Joint Medical

Group, MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF DETAINEES ON HUNGER STRIKE (March

5, 2013) [Dkt. 203-7]; Joint Task Force - Guant2mamo, CAMP DELTA

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES §§ 24.1-24.3 (Mar. 1, 2004),

available

at

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/OathBetrayed/sop_2004.pdf

(procedures governing Immediate Reaction Force ("IRF") teams at

Guantanamo).

-21-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 22 of 29

The Government notes that some elements of the FCE procedure are performed outside the detainees' view. RDML Butler Decl. at ~ 12. But those procedures, described in minute detail, are already in the public sphere. 8 Bureau of Prison regulations, on which the Guantanamo Bay regulations are modeled, Resp' ts' Opp. 3; Bogdan Decl. at~ 4, are public, 9 as are analogous state regulations. 10 One fact the government specifically worries about -- that the videos would show the number of guards involved in the FCE procedure, Resp'ts' Opp'n at 5; RDML Butler Decl. at ~ 10 -- is easy to locate on-line. 11
Given what is already available to the public and known to the detainees, it simply is not plausible to argue that release of the videos will give rise to an additional probability of harm by encouraging the development of FCE countermeasures.

8

Id.

9

See Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement P55 66. 06,

Subject: Use of Force and Application of Restraints; 28 C.F.R. §

552.21 et seq.

10 See, e.g., Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., Operations Manual

§

51020.12.3,

available

at

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/regulations/Adult_Operations/DOM_TOC.html;

Fla.

Admin.

Code

§33-602.210,

available

at

http://florida.eregulations.us/rule/33-602.210; Minn. Dep't of

Corr. , Policies, Directives, and Instructions Manual, available

at

http://www.doc.state.mn.us/DocPolicy2/html/DPW_Display_TOC.asp?O

pt=301.081.htm.

II

Joint Task Force

Guantanamo, CAMP DELTA STANDARD

OPERATING PROCEDURES §§ 24.1-24.3 (Mar. 1, 2004), available at

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/OathBetrayed/sop_2004.pdf

("There

will be primary and alternate [Immediate Reaction ("IRF")]

team [s] designated for each camp. IRF teams consist of five

guards . ") .

-22-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 23 of 29

Robinson, 935 F. 2d at 2 92 (unsealing plea agreement because it was not "evident how such disclosure could pose any extra threat to the safety of [the defendant] and his family" when the defendant's cooperation with the government was public knowledge "already validated by an official source") (emphasis added).
b. Disclosure of the Physical Layout of Camp Infrastructure
A number of paragraphs in Rear Admiral Butler's Declaration argue that release of the "videos" would allow adversaries to reconstruct considerable portions of the camp infrastructure, thereby threatening the security of the camps. See, e.g. , RDML Butler Decl. at ']['][ 10, 15. Intervenors note that significant information about the infrastructure of the Guantanamo camp is already in the public domain. Unlike the information about the FCEs, which is similar to but distinct from the information in the videos themselves, Intervenors contend that public information about the infrastructure of the camp is the same information the Government here attempts to seal. Moreover, they point out that the Government itself has released this information. 12

12 C. Rosenberg, A prison camps primer, Miami Herald (June 15,

2014),

available

at

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/15/2558413/web-extra-a-

prison-camps-primer. html (describing layout and details of

various camps within Guantanamo); R. Johnson, Inside Gitmo: An

Exclusive Tour of the Most Notorious Prison on Earth, Business

Insider

(Apr.

25,

2013),

available

at

-23-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 24 of 29

For example, the Government has released pictures of cellblocks and medical facilities, surveillance rooms, and actual pictures of several camps, which include images of medical facilities. 13 The Government claims that release of images of medical facilities could allow detainees to find items that might be used as weapons and that public knowledge of infrastructural information could facilitate disruption of good order and discipline within the camps. In the face of what the Government has already released, its concerns are simply not ~rational or plausible." See McGehee, 718 F.2d at 1148.
Ameziane made clear that courts may consider the Government's own prior release of information when choosing whether to seal a record. Ameziane, 699 F.3d at 498 (Although ~it was error to rely on third parties' purported knowledge of his cleared status [,]" ~it would have been proper to consider whether the government already had publicly acknowledged

http://www.businessinsider.com/gitmo-guantanamo-bay-photo-tour-

2013-4?op=1 (providing photographs of various parts of

Guantanamo, including a medical treatment room and occupied

cellblocks) ; Explorer: Inside Guantanamo, NAT' L GEOGRAPHIC

CHANNEL (Apr. 5, 2009) (~Inside Guantanamo I"), at 3:38-4:44,

11:38-14:27, 18:30-19:30, 25:34-28:00, 36:09-37:17 (cellblock),

2:13-3:38, 14:39-15:06, 18:00-18:29 (exterior and interior of

holding cells), 37:19-34 (force-feeding chair), available at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4J6_tCy8To; see also Inside

Guantanamo, 60 MINUTES (Nov. 3, 2013) (~Inside Guantanamo II"),

at 2:46-3:11 (cellblock), 9:53-10:22 (exterior and interior of

holding cells), 10:23-30 (surveillance room), available at

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-Guantanamo/.

13

Id.

-24-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 25 of 29
Ameziane's clearance for transfer."). Accordingly, the Government cannot meet its burden by simply asserting that information regarding the infrastructure of the camp is critical to national security when it has already released the very same information to the public. Ameziane, 699 F. 3d at 4 95 requires the Government to provide "a specific, tailored rationale for protecting a general category of information" and identify "each particular item of information that purportedly falls within the category." It has failed to do so.
c. Use of the Videos as Propaganda Paragraphs 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24 all warn that the publi~ release of FCE and enteral feeding "videos," not necessarily Mr. Dhiab' s videos, would prove useful as propaganda for Al Qaeda and its affiliates and could increase anti-American sentiment, thereby placing the lives of United States service members at risk. As we have seen in recent years, terrorists of all stripes and ideologies have long been attempting to create anti-American sentiment abroad by using publications as recruiting material for new members. However, courts have long rejected arguments to abridge the First Amendment that would give rise to a "heckler's veto." Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 133 n.1 (1966). The rights afforded by the First Amendment cannot be defeated "simply
-25-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 26 of 29

because [the rights exercised] might offend a hostile mob."

Forsyth Cnty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134-35

(1992). As was aptly stated in ACLU v. Department of Defense,

389 F.Supp.2d 547, 576 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), "[t]errorists

do

not need pretexts for their barbarism." 14 Accordingly, "fear of

blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent [the

court] from performing a statutory command [,]" Id. at 57 5, much

less, complying with a Constitutional mandate.

d. Detainee Behavior that Would Require More FCEs

The Government also contends that if any videotapes of FCEs

were to be released, other prisoners would be more likely to

engage in disruptive behavior, endangering themselves,

Guantimamo Bay staff and, eventually, national security. RDML

Butler Decl. at <]I 16; Resp' ts' Opp' n at 27. This justification

for denying the public's First Amendment right of access to

judicial records fails to show a substantial probability of

harm.

Paragraph 18 of RDML Butler's Declaration claims that "if

video recordings of forced cell extractions" were released to

the public, detainees would become aware of this and react by

14

Congress subsequently passed legislation that temporarily

exempted the photos at issue in ACLU from disclosure under the

Freedom of Information Act. See Protected National Security

Documents Act of 2009, 123 Stat. 2184, Pub. L. 111-83, Title V,

§ 565 (Oct. 28, 2009). Pursuant to the language of the statute,

that temporary exemption later expired.

-26-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 27 of 29

behaving in ways "likely [to] result in more [FCEs] ." This

argument fails to show a substantial probability of harm and is

entirely too speculative to defeat the public's right of access.

Intervenors' Motion does not ask that all videotapes of all FCEs

performed at Guantanamo Bay be released to the public. They ask

only to unseal those tapes that compose the particular record

for this proceeding. Nothing in this Court's decision would give

Guantanamo Bay detainees the unilateral right to publicize

videos of their own FCEs.

e. Public

Curiosity

and

International

Reputation

What the Government means when it worries that "any portion

of the videotapes containing an image of the Petitioner could

expose him to public curiosity" is not immediately apparent.

Opp'n at 28. Mr. Dhiab has been clear that he wishes release of

the videotapes. It is hard to believe that Mr. Dhiab -- whose

particular videos are the only ones at issue

would be

offended or distressed by knowing that the public was able to

view his treatment at Guantanamo Bay. Given the extensive

publicity about his situation, and the fact that on any number

of occasions his lawyers have talked to members of the press to

describe his plight, the Government's concern that he would be

harmed in any way by release of the videos is not plausible.

-27-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 28 of 29
Rear Admiral Butler claims in Paragraph 20 that release of "videos, of detainees subject to forced cell extraction or enteral feeding would raise serious questions by United States allies and partners and others in the international community as to whether the United States is acting in accordance" with what he states is our country's "longstanding policy to protect detainees from public curiosity, consistent with the Geneva Conventions."
The Government's claim, if accepted, would turn the Third Geneva Convention on its head. Rather than a source of rights to humane treatment, Article 13 would become a means to shield from public view treatment that Mr. Dhiab (and undoubtedly other detainees) believe to be inhumane. Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def., 543 F.3d 59, 91 (2d Cir. 2008) cert. granted,
judgment vacated on other grounds, 558 u.s. 1042 (2009)
("Release of the photographs [showing mistreatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners] is likely to further the purposes of the Geneva Conventions by deterring future abuse of prisoners. To the extent the public may be 'curious' about the Army photos, it is not in a way that the text of the Conventions prohibits; curiosity about enemy prisoners being subjected to mistreatment through the streets is different in kind from the type of concern the plaintiffs seek to inspire.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
-28-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 349 Filed 10/03/14 Page 29 of 29

6. Personally Identifying Information about Members of the FCE Team and the Possibility of Covert Communication
The Government contends, Resp'ts' Opp'n at 9-10, 29, and Intervenors acknowledge, Intervenors' Reply at 20-21, that protection of the identities of Guantanamo Bay staff is a legitimate goal. Such protection, however, does not require complete sealing of the videotapes. Adequate protection can be provided by appropriate audio and visual edits, for example, screening names and voices, blurring faces and identifying
\
portions of uniforms, and blacking-out written materials on walls. The Government's concerns regarding the possibility of covert communications through the released videos can likewise be so addressed. Complete closure is only appropriate when there are no reasonable alternatives. Robinson, 935 F.2d at 290. That is not the case here. IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors' Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence is hereby granted with specified conditions.

October 3, 2014

Glad~~~
United States District Judge

Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF

-29-

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 348 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABU WA'EL (JIHAD) DHIAB, Petitioner,
v. BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.

Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK)

Respondents.

ORDER On June 20, 2014, the Hearst Corporation, Inc., ABC, Inc., Associated Press, Bloomberg L. P., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., The Contently Foundation, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., First Look Media, Inc., Guardian US, The McClatchy Company, National Public Radio, Inc., The New York Times Company, Reuters America LLC, Tribune Publishing Company, LLC, USA TODAY, and The Washington Post ("Press Applicants" or "Intervenors") filed a Motion to Intervene and to Unseal twenty-eight videotapes that have been entered into the record of the above captioned matter. [Dkt. No.
2 63] . Upon consideration of the Motion, Respondents' Opposition
[Dkt. No. 2 8 8] ' Intervenors' Reply [Dkt. No. 2 90] ' the applicable case law, and the entire record herein, and for the

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 348 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 2

reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the unopposed Motion to Intervene is granted; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Motion to Unseal is granted with the following modi~ications:
• all identifiers of individuals in the videotapes (i.e., faces other than Mr. Dhiab' s, voices, names, etc.) shall be redacted;
• counsel shall work cooperatively, as they have throughout this litigation, to ensure that all necessary redactions of the videotapes shall be made so that they may then be entered on the public docket;
• the videotapes shall remain sealed until all such redactions are made.

October 3, 2014

Glcay~r~
United States District Judge

Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF

-2-

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 223-2 Filed 05/20/14 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_____________________________________________

)

ABU WA’EL (JIHAD) DHIAB

)

)

)

Petitioners

)

v.

)

)

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

)

)

Respondents.

)

___________________________________________ )

Civ. No. 05-1457 (GK)

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CORI CRIDER I, CORI CRIDER, DECLARE UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1746:
1. This is a supplemental declaration regarding my call with Petitioner on May 19, 2014. Quotations represent my best reconstruction of what the client said but are not verbatim. In the compressed time available I have been unable to confirm every detail of the following account with Petitioner, but I believe these notes to be an accurate reflection of our call.
Resumption of strike and threatened force-feeding 2. Mr. Dhiab has resumed hunger striking. He said that last week between Tuesday and Thursday (May 13-15, 2014), JTF-GTMO medical staff – both doctors and nurses – approached him in his cell and said that if he did not begin to consume nutrients he would once again be force-fed. 3. He described great pain, saying “I could barely sleep for the pain in my kidneys.” 4. Medical staff also told him that, if he refused to eat, the ‘Forcible Cell Extraction’ (FCE) team would be deployed to take him to feedings.

1

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 223-2 Filed 05/20/14 Page 2 of 5
5. He said one of the nurses was very explicit about the consequences of refusing nutrition: “She told me you have one of two options. Either you eat, or we are going to send you to force-feeding through the FCE.” Mr. Dhiab did not know her rank, but indicated the nurse was an African-American woman of average height, working the night shift last week.
6. On Friday, he said the medical staff did not approach him. Threatened Forcible Cell Extraction on Friday 7. Petitioner observed that there has recently been overuse of the FCE team: “Now they have started to FCE a lot of people. They seem to be hauling people from their cells for any minor reason. One such trivial reason would be, for example, to inspect the room.” 8. Petitioner indicated he had not been moved by the FCE team since Friday. But he added that on Friday night, after the final prayer of the day but before midnight,1 an army sergeant came to his cell to harass and intimidate him about a possible FCE. 9. Petitioner recounted the following exchange with the sergeant:
The sergeant came to my cell and asked “Why are you refusing to eat? Do you wanna eat by the FCE?” “I don’t care,” I said. He said “Okay, see you during the FCE time.” “Are you from the ERF team?” I asked.2 “I am in charge of the team,” he said.
1 The Isha prayer would have been at 8:46 PM Eastern Time on the evening in question. See http://www.islamicfinder.org/prayerDetail.php?country=cuba&city=Guantanamo_Bay&id=16050&lang=&mon thly=1. Judge Kessler’s order was posted to ECF at 5:49 PM Eastern Time, three hours earlier. 2 Petitioner, like most prisoners at Guantánamo, uses the terms ‘ERF’ and ‘FCE’ interchangeably to denote the team of MPs in riot gear who storm a prisoner’s cell to ‘subdue’ him when he will not voluntarily go somewhere. (I believe this reflects changes in JTF-GTMO’s terminology over the years, in which the team seems to have been called, variously, the ‘Emergency Reaction [or Response] Force’, the ‘Initial Reaction Force’, or the group who do ‘Forcible Cell Extractions’.) Prisoners dubbed the team the ‘Extreme Reaction Force’. Petitioner also believes that the Navy tended more often to say ‘ERF’, and the Army ‘FCE’.
2

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 223-2 Filed 05/20/14 Page 3 of 5
10. Petitioner also indicated that this individual was ‘working’ with the FCE team that evening and would not have come to his cell as part of the ordinary block police patrol or some other routine visit. Petitioner could discern no other purpose to the sergeant’s visit to his cell than to deliver this threat.
11. Petitioner estimates that this man was between 37 and 40, AfricanAmerican, tall and of medium build. “I have seen him before, and usually we have a good relationship,” he said. When I asked whether he was then surprised that this person had seemingly made a special effort to approach and harass him, he said he was not, and that sad to say, “people change on you from one day to the next here.”
12. Petitioner was very intimidated by this soldier’s threat to use the team, largely because of past experience:
The ERF team hurt you all the time. I especially remember they badly hurt my rib in the past – once in 2009, and another time this year. I have had great pain in both the left and right sides of my chest because of this. It also seems like every time they ERF me and give me a blood test they find blood in my urine. I have severe pain in my lower back/thigh and also in my neck, I believe all from the ERF. I have continuous pain in the head. 12. “After the torture I have been through many times,” he said, “I have sometimes wished to die because of them.” Videos 13. Petitioner described the videotaping of FCEs as incomplete and manipulated by Respondents. 14. “They video you when they force you onto the chair and when they pull you off the chair,” he said, “but they do not always do it during feedings.” 15. He said that on several occasions he has requested for the camera to be switched on, to no avail: “When they torture me on the chair, I tell them ‘you should videotape this,’ but at that point they refuse to run the tape. Then, when I start to resist because I am in so much pain, they turn the camera on.”
3

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 223-2 Filed 05/20/14 Page 4 of 5
16. He has particularly tried to persuade them to film during especially painful
intubation sessions:
When they [the FCE team] push me in the chair, they then hold each of my limb: one on each arm, one on each leg, and another on the head. Sometimes the way the MP holds the head chokes me, and with all the nerves in the nose the tube passing the nose is like torture. Then, especially when the MP is holding the neck, when they try to force the tube through the throat it often catches and they cannot push it through. At times like these, I ask them to videotape. And they refuse.
17. Then, he said, once the pain has reached a point where he cannot tolerate it
and begins to move in response, filming typically starts:
But then, of course, the pain makes you move around. I move my head when they poke me with the tube. I can’t help it. It hurts too much. Then they hold my head, and it only gets worse. After that I start to resist because I have severe pain in my throat. In this moment the head ERF guy shouts ‘DON’T RESIST! DON’T RESIST!’ And then they start taping.
The same thing happens at the end of the feeding: when they move me off the chair and they put pressure on my back and kidneys, I tell them ‘I have pain! I am suffering!’ So after a point, to relieve the suffering, I try to resist, and again they shout ‘Don’t resist!’ and again they start the tape. I don’t want to fight, but I am in such pain.
Many times I have said to them “you are not dealing with a stone, you are dealing with a human being. Why not deal with me like a human being, not a block?”
If I wanted to resist them from the start, I would have resisted when they entered my cell, when I was not chained, not later, when I am just in incredible pain and can only think of doing anything to stop it.
18. He also tries to persuade the FCE team to stop hurting him first:
I try to tell them about my pain before I resist – of course I hope they will avoid hurting me. I tell them they are putting pressure on my back, my kidney and my neck and I am suffering. Several times I have tried to tell them I was in pain but they just kept doing it, and after a point I am in such pain I have no choice but to resist.
19. In general Petitioner was emphatic that, however bad the footage of his
FCEs and force-feedings ultimately appears, the unfilmed periods are in truth far worse:
4

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 223-2 Filed 05/20/14 Page 5 of 5
From the time they enter the room to the time they get me off the chair to the time they chain me to the chair, anyone should be smart enough to recognize that there are periods with no videotaping. Why is this? Sometimes the MPs block the camera so that all you see is not me, suffering, but the soldiers blocking the camera with their bodies. Other really painful things will not be caught on camera. Many times in the chair they squeeze my leg. The camera can’t really show their squeezing of the leg. When I scream from pain, I start to move, and they say ‘he’s going to resist’, and they start to yell ‘STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING!’ When the soldiers touch me I tell them I have a damaged rib. The camera will not capture the pressure on my rib that makes me scream and move. They purposely make you feel pain. When I feel pain I shift, and when I move, they say ‘you are resisting’, and the whole ordeal begins again. Many times when I warn them not to put pressure on my rib or my kidney they only do it more. When I complain they say ‘we are protecting your life, we are protecting your health’. What kind of concern about my life and health is this, if they put me through such pain I am unable to sleep? I am peacefully demonstrating. Why are you torturing me? I did not resist you to begin with. 20. “I feel as if I die several times a day,” he added. 21. Towards the end of the call he made a simple plea for good sense: All I want is to get out of this place. For how much longer will I have to be in this situation? The suffering, the torture, being away from my kids and my family? How much longer will I be here? Five years ago, Obama said he was going to close this place and let the cleared people out. Meanwhile I have lost much of my life here, as well as my loved ones. Why are they doing this to us? I have no problem with America. For how long are they going to make me suffer?
Done in London, England, this 20th day of May, 2014.
______________________________________ Cori Crider
5

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 223-1 Filed 05/20/14 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

ABU WA'EL (JIHAD) DHIAB

)

)

)

Petitioners

)

v.

)

)

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

)

)

Respondents.

)

---------------------------------- )

Civ. No. 05-1457 (GK)

DECLARATION OF CORTNEY BUSCH

I, CORTNEY BUSCH, DECLARE UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1746:

1.

I am the Operations Manager and a security-cleared paralegal with legal

action charity Reprieve. 1 have been visiting Reprieve's clients in Guantanamo since August

2010. 2.

I make this declaration based on my most recent visit with the Petitioner on

30 April 2014; I received the cleared notes from that visit today.

3.

The following description is drawn directly from this visit. Quotations

represent my best reconstruction of what Mr. Dhiab said, although are not verbatim.

4.

Mr. Dhiab was very thin when I saw him and looked unwell. He stated that he

had not been out for recreation or even a shower for nearly seven months.

5.

He reported that he has resumed hunger striking because of the delay in

releasing him. He had suspended his strike for a brief period when it appeared to him that

release might be imminent, but said he found the continuing limbo too difficult to bear: "All

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 223-1 Filed 05/20/14 Page 2 of 3

I want to know is my situation. Am I going to leave, or not?" He mentioned previous

instances when he had been told he would be released and, in the event, was not.

6.

Mr. Dhiab is suffering considerable health complications apparently as a

result of his previous long-term hunger-striking and force feeding, to include serious pain in

his kidneys and blood in his urine.

7.

He also states that the 'Forcible Cell Extraction' (FCE) team have continued

to assault him for 'movements' without reason or provocation, and continued to do so even

after the temporary suspension of his hunger strike.

8.

He also rep011ed what he described as a 'vicious' policy of permitting the

detainees' weight to yo-yo: over-feeding prisoners to the point of discomfort, suddenly

ceasing the feeding, then resuming feedings if a prisoner loses consciousness on the block.

This, he says, is even more unpleasant and dangerous than a consistent regime of feedings.

Other prisoners

9.

Mr. Dhiab also mentioned very disturbing force-feeding practices for another

petitioner, Ahmed Rabbani. Mr. Dhiab reported that the day before our visit (that is, on April

29, 2014) another detainee, Ahmed Rabbani (ISN 1461) started to bleed immediately when

JTF-GTMO medial staff tried to intubate him, and that they tried to do so three times but

were ultimately unsuccessful. This led to extremely painful swelling in his nose and throat.

As a result of the feeding tube being incorrectly inserted, Mr. Rabbani had developed a bad

chest infection and had been vomiting blood over the previous few days. 10. Mr. Dhiab said Mr. Rabbani was regularly being 'FCE'd' to be force-fed, and
that last Sunday he was vomiting blood. He believes this will have been caught on camera

2

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 223-1 Filed 05/20/14 Page 3 of 3
because Mr. Rabbani had vomited blood on himself as the FCE team came to take him to the force feeding chair. Mr. Rabbani then lost consciousness.
11. He compared the current situation facing hunger strikers unfavorably with some aspects of feeding during the Bush administration. Under Bush, he remembered, if you bled during the force-feeding, the process would typically be suspended tor three days and then resumed.He also mentioned that one of the doctors at JTF-GTMO brought some sort of 'form' to Mr. Rabbani for his signature. He did not know the precise language ofthe form Mr. Rabbani was asked to sign, but the import of it was, in essence, 'we will not force-feed you if you refuse, but if you die you release us of responsibility.' Mr. Dhiab did not know if Mr. Rabbani signed the form. Done in Houston, Texas, this 20th day of May, 2014.
Cortney Busch
3

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 224 Filed 05/22/14 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

:

ABU WA’EL (JIHAD) DHIAB,

:

:

Petitioner,

:

:

v.

:

:

BARACK H. OBAMA, et. al.,

:

:

Respondents.

:

______________________________:

Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK)

ORDER

During a lengthy bench conference at the status hearing

held on May 21, 2014, the Court strongly suggested that the

Parties come to a compromise about the procedures used to

enterally feed Petitioner Dhiab during the pendency of his

Application for Preliminary Injunction. Mr. Dhiab’s physical

condition was swiftly deteriorating, in large part because he

was refusing food and/or water.

Mr. Dhiab has indicated his willingness to be enterally

fed, if it could be done at the hospital in Guantánamo Bay, if

he could be spared the agony of having the feeding tubes

inserted and removed for each feeding, and if he could be spared

the pain and discomfort of the restraint chair.

If he could have been enterally fed in that manner, it

would have then been possible to litigate his plea to enjoin

certain practices used in his force feedings in a civilized and

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 224 Filed 05/22/14 Page 2 of 3
legally appropriate manner. The Department of Defense refused to make these compromises.
The Court is now faced with an anguishing Hobson’s choice: reissue another Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) despite the very real probability that Mr. Dhiab will die, because he has indicated a continuing desire to refuse to eat and/or drink liquids, or refuse to issue the TRO and allow the medical personnel on the scene to take the medical actions to keep Mr. Dhiab alive, but at the possible cost of great pain and suffering.
The Court is in no position to make the complex medical decisions necessary to keep Mr. Dhiab alive. Thanks to the intransigence of the Department of Defense, Mr. Dhiab may well suffer unnecessary pain from certain enteral feeding practices and forcible cell extractions. However, the Court simply cannot let Mr. Dhiab die.
The Court does, however, remind all personnel that they should abide by their own Standard Operating Protocols, and that the standard for enteral feeding is whether Mr. Dhiab is actually facing an “imminent risk of death or great bodily injury.”
Moreover, in an effort to ensure that any suffering by Mr. Dhiab is not prolonged, the Court will issue a scheduling order
–2–

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 224 Filed 05/22/14 Page 3 of 3

tomorrow to facilitate the speedy exchange of discovery such that the Court can reach the merits of Mr. Dhiab’s Application.
For all the reasons above, and based on the entire record herein, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Temporary Restraining Order in this case will not be reissued.

May 22, 2014

/s/_________________________ Gladys Kessler United States District Judge

Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF

–3–

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 221 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

:

ABU WA’EL (JIHAD) DHIAB,

:

:

Petitioner,

:

:

v.

:

:

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.

:

:

:

Respondents.

:

______________________________:

Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK)

ORDER

On April 18, 2014, Petitioner Mohammed Abu Wa’el (Jihad)

Dhiab filed an Application for Preliminary Injunction and an

Immediate Order for Disclosure of Protocols Forthwith [Dkt. No.

203]. On May 2, 2014, the Court set a Motion Hearing on

Petitioner’s Application for Preliminary Injunction for May 21,

2014. That Motion became fully briefed on May 12, 2014.

On May 13, 2014, Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion For

Order Compelling Preservation of Evidence and Limited Discovery,

by May 18, 2014, of Medical Records and Videotapes of Force-

Feedings and Forcible Cell Extractions [Dkt. No. 217]. On May

15, 2014, the Government filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s

Emergency Motion [Dkt. No. 219], and on May 16, 2014, Petitioner

filed a Reply [Dkt. No. 220].

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 221 Filed 05/16/14 Page 2 of 3
With the filing of Petitioner’s Emergency Motion, it has become apparent that his Application for Preliminary Injunction, despite being fully briefed, is simply not in a posture to be heard at the May 21, 2014, hearing set by the Court. Consequently, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Motion Hearing set for May 21, 2014, shall be converted to a Status Conference at which the Government shall inform the Court when Petitioner’s medical records from April 9, 2013, to May 13, 2014, can be produced; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Government shall inform the Court at the May 21, 2014, status conference when all videotapes of Petitioner's Forcible Cell Extractions for purposes of enteral feeding and all videotapes of Petitioner’s enteral feedings between April 9, 2013, and February 19, 2014, can be produced; and it is further
ORDERED, that Respondents shall preserve and maintain all relevant videotapes of Petitioner's Forcible Cell Extractions for purposes of enteral feeding and all videotapes of Petitioner’s enteral feedings between April 9, 2013, and February 19, 2014; and it is further
ORDERED, that Respondents are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from any Forcible Cell Extractions of Petitioner for purposes of
–2–

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 221 Filed 05/16/14 Page 3 of 3

enteral feeding and any enteral feeding of Petitioner until May 21, 2014.

May 16, 2014

/s/________________________ Gladys Kessler United States District Judge

Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF

–3–

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 217 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABI WA’EL (JIHAD) DHIAB, Petitioner/Plaintiff,
v. BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.

Civ. No. 05-1457 (GK)

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE AND LIMITED DISCOVERY, BY MAY 18, 2014, OF MEDICAL RECORDS AND VIDEOTAPES OF FORCE-FEEDINGS AND FORCIBLE CELL
EXTRACTIONS On May 21, 2014, this Court will hold a hearing on Petitioner’s application for a preliminary injunction against abusive force-feeding practices at Guantánamo Bay. See Doc. #203. This emergency motion seeks an order compelling limited discovery in advance of the hearing. Respondents’ counsel have advised Petitioner’s counsel that “the government opposes the motion.” On May 6, 2014, Petitioner’s counsel met and conferred with Respondents’ counsel via email and requested limited discovery (on a protected or classified basis), pursuant to Section I.E.2 of the Case Management Order, of “any and all videotapes that have been made of Mr. Dhiab’s forcible cell extractions and enteral feedings.” On May 8, 2014, Petitioner’s counsel reiterated this request more specifically, asking via email for “[a]ny and all videotapes made of Mr. Dhiab’s Forcible Cell Extractions and/or enteral feedings during the period April 9, 2013 to February 19, 2014.” Also in the email of May 8, 2014, Petitioner’s counsel requested limited discovery of “[a]ll medical records for Mr. Dhiab for the period April 9, 2013 to May 7, 2014.”

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 217 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 6
On May 12, 2014, Respondents’ counsel advised Petitioner’s counsel via email that the Department of Defense refuses Petitioner’s request for production of videotapes. This email also stated that “DoD informs us that, as a matter of policy, the[y] do not record enteral feedings.” Later that day, Petitioner’s counsel responded by email as follows: “You say that ‘as a matter of policy’ DoD ‘do’ not record enteral feedings. I understand that to mean that DoD’s current policy is not to record enteral feedings. As a matter of past policy or practice, have any of Mr. Dhiab’s enteral feedings been recorded?”
Respondents’ counsel replied by email on May 13, 2014 and admitted for the first time that there actually are videotapes of force-feedings at Guantánamo Bay, stating: “DoD has advised us that during the recording of some FCE videos for enteral feeding purposes, some of the videos recorded both the FCE process and the enteral feeding process.” Respondents’ counsel have refused, however, to produce any such videotapes, including videotapes that show Mr. Dhiab’s force-feedings.
Respondents’ email of May 12, 2014 also stated that the Department of Defense will provide Petitioner’s medical records only for the period January 1, 2014 to May 7, 2014 and refuses to provide Petitioner’s medical records for the period April 9, 2013 to December 31, 2013. As of this writing, Petitioner’s counsel have not yet received Petitioner’s 2014 medical records.1
This Court has previously granted a Guantánamo Bay detainee’s motion to compel production of videotapes of his Forcible Cell Extractions (FCEs), pursuant to the detainee’s
1 Respondents’ May 12, 2014 email also reiterated their previous refusals to disclose still-secret protocols governing force-feeding and the use of restraint chairs at Guantánamo Bay. Those protocols are the subject of a separate request for an order compelling disclosure, set forth in Petitioner’s application for preliminary injunction and reiterated in his reply memorandum filed May 12, 2014. See Doc. #203-9 (proposed order for disclosure).
2

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 217 Filed 05/13/14 Page 3 of 6
assertions that FCEs “have in the past been abusive, violent, and inhumane.” Al-Adahi v. Obama, 2009 WL 1743756, at *1 (D.D.C. June 18, 2009). The Court found to be “unpersuasive” the Government’s assertion of concern that the order “might ‘open the door’ to other detainees to request such evidence,” observing that “[e]ach merits judge will make his or her own determination on the basis of the specific facts presented if such a motion is made.” Id. at *1 n. 1.
In this respect, the present case is indistinguishable from Al-Adahi. Petitioner has presented evidence that he and other detainees have been subjected to abusive and violent practices during FCEs and force-feedings. See Doc. #203-1 at 13-14. This evidence satisfies the requirement of Section I.E.2 of the Case Management Order that limited discovery “is likely to produce evidence that demonstrates that Petitioner’s detention is unlawful.” Videotapes of Petitioner’s FCEs and/or force-feedings are likely to demonstrate that Petitioner’s detention is unlawful to the extent they amount to unlawful conditions of confinement. See Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (court may “order the prisoner released unless the unlawful conditions are rectified”).
Further, this Court previously determined in Al-Adahi that the force-fed petitioners in that case were entitled to discovery of their medical records. See Al-Adahi v. Obama, 596 F. Supp. 2d 111, 115 (D.D.C. 2009). Again, the present case is indistinguishable. Petitioner’s full medical records are likely to support his allegations of abuse (e.g., by demonstrating the twicedaily reinsertion of his feeding tubes or the extent to which his FCEs and/or force-feedings are causing him pain). There is no reasonable justification for the Department of Defense to disclose Petitioner’s medical records for the first four months of 2014 but refuse to disclose his medical records for the previous nine-month period in 2013.
3

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 217 Filed 05/13/14 Page 4 of 6
Respondents’ counsel’s email of May 12, 2014 includes conclusory assertions that Petitioner’s medical records prior to January 1, 2014 “are not material to your current challenge and would otherwise be unduly burdensome,” and that the request for videotapes “is immaterial, overbroad, and unduly burdensome.” Respondent’s counsel’s email of May 13, 2014 similarly asserts that it “would be unduly burdensome” for the Department of Defense to review the videotapes of Mr. Dhiab’s FCEs in order to determine which ones include recordings of forcefeedings.
Petitioner’s requests, however, are hardly “immaterial,” but are directly relevant to his assertions of abuse in recent force-feeding practices at Guantánamo Bay. Petitioner’s requests are “narrowly tailored, not open-ended,” as required by section I.E.2 of the Case Management Order, in that they are restricted to specified material for a specified period of time. It can hardly be burdensome for the Department of Defense to produce another nine months’ worth of medical records when it has already agreed to produce four months’ worth. And whatever minor inconvenience the Department of Defense might have to shoulder in order to produce the videotapes of Petitioner’s force-feedings—the possession of which Respondents have not even admitted until now—is far outweighed by their probative value.
Respondents cannot complain that this discovery could jeopardize national security, because Petitioner does not (at least for the time being) seek public release of this material. Cf. Int’l Counsel Bureau v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 906 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012) (denying FOIA public release of FCE videotapes upon Government’s assertion of national security concerns); Center for Constitutional Rights v. Dep’t of Def., 968 F. Supp. 2d 623, 626, 629-30, 635-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (same). There is only one logical explanation for Respondents’ refusal of this
4

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 217 Filed 05/13/14 Page 5 of 6
limited discovery: Something in the videotapes and/or Petitioner’s full medical records must be worth discovering.
Given the looming May 21, 2014 hearing on Petitioner’s application for preliminary injunction, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court order Respondents to produce the requested medical records and videotapes by May 18, 2014.
Finally, during the course of the May 13, 2014 email exchanges between Petitioner’s counsel and Respondents’ counsel concerning the videotapes of Petitioner’s force-feeding, Petitioner’s counsel stated: “I’d like your immediate assurance that you are taking steps to preserve this videotape evidence and to ensure against its destruction.” Respondents’ counsel responded: “DoD is aware of its preservation obligations and has no reason to believe that the videotapes you seek in your motion have been destroyed.” Petitioner’s counsel replied: “[Y]our answer does not provide assurance that you are taking steps to preserve this videotape evidence going forward and ensure against its present or future destruction. If you cannot provide me with such assurance immediately, I will also ask the Court for a preservation order. Will you oppose such a request?” As of this writing, Respondents’ counsel has not responded.
5

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 217 Filed 05/13/14 Page 6 of 6

Consequently, by this motion Petitioner also requests this Court to order Respondents to preserve and maintain all videotapes of Petitioner’s forcible cell extractions and/or forcefeedings during the period April 9, 2013 to February 19, 2014.

Dated: May 13, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jon B. Eisenberg JON B. EISENBERG (CA State Bar #88278) 1970 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 452-2581 jeisenberg@horvitzlevy.com
/s/ Cori Crider REPRIEVE Clive Stafford Smith (LA Bar #14444) Cori Crider (NY Bar #4525721) Alka Pradhan (D.C. Bar #1004387) P.O. Box 72054 London EC3P 3BZ United Kingdom 011 44 207 553 8140 clive.stafford.smith@reprieve.org.uk cori@reprieve.org.uk alka.pradhan@reprieve.org
/s/ Eric L. Lewis LEWIS BAACH PLLC Eric L. Lewis (D.C. Bar #394643) Elizabeth L. Marvin (D.C. Bar #496571) 1899 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 833-8900 eric.lewis@lewisbaach.com elizabeth.marvin@lewisbaach.com
Counsel for Petitioner/Plaintiff

6

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 183 Filed 07/08/13 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JIHAD DHIAB,

Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK)

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Respondents. :

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Petitioner, Jihad Dhiab, has filed an Application for Preliminary Injunction Against Force-

Feeding [Dkt. No. 175]. Upon consideration ofthe Application, the Government's Opposition [Dkt.

No. 178], Petitioner's Reply [Dkt. No. 181], and the applicable case law, the Court concludes that

the Application shall be denied for the following reasons. Petitioner seeks in his Application to

enjoin the Government from continuing to subject him to force-feeding of any kind, including

forcible nasal gastric tube feeding, and from administering medications related to force-feeding

without his consent. In addition, he has requested expeditious consideration of the Application

because ofthe imminent risk that the force-feeding during the day will deprive him ofthe Ramadan

fast, which commences this year on July 8, 2013.1

Petitioner has been detained at Guantanamo Bay for 11 years, despite having been cleared

for release in 2009. At no time during these 11 years has he had any hearing on the merits of his

habeas petition, nor any military commission proceeding to determine the merits of his case. Due

1 Because ofthe urgency ofruling on the Application by July 8, 2013, the Court has written an extremely short Opinion. The full legal analysis of the jurisdictional issue is contained at AlAdahi v. Obama, 596 F. Supp. 2d 111, 117-120 (D.D.C. 2009)

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 183 Filed 07/08/13 Page 2 of 4
to certain actions taken by Congress, Guantanamo Bay has not been closed, and Petitioner's detention has, for all practical purposes, become indefinite.
On February 10, 2009, this Court issued Al-Adahi v. Obama, 596 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D.D.C. 2009). In that case, Petitioner had filed a Renewed Emergency Motion to Enjoin the Force-Feeding to which he was being subjected. For all practical purposes, the facts in Al-Adahi, which the Court found after a long Motion Hearing, are close to identical to the facts presented by Petitioner in this case. In Al-Adahi, the Court concluded that it "lacks jurisdiction and therefore does not have the authority to grant the relief' being requested. Id. at 117. The Court made it perfectly clear in that Opinion that it was required to reach that conclusion "if it is to carry out its obligation to faithfully follow the rule oflaw." Id.
There has been no material change in either the background facts or the applicable legal principles since issuance ofthe Al-Adahi Opinion. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2) still states that:
[N]o court, justice, orjudge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant. Consequently, the Court feels just as constrained now, as it felt in 2009, to deny this Petitioner's Application for lack ofjurisdiction. The Court also feels constrained, however, to note that Petitioner has set out in great detail in his papers what appears to be a consensus that forcefeeding of prisoners violates Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.
-2-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 183 Filed 07/08/13 Page 3 of 4
In addition, Petitioner cites in detail statements of the American Medical Association, the World Medical Association, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism condemning the force-feeding of detainees. The American Medical Association in a letter to the Secretary of Defense on April25, 2013, has declared that the force-feeding ofdetainees violates "core ethical values ofthe medical profession." Charlie Savage, Obama Renews Efforts to Close Prison in Cuba, N.Y. Times, May 1, 2013, at A1.
Despite the statements contained in the Declaration submitted by the Government in support of its Opposition to the Application claiming that "[t]he health care provided to the detainees being held at JTF-GTMO rivals that provided in any community in the United States and is comparable to that afforded to our active duty service members. Detainees receive timely, compassionate, quality healthcare and have regular access to primary care and specialist physicians," it is perfectly clear from the statements of detainees, as well as the statements from the organizations just cited, that force-feeding is a painful, humiliating, and degrading process.
Even though this Court is obligated to dismiss the Application for lack ofjurisdiction, and therefore lacks any authority to rule on Petitioner's request, there is an individual who does have the authority to address the issue. In a speech on May 23,2013, President Barack Obama stated "Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. . . Is that who we are? Is that something that our founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children? Our sense of justice is stronger than that." Text of President Obama's May 23 Speech on National Security (Full Transcript), Wash. Post, May 23, 2013, available at 2013 WLNR 12700673.
-3-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 183 Filed 07/08/13 Page 4 of 4 Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States ..." It would seem to follow, therefore, that the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority-- and power-- to directly address the issue of force-feeding of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. WHEREFORE, it is this 8th day of July, 2013, hereby ORDERED, that Petitioner's Application for a Preliminary Injunction is denied.
(;f~~
·Gladys Kessler United States District Judge Copies via ECF to all counsel of record
-4-

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JIHAD DHIAB, Detainee, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and

Case No. Judge:

SHAKER AAMER, as Next Friend of JIHAD DHAIB, Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

Deck Type: Habeas Corpus/2255 Date Stamp:

GEORGE W. BUSH President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500;
DONALD RUMSFELD Secretary, United States Department of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1000;
ARMY BRIG. GEN. JAY HOOD Conunander, Joint Task Force- GTMO JTF-GTMO APO AE 09360; and
ARMY COL BRICE GYURISKO Commander, Joint Detention Operations Group, JTF- GTMO JTF-GTMO APO AE09360
Respondents/Defendants.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
No. -------------------

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Petitioner Jihad Dhiab (hereinafter "Petitioner") seeks the Great Writ. On information and belief, Petitioner, a citizen of Syria, is a civilian wrongfully classified as an "enemy

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 31
combatant" by the President of the United States, and is being held virtually incommunicado in military custody at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The detention of Petitioner is without lawful basis, without charge, without access to counsel and without being afforded any fair process by which Petitioner might challenge his detention. Petitioner is being held nnder color and authority of the Executive branch, and in violation of the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States as well as in violation of customary intemational law. Accordingly, this Court should issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus compelling Respondents either to release petitioner JIHAD DHIAB or to establish in this Court a lawful basis for his detention. This Court should also order injunctive and declaratory relief.
Pursuant to the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, his authority under the laws and usages of war, or under the November 13 Executive Order, Respondents George W. Bush, President of the United States, Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Army Brigadier General Jay Hood, Commander of Joint Task Force-GTMO, and Am1y Colonel Brice Gyurisko, Commander, Joint Detention Operations Group, Joint Task Force-GTMO, are either ultimately responsible for or have been charged with the responsibility of maintaining the custody and control of the detained Petitioner at Guantanamo.
I. JURISDICTION I. Petitioners bring this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(l) and (c)(3) and 2242. Petitioners further invoke this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1350, 1651,2201, and 2202; 5 U.S.C. § 702; Articles I and II of, and the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to, the United States Constitution. Because they seek declaratory relief, Petitioners also rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 57.
2

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 31
2. This Court is empowered under 28 U.S. C. § 2241 to grant this Writ of Habeas Corpus, and to entertain the Petition filed by Shaker Aamer, the Next Friend of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab, under 28 U.S. C. § 2242. This Court is further empowered to declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties herein by 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and to effectuate and enforce declaratory relief by all necessary and proper means by 28 U.S.C. § 2202, as this case involves an actual controversy within the Court's jurisdiction, and to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
II. PARTIES 3. Petitioner Shaker Aamer is a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who is represented by counsel in challenging his detention. Because Jihad Dhiab has been denied access to legal counsel to the courts of the United States, Shaker Aamer acts as his Next Friend. (See attached Exhibit A.) On information and belief, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is presently incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station and held in Respondents' unlawful custody and control. 4. Respondent George W. Bush 1s the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. Petitioner is being detained pursuant to President Bush's authority as Commander-in-Chief and under the laws and usages of war or, alternatively, pursuing to the Executive Order of November 13, 2001, entitled Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833 (Nov. 13, 2001) ("Executive Order"). President Bush is responsible for Petitioner's unlawful detention and is sued in his official capacity.
3

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 4 of 31
5. Respondent Donald Rumsfeld is the Secretary of the United States Department of Defense. Pursuant to either the Executive Order of the President's authority as Commander-inChief, and under the laws and usages of war, Respondent Rumsfeld has been charged with maintaining custody and control over Petitioner, and is responsible therefore. He is sued in his official capacity.
6. Respondent Brigadier Gen. Jay Hood is the Commander of Joint Task Force GTMO, the task force that has control of the detention operation at Guantanamo Bay. He has supervisory responsibility for Petitioner and is sued in his official capacity.
7. Respondent Col. Brice Gyurisko is the Commander of the Joint Detention Operations Group and the JTF-GTMO detention camps, including the U.S. facility where Petitioner is presently held. He is the immediate custodian responsible for Petitioner's detention and is sued in his official capacity.
8. Respondents are directly responsible for any activities undertaken by or under the supervision of any agents or employees acting on their behalf, or of agents or employees of private contractors ("contractor employees") with whom any agency under Respondents' authority or supervision has contracted for the provision of services at Guant<inamo. All references to Respondents' actions in this Petition include activities performed by Respondents' agents or employees, other government agents or employees or contractor employees.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9. The United States has not shown that Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is, or has ever been, an enemy alien, lawful or unlawful belligerent, or combatant of any kind under definition adopted by the Govemment in any civil or military proceedings.
4

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 5 of 31

I0. Petitioner seeks to enforce his right to a judicial determination of the lawfulness

of his detention.

11. The United States has not shown that Petitioner was a member of the Taliban, of

the armed forces of Afghanistan, or of AI Qaeda prior to his detention, nor has it been shown that

Petitioner committed any violent acts against any American person or property.

12. Petitioner has not been afforded any procedures that satisfy his rights under the

most fundamental common law notions of due process, the Constitution of the United States, the

laws and treaties of the United States, or customary international law.

The Joint Resolution 13. In the wake of September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the United

States, at the direction of President Bush, began a military campaign in Afghanistan. On

September 18, 200 I, a Joint Resolution of Congress authorized President Bush to use force

against the "nations, organizations, or persons" that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or [that] harbored such organizations or persons."

Joint Resolution 23, Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 114 Stat. 224

(Jan. 18, 2001) ("Joint Resolution").

14. Petitioner is not properly detained pursuant to President Bush's authority as

Commander-in-Chief, under the laws ad usages of war, or the Joint Resolution.

The Executive Order 15. On November 13, 2001, Respondent Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing

Respondent Rumsfeld to detain indefinitely anyone Respondent Bush has "reason to believe":

1.

is or was a member of the organization known as a! Qaeda;

11. has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international

terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or

have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its

citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or

5

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 6 of 31
111. has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) and (ii).
See Executive Order, 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833, §2 (November 13, 2001). President Bush must make this detennination in writing. The Executive Order was neither authorized nor directed by Congress, and is beyond the scope of the Joint Resolution of September 18,2001.
16. The Executive Order purports to vest President Bush with the sole discretion to identify individuals who fall within its purview. It establishes no standards governing the exercise of his discretion. Once a person has been detained, the Executive Order contains no provision for that person to be notified of the charges he may face. The Executive Order authorizes detainees to be confined indefinitely without charges. It contains no provision for a detainee to be notified of his rights under domestic and international law, and provides neither the right to counsel, nor the rights to notice of consular protection or to consular access at the detainee's request. It provides no right to appear before a neutral tribunal to review the legality of a detainee's continued detention and contains no provision for recourse to an Article III court. In fact, the Executive Order expressly bars review by any court. The Executive Order authorizes indefinite and unreviewable detention, based on nothing more than the President Bush's written determination that an individual is subject to its tenus.
17. The Executive Order was promulgated in the United States and in this judicial district, the decision to incarcerate Petitioner Jihad Dhiab was made by Respondents in the United States and in this judicial district, the decision to detain Petitioner Jihad Dhiab at Guant<inamo was made in the United States and in this judicial district, and the decision to continue detaining Petitioner Jihad Dhiab , was, and is, being made by Respondents in the United States and in this judicial district.
6

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 7 of 31
18. President Bush has never certified or detem1ined in any mmmer, in writing or otherwise, that Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is subject to the Executive Order.
19. Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is not properly subject to the Executive Order. 20. Petitioner has not been, and is not being, detained lawfully either pursuant to the Executive Order, President Bush's authority as Commander-in-Chief and/or under the laws and usages of war. Petitioner was not arrested or detained by the United States in the course of an armed conflict. Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is not properly detained under President Bush's authority as Commander-in-Chief or under the laws and usages of war.
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station 21. On or about January II, 2002, the United States military began transporting pnsoners captured in Afghanistan to Camp X-Ray at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In April 2002, all prisoners were transferred to a Camp Delta, a more pem1anent prison facility at Guantanamo. Currently, prisoners are housed in Camp Delta and Camp Five, an additional maximum-security interrogation and detention center. 22. Prisoners incarcerated at Guantanamo are entitled to test the legality of their detention in the federal courts. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. , 124 S.Ct. 2686, 2698 (June 28, 2004). 23. The precise date being unknown to counsel, but known to Respondents, the United States military transferred Petitioner Jihad Dhiab to Guantanamo, where he has been held ever since, in the custody and control of Respondents.
The Conditions of Detention at Guantanamo 24. Since gaining control of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab, the United States military has held him virtually incommunicado.
7

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 8 of 31
25. Upon information and belief, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab has been or will be forced to provide involuntary statements to Respondents' agents at Guantanamo and has been or will be intenogated repeatedly by agents of the United States Departments of Defense and Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, though he has not been charged with an offense and has not been notified of any pending or contemplated charges. He has not appeared before a lawful military or civilian tribunal, and has not been provided access to counsel or the means to contact and secure counsel. l-Ie has not been adequately infonned of his rights under the United States Constitution, the regulations of the United States Military, the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or customary international law. Indeed, Respondents have taken the position that Petitioner Jihad Dhiab should not be informed of these rights. As a result, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab lacks any ability to protect or to vindicate his rights under domestic and intemationallaw.
26. Upon infonnation and belief, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab has been forced to provide involuntary statements to Respondents' agents, employees, and/or contract employees at Guantanamo.
27. Upon information and belief, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab has been held under conditions that violate his constitutional and international rights to dignity and freedom from torture and from cruel, irJ1un1an and degrading treatment or punislunent. See, e.g., United Nations Press Release, "United Nations Human Rights Experts Express Continued Concern About Situation of Guantanamo Bay Detainees," Feb. 4, 2005; International Committee of the Red Cross, Press Release, "The ICRC's Work at Guantanamo Bay," Nov. 30, 2004; International Committee of the Red Cross, Operational Update, "US Detention Related to the Events of
8

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 9 of 31
September 11, 2001 and Its Aftermath - the Role of the ICRC," July 26, 2004; Amnesty International, United States of America: Human Dignity Denied: Torture and Accountability in the 'War on Terror', at 22 (Oct. 27, 2004) (available at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR 511452004); see also Barry C. Scheck, Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, The Nat'! Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers Champion, Nov. 2004, at 4-5. Indeed, many of these violations - including isolation for up to 30 days, 28-hour interrogations, extreme and prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory assaults, removal of clothing, hooding, and the use of dogs to create anxiety and terror- were actually interrogation techniques approved for use at Guantanamo by the most senior Department of Defense lawyer. See Action Memo from William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, DOD, to Secretary of Defense (Nov. 27, 2002); Pentagon Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy and Operational Considerations, at 62-65 (Apr. 4, 2003). 1
28. In a confidential report to the United States government, the ICRC charged the U.S. military with intentional use during interrogations of psychological and physical coercion on prisoners at Guant<inamo that is "tantamount to torture." See Neil A. Lewis, "Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo," New York Times, Nov. 30, 2004, at AI. The report includes claims that doctors and other medical workers at Guantanamo participated in plmming for interrogations. !d.; see also M. Gregg Bioche and Jonathan H. 1'..1arks, ""V/hen Doctors Go to
1 Additional details of the cruel and degrading conditions suffered by detainees at Guantanamo are set out at length in a statement by numerous released British detainees. See Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal & Rhuhel Ahmed, Composite Statement: Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, 300, at http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/Gitmo-compositestatementFINAL23 july04.pdf). The Department of Defense also informed the Associated Press that a number of interrogators at Guantanamo have been demoted or reprimanded after investigations into accusations of abuse at the facility. See Report Details Guantanamo Abuses, Assoc. Press, Nov. 4, 2004.
9

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 10 of 31
War," New England Journal ofMedicine, Jan. 6, 2005, at 3-4. Since details of the ICRC's report emerged, new revelations of abuse and torture at Guantanamo have appeared, including FBI memos detailing torture and "highly aggressive interrogation techniques" including 24-plus hour interrogations involving temperature extremes, dogs, prolonged isolation, and loud music. See Guantanamo: An Icon ofLawlessness, Amnesty International, Jan. 6, 2005, at 3-5; see also Neil A. Lewis, "Fresh Details Emerge on Harsh Methods at Guantanamo," New York Times, Jan. 1, 2005, at All; Carol D. Lemmig, "Further Detainee Abuse Alleged; Guantanamo Prison Cited in FBI Memos," Washington Post, Dec. 26,2004, at AI; Neil A. Lewis and David Johnston, "New F.B.I. Memos Describe Abuses of Iraq Inmates," New York Times, Dec. 21, 2004, at AI; Dan Eggen and R. Jeffrey Smith, "FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay," Washington Post, Dec. 21, 2004, at AI; Neil A. Lewis, "F.B.I. Memos Criticized Practices at Guantanamo," New York Times, Dec. 7, 2004, at A19. Even more recently, the Associated Press has reported allegations that female Guantanamo interrogators have used sexual taunting, including smearing fake menstrual blood on a detainee's face, to try to break Muslim detainees. Associated Press, Gitmo Soldier Details Sexual Tactics, Jan. 27, 2005.
29. The unlawful and unconstitutional interrogation techniques used by Respondents at Guantanamo include not only physical and psychological abuse but also other impermissible conduct contrary to due process requirements, including, upon infom1ation and belief, having agents of the Goverrunent present then1selves as la\vyers for the detainees during 1neetings with the detainees, for the purpose of extracting information from the detainees. See Sam Hmmel, "Lawyers Describe Guantanamo Detainees," Seattle Post-Inte/ligencer, Jan. 19, 2005.
30. Respondents, acting individually or through their agents, have stated that whatever limitations apply on coercive interrogation techniques used by U.S. military officials
10

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 11 of 31
under the auspices of the Department of Defense do not apply to interrogations conducted by agents of the CIA or other entities under President Bush. Eric Lichtblau, "Gonzales Says '02 Policy on Detainees Doesn't Bind CIA," New York Times, Jan. 19, 2005, at Al7; Dan Eggen and Charles Babington, "Torture by U.S. Personnel Illegal, Gonzales Tells Senate," Washington Post, Jan. 18,2005, at A4.
31. In published statements, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, and predecessors of Hood and Gyurisko, respectively, Lenhe1i and Carrico, have proclaimed that the United States may hold the detainees under their current conditions indefinitely. See, e.g., Roland Watson, The Times (London), Jan. 18, 2002 ("Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defense Secretary, suggested last night that Al-Qaeda prisoners could be held indefinitely at the base. He said that the detention of some would be open-ended as the United States tried to build a case against them."); Lynne Sladky, Assoc. Press, Jan. 22, 2002 ("Marine Brig. Gen. Mike Lehnert, who is in charge of the detention mission, defended the temporary cells where detainees are being held .... 'We have to look at Camp X-ray as a work in progress ... ' Lehnert told CNN. Lehnert said plans are to build a more permanent prison 'exactly in accordance with federal prison standards ...."); John Mintz, "Extended Detention in Cuba Mulled," The Washington Post, February 13, 2002. ("As the Bush Administration nears completion of new rules for conducting military trials of foreign detainees, U.S. officials say they envision the naval base at Guantanmno Bay, Cuba, as a site for the tribunals and as a terrorist penal colony for n1any years to come.").
32. According to the Department of Defense, even detainees who are adjudged innocent of all charges by a military conm1ission may nevertheless be kept in detention at Guantanamo indefinitely. See Department of Defense Press Background Briefing of July 3,
II

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 12 of 31
2003, at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030703-0323.html (last visited Feb. 14, 2005).
33. Counsel for Respondents have also consistently maintained that the United States has reserved the right to hold the detained Petitioners under their current conditions indefinitely. In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, Nos. 02-CV-0299 (CK.K), et al., (D.D.C.), Tr. of Dec. I, 2004 Or. Argument on Mot. to Dismiss at 22-24, statements of Principle Deputy Associate Att'y Gen. Brian Boyle; see also Dana Priest, "Long-Term Plan Sought for Terror Suspects," Wash. Post, Jan. 2, 2005, at AI. Moreover, the Government has recently acknowledged plans to begin constructing a new, more permanent facility at Guantanamo. Christopher Cooper, "In Guantanamo, Prisoners Languish in a Sea of Red Tape," Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26, 2005, at AI; Associated Press, "Guantanamo Takes on the Look ofPennanency," Jan. 9, 2005.
Rendition 34. During interrogations, detainees have also been threatened with rendition or transfer to countries that routinely practice torture. Upon infonnation and belief, the United States has secretly transferred detainees to such countries without complying with the applicable legal requirements for extradition. This practice, known as "rendition" or "extraordinary rendition," is used to facilitate interrogation by subjecting detainees to torture. See Jane Mayer, "Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of American's "Extraordinary Rendition" Program, The l'Vev.J Yorker, Feb. 14,2005, at 106. 35. The U.S. govenunent's practice of rendition has been well documented by various major American and international news organizations, including, inter alia, the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and the British Broadcasting Corporation (the "BBC"). According to new accounts,
12

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 13 of 31
Since September II, the U.S. government has secretly transported dozens of people suspected oflinks to terrorists to countries other than the United States bypassing extradition procedures and legal fonnalities, according to Western diplomats and intelligence source. The suspects have been taken to countries, ... whose intelligence services have close ties to the CIA and where they can be subjected to inteJTogation tactics -- including torture and threats to families -- that are illegal in the United States, the sources said. In some cases, U.S. intelligence agents remain closely involved in the interrogations, the sources said. Rajiv Chanrasekaran & Peter Finn, "U.S. Behind Secret Transfer of Terror Suspects," Wash. Post, Mar. II, 2002, at AI; see also Dana Priest, "Long Term Plan Sought for Terror Suspects," Wash. Post, Jan. 2, 2005, at AI ("The transfers, called 'renditions,' depend on arrangements between the United States and other countries, such as Egypt .. ., that agree to have local security services hold certain suspects in their facilities for inteJTogation by CIA and foreign liaison officers."). 36. Upon infonnation and belief, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is at risk of being rendered, expelled or returned without lawful procedures to a country that engages in torture during interrogations and incarceration.
COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL 37. On July 7, 2004, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz signed an Order directing the Secretary of the Navy to establish a Combatant Status Review Tribunal ("CSRT") to be convened at Guantanamo Bay. See Memorandum for the Secretary of the Navy, July 7, 2004 ("Memorandun1'~). The ostensible purpose of the CSRT is to detenninc on a case-by-case basis whether a detainee is "properly detained as an enemy combatant," id. at ~ g. 12, notwithstanding Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz's assertion that each detainee has already "been determined to be an enemy combatant through multiple levels of review by officers of the Department of Defense," id. at~ a.
13

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 14 of 31
38. The procedures ordered by Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz for the CSRT are plainly deficient, failing to provide due process protection for the detainees as a whole and for Petitioner in particular. For instance, notice of the factual basis for a detainee's designation as an "enemy combatant" is provided to the detainee only if the factual basis is unclassified, Memorandum at~ g. I, and detainees' counsel may not be present at the CSRT hearing. Instead, the detainees are offered the assistance of "Personal Representatives," id. at ~ c -- a non-lawyer military officer whose conversations with individual detainees are not privileged and will, on infom1ation and belief, be monitored by the United States military. These factors alone are sufficient to establish a violation of due process. See In Re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443, 472 (D.D.C. 2005). Moreover, the panels are not bound by the rules of evidence applicable in a court of law, Memorandum at ~ 9, and "enemy combatant" status is determined only under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, with a rebuttable presumption in favor of the government's evidence, id. at~ g.l2. The procedures also violate due process to the extent that they rely upon statement obtained under torture or otherwise involuntarily as evidence and because they employ a vague and overbroad definition of "enemy combatant." See In Re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 472, 474.
III. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (COMMON LAW DUE PROCESS AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATESUNLAWFUL DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY) 39. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
14

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 15 of 31
40. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and continue to violate common law principles of due process as well the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. President Bush has ordered the prolonged, indefinite, and arbitrary detention of individuals, without due process of law, and the remaining Respondents have implemented those orders. Respondents' actions deny Petitioner Jihad Dhiab the process accorded to persons seized and detained by the United States military in times of arn1ed conflict as established by, inter alia, the Unifonn Code of Military Justice, Army Regulation 190-8, Articles 3 and 5 of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, and customary international law as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
41. To the extent that Petitioner Jihad Dhiab's detention purports to be authorized by the Executive Order, that Order violates the Fifth Amendment on its face and as applied to Petitioner.
42. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES-UNLAWFUL CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT) 43. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 44. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and continue to violate the right of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab to be free from unlawful conditions of confinement, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
15

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 16 of 31
45. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as any other relief the comi may deem appropriate.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (GENEVA CONVENTIONS- ARBITRARY DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS) 46. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 47. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have denied and continue to deny Petitioner Jihad Dhiab the process accorded to persons seized and detained by the United States military in times of armed conflict as established by specific provisions of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. 48. Violations of the Geneva Conventions are direct treaty violations, are violations of customary international law, and constitute an enforceable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3). 49. Respondents are liable for this conduct described above, insofar as they set the conditions, directly and/or indirectly facilitated, ordered, acquiesced, confirmed, ratified, and/or conspired to violate the Geneva Conventions. 50. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab IS entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW-
ARBITRARY DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS)
51. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
52. By the actions described above, Respondents have denied and continue to deny Petitioner Jihad Dhiab the due process accorded to persons seized and detained by the United States military in times of armed conflict as establish by customary international humanitarian
16

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 17 of 31
and human rights law as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
53. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ALIEN TORT STATUTE- TORTURE) 54. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 55. By the actions described above, the Respondents directed, ordered, confirmed, ratified, and/or conspired to bring about acts that deliberately and intentionally inflicted severe physical and psychological abuse and agony upon Petitioner Jihad Dhiab in order to obtain coerced information or confessions from him, punish or intimidate Petitioner Jihad Dhiab or for other purposes. Among other abuses, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab has been held in conditions of isolation; placed in constant vulnerability to repeated interrogation and severe beatings; kept in cages with no privacy; shackled with heavy chains and irons; placed in solitary confinement for minor rule infractions for prolonged periods of time; interrogated while shackled and chained in painful positions; exposed to extremes of temperature; subjected to violent behavior or the threat of violence; threatened with rendition to countries that practice torture; sexually humiliated; denied access to counsel and family; deprived of adequate medical care; and subjected to repeated psychological abuse. 56. The acts described herein constitute torture in violation of the law of nations under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that the acts violated customary international law prohibiting torture as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other intemational instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
17

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 18 of 31
57. Respondents are liable for said conduct because they directed, ordered, confinned, ratified, and/or conspired together and with others to commit the acts of torture against Petitioner Jihad Dhiab.
59. Petitioner Jihad Dhiab was forced to suffer severe physical and psychological abuse and agony and is entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, and other relief to be detennined at trial.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ALIEN TORT STATUTE- WAR CRIMES) 60. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 61. By the actions described above, Respondents' acts directing, ordering, confirming, ratifying, and/or conspiring to bring about the torture and other inhumane treatment of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity in violation of the law of nations under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that the acts violated, among others, the Fourth Geneva Convention, Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols I and II of the Geneva Conventions as well as customary international law prohibiting war crimes as reflected, expressed, and defined in other multilateral treaties and international instruments, international and domestic judicial decision, and other authorities. 62. As a result of Respondents' unlawful conduct, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab has been and is forced to suffer severe physical and psychological abuse and agony, and is therefore entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
18

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 19 of 31
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ALIEN TORT STATUTE- CRUEL INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT)
63. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
64. The acts described herein had the intent and the effect of grossly humiliating and debasing Petitioner Jihad Dhiab, forcing him to act against his will and conscience, inciting fear and anguish, and breaking his physical or moral resistance.
65. The acts described herein constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of the law of nations under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that the acts violated customary international Jaw prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
66. Respondents are liable for said conduct in that they directed, ordered, confirmed, ratified, and/or conspired together and with others to cause the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab.
67. Petitioner Jihad Dhiab was forced to suffer severe physical and psychological abuse and agony and is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as other relief to be deten11ined at trial.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF CALIEN TORT STATUTb-
ARBITRARY ARREST AND PROLONGED ARBITRARY DETENTION) 68. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 69. The acts described herein constitute arbitrary arrest and detention of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab in violation of the Jaw of nations under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in
19

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 20 of 31
that the acts violated customary international law prohibiting arbitrary detention as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instmments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
70. Respondents are liable for said conduct in that they directed, ordered, confirmed, ratified, and/or conspired together and with others to bring about the arbitrary arrest and prolonged arbitrary detention of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab in violation of the law of nations under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that the acts violated customary international law prohibiting arbitrary arrest and prolonged arbitrary detention as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
71. As a result of Respondents' unlawful conduct, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab has been and is deprived of his freedom, separated from his family, and forced to suffer severe physical and mental abuse, and is therefore entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ALIEN TORT STATUTE- ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE) 72. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 73. By the actions described above, the Respondents directed, ordered, confirn1ed, ratified, and/or conspired to bring about the enforced disappearance of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab in violation of the Jaw of nations under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that the acts violated customary international law prohibiting enforced disappearances as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
20

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 21 of 31
74. As a result of Respondents' unlawful conduct, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab has been and is deprived of his freedom, separated from his family, and forced to suffer severe physical and mental abuse, and is therefore entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ARTICLE II OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION-
UNLAWFUL DETENTION)
75. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
76. Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is not, nor has he ever been, an enemy alien, lawful or unlawful belligerent, or combatant of any kind. The Executive lacks the authority to order or direct military officials to detain civilians who are seized far from the theater of war or occupied territory or who were not "carrying a weapon against American troops on a foreign battlefield." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633,2642 n.l (2004).
77. By the actions described above, President Bush has exceeded and continues to exceed the Executive's authority under Article II of the United States Constitution by authorizing, ordering and directing that military officials seize Petitioner Jihad Dhiab and transfer him to military detention, and by authorizing and ordering their continued military detention at Guanliinamo. All of the Respondents acted and continue to act without lawful authority by directing, ordering, and/or supervising the seizure and military detention of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab.
78. The military seizure and detention of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab by the Respondents is ultra vires and illegal because it violates Article II of the United States Constitution. To the extent that the Executive asserts that Petitioner's detention is authorized by the Executive Order,
21

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 22 of 31
that Order exceeds the Executive's authority under Article II and is ultra vires and void on its face and as applied to Petitioner.
79. To the extent that Respondents assert that their authority to detain Petitioner Jihad Dhiab derives from a source other than the Executive Order, including without limitation the Executive's inherent authority to conduct foreign affairs or to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, whether fi·om Article II of the Constitntion or otherwise, Respondents lack that authority as a matter of fact and law.
80. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (VIOLATION OF THE APA- ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS UNLAWFUL
DETENTION) 81. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 82. Anny Regulation 190-8 prohibits the detention of civilians who were seized away from the field of battle or outside occupied territory or who were not engaged in combat against the United States. See, e.g., Anny Reg. 190-8 at l-6(g) ("Persons who have been detennined by a competent tribunal not to be entitled to prisoner of war status may not be executed, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized without fnrther proceedings to detennine what acts they have committed and what penalty should be imposed."). 83. By arbitrarily and capriciously detaining Petitioner Jihad Dhiab in military custody for over three years in the mmmer described above, Respondents have acted and continue to act ultra vires and unlawfully in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
22

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 23 of 31
84. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (VIOLATION OF THE APA- ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS) 85. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 86. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have arbitrarily and capriciously denied and continue to deny Petitioner Jihad Dhiab the process accorded to persons seized and detained by the United States military in times of armed conflict as established by Anny Regulation I90-8 in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). 87. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (VIOLATION OF THE APA- TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING
TREATMENT) 88. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 89. By the actions described above, the Respondents have acted and continue to act arbitrarily and capriciously by directinK ordering, confin11ing, ratifying~ and/or conspiring to unlawfully subject Petitioner Jihad Dhiab to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Army Regulation I90-8 and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). 90. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
23

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 24 of 31
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND TO ACCESS TO THE COURTS)
91. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
92. Respondents, purportedly acting from a concern for national security, consistently have contrived to intrude upon Petitioner Jihad Dhiab's right to consult with counsel by conditioning counsel's access to Petitioner on unreasonable terms, including classification/declassification procedures, all in violation of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab's attorneyclient privilege, his work product privilege, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
93. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (DUE PROCESS CLAUSE- RENDITION) 94. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 95. Upon information and belief, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is at risk of being rendered, expelled or returned without lawful procedures to a country that engages in torture. The transfer of the Petitioner to a country that creates a foreseeable and direct risk that he will be subjected to torture constitutes a violation of Petitioner's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 96. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
24

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 25 of 31
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES- RENDITION) 97. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 98. Upon information and belief, Petitioner is at risk of being rendered, expelled or returned without lawful procedures to a country that engages in torture. The transfer of the Petitioner to a country that creates a foreseeable and direct risk that he will be subjected to torture constitutes a direct violation of Petitioner's rights under the Covenant Against Torture and the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6259, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 entered into force Apr. 22, 1954. 99. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ALIEN TORT STATUTE- RENDITION) 100. Petitioners incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. I0 I. Upon information and belief, Petitioner is at risk of being rendered, expelled or returned without lawful procedures to a country that engages in torture. The transfer of the Petitioner to a country that creates a foreseeable and direct risk that he will be subjected to torture constitutes a violation of Petitioner's rights under customary international law, which may be vindicated under the Alien Tort Statute. I 02. Accordingly, Petitioner Jihad Dhiab is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate.
25

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 26 of 31
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for relief as follows: I. Grant the Writ of Habeas Corpus and order Respondent to release Petitioner Jihad Dhiab from his current unlawful detention; 2. Order that Petitioner Jihad Dhiab be brought before the Court or before a Magistrate Judge assigned by the Court to conduct proceedings under the supervision of the Court to vindicate his rights; 3. Order that Petitioner Jihad Dhiab cannot be transferred to any other country without the specific written agreement of Petitioner and Petitioner's counsel while this action is pending; 4. Order that Petitioner Jihad Dhiab cannot be delivered, returned, or rendered to a country where there is a foreseeable and imminent risk that Petition will be subject to torture 5. Order Respondents to allow counsel to meet and confer with Petitioner Jihad Dhiab, in private and um11onitored attorney-client conversations; 6. Order Respondents to cease all interrogations of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab, direct or indirect, while this litigation is pending; 7. Order Respondents to cease all acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab; 8. Order and declare the Executive Order of November 13, 2001 is ultra vires and unlawful in violation of Article II of the United States Constitution, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Unifom1 Code of Military Justice, the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, the treaties of the United States and customary international law;
26

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 27 of 31
9. Order and declare that the prolonged, indefinite, and restrictive detention of Petitioner Jihad Dhiab without due process is arbitrary and unlawful and a deprivation of liberty without due process in violation of common law principles of due process, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the regulations of the United States military, the treaties of the United States, and customary international humanitarian law; and
10. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate to protect Petitioner's rights under the common law, the United States Constitution, federal statutory law, and international law.

Dated: July 21, 2005

ard A. Soble (MI Bar# P20766) SOBLE ROWE KRICHBAUM, LLP 221 N. Main Street, Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 481 04 Phone: (734) 996-5600 FAX: (734) 662-0552
Attorney for Petitioner
Barbara Olshansky (NY Bar# 2134005) Tina Foster (NY Bar# 3932043) CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, New York 10012 Tel: (212) 614-6439 Fax: (212) 614-6499
Of Counsel for Petitioner
27

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 28 of 31

CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83 .2(g), I hereby certify that I am a member in good

standing of the bar of the State of Michigan and, inter alia, of the bars of the Eastern and Western

L Districts of Michigan, and that I am providing representation in this case on behalf of Petitioners

without compensation.

~

Dated: July21,2005

~
1chard A. Soble (MI Bar# P20766)

28

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 29 of 31
EXHIBIT A

-

Case 1:05-cv-01457-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/22/05 Page 30 of 31

n -+-- ·. ,, __/A_f__f_l_l_(__~_.f....'._-- .-- 0-\·~-· \-t·· l-~

~ -----C--a--s-e--1-:-05-cv-01457-UNA

Document 1

Filed 07/22/05

Page 31 of 31 ___ ----- ___..

--,,----~------- -~

··-·· . -··--·· ------:i!·-·-···-- -··----- ..

--~--··----------·---- --····---- -·····

----- . ------- ------------ -··--·····-·. -----

----------- -----

- - -------------- ·-· ·- -- ------

---- ---

.......... --·--------- -----

···-·-- ·-· .

---~-------·--·"'·-··-

""

----- ----·-·----~---- ------------

. j

•

- ---- __';f ~'("\ ~-

···-· .. ····-· ·--....-- ... -Y--t-C-- \··v-·-r-·i-n---l·--

j \\TAD 0\1 \~\o

S '/ Y ~ ... '

(

\O....v\,. ·

) I0 I '1-/ I~ I (

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 32 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 1

PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO CSO AND CLEARED FOR PUBLIC FILING

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JIHAD DHIAB, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Respondents/Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-01457-GK

)

)

)

)

Upon consideration of the Motion for Temporary Lift of Stay and Entry of Protective Order, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Amended Protective Order and Procedures for Counsel Access to Detainees at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, first issued on November 8, 2004 (344 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2004)), the Order Supplementing and Amending Filing Procedures Contained in November 8, 2004 Amended Protective Order, first issued on December 13, 2004, and the Order Addressing Designation Procedures for "Protected Information," first issued on November 10, 2004, all in the In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Cases, shall be entered in this case.

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JIHAD DHIAB,

:

:

Petitioner, :

:

v.

:

:

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,

:

:

Respondents. :

Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK)

ORDER

Upon consideration of Petitioner’s unopposed motion for a stay, it is hereby

ORDERED, that this case shall be stayed until such time as Mr. Dhiab is able to consult with

counsel in a meaningful way; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Protective Order in place in this action shall remain in force during the

stay; and it is further

ORDERED, that Petitioner shall file a status report every 30 days regarding any change in

circumstances.

January 29, 2009 Copies via ECF to all counsel of record

/s/ Gladys Kessler United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 1 of 49

~nitch ~tatcs ill:ou:rt :of J\ppcals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October !8, 20 !3

Decided February ll, 20!4

No. 13-5223

SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, DETAINEE, CAMP DELTA AND SAEED AHMED SlDDlQUE, NEXT FRIEND OF SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, APPELLANTS
v.

BARACK 0BAMA, PRES!DENTOFTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., APPELLEES

Consolidated with !3-5224, 13-5225, !3-5276

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. l :04-cv-022!5) (No. I :05-cv-0!504) (No. I:05-cv-02349) (No. l :05-cv-0 1457)

Jon B. Eisenberg argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Cori Crider and Tara Murray. Shayana D. Kadidal entered an appearance.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 2 of 49
2 Daniel J Lenerz, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, and Douglas N. Letter and Matthew M Collette. Attorneys.
Before: TATEL and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.
Dissenting opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge WILLIAMS.
TATEL, Circuit Judge: Petitioners Ahmed Belbacha, Abu Dhiab, and Shaker Aamer are detainees who, although cleared for release, remain held at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Protesting their continued confinement, they and other similarly situated detainees have engaged in a hunger strike, refusing to eat unless and until released. In response, the government instituted a forcefeeding protocol. Petitioners, each of whom had already sought release via a writ of habeas corpus, moved in those habeas actions for a preliminary injunction preventing the government from subjecting them to force-feeding. Two separate district judges denied their requests, each concluding that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to consider such challenges brought by Guantanamo detainees. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we conclude that under the law of this circuit petitioners' challenges to the conditions of their confinement properly sound in habeas corpus and thus are not barred by the MCA. We also conclude, however, that although their claims are not insubstantial, petitioners have failed to establish their entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 3 of 49
3
I. A declaration submitted by the Senior Medical Officer at Guantanamo Bay summarizes the government's force-feeding protocol. According to the declaration, the protocol "follows the Federal Bureau of Prisons' model and guidelines for managing hunger strikers.'' Dec!. of Commander [Redacted), M.D., 3. The medical staff at Guantanamo begins by designating a detainee as a "hunger striker ... based on the detainee's intent, purpose, and behavior," the detainee's "[w]eight loss to a level less than 85% ofthe detainee's Ideal Body Weight," or the detainee's missing "nine consecutive meals." !d. Then, if "medical personnel determine the detainee's refusal to voluntarily consume adequate food or nutrients could now threaten his life or health," the detainee may be "approved for enteral feeding"-that is, force-feeding using "nasogastric tubes" inserted through the detainee's nose and into his stomach. !d. at 4. The declaration states that even after a detainee is approved for such treatment, "medical personnel will only implement enteral feeding when it becomes medically necessary to preserve a detainee's life and health." !d. The medical staff will also offer the detainee a final "opportunity to eat a standard meal or consume [a]liguid supplement orally, instead of being enterally fed." !d.
If the detainee refuses, officials will strap him to a "restraint chair." Dec!. of Commander [Redacted], M.D., 5. The restraint chair, the declaration explains, "is ergonomically designed for the detainee's comfort and protection, with a padded seat and padded back support." !d. Once the detainee is restrained, "physicians or credentialed registered nurses" insert the "nasogastric tubes" through the detainee's nostril using a lubricant and, unless the detainee declines, "a topical anesthetic such as lidocane." !d. at 4. After medical personnel have verified that the tube has been properly placed in the detainee's stomach, "an appropriate amount of nutritional

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 4 of 49
4
supplement formula is infused by gravity.'' ld. The actual feeding process "typically takes 30 to 40 minutes." ld Once the feeding is complete, the medical staff keeps the detainee strapped in the restraint chair for an additional period in order "to ensure the detainee has tolerated the feeding and to permit digestion of the nutritional formula." Jd at 5. "Detainees are offered pain relievers, such as ibuprofen, if they indicate any discomfort from the feeding procedure." !d.
Medical staff designated petitioners Dhiab, Belbacha, and Aamer as hunger strikers in March 2013. Dec!. of Commander [Redacted], M.D., 7. The staff approved Dhiab for enteral feeding that same month, and Belbacha shortly thereafter. ld A declaration submitted by petitioners' counsel reports that, as of May 30, 2013, medical personnel had regularly subjected Belbacha to force-feeding. See Crider Dec!. 6. Belbacha stated that the process "hurt[] a great deal" and caused one of his nostrils to swell shut. !d. Dhiab, the same declaration recounted, had also been regularly forcefed-except when, because of "severe pain," he had instead voluntarily consumed a liquid supplement. !d. at 14, 17. Although Aamer was never approved for enteral feeding, apparently because he had been willing to consume the minimal amount of nutrition necessary to avoid such treatment, he asserted through counsel that "if force-feeding were not permitted, he would escalate his peaceful protest and refuse food." !d. at 12. The government has informed us that although neither Belbacha nor Aamer is currently designated as a hunger striker, Dhiab retains that designation. See Appellees' Letter Regarding Case Status, November 8, 2013; Appellees' Letter Regarding Case Status, October 24,2013.
In June, petitioners-together with fellow Guantanamo detainee Nabil Hadjarab, who has since been releasedinvoked the district court's habeas jurisdiction and moved for

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 5 of 49
5
a preliminary injunction prohibiting the authorities from force-feeding them. According to petitioners, the practice violated both their constitutional rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l.
Judge Kessler considered Dhiab's petition separately from those of the other petitioners. Holding that section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), Pub. L. No. I09-366, 120 Stat. 2600, had stripped the district courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims, such as Dhiab's, relating to the "conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant," she rejected the request for a preliminary injunction. Dhiab v. Obama, No. 05-1457, slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. July 8, 2013) (unpublished) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2)). She also observed, however, that "it is perfectly clear . . . that force-feeding is a painful, humiliating and degrading process." !d. at 3.
Judge Collyer subsequently denied the remammg petitioners' applications for a preliminary injunction. Aamer v. Obama, Nos. 04-2215, 05-1504, 05-2349, slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. July 16, 2013) (unpublished). Like Judge Kessler, she concluded that MCA section 7 stripped the courts of subjectmatter jurisdiction over the detainees' claims. /d. at 12. Judge Collyer went on to explain that even if the court had jurisdiction, "the motion would be denied due to failure to show likelihood of success on the merits and because the public interest and balance of harms weighs in favor of the Government." !d. She reasoned that the government has "legitimate penological interest[s] in preventing suicide" and in "preserving order, security, and discipline," and that "'the requested injunction would increase the risk of irreparable harm to Petitioners' lives and health." /d. at 13-14.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 6 of 49
6
After both sets of petitioners appealed, we consolidated the cases. Petitioners assert, as they did in the district court, that their claims are properly raised in a petition for habeas corpus. They further contend that the two district courts should have granted them the preliminary relief they sought.
II. We begin, as we must, with the question of subjectmatter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02 (1998). The government contends, as both district courts held, that the MCA's jurisdiction-stripping provision bars federal courts from considering petitioners' force-feeding challenges. Our review is de novo. Ass'n of Civilian Technicians v. FLRA, 283 F.3d 339, 341 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
A. Congress and the Supreme Court have engaged in an extensive back-and-forth regarding the scope of federal court jurisdiction over claims brought by Guantanamo detainees. A brief review of this dialogue is necessary to understand the question now before us.
The story starts with Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004). In that case, several Guantanamo detainees had filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking "release from custody, access to counsel, freedom from interrogations, and other relief." Jd. at 472. Other detainees, invoking the jurisdictional provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1350, sought "to be informed of the charges against them, to be allowed to meet with their families and with counsel, and to have access to the courts or to some other impartial tribunal." Jd. The Supreme Court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear all of these

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 7 of 49
7
claims. !d. at 483-85. It explained that 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal habeas corpus statute, extended to those detained at Guantanamo, which, for the purposes of this statute at least, was "within 'the territorial jurisdiction' of the United States." !d. at 480 (quoting Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Cilardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (I 949)). The Court further concluded that if statutory habeas jurisdiction extended to Guantanamo, then there was no reason to bar detainees from also raising claims pursuant to sections I33 I and I350: the detainees were entitled to "the privilege of litigation in U.S. courts." Id at 484 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of2005 (DTA), Pub. L. No. 109-148, I 19 Stat. 2739, which contained a provision designed to abrogate Rasul and strip federal courts of jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees' claims. See DTA § 1005(e). After the Supreme Court held that this provision could not apply retroactively to cases pending at the time the DTA was enacted, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 575-76 (2006), Congress responded by passing the MCA, the statute at issue in this case, whose jurisdiction-stripping provisions unequivocally applied to all claims brought by Guantanamo detainees. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 736-39 (2008). MCA section 7 provides:
(I) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 8 of 49
8
(2) Except as provided [in section lOOS(e) of the DTA], no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
28 U.S.C. § 224l(e).
Passage of the MCA required the Supreme Court to confront the constitutional question it had until then successfully avoided: may Congress eliminate federal habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo without complying with the requirements of the Suspension Clause? In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), the Court answered this question in the negative. It first held that the Suspension Clause "has full effect at Guantanamo Bay." !d. at 771. The Court then concluded that the substitute procedures Congress had developed for Guantanamo detainees-review in this court of military tribunal decisions-were "an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus," id. at 792, which at the very least "entitles the prisoner to a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that he is being held pursuant to 'the erroneous application or interpretation' of relevant law" before a court that "must have the power to order the conditional release of an individual unlawfully detained," id. at 779 (quoting INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 302 (2001)). Thus, the Court held, MCA section 7 "operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ." !d. at 733, 792.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 9 of 49
9
This court addressed Boumediene's effect on the relevant jurisdictional statutes in Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2009). In petitions for habeas corpus, nine detainees had sought to bar the government from transferring them to a country where they might be tortured or detained. Id. at 511. The government contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider such claims, arguing that Boumediene held MCA section 7 to be "'unconstitutional only insofar as it purported to deprive the district court of jurisdiction to hear a claim falling within the 'core' of the constitutional right to habeas corpus, such as a challenge to the petitioner's detention or the duration thereof." Id. at 512. Rejecting that argument, we held-in language central to this case-that Boumediene ''invalidate[d] § 2241(e)(J) with respect to all habeas claims brought by Guantanamo detainees, not simply with respect to so-called 'core' habeas claims." Id. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision had "necessarily restored the status quo ante, in which detainees at Guantanamo had the right to petition for habeas under § 2241." Id. at 512 n.2. Because the federal courts' statutory habeas jurisdiction had been restored, we saw "'no need to decide . . . whether the . . . petitions c[a]me within the contours and content of constitutional habeas." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the question was simply whether the petitioners had "allege[d] a proper claim for habeas relief." Id. at 513. We concluded that they had. Id.
Subsequently, in Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315
(D.C. Cir. 2012), we clarified that section 224J(e)(2)-the other subsection of MCA section 7--<:ontinues in force. In AlZahrani, which involved a suit brought by families of detainees who had died at Guantanamo, id. at 316-17, we held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the "litigation rather plainly constitute[d] an action other than habeas corpus brought against the United States and its agents

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 10 of 49
10
relating to 'aspect[s] of the detention ... treatment ... [and] conditions of confinement of an alien' as described in the MCA," id. at 319. Boumediene, we explained, dealt with section 2241(e)(l), which stripped federal courts of habeas jurisdiction. Id. By contrast, section 224l(e)(2) "has no effect on habeas jurisdiction," and thus the "Suspension Clause is not relevant and does not affect the constitutionality of the statute." Id. We went on to reject the plaintiffs' claim that section 2241 (e)(2) was itself unconstitutional, observing that the only remedy sought by the plaintiffs was money damages and that ''such remedies are not constitutionally required." !d.
B.
Kiyemba and Al-Zahrani make clear that the jurisdictional question we consider here is relatively narrow: are petitioners' claims the sort that may be raised in a federal habeas petition under section 2241? As the government emphasizes, petitioners challenge neither the fact nor the duration of their detention, claims that would lie at the heart of habeas corpus. See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) ("[T]he traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody."). Instead, they attack the conditions of their confinement, asserting that their treatment while in custody renders that custody illegal-claims that state and federal prisoners might typically raise in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § I983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). But although petitioners' claims undoubtedly fall outside the historical core of the writ, that hardly means they are not a "proper subject of statutory habeas." Kiyemba, 561 F.3d at 513. "Habeas is not 'a static, narrow, formalistic remedy; its scope has grown to achieve its grand purpose.'" Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 780 (quoting Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236,243 (1963)).

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 11 of 49
II
If, as petitioners assert, their claims fall within the scope of habeas, then the district courts possessed jurisdiction to consider them because the federal habeas corpus statute extends, in its entirety, to Guantanamo. See Kiyemba, 561 F.3d at 512 & n.2. But if petitioners' claims do not sound in habeas, their challenges "constitute[] an action other than habeas corpus" barred by section 224l(e)(2). Al-Zahrani, 669 F.3d at 319.
Contrary to the contentions of the government and the dissent, in order to resolve this jurisdictional question we have no need to inquire into Congress's intent regarding federal court power to hear Guantanamo detainees' claims. Although Congress undoubtedly intended to preclude federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over any claims brought by Guantanamo detainees, it chose to do so through a statute that separately proscribes two different sorts of challenges: "habeas" actions, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(l), and all "other" actions, see id. § 2241(e)(2). Boumediene struck down the first of these-the provision that would, but for Boumediene, preclude Guantanamo detainees from bringing habeas actions. See Kiyemba, 561 F.3d at 512. The remaining, lawful subsection of MCA section 7 has, by its terms, "no effect on habeas jurisdiction." Al-Zahrani, 669 F.3d at 319. In the wake of Boumediene and this court's interpretation of that decision in Kiyemba, Congress might very well want to preclude Guantanamo detainees from bringing particular types of habeas actions. But even assuming that Congress intends to again strip federal courts of habeas jurisdiction, it has yet to do so. Because we are unable to give effect to a non-existent statute, any such unmanifested congressional intent has no bearing on whether petitioners may bring their claims. fnstead, given that statutory habeas extends to Guantanamo, the issue now before us is not Guantanamo-specific. We ask simply whether a challenge such as that advanced by

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 12 of 49
!2
petitioners constitutes "a proper claim for habeas relief' if brought by an individual in custody in Guantanamo or elsewhere. Kiyemba, 561 F.3d at 513.
For the same reasons, we have no need to explore the reach or breadth of the Suspension Clause. Simply put, there is no longer any statute in place that might unconstitutionally suspend the writ. We express no view on whether Congress could constitutionally enact legislation designed to preclude federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over the particular species of habeas claim petitioners advance. For our purposes, it suffices to say that Congress has not done so. Moreover, because of our focus on statutory habeas corpus, we have less need in this case to examine the writ's scope at the time the Constitution was ratified than we might in a case in which the constitutional question was presented. Compare St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 301 ("[A]t the absolute minimum, the Suspension Clause protects the writ 'as it existed in 1789."') (quoting Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651,664 (1996)), with Rasul, 542 U.S. at 474 ("As it has evolved over the past two centuries, the habeas statute clearly has expanded habeas corpus 'beyond the limits that obtained during the 17th and 18th centuries."') (quoting Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 380 n.13 (!977)). It is to the question of the current scope of statutory habeas corpus that we now tum.
c.
The Supreme Court once suggested-indeed, held-that the scope of the writ encompasses conditions of confinement claims such as those petitioners assert. In Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969), the Court permitted a federal prisoner to challenge by writ of habeas corpus a prison regulation that prohibited him from providing legal assistance to other prisoners. See id. at 484, 490. Likewise, in Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249 (197!), the Court expressly held that a

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 13 of 49
13
petition brought by state prisoners challenging "their living conditions and disciplinary measures," id at 249, was "cognizable in federal habeas corpus," id. at 251.
Subsequently, however, in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (!973 ), the Supreme Court reversed course, opting instead to treat as an open question the writ's extension to conditions of confinement claims. In Preiser, the Court addressed the scope of relief state prisoners may seek under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § !983. The Court held that when a challenge falls within the "heart of habeas corpus," id. at 498, state prisoners may not proceed by way of a section 1983 action, as otherwise they could evade the exhaustion and other procedural requirements established for state habeas challenges in the federal courts. Id. at 489-90. Claims that fall within the "heart" or "core" of habeas corpus, and thus may be brought in federal court solely by means of a petition for the writ, are those in which a prisoner "challeng[es] the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment." ld. at 500. Significantly, the Court did not hold that the converse is also true-that is, that any claim challenging something apart from the fact or duration of confinement may not be raised in habeas. To the contrary, citing both Johnson and Wilwording, the Court stated: "This is not to say that habeas corpus may not also be available to challenge ... prison conditions." Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. But according to the Court, its prior decisions had left this question unresolved. "When a prisoner is put under additional and unconstitutional restraints during his lawful custody," the Court explained, "it is arguable that habeas corpus will lie to remove the restraints making the custody illegal." Id. (emphasis added). But see id. at 505 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (stating that it was well-established that "a prisoner may challenge the conditions of his confinement by petition for writ of habeas corpus").

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 14 of 49
14
Since Preiser, the Court has continued-----<juite expressly-to leave this question open. In Bell v. Wo{fish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), the Court left "to another day the question of the propriety of using a writ of habeas corpus to obtain review of the conditions of confinement, as distinct from the fact or length of the confinement itself." !d. at 527 n.6. More recently, in Boumediene itself, the Court declined to "discuss the reach of the writ with respect to claims of unlawful conditions of treatment or confinement." 553 U.S. at 792.
Although the Supreme Court has avoided resolving the issue, this circuit has not. Our precedent establishes that one in custody may challenge the conditions of his confinement in a petition for habeas corpus, and we must "adhere to the law of our circuit unless that law conflicts with a decision of the Supreme Court.'" Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527, 529 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Most important is our decision in Hudson v. Hardy, 424 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1970) ("Hudson If'). In Hudson II, an inmate in the District of Columbia jail sought relief from certain jail officials who he claimed subjected him to beatings and threats and deprived him of his right to practice his religion, among other things. Id. at 855; see also Hudson v. Hardy, 412 F.2d 1091, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1968) ("Hudson F') (describing petitioner's claims). Responding to the government's argument that the case had become moot because the petitioner had since been transferred outside the jurisdiction, we held that even if the complaint could not be construed as a section 1983 claim for damages, the "core of [the inmate's) complaint when filed was an unlawful deprivation of liberty," and thus the petition was "'in effect ... for a writ of habeas corpus." Hudson II, 424 F.2d at 855. In language directly applicable to this case, we held: "Habeas

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 15 of 49
15
corpus tests not only the fact but also the form of detention." /d. at 855 nJ. If, we continued, the inmate's pleadings were treated as a petition for habeas corpus, then the case might not be moot for a number of reasons, among them that the inmate's "disciplinary record may follow him throughout the prison system" in a manner that could both lead to harsher treatment while he was incarcerated and "affect his eligibility for parole." Id. at 856. We therefore remanded for the district court to ascertain whether, if the petition was for habeas corpus, as opposed to a claim for damages, the inmate was "still subject to disabilities because of the unlawful acts alleged." Id. at 856.
Hudson Irs description of the writ's availability to test "not only the fact but also the form of detention" was integral to our ultimate disposition of the case, and thus constitutes binding precedent. If habeas jurisdiction would not lie over the inmate's claims, we would have had no need to direct the district court to conduct further proceedings regarding the mootness of any such habeas petition. We based the necessary antecedent conclusion regarding habeas jurisdiction on two premises: that the petitioner attacked the conditions of his confinement while in custody; and that such claims may be raised in habeas corpus. Doing so quite explicitly, we held that the inmate's petition-which, again, alleged that jail officials "had subjected him to cmel and unusual punishment, to punishment without cause, and to unconstitutional discrimination," Hardy II, 424 F.2d at 855-was "for a writ of habeas corpus" because "[h]abeas corpus tests not only the fact but also the form of detention." /d. at 855 & n.3. Indeed, unless we were holding that habeas jurisdiction would lie for this purpose, we could not have offered as a potential justification for the continued existence of a live controversy the possibility that the disciplinary record would subject petitioner to harsher treatment while in prison, see id. at

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 16 of 49
16
856-an independent, and therefore precedential, basis for our remand. See Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., 337 U.S. 535, 537 (1949) ("[W]here a decision rests on two or more grounds, none can be relegated to the category of obiter dictum.").
The dissent seeks to avoid this conclusion in three ways. First, the dissent asserts that because we remanded for the district court to make findings as to mootness, we could not have issued a precedential decision as to whether the petitioner's claims sounded in habeas, for by doing so we would have "t1outed the rule that on any appeal 'the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction."' Dissenting Op. at 3 (quoting Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94). But the habeas statute is jurisdictional, see Rasul, 542 U.S. at 484, so whether a claim is the type that sounds in habeas is itself a jurisdictional question, see Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 527 n.6, Kiyemba, 561 F.3d at 5 I3, and "there is no mandatory sequencing of jurisdictional issues." Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 43 I (2007). Just as plaintiffs invoking federal question jurisdiction must assert claims that tum on questions of federal law, petitioners invoking habeas jurisdiction must assert claims that sound in habeas. Simply labeling the latter requirement "the merits of whether a claim is cognizable in habeas," see Dissenting Op. at 4, does not somehow transform it into a merits issue. Next, the dissent points out that in Hudson II we suggested that the petitioner could seek injunctive relief pursuant to section I983. See id at 5; Hudson II, 424 F.2d at 855 n.3. True, but we also held that the petitioner could raise his claims by way of a petition for habeas corpus, and again, alternative grounds for a decision are nonetheless precedential. See Woods, 337 U.S. at 537. Finally, the dissent thinks it ''unclear whether [Hudson II] addresses conditions of confinement at all," and advances various other potential rationales that we could have

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 17 of 49
17
offered for concluding that habeas jurisdiction existed. Dissenting Op. at 6. But the dissent misreads Hudson Irs discussion of mootness. Contrary to the dissent's contention, we cited the inmate's transfer to Leavenworth prison not as an ''example of future punishment," id., but rather as an independent reason that his petition might not be moot, see Hudson II, 424 F.2d at 856. We mentioned being "subjected to ... additional restraints" as an example of the petitioner being "punished anew." !d. at 856 & n.7. And in any event, we based our determination that habeas jurisdiction existed on none of the justifications offered by the dissent. Instead, we clearly held that the petitioner's claim sounded in habeas because "[h]abeas corpus tests not only the fact but also the form of detention." !d. at 855 n.3. We cannot now disregard this holding simply by inventing alternative rationales on which Hudson II could have relied; we are bound by the rationale on which Hudson II did rely.
Hudson Irs characterization of the scope of habeas corpus is by no means an outlier in this circuit's jurisprudence--even if it is the only decision that is precedential on that precise question. We invoked the very same principle in United States v. Wilson, 471 F.2d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 1972). In that case, a defendant, on direct appeal from his conviction, claimed that his sentence of imprisonment amounted to cruel and unusual punishment given his mental illness. !d. at I077. Rejecting his claim, we reasoned "that the only available remedy at this time is a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the jurisdiction in which appellant is confined." !d. at 1080. Although holding that such a petition would have to be "brought in the district of confinement"-which was located outside this court's jurisdiction-we left little doubt that petitioners' claims could be raised in habeas, stating: "appellant unquestionably has the

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 18 of 49
18
right to challenge the conditions of his confinement." Jd. at I 081.
Equally significant is Miller v. Overholser, 206 F.2d 415 (D.C. Cir. 1953), which involved a habeas petitioner who sought transfer from an institution for the criminally insane to an institution for treatment of the mentally ill. Here the government cites Miller for the proposition that '"the courts will not interfere with discipline or treatment in a place of legal confinement, and so habeas corpus is not an available remedy."' Appellees' Br. 12 (quoting Miller, 206 F.2d at 419). But the government has excised the key phrase from the quoted sentence, thus completely changing its meaning. In fact, Miller clearly supports petitioners, as the full sentence reads: "Except in circumstances so extreme as to transgress constitutional prohibitions, the courts will not interfere with discipline or treatment in a place of legal confinement, and so habeas corpus is not an available remedy." Miller, 206 F.2d at 419 (emphasis added); cf also Creek v. Stone, 379 F.2d 106, I09 (D.C. Cir. 1967) ("(I)n general habeas corpus is available not only to an applicant who claims he is entitled to be freed of all restraints, but also to an applicant who protests his confinement in a certain place, or under certain conditions, that he claims vitiate the justification for confinement.").
During oral argument, the government asserted that our decisions recognize only that a habeas petitioner may challenge the place of confinement, not the conditions therein. It is true that the petitioner in Miller alleged that his confinement in a particular place was illegal. See Miller, 206 F.2d at 419. But neither Hudson II nor Wilson was so limited. Not only did petitioners in both cases directly attack their treatment while in custody, but we made no mention of the possibility that they might instead be detained in a different place in which such conditions were absent.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 19 of 49
19
In any event, we see little reason to distinguish a place of confinement challenge, which unquestionably sounds in habeas, see, e.g., Kiyemba, 561 F.3d at 513; In re Bonner, !51 U.S. 242, 255-56 (1894), from the one presented here. The substantive inquiry in which courts engage in the two types of cases will often be identical. A place of confinement claim such as that asserted in Miller rests on the contention that the conditions of confinement in a particular place violate the law. See Miller, 206 F.2d at 418-19 (holding that, if true, the facts alleged by petitioner regarding the conditions where he was held demonstrated his confinement in that place was "not authorized by ... statute"); see also Covington v. Harris, 419 F.2d 617, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (habeas petitioner's challenge to his placement in a particular ward within a hospital turned on the validity of "additional restrictions beyond those necessarily entailed by hospitalization," which "are as much in need of justification as any other deprivations of liberty"). A conditions of confinement claim involves the very same inquiry: do the conditions in which the petitioner is currently being held violate the law? See Wilson, 471 F.2d at I 080; Hudson II, 424 F.2d at 855.
The principal functional difference between the two sorts of challenges lies in the relief that a court might grant. In a place of confinement claim, the petitioner's rights may be vindicated by an order of transfer, while in a conditions of confinement claim, they may be vindicated by an order enjoining the government from continuing to treat the petitioner in the challenged manner. But even this distinction is largely illusory, as either of these two forms of relief may be reframed to comport with the writ's more traditional remedy of outright release. That is, in both types of cases, a court may simply order the prisoner released unless the unlawful conditions are rectified, leaving it up to the

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 20 of 49
20
government whether to respond by transferring the petitioner to a place where the unlawful conditions are absent or by eliminating the unlawful conditions in the petitioner's current place of confinement. See Bonner, 151 U.S. at 262 (directing that the writ should issue in favor of petitioner illegally held in state penitentiary, but ''without prejudice to the right of the United States to take any lawful measures to have the petitioner sentenced" to proper place of detention); Miller, 206 F.2d at 419-20 (discussing the remedy imposed in Bonner); cf Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1922-23 (2011) (upholding order remedying Eight Amendment violations by ordering state to reduce overcrowding in its prisons by releasing prisoners if necessary). Given that habeas is not a ''formalistic remedy," Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 780 (internal quotation marks omitted), and "must not be circumscribed by any technical considerations," Miller, 206 F.2d at 420, it should come as little surprise that this court has never engaged in the sort of formalistic, technical line-drawing that the government's approach would demand.
Indeed, as Miller illustrates, the near-complete overlap between these two sorts of challenges ultimately reflects the fact that in this circuit the underlying rationale for exercising habeas jurisdiction in either case is precisely the same. Miller relied on Coffin v. Reichard, 143 F.2d 443 (6th Cir. 1944), which involved a habeas petition alleging "assaults, cruelties and indignities from guards and ... co-inmates." !d. at 444. Coffin unequivocally held that a habeas court has jurisdiction over such conditions of confinement claims and ''may remand with directions that the prisoner's retained civil rights be respected." ld. at 445. In Miller, we cited Coffin for the proposition that "[a] prisoner is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus when, though lawfully in custody, he is deprived of some right to which he is lawfully entitled even in his confinement, the deprivation of which serves to make his

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 21 of 49
21
imprisonment more burdensome than the law allows or curtails his liberty to a greater extent than the law permits." Miller. 206 F.2d at 420 (quoting Coffin, 143 F.2d at 445) (internal quotation marks omitted). We grounded our holding that the petitioner could challenge the place of his confinement on this same proposition. See id. Our logic was straightforward: in either a conditions of confinement or place of confinement case, the petitioner contends that some aspect of his confinement has deprived him of a right to which he is entitled while in custody. The availability of habeas for both types of challenges simply reflects the extension of the basic principle that "[h]abeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.'' Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008); see 28 U.S.C. § 224l(c)(3) (the writ extends to those prisoners '"in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States"). The illegality of a petitioner's custody may flow from the fact of detention, e.g., Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 467-68 (1938), the duration of detention, e.g., Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487, the place of detention, e.g., Miller, 206 F.2d at 419, or the conditions of detention, e.g., Hudson II, 424 F.2d at 855 n.3. In all such cases, the habeas petitioner's essential claim is that his custody in some way violates the law, and he may employ the writ to remedy such illegality. As a law review note cited in both Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499, and Wilson, 471 F.2d at 1081 n.7, put it: "Where the specific detention abridges federally protected interests~-by placing petitioner in the wrong prison, denying him treatment, imposing cruel and unusual punishment, impeding his access to the courts, and so on-it is an unlawful detention and habeas lies to release the petitioner therefrom." Note, Developments in the LawFederal Habeas Corpus, 83 HARV. L. REV. I038, I085 (1970) (emphasis added).

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 22 of 49
22
This circUit IS by no means alone in adopting this reasoning. Several of our sister circuits have concluded that an individual in custody may utilize habeas corpus to challenge the conditions under which he is held. See, e.g., United States v. DeLeon, 444 F.3d 41, 59 (1st Cir. 2006) ("If the conditions of incarceration raise Eighth Amendment concerns, habeas corpus is available."); Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492, 498 (2d Cir. 1975) (Friendly, J., concurring) (contending that section 2241 would furnish "a wholly adequate remedy" for a federal prisoner who sought orders requmng prison officials to accommodate his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion); Thompson v. Choinski, 525 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2008) ('This court has long interpreted § 2241 as applying to challenges to the execution of a federal sentence, including such matters as the . . . type of detention and prison conditions." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 242 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that prisoner's challenge to regulations limiting opportunity for placement in community confinement could proceed by way of habeas corpus "even if what is at issue ... is 'conditions of confinement'"); Ali v. Gibson, 572 F.2d 971, 975 n.8 (3d Cir. 1978) ("At most [petitioner's) claims rise to a possible habeas attack on the conditions of confinement, cognizable in a federal habeas action only in extreme cases."); Coffin, 143 F.2d at 444 ("Any unlawful restraint of personal liberty may be inquired into on habeas corpus."); Adams v. Bradshaw, 644 F.3d 481, 482-83 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that a state prisoner's Eighth Amendment challenge to the state of Ohio's lethal injection procedures could be brought in habeas); cf McNair v. McCune, 527 F.2d 874, 875 (4th Cir. 1975) ("(l]t is a sufficient statement of federal jurisdiction in habeas corpus to redress punitive segregation imposed without a hearing for the relatively innocuous offense of 'wearing the wrong kind of clothing."').

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 23 of 49
23
Of course, as the government emphasizes, other circuits have reached a contrary conclusion. But even if we had authority to depart from our own precedent, none of these decisions would provide a compelling reason to do so.
The Fifth Circuit appears to have relied on its own, longstanding precedent in holding that a habeas petitioner may not challenge his treatment while in custody. See Cook v. Hanberry, 592 F.2d 248,249 (5th Cir. 1979) ("Habeas corpus is not available to prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration.") (citing Granville v. Hunt, 4 I I F.2d 9, 12-13 (5th Cir. 1969)). This precedent originally rested, however, on the now-questionable rationale that the conditions of confinement are within the discretion of prison administrators and thus beyond the cognizance of the courts. See Granville, 4 I I F.2d at 12; but see, e.g., Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405-06 (1974) ("When a prison regulation or practice offends a fundamental constitutional guarantee, federal courts will discharge their duty to protect constitutional rights.").
The other circuits that have reached a similar conclusion appear to have done so on the basis of an even more questionable rationale, one reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's decision in Preiser. As recounted above, see supra at 13, Preiser imposed a habeas-channeling rule, not a habeas-limiting rule: the Court held only that claims lying at the "core" of the writ must be brought in habeas, and expressly disclaimed any intention of restricting habeas itself. See Davis v. U.S. Sentencing Commission, 716 F.3d 660, 662-63 (D.C. Cir. 2013); accord Woodall, 432 F.3d at 242 n.5; Brennan v. Cunningham, 813 F.2d I, 4 (I st Cir. I987); see also Brown v. Plaut, I31 F.3d 163, 168-69 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ("'Habeas corpus might ... be

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 24 of 49
24
available to bring challenges to ... prison conditions ... , but requiring the use of habeas corpus in such cases would extend Preiser far beyond the 'core' of the writ that Preiser set out to protect."). Although the Court made this emphatically clear, see Preiser 411 U.S. at 499-500, some circuits nonetheless have read the decision as limiting the sorts of claims that may be brought in habeas and to preclude prisoners from using the writ to attack the conditions of their confinement. See Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991) (relying on Preiser for the proposition that if a prisoner "is challenging merely the conditions of his confinement his proper remedy is under the civil rights law"); Mcintosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (lOth Cir. 1997) (same); cf Hutcherson v. Riley, 468 F.Jd 750, 754 (11th Cir. 2006) (describing Preiser line of cases as holding that habeas and section 1983 are "mutually exclusive"). Even more perplexing, some circuits have done so while completely overlooking their own post-Preiser precedent recognizing that conditions of confinement claims sound in habeas. Compare Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing only Preiser in holding that "(i]f the prisoner is not challenging the validity of his conviction or the length of his detention ... then a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy"), with Willis v. Ciccone, 506 F.2d 1011, 1014 (8th Cir. 1974) (''[H]abeas corpus is a proper vehicle for any prisoner, state or federal, to challenge unconstitutional actions of prison officials."); compare Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing only Preiser and a district court decision describing Preiser in holding that a habeas petition challenging "the terms and conditions of (an inmate's] incarceration" must be dismissed), with Workman v. Mitchell, 502 F.2d 1201, 1208 n.9 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding it to be "fairly well established" that ''federal habeas corpus actions are now available to deal with questions concerning both the duration and the conditions of confinement").

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 25 of 49
25
In sum, although the Supreme Court has left the question open, the law of this circuit-which is consistent with the weight of the reasoned precedent in the federal Courts of Appeal~ompels us to conclude that a prisoner may, in a federal habeas corpus petition, "challenge the conditions of his confinement." Wilson, 471 F.2d at 1081. Petitioners here advance just such a challenge. They raise claims that their force-feeding at the hands of their jailers constitutes an "additional and unconstitutional restraint[] during [their] lawful custody," Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499, and violates their fundamental right to religious freedom, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l, thus rendering their "imprisonment more burdensome than the law allows or curtail[ingj [their]liberty to a greater extent than the law permits." Miller, 206 F.2d at 420 (quoting Coffin, 143 F.2d at 445); see also Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 347-48 (1994) (describing availability of federal habeas corpus for fundamental nonconstitutional claims). They have therefore brought "a proper claim for habeas relief' over which the district courts possess subjectmatter jurisdiction. Kiyemba, 561 F.3d at 513. We thus turn to the question of whether petitioners have established their entitlement to injunctive relief.
III. "'A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [I] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest."' Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Winter v. National Resource Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). We review the district court's balancing of these four factors for abuse of

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 26 of 49
26 discretion, while reviewing de novo the questions of law involved in that inquiry. !d. at 393.
A.
We begin with the first and most important factor: whether petitioners have established a likelihood of success on the merits. Petitioners advance two separate substantive claims regarding the legality afforce-feeding.
Their first and central claim is that the government's force-feeding of hunger-striking detainees violates their constitutionally protected liberty interest-specifically, the right to be free from unwanted medical treatment, see Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278-79 (1990}-and that the government is unable to justify the practice of force-feeding under the standard established in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). In Turner, the Supreme Court set forth the general test for assessing the legality of a prison regulation that "impinges on" an inmate's constitutional rights, holding that such a regulation is "valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." !d. at 89. As the government does not press the issue, we shall, for purposes of this case, assume without deciding that the constitutional right to be free from unwanted medical treatment extends to nonresident aliens detained at Guantanamo and that we should use the Turner framework to evaluate petitioners' claim. But cf Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d I022, 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2009), vacated by Kiyemba v. Obama, 559 U.S. 131 (20 10), modified and reinstated, 605 F.3d 1046, 1048 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
In their briefs, petitioners detail the significant number of international organizations, medical associations, and public figures who have criticized the practice of force-feeding prisoners unwilling to eat. Appellants' Br. 33-39 (citing, inter

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 27 of 49
27
alia, World Medical Association, WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers (1991); International Committee of the Red Cross, Hunger strikes in prisons: the ICRC's position (20 13); Letter from Senator Dianne Feinstein to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (June 19, 2013), available at: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/? File id=l7585d4b-c235-4D2-b957-50648d4e6252). Since oral argument in this case, a task force organized by the Institute on Medicine as a Profession and the Open Society Foundation has issued a scathing report detailing the abuses of medical ethics in the government's treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, concluding specifically that doctors who assist in the treatment of hungerstriking Guantanamo detainees "have become agents of a coercive and counter-therapeutic procedure that for some detainees continued for months and years, resulting in untold pain, suffering, and tragedy for the detainees for whom they were medically responsible." Task Force Report, Ethics Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the War on Terror 84 (2013) (submitted by petitioners pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 280)); see also Denise Grady & Benedict Carey, Medical Ethics Have Been Violated at Detention Sites, a New Report Says, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 5, 2013, at A 16 (describing the task force's report). Given these authorities-and, we might add, given the government's own description of its force-feeding protocol-we have no doubt that force-feeding is a painful and invasive process that raises serious ethical concerns.
For petitioners to be entitled to injunctive relict~ however, it is not enough for us to say that force-feeding may cause physical pain, invade bodily integrity, or even implicate petitioners' fundamental individual rights. This is a court of law. not an arbiter of medical ethics, and as such we must view this case through Turner's restrictive lens. The very

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 28 of 49
28
premise of Turner is that a "prison regulation [that] impinges on inmates' constitutional rights'' may nonetheless be "valid." Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. That is, although "[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution," they do substantially change the nature and scope of those constitutional protections, as well as the degree of scrutiny that courts will employ in assessing alleged violations. Jd at 84; see Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1948) ("Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system."). Thus, even if force-feeding "burdens fundamental rights," Turner, 482 U.S. at 87, Turner makes clear that a federal court may step in only if the practice is not "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," id. at 89.
The government has identified two penological interests at stake here: preserving the lives of those in its custody and maintaining security and discipline in the detention facility. As the government emphasizes, many courts have concluded that such interests are legitimate and justify prison officials' force-feeding of hunger-striking inmates. E.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena John Doe v. United States, 150 F.3d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1998); Garza v. Carlson, 877 F.2d 14, 17 (8th Cir. 1989); Matter of Bezio v. Dorsey, 989 N.E.2d 942, 950-51 (N.Y. 20 13); Laurie v. Senecal, 666 A.2d 806, 809 (R.I. 1995). The New York Court of Appeals recently explained that prison officials faced with a hunger-striking inmate whose behavior is life-threatening would, absent forcefeeding, face two choices: (I) give in to the inmate's demands, which would lead other inmates to "copy the same tactic, manipulating the system to get a change in conditions"; or (2) let the inmate die, which is a harm in its own right, and would often "evoke[] a strong reaction from the other inmates

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 29 of 49
29
and create[] serious safety and security concern[s]." Matter of Bezio, 989 N.E.2d at 951 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Freeman v. Berge, 441 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2006) ("If prisoners were allowed to kill themselves, prisons would find it even more difficult than they do to maintain discipline, because of the effect of a suicide in agitating the other prisoners."). Although a handful of state appellate courts have rejected prison officials' attempts to force-feed particular inmates, those courts have largely done so while applying state law and under unique factual circumstances. See Hill v. Dept. of Corrections, 992 A.2d 933, 938 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 20 I0) (recognizing that state's interests generally "outweigh any privacy right" claimed by a force-fed inmate, but holding that state had failed to show inmate's life "was in imminent danger absent forced nutrition and hydration"); Thor v. Superior Court, 855 P.2d 375, 387-88 (Cal. 1993) (holding, under California law, that quadriplegic prisoner could refuse surgical procedure that would insert feeding tube into his stomach where there was "no evidence that allowing him to do so undermines prison integrity or endangers the public"); Singletary v. Costello, 665 So.2d I099, 1109-10 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that state's attempt to force-feed inmate would violate inmate's state constitutional right to privacy where there was ''no evidence" that inmate's actions "undermined the security, safety or welfare within the prison," and observing that "(i]n another case, or with different evidence presented below, a different result may be reached"). But see Zant v. Prevatte, 286 S.E.2d 715,717 (Ga. 1982) (holding that prison officials cannot force-feed mentally competent prisoner with no dependents). Some states, such as California. have also adopted policies pursuant to which inmates can escape force-feeding even if their lives are threatened so long as they clearly and competently refuse such treatment. See 4 California Correctional Health Care Services. Inmate Medical Services Polices & Procedures ch.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 30 of 49
30
22.2, 4-5, available at http://www.cphcs.ca.gov/docs/ imspp/IMSPP-v04-ch22.2.pdf. But such an approach is not constitutionally compelled because it fails to similarly achieve the government's legitimate penological interests-including, most obviously, the interest in preserving the inmate's life.
Thus, the overwhelming majority of courts have concluded, as did Judge Collyer and as we do now, that absent exceptional circumstances prison officials may forcefeed a starving inmate actually facing the risk of death. See Freeman, 441 F.3d at 546; Commissioner of Corrections v. Coleman, 38 A.3d 84, 95-97 (Conn. 2012) (collecting cases). Petitioners point to nothing specific to their situation that would give us a basis for concluding that the government's legitimate penological interests cannot justify the forcefeeding of hunger-striking detainees in Guantanamo.
Instead, petitioners attempt to distinguish the many decisions upholding the lawfulness of force-feeding by tying their challenge to an attack on the legality of the fact of their detention itself, arguing that "[t)here cannot be a legitimate penological interest in force-feeding the Guantanamo Bay detainees to prolong their indefinite detention" because forcefeeding then simply "facilitates the violation of a fundamental human right." Appellants' Br. 40. But this court has repeatedly held that under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001), individuals may be detained at Guantanamo so long as they are determined to have been part of AI Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, and so long as hostilities are ongoing. See, e.g, Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 873-74 (D.C. Cir. 2010); but cf Ali v. Obama, 736 F.3d 542, 553 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Edwards, J., concurring in the judgment) (posing the "troubling question" of "whether the law of th[is) circuit has stretched the meaning of the" statutes justifying such

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 31 of 49
31
detention "far beyond [their] terms"). Given that such continued detention is lawful, force-feeding that furthers this detention serves the same legitimate penological interests as it would if petitioners were serving determinate sentences in state or federal prison.
In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that we are addressing only petitioners' likelihood of success on the merits, not the actual merits of their claim. It is conceivable that petitioners could establish that the government's interest in preserving the lives of those detained at Guantanamo is somehow reduced, or demonstrate that the government has such complete control over Guantanamo detainees that hunger-striking inmates present no threat to order and security, or even show that there are "ready alternatives'' to force-feeding that the government might employ to achieve these same legitimate interests. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. We leave it to the district court to decide in the first instance what procedures may be necessary to provide petitioners a "meaningful opportunity" to make this showing. Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 779.
Finally, we reject petitioners' attempt to advance for the first time in their reply brief, and then again at oral argument, a very different ground for relief-that the government's force-feeding protocol must be enjoined not because forcefeeding is inherently unconstitutional, but because the government subjects detainees to such treatment before they are actually at risk. As petitioners' counsel phrased this contention at oral argument: "[A] reasonable alternative would be to not force feed them until ... they're at risk of death or permanent organ injury." Oral Arg. Tr. 16. But prior to their reply brief, the only "alternative" petitioners identified to the current force-feeding protocol was that the government bring petitioners to trial or set them free. Appellants' Br. 40.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 32 of 49
32
Accordingly, this argument is forfeited. See United States v. Van Smith, 530 F.Jd 967, 973 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("We require petitioners and appellants to raise all of their arguments in the opening brief, and have repeatedly held that an argument first made in a reply brief ordinarily comes too late for our consideration.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In any event, record evidence appears to contradict petitioners' contentions. According to the declaration submitted by the government, Guantanamo medical staff will enterally feed a detainee "only ... when it becomes medically necessary to preserve a detainee's life and health." Decl. of Commander [Redacted], M.D., 4. Of course, petitioners may seek to press this claim-as well as other claims related to particular aspects of the force-feeding protocol employed at Guantanamo--before the district court. For these same reasons, we also now deny petitioners' request for supplemental briefing regarding recent revisions to the government's protocol and dismiss their motion for disclosure of the details of that revised protocol without prejudice to its reassertion in the district court.
This brings us, then, to petitioners' second claim-that the force-feeding protocol violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because it prevents them from engaging in communal prayers during Ramadan. Before discussing the merits of this claim, we must first address the government's contention that it has become moot.
Although it is true, as the government points out, that Ramadan is now over, and thus petitioners cannot claim that the force-feeding protocol currently infringes on their observation of that month, the RFRA claim clearly falls within the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. See Clarke v. United

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 33 of 49
33
States, 915 F.2d 699, 704 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Petitioner Dhiab has undoubtedly satisfied the first of the two required elements of this exception: because Ramadan lasts only a month, the challenged aspects of force- feeding that interfere with communal prayer during this month "(are] in (their] duration too short to be fully litigated prior to [their] cessation or expiration." !d. (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982)). He has also satisfied the second requirement: there is a "reasonable expectation that [he will] be subjected to the same action again." /d. (quoting Murphy, 455 U.S. at 482). More than ten months after officials first designated him as a hunger-striker, Dhiab continues to refuse to eat. Moreover, Dhiab asserts that he plans to continue his strike in order to receive a "resolution to [his] case," that he is "not afraid" of his captors, and that "(i]t would be an honor to die." Crider Dec!. 15, 17. These facts and statements sufficiently establish the likelihood that Dhiab will continue to be affected by the government's force-feeding protocol this year at Ramadan if it remains in place and he continues to be detained. Although the government could release Dhiab before then, or modify the protocol so as to avoid infringing on Dhiab's observation of Ramadan, neither of these outcomes is sufficiently likely to defeat what is otherwise a "reasonable expectation" that Dhiab will again be subjected to this treatment. See Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. United States, 570 F.3d 316, 324 (D.C. Cir. 2009). And because Dhiab's claim is not moot, we have no need to decide whether those of the other petitioners might be. See Military Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948, 954 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("If one party has standing in an action, a court need not reach the issue of standing of other parties when it makes no difference to the merits of the case." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We agree with the government, however, that the law of this circuit clearly forecloses petitioners' RFRA claim. In

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 34 of 49
34
Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009), we expressly held that RFRA 's protections do not extend to Guantanamo detainees, who, as nonresident aliens, do not qualify as protected "person[s]" within the meaning of that statute. !d. at 532. Congress, we reasoned, intended the term "person" to "be read consistently with similar language in constitutional provisions, as interpreted by the Supreme Court at the time Congress enacted RFRA" in 1993, and held that decisions
such as Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) and United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
would have led Congress to presume that the term did not encompass nonresident aliens. Id at 533; see also Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644, 670-72 (D.C. Cir. 2008), vacated by Rasul v. Myers, 555 U.S. 1083 (2008).
Petitioners argue that Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 31 0 (20 I0), in which the Supreme Court expanded the First Amendment's protections of corporate political speech while also declining to address whether the government might have a compelling interest in limiting the similar speech of"foreign individuals or associations," id at 362, has so weakened Rasul's premise that we are no longer bound by its holding. But the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the First Amendment's free speech guarantee in no way undermines our assessment of Congress's likely understanding of existing constitutional law in 1993. Moreover, this court recently rejected a very similar argument in holding that RFRA's protections of the free exercise of religion do not extend to corporations. Gilardi v. US. Department of Health and Human Services, 733 F.3d 1208, 1214-15 (D.C. Cir. 2013). If nothing in Citizens United compels the conclusion that corporations are "'person[s]" within the meaning of RFRA, that decision certainly does not compel us to revisit our conclusion that nonresident aliens are likewise excluded from RFRA' s protections.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 35 of 49
35
B.
We need discuss only briefly the three remaining factors that govern the decision to grant a preliminary injunction: the likelihood that petitioners will suffer irreparable harm, the balance of the equities, and the public interest. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. In this circuit, it remains an open question whether the "likelihood of success" factor is "an independent, free-standing requirement," or whether, in cases where the other three factors strongly favor issuing an injunction, a plaintitr need only raise a "serious legal question" on the merits. Sherley, 644 F.3d at 393, 398. But we have no need to resolve this question here because the remaining factors do not, in any event, weigh in petitioners' favor. The primary "purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the object of the controversy in its then existing condition-to preserve the status quo." Doeskin Products, Inc. v. United Paper Co., 195 F.2d 356, 358 (7th Cir. 1952); see generally National Ass 'n of Farmworkers Organizations v. Marshall, 628 F.2d 604. 613-16 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In this case, even if petitioners might eventually prevail in their challenge to the government's force-feeding protocol, we see especially good reasons for preserving the status quo by denying petitioners' request. Were we to now conclude that a preliminary injunction should issue, and then the district court, this court, or the Supreme Court later determined that the petitioners' claims lacked merit, the petitioners could very well die before the government would ever receive the benefit of that decision. But were we to uphold the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, and it was later determined that forcefeeding as practiced at Guantanamo violates petitioners' rights, petitioners would suffer by being compelled to endure force-feeding or the threat of force-feeding in the interim, but they would ultimately be able to engage in an uninterrupted hunger strike as they wish. Given that the risk of error is

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 36 of 49
36 greater if a preliminary injunction is granted than if it is denied, we conclude, as did Judge Collyer, that the balance of equities and public interest support denying petitioners' request for interim relief.
IV. For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the district courts' denials of petitioners' applications for a preliminary injunction.
So ordered.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 37 of 49
WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting: As the majority aptly explains, Maj. Op. at 6-11, the current state of Congress's back-and-forth with the courts over federal jurisdiction to consider claims by detainees at Guantanamo is this: claims that sound in habeas may be heard; all others may not. Today we decide which category embraces a challenge to a detainee's conditions of confinement. The majority concludes that such a claim sounds in habeas. I disagree. Although we once toyed with that idea (in dictum), we have never held habeas to reach a prisoner's conditions of confinement. And the majority provides no persuasive reason why we should reach that decision for the first time today. Congress has repeatedly and forcefully sought to withdraw the federal courts' jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees. I would not enlarge the writ to encompass a novel theory in the face of such clear congressional intent.
* * *
The Supreme Court's most recent position on whether habeas encompasses prisoner challenges to their conditions of confinement has been one of agnosticism. Maj. Op. at 12-14 (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), and Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)). The majority thus turns to decisions of this court, finding Hudson v. Hardy, 424 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1970), a precedent for the view that habeas covers such claims. Maj. Op. at 14-17. I find no such holding in Hudson.
Hudson's background is simple. In an action styled a petition for a declaratory judgment, Hudson sought an order granting him certain privileges, release from a control cell, or outright release from custody. In our initial pass at the case, we held that the district court had been too hasty in granting summary judgment against Hudson, applying the standards for summary judgment with a "strict literalness" that was

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 38 of 49
2
inappropriate for a pro se prisoner. Hudson v. Hardy, 412 F.2d 1091, 1094-95 (D.C. Cir. 1968). We then granted the defendants' request for rehearing, in order to consider not only the merits but also defendants' claim that Hudson's transfer to Leavenworth had mooted the case. Hudson, 424 F.2d at 855-56. We adhered to our initial decision that the district court had been too hasty, but added an instruction to that court to canvas the facts relevant to mootness. In articulating the district court's mission on remand, we discussed a number of circumstances that might avert dismissal for mootness.
There are many reasons to reject the view that our theorizing in Hudson established a precedent extending habeas to conditions of confinement-so many that the reader deserves a short road map. First, we left completely unresolved the question whether the federal courts had jurisdiction at all; that being so, we were in no position to issue a final merits ruling. Second, we noted that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was available to the plaintiff; we thus had no need to examine whether § 1983 or habeas best fitted plaintiff's claims, to the extent that they might have related to conditions of confinement. Third, of the various circumstances that we suggested might save the case from mootness, it is doubtful whether any can properly be characterized as involving "conditions of confinement" (a phrase we never used in Hudson).
First we noted that if plaintiff sought money damages, the
case was not moot. 424 F.2d at 855. But because we were uncertain whether he sought damages, we went on to discuss the situation if he did not, saying that even in that case "it is by no means certain that the case has become moot." !d. In remanding to the district court, we identified a handful of

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 39 of 49
3
reasons Hudson might face ongoing injury; not one of those reasons depended on our observation about habeas, id. at 855 n.3, which was therefore dictum rather than holding.
Indeed, nowhere in the opinion did we purport to actually find jurisdiction. Although we didn't explicitly invoke the principle and practice that in determining jurisdiction a court assumes the validity of plaintiffs merits claims, see, e.g., Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 446 (1939); Doe v. Harris, 696 F.2d 109, 113-14 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Smith v. Bd of Comm'rs of D.C, 380 F.2d 632, 634 (D.C. Cir. 1967); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 618 (1973) (applying the principle without stating it), we certainly never abjured the principle, and our discussion was fully consistent with the practice.
And with good reason. For us to have applied substantive law before finding jurisdiction would have flouted the rule that on any appeal "the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506,514 (1869)). "Every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review." !d. at 95 (internal quotation marks omitted). The rule long antedated Hudson. "This Court's insistence that proper jurisdiction appear begins at least as early as 1804." Jd. And the principle applies as much to mootness as to any other issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721, 726-27 (2013). Of course jurisdiction may depend on the merits claims; the longstanding solution is to assume the merits of plaintiffs position. We have no basis for now declaring that our

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 40 of 49
4
decision in Hudson deviated from these principles: jurisdiction first, and for that analysis, merits merely assumed.
Recognizing that an absence of jurisdiction would preclude Hudson from having precedential effect, the majority seeks to characterize the merits of Hudson's claim as itself a jurisdictional question, so that the Hudson court (permissibly) resolved it before resolving mootness. MaJ. Op. at 16. Some elements of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 doubtless are jurisdictional. For example, issuance of the writ requires (absent waiver) personal jurisdiction over the custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,434 & n.7, 442 (2004); id. at 451-52 (Kennedy, J., concurring), and subject-matter jurisdiction depends on the petitioner's being in custody, Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490, 493-94 (1989). But that does not mean that a claim's cognizability under habeas is also jurisdictional. While the Court in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) (decided the same day as Padilla), rejected the government's defense that federal courts lacked habeas jurisdiction beyond the United States' sovereign territory, it nowhere suggested that the merits of whether a claim is cognizable in habeas is itself jurisdictional. The majority's attempt to analogize habeas to federal question jurisdiction similarly confuses merits and jurisdiction. Where a claim "will be sustained if the Constitution and laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another," the issue is one of merits, not jurisdiction. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678,685 (1946)).
The majority reads the discussion of potential alternative grounds for jurisdiction in Bell v. Wolfish to stand for the proposition that the scope of habeas is normally a jurisdictional issue. Maj. Op. at 16 (citing 441 U.S. at 527 n.6). All I can extract with confidence from that footnote is

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 41 of 49
5
that in meeting its obligation to be sure of jurisdiction, the Court found 28 U.S.C. § 1331 sufficient and thus saw no need even to consider whether habeas's scope was a merits or a jurisdictional question. Especially given the courts' loose usage of 'jurisdiction" before the last decade, see Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004), I am skeptical that offhand references to jurisdiction in a footnote prove that habeas's exact scope is a jurisdictional question. Nor does the majority's reference to Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509 (2009), shed light on the correct reading of Hudson; our holding there merely reflects Congress's enactment of § 224l(e)(2) and the Supreme Court's holding in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), which together made the scope of habeas a jurisdictional issue for Guantanamo detainees by divesting the courts of jurisdiction to grant any non-habeas relief. It tells us nothing about whether a court's reading of the habeas statute in effect in the Hudson era had any jurisdictional character.
Given that the Hudson court never suggested that its ruminations on Hudson's possible causes of action touched on jurisdiction, and that the habeas statute in effect at the time used no jurisdictional language, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1970), there seems no reason to suppose that Hudson's decision to remand for a mootness determination constituted a resolution of any jurisdictional questions that habeas may entail.
But even if we put the jurisdictional question aside, Hudson's claim that officials of the District of Columbia had subjected him to '"unjust and cruel' disciplinary action," 412 F.2d at 1092, was, as to state officials and those of the District of Columbia, the sort of claim that could be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. E.g., Edwards v. Sard, 250 F. Supp. 977, 978 (D.D.C. 1966). Twice in the opinion we explicitly recognized

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 42 of 49
6
the availability of§ 1983. 424 F.2d at 855 & n.3. Once again, I see precisely nothing that turned on classifying Hudson's claims-insofar as they may have addressed conditions of confinement-as sounding in habeas.
Finally, regardless of the unresolved status of our jurisdiction and the availability of § 1983, Hudson is quite unclear whether it addresses conditions of confinement at all. In order to "sketch" the principles we thought should guide the mootness inquiry, we reviewed a number of possible claims that might have survived cessation of the allegedly unlawful conduct and the plaintiff's removal from the defendants' reach. Id. at 856. Those claims stemmed from the fact that a prisoner's "disciplinary record may follow him throughout the prison system." !d. It therefore might "affect his eligibility for parole." Id Such eligibility of course presents a classic subject of habeas, a claim that would be "squarely within th[e] traditional scope of habeas corpus," Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487. See Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1968) (cited by Hudson, 424 F.2d at 856). We also mused that Hudson's prior discipline might compound his future punishment, 424 F.2d at 856. But as an example of future punishment we pointed to Hudson's transfer to the prison at Leavenworth. !d. at 856 & n.8. As we had decided a few years earlier that habeas is available to challenge ''not only the fact of confinement but also the place of confinement," Lake v. Cameron, 364 F.2d 657, 659 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (emphasis added), this may well have been the root of our speculation that relief was still possible. We concluded that "[i]f [Hudson] desires that the case be treated as a petition for habeas corpus, the court should inform itself of the extent to which appellant is, or is likely to be, still subject to disabilities because of the unlawful acts alleged." 424 F.2d at 856. Assuming we reached a holding on habeas, it was that it

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 43 of 49
7
encompassed the "disabilities" we specified--examples fully in line with historical habeas practice-not the loose talk about "form of confinement" that we consigned to a footnote, id. at 855 n.3.
In short, in framing the district court's future jurisdictional inquiry, we tossed up a salad of possible merits claims. This was a perfectly proper way to guide the district court's exploration of mootness. But that does not mean that any of these speculations constituted a holding. Even assuming the court meant habeas to encompass conditions of confinement, we had neither jurisdiction nor occasion to settle any substantive legal issue, and in the two short pages of F.2d that Hudson occupies (other than caption, headnotes, etc.), I do not see that we did so.
And I also agree with the majority's acknowledgement that its other cases fail to do so. Maj. Op. at 17. Two of the cases, Miller v. Overholser, 206 F.2d 415 (D.C. Cir. 1953), and Creek v. Stone, 379 F.2d 106 (D.C. Cir. !967), see Maj. Op. at 18, address conditions of confinement that ''vitiate the justification for confinement." 379 F.2d at 109; 206 F.2d at 419 (claim renders confinement "not authorized by the statute"). If the basis for confinement is eliminated altogether, outright release would be the remedy, and the petition would fall within the mine run of habeas challenges. Miller, for example, involved a civil commitment statute intended to rehabilitate sex offenders. The court held that Miller's confinement with the criminally insane and without treatment was therefore a confinement "not authorized by the statute," rendering his confinement illegal. 206 F.2d at 419. But the decision was clear that it would apply only in cases that challenge the "legal validity of confinement," id., which petitioners do not do. Cf. Maj. Op. at 30.

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 44 of 49
8
Creek too depends on the proposition that the challenged conditions vitiate the justification for confinement. 379 F.2d at 110. And perhaps more importantly, the court in Creek lacked jurisdiction because the petitioners' transfer out of the conditions complained of rendered the case moot. !d. By now it should be clear that the absence of jurisdiction is a common theme among the majority's cases. United States v. Wilson, 471 F.2d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 1972), is no different. The majority relies on Wilson for the proposition that petitioner "unquestionably" may challenge his conditions of confinement in habeas. Maj. Op. at 17-18 (quoting Wilson, 471 F.2d at 1081 ). Yet right before that observation, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction over Wilson's petition, concluding that "no remedy is available in this Court" because the place of confinement was not within its territorial jurisdiction. 471 F.2d at 1081 (citing Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948)). Here again Steel Co.'s teachings are critical. "For a court to pronounce upon the meaning or the constitutionality of a state or federal law when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, for a court to act ultra vires." Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 101-02. [see no basis for relying on ultra vires statements to determine the appropriate bounds of habeas.
More recent cases from this circuit suggest that the availability of habeas to challenge conditions of confinement is a murkier question than the majority's cases suggest. In Blair-Bey v. Quick, for example, we entertained the possibility that habeas itself "might be available" for challenges to prison conditions. 151 F.3d 1036, 1039-42 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Wald, Williams & Tate!, JJ.) (emphasis added). We solved the problem by saying, "Such claims, if they are permissibly brought in habeas corpus, would have to be subject to the PLRA's filing fee rules." !d. at "1042 (emphasis added). 1t

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 45 of 49
9
would be odd to treat 1998's mere possibility as a rule clearly established by the time of the MCA, less than ten years later. Yet that is exactly the conclusion that the majority reaches.
Because not one of these cases holds that habeas encompasses claims based on the conditions of a detainee's confinement, I conclude that no precedent of ours controls the outcome of this case.
* * •
The maJonty soft-pedals the distinction between challenges to the fact or place of confinement and ones to conditions of confinement by observing that one remedy unquestionably available under habeas (in this case, the prisoner's release) "may" redress both claims, so that the distinction between the claims is "largely illusory." Maj. Op. at 19-20. After all, the majority explains, a court can always order release if the petitioner's custodian does not remedy the defect in the place of confinement. But to suggest that courts should feel complacent in expanding an ancient writconfined for centuries to attacks on the fact or place of confinement-to reach any unlawful aspect of the confinement merely because the illegality could, in extremis, be cured by an order of release, seems in effect to discard history as a guide.
In any event, a focus on remote, unsatisfactory and implausible remedies of release is a far cry from how an inquiry into the availability of habeas normally proceeds. As the majority observes, Maj. Op. at 9, in determining the scope of our jurisdiction in Kiyemba we first needed to assess the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene. Notwithstanding the fact that an order of release would have

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 46 of 49
10
sufficed to grant the Kiyemba petitioners' requested relief, we reviewed the congressional authorization to consider their claims as well as the traditional boundaries of habeas. Kiyemba, 56! F.3d at 512-!3. In doing so, we followed the path laid out by the Supreme Court, which determines its habeas authority not by reference to the potential remedy, but instead by reviewing historical practice under statutory and common law. INS v. St. Cyr; 533 U.S. 289, 305-08 (200!); see Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 739-52; Rasul, 542 U.S. at 47384. Thus the majority's focus on remedies seems completely orthogonal to the method by which the Supreme Court determines the limits of habeas; it should not influence our decision here.
This case itself illustrates the skewed fit between a substantive attack on conditions of confinement and a remedy of release. The petitioners understandably never seek "the writ's more traditional remedy of outright release," Maj. Op. at !9. See J.A. I, 3 (requesting injunction prohibiting forcefeeding); J.A. !58 (requesting injunction prohibiting alleged deprivation of right to communal prayer); Aamer Br. 5 (requesting both forms of injunctive relief). And the majority, rightly acknowledging the legality of the petitioners' detention, Maj. Op. at 30, focuses only on whether to enjoin the practice of force-feeding. The theoretical effectiveness of an implausible remedy seems a thin basis for shoehorning litigation over conditions of confinement into habeas.
• • •
Under the majority's view, it need not consider petitioners' alternative theories supporting jurisdiction, but I must. They are no more convincing. Relying on a pair of cases from the Seventh Circuit, petitioners first contend that

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 47 of 49
l l
because the force-feeding protocol requires transfer from "communal living quarters" to "single cell operations," it constitutes a quantum change in his level of custody, rendering his petition cognizable in habeas, Aamer Br. 2425. They quote the Seventh Circuit as follows: "If the prisoner is seeking what can fairly be described as a quant)Jm change in the level of custody-whether outright freedom, or freedom subject to the limited reporting and financial constraints of bond or parole or probation, or the run of the prison in contrast to the approximation to solitary confinement that is disciplinary segregation-then habeas corpus is his remedy," Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. l 991 ). But they omit the critical next sentence: "if [the petitioner] is seeking a different program or location or environment, then he is challenging the conditions rather than the fact of his confinement and his remedy is under civil rights law, even if, as will usually be the case, the program or location or environment that he is challenging is more restrictive than the alternative that he seeks." /d. at 381. Putting aside the fact that this court has not recognized the "quantum change'' theory, the petition here falls squarely within the claims described by the second sentence; he seeks only an alteration to his program and thus his claims sound in civil rights law, even under Graham. Accordingly, § 2241(e)(2) bars Aamer's claims. AI-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 FJd 315,319 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Aamer also asserts that we have jurisdiction because force-feeding constitutes a "severe restraint[] on individual liberty." Aamer Br. at 26-27 (citing Hensley v. Mun. Court, San Jose Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cnty., 411 U.S. 345, 35 l (1973)). While it is true that habeas's custody requirement can be met by restraints falling short of incarceration (in Hensley, the Court allowed a petition by a

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 48 of 49
12
defendant released on his own recognizance pending the start of his challenged sentence), it doesn't follow that any liberty interest enjoying protection under the Fifth Amendment, e.g., the interest in res1stmg involuntary subjection to pharmaceuticals, Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 177-83 (2003), is a liberty protected by habeas. Petitioners' characterization of the affected values as liberty interests is therefore not enough to create habeas jurisdiction. See Janko v. Gates, No. 12-5017, slip op. at 17-19 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 17, 2014).
* * *
1 close with a brief consideration of where we are and how we got here. In § 7 of the MCA Congress sought to all but extinguish federal courts' jurisdiction to hear claims by detainees at Guantanamo. Subsection 2241(e)(l) purported to remove all habeas corpus jurisdiction over such aliens; subsection (e)(2) eliminated all other jurisdiction, except for the judicial process that Congress had previously established for review of executive branch decisions on the lawfulness of detention. See Maj. Op. at 7-8. By the two subsections taken together, then, Congress sought (with the exception noted) to exclude Guantanamo detainees from United States courts.
In Boumediene the Supreme Court held that subsection (e)(l) violated the Suspension Clause, 553 U.S. at 733, 771, 792, but it did not address whether the MCA was valid insofar as it ousted courts from habeas jurisdiction not protected by that clause. We answered this question in Kzvemba, 561 F.3d at 512 n.2, interpreting Boumediene to have struck down the MCA's attempt to withdraw habeas jurisdiction over detainees at Guantanamo in its entirety, regardless of whether the suspension clause required that invalidation. That decision of

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 206-1 Filed 04/18/14 Page 49 of 49
13
course binds this panel, though it self-evidently opens the courts to actions by detainees under circumstances where Congress intended that they be shut (this case being one example), and was concededly not in any way compelled by Boumediene. See id. at 512; id. at 523 (Griffith, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). Yet although K(yemba restored habeas to its "status quo ante" the MCA, id. at 512 n.2, nothing in that decision requires that we further expand the writ to encompass habeas claims that did not predate the MCA.
The majority does precisely that. To determine just how much the courts will open themselves to habeas independently of the Suspension Clause's constitutional pressure, it relies on our reflections in Hudson-a case in which we had not found any federal court jurisdiction, where any discussion of the fine points of habeas versus § 1983 was unnecessary, and where it is unclear whether our speculation about plaintiffs claims even addressed conditions of confinement. Because neither Hudson nor any other case of ours establishes the availability of a conditions of confinement claim under habeas, Kiyemba's restoration of the status quo ante does not compel us to recognize such a claim. And Congress has made quite clear that we shouldn't. Subsection (e)(l) may be a dead letter, but that does not compel us to ignore Congress's intent behind subsection (e) as a whole, which unmistakably sought to prevent the federal courts from entertaining claims based on detainees' conditions of confinement. Cf. Janko v. Gates, No. 12-5017, slip op. at 10 & n.4 (looking to (e)( I) to interpret (e)(2)). Such evident congressional intent would seem to counsel a cautious rather than a bravura reading of Hudson.
Respectfully dissenting, I would affirm the district courts' dismissal of the petitions for want of jurisdiction.

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABU WA'EL (JIHAD) DHIAB, Petitioner,
v. BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.

Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK)

Respondents.

ORDER

On May 21, 2014, a Status Conference was held in this case

relating to Petitioner's Emergency Motion For Order Compelling

Preservation of Evidence and Limited Discovery [Dkt. No. 217] .

Upon consideration of the Motion, the Opposition [Dkt. No. 219],

the Reply [Dkt. No. 220], the representations made at the

conference, and the entire record herein, it is

ORDERED, that Petitioner's Emergency Motion For Order

Compelling Preservation of Evidence and Limited Discovery [Dkt.

No. 217] is granted in part and denied in part; and it is

further

ORDERED, that the Government shall produce Petitioner's

medical records from April 9, 2013 to December 31, 2013, no

pu/Vl.f2. later than

/,cJ·. rJ., 0/,f; and it is further

./

{

ORDERED, that the Government shall produce all videotapes

made between April 9, 2013, and February 19, 2014, that record

both Petitioner's Forcible Cell Extraction and subsequent

enteral feeding no later than fk-</1'~ [3 '!ZfJlf; and it is further

/

7 I

ORDERED, that the Government will file a list 1 of all

current Standard Operating Procedures/Protocols directly

r o addressing enteral feeding and/or the use of a restraint chair

at Guantanamo Bay no later than

.Jo!'( ; and it is

/

further

ORDERED, that the Government will keep the Court fully

apprised as to Petitioner's medical condition; and it is further

ORDERED, that a status conference is scheduled for ~/0?(rc'YI-1r
~~~2ofy to address any outstanding discovery issues and

set a date for a Motion Hearing.

May~' 2014

(?_~~ 7 /s/
Gladys

Ke~

/~---&7~~&-. ~

United States District Judge

Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF

1 This list will be filed on the docket. To the extent that this conflicts with instructions given in today's status conference, this Order prevails.
-2-

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 365 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABU WA'EL (JIHAD) DHIAB,

Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action 05-1457 (GK)

BARACK H. OBAMA, et at.,

Respondents.

ORDER

On April18, 2014, Petitioner Abu Wa'el (Jihad) Dhiab ("Dhiab" or "Petitioner") filed an

Application for Preliminary Injunction and an Immediate Order for Disclosure of Protocols

Forthwith. 1 [Dkt. No. 203.] On May 7, 2014, the Government ("the Government" or

"Respondents") filed its Opposition [Dkt. No. 214], and on May 12,2014, Petitioner filed his Reply

[Dkt. No. 215].

Thereafter, parties engaged in discovery and on June 20, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for

Further Discovery in Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 265]. Following a

hearing on August 12, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner's Motion and

ordered the Parties to complete all discovery [Dkt. No. 304].

On October 6, 7, and 8, 2014, the Court held a Hearing on Petitioner's Application for

Preliminary Injunction ("the Hearing"). On October 17,2014, the Parties filed Post-Hearing Briefs

summarizing their positions in light ofthe evidence presented at the hearing [Dkt. Nos. 361, 362].

1 The portion of Petitioner's application that sough disclosure of the current Standard Operating Procedures/Protocols directly addressing enteral feeding and/or the use ofa restraint chair at Guantanamo Bay was resolved by the Court's Order of May 23,2014. [Dkt. No. 225]

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 365 Filed 11/07/14 Page 2 of 2
Upon consideration ofthe Application, the Opposition, the Response, Post-Hearing Briefs, testimony delivered by expert witnesses, representations made by the parties at the October Hearing including classified materials heard and viewed in camera, the entire record herein, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Petitioner's Application for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 203] must be denied.

November 7, 2014

Glad~K~~-
United States District Judge

Copies via ECF to all counsel of record

-2-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABU WA'EL (JIHAD) DHIAB,

Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action 05-1457 (GK)

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April18, 2014, Petitioner Abu Wa'el (Jihad) Dhiab ("Dhiab" or "Petitioner") filed an

Application for Preliminary Injunction and an Immediate Order for Disclosure of Protocols

Forthwith.1 [Dkt. No. 203.] On May 7, 2014, the Government ("the Government" or

"Respondents") filed its Opposition [Dkt. No. 214], and on May 12,2014, Petitioner filed his Reply

[Dkt. No. 215].

Thereafter, parties engaged in discovery and on June 20, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for

Further Discovery in Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 265]. Following a

hearing on August 12, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner's Motion and

ordered the Parties to complete all discovery [Dkt. No. 304].

On October 6, 7, and 8, 2014, the Court held a Hearing on Petitioner's Application for

Preliminary Injunction ("the Hearing"). On October 17,2014, the Parties filed Post-Hearing Briefs

summarizing their positions in light ofthe evidence presented at the hearing [Dkt. Nos. 361, 362].

1 The portion of Petitioner's application that sough disclosure of the current Standard Operating Procedures/Protocols directly addressing enteral feeding and/or the use ofa restraint chair at Guantanamo Bay was resolved by the Court's Order of May 23, 2014 [Dkt. No. 225].

Upon consideration of the Application, the Opposition, the Response, Post-Hearing Briefs, testimony delivered by expert witnesses, representations made by the parties at the October Hearing including classified materials heard and viewed in camera, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated below, Petitioner's Application for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 203] must be denied. I. BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 1]. In 2009, Petitioner was cleared for release by President Obama 's Guantanamo Review TaskForce [Dkt. Nos. 152, 172]. After five years, and as of this writing, he still remains held at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
To protest his continued confinement, Mr. Dhiab, along with other detainees, has intermittently engaged in a hunger strike since March or April of20 13. On June 30, 2013, Petitioner filed an Application for a Preliminary Injunction ("2013 Application") [Dkt. No. 175]. In the 2013 Application, Petitioner sought to enjoin the Government from "subjecting petitioners to forcefeeding ofany kind, including forcible nasogastric tube feeding, and from administering medications related to force-feeding without the petitioners' consent." 2013 Application at 1.
On July 8, 2013, the Court denied Petitioner's Application for lack of jurisdiction. Memorandum Order [Dkt. No. 183] and on August 29, 2013, the Court denied Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of that Memorandum Order [Dkt. No. 192].
-2-

On February 11, 2014, our Court ofAppeals affirmed the denial, but found that the Court did, in fact, have jurisdiction over Petitioner's challenge to the conditions of his confinement. Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1028-306 (D.C. Cir. 2014).2
On April18, 2014, Petitioner filed his second Application for Preliminary Injunction ("20 14 Application"). [Dkt. Nos. 203, 204 (sealed); 226-1 (unsealed exhibit)]. The Court then set a Motion Hearing on the 2014 Application for May 21, 2014. That hearing was converted to a Status Conference in order to resolve various discovery disputes that had arisen [Dkt. No. 221]. After the Status Conference, the Court ordered Respondents to produce certain items to Petitioner, including medical records and videotapes recording Mr. Dhiab's Forcible Cell Extractions and subsequent enteral feedings [Dkt. No. 225]. II. CURRENT STATUS OF PETITIONER'S POSITION
Petitioner no longer seeks to enjoin all force-feeding; rather, he seeks to enjoin several practices and protocols allegedly involved in the force-feeding process. See Proposed Order [Dkt. No. 203-10]; Statement of Claims Asserted and Relief Requested [Dkt. No. 304]. The list of practices Petitioner contests has changed significantly since he initially filed his Second Application for a Preliminary Injunction on April28, 2014. On August 14, 2014, in order to clarify the scope of Petitioner's challenge, the Court ordered Petitioner to submit a briefstatement ofthe claims pursued and relief sought under his Application. [Dkt. No. 304V
2 In Aamer, the Court of Appeals consolidated Mr. Dhiab's appeal with those of two other Guantanamo Bay detainees: Ahmed Belbacha and Shaker Aamer.
3 In addition to the practices cited in his Statement ofClaims Asserted and ReliefRequested, Petitioner initially sought to enjoin "genital searches in connection with enteral feeding[,]" the use of enteral feeding more than once per day, the use of feeding tubes larger than size 10 French, and
(continued ... ) -3-

On August 18, 2014, Petitioner filed his Statement clarifying his objection to the following
practices:
Use of Forcible Cell Extraction or a Five Point Restraint Chair to transport Mr. Dhiab to or from force-feedings when he is willing to go compliantly;
Denial ofthe use of either a wheelchair or crutches to go to and from force-feedings;·
Use of the Five Point Restraint Chair during force-feedings;
Insertion and withdrawal of the nasogastric feeding tube on a daily or twice-daily basis instead of leaving the tube in place between feedings;4
Vesting senior, non-medical military personnel,rather than physicians, with the final authority to determine whether detainees are force-fed; and
Force feeding detainees before they are in imminent risk of death or great bodily injury [Dkt. No. 307V
However, by the time of the hearing itself, Petitioner's requests had narrowed significantly
and the Government had taken several positive actions which responded to his complaints. Those
changes were:
\ ..continued) treatment intended to induce vomiting or defecation during the enteral-feeding process. See Pet'r's Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. No. 203]; Proposed Order [Dkt. No. 203-10]. Because Petitioner did not raise these issues in his Statement of Claims Asserted and Relief Requested [Dkt. No. 307], the Court does not reach them.
4 In his Statement of Claims Asserted, Petitioner did not specifically raise the practice of using auscultation, see infra. pp. 12-13, to confirm nasogatric tube placement. However, because Petitioner raised the issue in his April 2014 Application for Preliminary Injunction, presented evidence on the practice at the Hearing, and both parties addressed the practice in their Post-Hearing Briefs, the Court will reach that issue.
5 In his Statement of Claims Asserted, Petitioner also objected to the use of "rapid bolus force-feeding." However, Petitioner did not discuss the issue in his Post-Hearing Brief, nor did he present evidence on the subject at the Hearing. Consequently, the Court need not address that issue.
-4-

First, Mr. Dhiab made it clear that he did not want to die. Second, he agreed to comply with the force-feeding procedure if he could use a wheelchair to get to the room in which feedings were given. Third, the Government entered a Medical Order allowing Petitioner to use a wheelchair to go for his enteral feedings that, the Government represents, will remain in effect until September 1, 2015. Resp'ts' Ex. 33 at 3; Hr'g Tr. 52, Oct. 8, 2014. Fourth, the Government stopped using olive oil for the insertion of nasogastric tubes and changed to a different lubricant.6 Fifth, the Government represented that there would be no Forcible Cell Extraction as long as Mr. Dhiab continued to walk from his cell to the wheelchair only a few steps away, used the wheelchair to go to the room in which the feedings were given, and was compliant with the feedings. In short, many of the significant requests he had made in his Application were no longer subject to disagreement. The claims which now remain in dispute are:
First, whether the nasogastric tube should be left in place for at least three days rather than be inserted twice a day; Second, whether the method of auscultation should not be used to ensure that the nasogastric tube has been properly inserted into Mr. Dhiab's stomach rather than his lungs; Third, whether the Five Point Restraint Chair should not be used during forcefeeding; Fourth, whether current protocols lead to force-feeding before there is an immanent risk of death or serious physical injury; and
6 Notably, Petitioner did not raise his challenge to the use of olive oil as a lubricant until the Hearing itself, long after the Government had ceased the practice. Hr'g' Tr. 1.0, Oct. 6, 2014; Pet'r's Br. at 19-20.
-5-

Fifth, whether non-medical military personnel should not be the final authority over whether detainees should be force fed.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Our Court of Appeals has recently acknowledged that "challenges to conditions of confinement [of detainees at Guantanamo Bay] can prop~rly 'be raised in a federal habeas petition
under [28 U.S.C.] section2241[.]" Hatim v. Obama, 760 F.3d 54,58 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (reh'g denied
(D.C. Cir. No. 13-5218))(quotingAamer, 742 F.3dat 1030, 1038). Accordingly, it is now clear that
the Court has jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's claims. Id.7
B. Requirements for Granting a Preliminary Injunction
It has long been established that preliminary injunctions are "an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." In re Navy
Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d 1171, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)); see also Chaplaincy ofFull Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290,
7 In its Opposition to Petitioner's Application for a Preliminary Injunction, filed months before the Hearing, the Government argued that Petitioner did not have standing to pursue his claims because, inter alia, he was not at that time approved for enteral feeding. Resp'ts' Opp'n at 20. Thus, the Government argued, Mr. Dhiab "cannot claim any current actual or imminent injury traceable to Respondents' enteral feeding policies." Id. Precisely one week after the Government made that statement to the Court, it resumed Mr. Dhiab's force-feedings. Resp'ts' Ex. 34 at 6.
The Government also argued that Mr. Dhiab lacked standing because he did not claim to have ever been subjected to many ofthe practices he then sought to challenge. Resp'ts' Opp'n at 20. As already noted, the scope ofMr. Dhiab's claims has narrowed since the submission ofRespondents' Opposition. See Statement of Claims Asserted and Relief Requested [Dkt. No. 307]. The government does not repeat its standing argument in its Post-Hearing Brief. The Court is satisfied that Petitioner has adequately put forth the facts necessary to maintain the claims he pursues at this stage. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (discussing factual showing required to demonstrate standing in pleadings and at summary judgement).
-6-

297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting that preliminary injunction is an "'extraordinary remedy that should ne granted only when the party seeking the relief, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion"') (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004))).
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted; (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction. Chaplaincy ofFull Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
The "first and most important factor" is whether Petitioner has "established a likelihood of success on the merits." Aamer, 742 F.3d at 1038. "[I]t remains an open question [in this Circuit] whether the 'likelihood ofsuccess' factor is 'an independent, free-standing requirement,' or whether, in cases where the other three factors strongly favor issuing an injunction, a plaintiffneed only raise a 'serious legal question' on the merits." Id. at 1043-44 (quoting Sherleyv. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 393, 398 (D.C. Cir. 2011)); see also Davis v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291-92 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (discussing but not deciding whether Winter, 555 U.S. at 7 abrogated the "sliding scale" standard, which, following "an unusually strong showing on one of the factors," permitted movants to make a lesser showing on other factors).
It is clear, however, that "failure to show any irreparable harm is ... grounds for refusing to issue a preliminary injunction even ifthe other three factors entering the calculus merit such relief." Chaplaincy, 454 F.3d at 297 (internal citation omitted). Our Court of Appeals has "set a high standard for irreparable injury," requiring that it be "both certain and great" and that the alleged harm is "actual and not theoretical." Id. at 297 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
-7-

Finally, this Court is well aware that the courts "traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs." Munafv. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008) (quoting Department ofNayy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530 (1988)). Courts "give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance ofaparticularmilitaryinterest." Al-Adahi v. Obama, 596 F. Supp. 2d 111, 116 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24).
C. Standard of Proof In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-106 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that in assessing whether the government has met its obligation to provide medical care for those whom it incarcerates, "a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Id. at 105. Estelle requires prisoners challenging the adequacy of medical care to show "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Id. at 106. The medical need must be "objectively, sufficiently serious[,]" and the official denying care must have a "sufficiently culpable state ofmind" to demonstrate "deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioner argues that it is Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), not Estelle, that applies. Turner established the standard for constitutional challenges to prison regulations and. held that "when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Id. (emphasis added). However, Petitioner has failed to identify any constitutional right or rights offended by the challenged practices. Thus, in effect, he is challenging the day to day procedures that the medical staff at Guantanamo Bay use
-8-

to carry out their mission, rather than making a constitutional challenge as Turner requires. Indeed, Petitioner has failed to offer any legal authority where a court has relied on the Turner analysis to question the procedures used to force-feed hunger-striking prisoners. The Government cites numerous cases that rely on Estelle. Resp'ts' Br. at 4-7.
Petitioner also argues that the very recent Hatim case from our Court ofAppeals supports his position, but that is simply not accurate. Hatim, 760 F.3d at 54. Hatim had absolutely nothing to do with medical care ofprisoners, and is distinguishable on that basis alone. Id. Moreover, since the petitioner in that case was making the requisite constitutional challenge under Turner-- claiming violation ofhis Sixth Amendment right to have access to counsel -- the Court did not even mention Estelle or the "deliberate indifference" standard.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the appropriate standard to be applied is that enunciated in Estelle v. Gamble and will now turn to the merits of Petitioner's Motion. IV. THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S REMAINING CLAIMS
A. Insertion of the Nasogastric Tube Petitioner challenges the Government's practice of inserting and removing the nasogastric tube each time he is force-fed. He argues that daily reinsertion ofthe tube causes him needless pain, creates the possibility of infection, and increases the risk that the tube will be placed into his lung rather than his stomach. Pet'r's Br. at 22 (citing Pet'r's Ex. 25 at~~ 3(d), 8(a)). At one point, Petitioner cites medical literature and his experts' testimony, claiming that nasogastric tubes may be left in place for as long as four weeks without harm. Pet'r's Br. at 23 (citing Pet'r's Ex. 32, Hr'g Tr. 61, Oct. 6, 2014; Hr'g Tr. 50, Oct. 7, 2014). He requests that, at the very least, the tube be left in for three days. Hr'g Tr. 12, Oct. 6, 2014.
-9-

In opposing Petitioner's position, the Government relies on the affidavit ofa Senior Medical Officer at Guantanamo Bay and medical literature to establish that removal of the nasogastric tube after each feeding is common in detention settings. Resp'ts' Ex. 2 at~ 24; Resp'ts' Ex. 27 at 133; see also White v. Suneja, 2013 WL 1144466 at *3 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2013) ("[D]aily feeding tube changes are common practice for inmates who are otherwise able to dislodge their own tubes."). Contrary to the testimony of Petitioner's expert, affidavits from the military medical officers assert that the risk ofinfection decreases, rather than increases, with daily removal. Resp'ts' Ex. 2 at~ 24; Resp'ts' Ex. 4 at 2-4; Resp'ts' Ex. 13 at 2-3.
The GovefQillent also persuasively detailed the complications that had resulted from allowing hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay to keep their nasogastric tubes in place between feedings, including use of the tubes to purge recently force fed nutrients, ear, nose, and throat problems, and manipulation and destruction ofthe feeding tubes. Resp'ts' Ex. 10 at~ 18; Resp'ts' Ex. 11 at~ 12.
The Government's Medical Officers stated that tube removal after each enteral feeding reduces the risk of infection inherent in keeping a foreign object in place in the body. Resp'ts' Ex. 2 at~ 24; Ex. 4 at 2-4; Ex. 13 at 2-3. In 2005, when the medical staff was managing a large scale hunger strike, the nasogastric tubes were kept in place for longer periods of time. See Resp'ts' Ex. 11 at 3-5, 8, 12; Ex. 13 at 3. That policy led to increased incidence of security breaches and violence, including attacks onthe medical staff at Guantanamo Bay, and was ultimately changed. Resp'ts' Ex. 9 at 4-5, 8-9; Ex. 11 at 15-16. See Resp'ts' Ex. 4 at 4; Ex. 13 at 13. Indeed, one detainee bit his feeding tube in half which resulted in endoscopic removal of the portion still in his stomach. Moreover, the length of tube that would have to remain in place for the longer period of time requested by Petitioner would be sufficient for a detainee to asphyxiate himself or other
-10-

detainees. See Resp'ts' Ex. 4 at 4; Ex. 13 at 3. That policy led to increased incidences of security incidents and violence, including attacks on the medical staffat Guantanamo Bay and was ultimately changed. See Resp'ts' Ex. 9 at 4-5, 8-9; Ex. 11 at 15-16. See Resp'ts' Ex. 4 at 4; Ex. 13 at 3.
One ofthe Petitioner's own experts, Dr. Crosby, admitted in her testimony that if a detainee was psychotic, combative, suicidal, or generally causing risk to himselfor others, removing the tube between feedings would be appropriate and safer. Hr'g Tr. 61, Oct. 6, 2014.
Finally, the experience of Petitioner's experts was limited to inserting nasogastric tubes in compliant patients in a traditional hospital setting. In such an accommodating setting, they testified that tubes may safely remain in place for a longer period of time if medically appropriate. Their testimony denying that the insertion and removal of the tube between feedings is appropriate in the context of treating hunger striking detainees was unpersuasive.
As to the existence of pain, the evidence produced at the Hearing regarding pain was very mixed. The Government produced highly credible evidence that enteral feeding is rarely painful. Resp'ts' Ex. 4 at 3, 6-7; Resp'ts' Ex. 13 at 2-4; Resp'ts' Ex. 26 at 7.8 Indeed, Petitioner's experts did not disagree. Hr'g Tr. 83-89, Oct. 6, 2014; Hr'g Tr. 54, Oct. 7, 2014. Furthermore, there is evidence in the record, including Mr. Dhiab's medical chart, that he often tolerates the procedure without complaints of pain or significant discomfort. See~, Resp'ts' Ex. 5 at~ 12; Resp'ts' Ex. 34 at 1-13. There are also entries in the medical records that he has complained of pain and nasal bleeding because ofthe tube insertions. Pet'r's Ex. PX050 at 224, 248. Yet these isolated incidents are not enough to show that the practice ofdaily insertion rises to the level ofdeliberate indifference.
8 The current Senior Medical Officer stated in an affidavit that when he began his stint at Guantanamo Bay, he personally subjected himself to the insertion procedures and did not find it painful. See Resp'ts' Ex. 4 at 3, 6-7.
-11-

a method to confirm the proper placement ofnasogastric tubes. See Resp'ts' Ex. 22 at 260; Resp'ts' Ex. 24 at 1-2; Resp'ts' Ex. 25 at 1; Resp'ts' Ex. 26 at 12; Resp'ts' Ex. 27 at 132. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Myles, in discussing his objections to use of auscultation, also never mentioned the additional water test that medical staff at Guantanamo Bay use to confirm the proper placement of the tube.
It is true that the immediate past SMO has admitted that "auscultation is not the preferred method in the medical community," and "the use of a chest x-ray ... is the standard in the medical community." Resp'ts' Ex. 2A at~23; see also Hr'g Tr. 66, Oct. 7, 2014). However, he justified the use ofthe auscultation instead ofx-rays because the latter "presents a risk to patients in the form of exposure to radiation, which would not be tenable for long term enteral feeding patients at Guantanamo who are enterally fed one to two times daily over a period ofmany years." Resp'ts' Ex. 2A at~ 23. Given the problems that Guantanamo Bay staff have been presented with in terms of leaving the nasogastric tube in for longer periods of time, the fact that medical staff has chosen to insert the tube twice a day makes it impossible to use a chest x-ray which, it must be remembered, Dr. Myles was recommending in the compliant civilian medical community, not within the context of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
For these reasons, the Court cannot find the staff at Guantanamo Bay exhibited deliberate indifference in using the auscultation procedure to protect detainees from improper placement ofthe nasogastric tube.
C. Use of Five Point Restraint Chair Use ofthe Five Point Restraint Chair is standard operating procedure at Guantanamo Bay for all enteral feedings. Resp'ts' Ex. 19A at 38-66. Mr. Dhiab, who suffers back pain from a long-ago automobile accident, complains that the Five Point Restraint Chair severely worsens that pain, and
-13-

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to show any deliberate indifference on the Government's part as to the insertion and withdrawal ofthe nasogastric tube, and has failed to show that continued daily insertion would lead to irreparable harm.
B. Use of Auscultation Petitioner criticizes the use of auscultation, a procedure to ensure that the nasogastric tube is properly pushed into the stomach, rather than the lungs. Auscultation involves pushing a small amount ofair through the nasogastric tube while medical stafflisten for bubbles with a stethoscope. The sound of bubbles indicates placement in the stomach rather than the lungs. During placement, medical staff also injects small amounts of water into the feeding tube so that if it has been misplaced into the lungs instead ofthe stomach, the water will trigger a cough and alert medical staff to the misplacement. Petitioner argues, through the testimony of his experts, that an x-ray would be far more reliable to ensure that the tube had not been misplaced. Pet'r' s Br. at 26-27 (citing Hr' g. Tr. 49-50, 66 (Oct. 7, 2014)). The Government responds that daily or twice daily x-rays would expose Mr. Dhiab to unsafe levels of radiation. Petitioner's answer is to leave.the nasogastric tube in place for several weeks, obviating the risk of frequent x-rays. The Government also provides evidence that auscultation is an acceptable method for confirming nasogastric tube placement. Resp'ts' Ex. 22 at 260; Resp'ts' Ex. 24 at 1-2; Resp'ts' Ex. 26 at 12; Resp'ts' Ex. 27 at 132. Petitioner's expert witness contended that while there had once been disagreement among the medical community as to the appropriateness ofauscultation, the issue had been resolved against that procedure. Hr'g Tr. 66, Oct. 7, 2014. However, the Government presented evidence from respected medical authorities, including children's hospitals, recommending use of auscultation as
-12-

that he wants to be fed while being restrained with only a single-point restraint on his wrist or ankle. Pet's Ex. 50 at 250; Statement of Claims [Dkt. No. 307].
The Government rests its use of the Five Point Restraint Chair on a number of reasons: (1) to properly position and stabilize detainees during insertion ofthe nasogastric tube; (2) to ensure the proper amount of food is fed to detainees and not vomited during or immediately after the forcefeeding; and (3) to keep the guard staff, as well as the medical staff, safe from physical retaliation. Resp'ts' Ex. 2 at~ 30; Resp'ts' Ex. 6 at ~~12-13; Resp'ts' Ex. 8 at 2.
The Government contends that the Restraint Chair is ergonomically designed, that the seat and back are padded, that the restraint straps secure detainees safely, and that Mr. Dhiab remains in the restraint chair only during the period necessary for his enteral feeding. While the duration of a feeding varies,9 the Court notes that there are times when Mr. Dhiab's enteral feeding took close to two hours because he was talking with other detainees who are being fed. See Hr'g Tr. 23, Oct. 6, 2014.
The Government justifies its use ofthe Restraint Chair by noting that in the past, there have been attacks on both medical and guard staff during use ofthe one-point Restraint Chair Mr. Dhiab requests. In particular, Mr. Dhiab himself has a history of violent and disruptive behavior. The Government states that since April1, 2014, Mr. Dhiab has engaged in numerous physical assaults, threats of murder, throwing feces and vomit at guards, and physically striking and kicking medical and guard staff. See Resp'ts' Ex. 14 at~ 4 and Resp'ts' Ex. 1 at 274, 879.
9 The time for his feedings varies from just a few minutes to over two hours. Resp'ts' Ex. 34.
-14-

Mr. Dhiab asks that his enteral feedings take place in the camp's "media space" because, since 2013, six other, hunger-striking detainees have been re.ceiving their force-feedings in that area, using only a One Point Restraint Chair. As to them, the Government explained that it had modified the force-feeding protocol for them in particular in an effort to encourage them to improve their eating habits and overall health since they had been part of a long-term, non-religious fasting since 2007 and were fully compliant with the feedings. Resp'ts' Ex. 2 at,; 30; Resp'ts' Ex. 6 at,; 14 Resp'ts' Ex. 8 at 2.
This Court has been asked before to evaluate the propriety of the Government's Restraint Chair policy. See Al-Adahi v. Obama, 596 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D.D.C. 2009). As the Court noted in Al-Adahi, "[r]esolution of this issue requires the exercise of penal and medical discretion by staff with the appropriate expertise, and is precisely the type of question that federal courts, lacking that expertise, leave to the discretion ofthose who do possess such expertise." Id. at 122. Furthermore, the Government has provided evidence that in 2005, it did consider and experiment with lessrestrictive options, but discontinued them because of instances of resistance and assaults against staff. Resp'ts' Ex. 9 at,;,; 4-5, 8-9.
While the Court has no doubt that at times Mr. Dhiab has found the chair to be extremely uncomfortable, there is simply no evidence that the Government uses the Five Point Restraint Chair-which is used for all hunger-striking detainees--in order to deliberately cause him pain or suffering. For all these reasons, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part of the Government.
-15-

D. Final Authority .to Allow Forced-Feeding Petitioner claims that the Government inappropriately vests non-medical officials with the right to determine whether a particular detainee should be force-fed. Pet'r's Br. at 27 (citing Resp. Ex. 19A at 38-4(a) (SOP No. 38, section 38-4(a): "Commander, Joint Task Force is the approval authority for enteral feeding of detainees.")). He argues that only a physician should have the authority to determine whether force-feeding is appropriate, although he does not contend that he has been force-fed any time without a physician's recommendation.10 To the extent Petitioner believes the standard operating procedures ("SOPs") at Guantanamo Bay put him at risk ofbeing force-fed without a prior determination ofmedical necessity, he simply misreads the regulations governing enteral feeding. It is correct that under SOP 1, the JTF-GTMO Commander's approval is a necessary final step before a detainee may be approved for force-feeding. However, the recommendation for enteral feeding must originate with a physician or physician's assistant and must be approved by the Senior Medical Officer before it even reaches the JTF Commander. Resp'ts' Ex. 17A at~ III. L. DOD Instruction 231 0.08E, which applies to the care of detainees at all DOD facilities, confirms the necessity of a medical determination: "[i]n the case of a hunger strike ... medical treatment may be directed without the consent of the detainee to prevent death or serious harm ... such action must be based on a medical determination that immediate treatment or intervention is necessary to. prevent death or serious harm." Resp'ts' Ex. 21 at 5 (emphasis added). Finally, SOP 1 permits medical officers to "perform ... emergent actions deemed medically necessary to preserve
10 Petitioner produced no testimony that any force-feeding has ever taken place without medical approval.
-16-

life and health" without the Commander's approval, thus, avoiding the possibility that the procedural hurdle of the JTF Commander's approval could unreasonably delay emergency care. Resp'ts' Ex. 17 at~ II. D.
Petitioner's claim rests upon the mistaken belief that current Guantanamo Bay protocols permit force-feeding without a medical officer's approval. Accordingly, it is perfectly clear that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
E. Forced-Feeding in the Absence of Imminent Risk The parties agree that JFT-GTMO officials cannot lawfully force-feed a detainee unless he is in imminent risk ofdeath or great bodily injury. Pet'r's Br. at 5 (citingAamer, 742 F.2d at 1041); Resp'ts' Br. at 8 (citing DOD Instruction 2310.08E). Petitioner argues, however, that the SOPs in force at Guantanamo Bay, as written, authorize the force-feeding of detainees who are not at imminent risk. He believes that he has been unlawfully force-fed when he was not in imminent risk of death or great bodily injury. Petitioner relies on SOP No. 1, which, according to him, "states that the detainee may be force-fed ifany ofthe following conditions exist: (1) he weighs less than 85 percent ofhis so-called 'ideal body weight' (IBW), (2) he has lost more than a specified percentage of his 'usual body weight,' (3) he has sustained weight loss 'associated with evidence ofdeleterious health effects,' (4) he has a 'pre-existing co-morbidity' such as high blood pressure, or (5) he has had a 'prolonged period of weight loss."' Pet'r's Br. at 6 (citing Pet'r's Ex. 7 at 2-3). However, Petitioner is not correct that a finding that a detainee weighs less than 85 percent of his so called "ideal body weight" automatically triggers the imposition of forced-feeding. The criteria Petitioner cites are merely definitions of"clinically significant weight loss." Pet'r's Ex. 7 at
-17-

2-5. A finding of "clinically significant weight loss" does not lead inexorably to force-feeding; rather, such a finding simply triggers further medical review. Id. SOP 1 makes clear that whether "continued fasting results in a threat to [a detainee's life] or seriously jeopardizes his health" does not tum on a rigid consideration of weight alone. Id. Rather, weight is only a threshold issue in making a final determination. 11
Petitioner also challenges the Government's May 13, 2014 decision to resume his force-feedings. He believes that the medical determination leading to his ongoing force-feeding was made solely on the basis ofhis body weight. Pet'r's Br. at 9-12. Moreover, according to Petitioner, the Government relied on faulty body-weight data. Id. Finally, Petitioner contends that the Government's body-weight-based decision was irrational because his weight was nearly the same when the Government stopped force-feeding him in October of 2013 (156.6 pounds) as when it resumed his force-feedings in May of2014 (155.5 pounds). Id. at 12.
An affidavit of the Senior Medical Officer (SMO) who made the May 13, 2014, determination that the resumption offorce-feeding was medically appropriate stated that Mr. Dhiab' s weight was just one ofmany factors considered. From April3, 2014, to May 13,2014, Mr. Dhiab's weight declined by over eight pounds; he had not eaten substantial amounts offood for over 20 days; he was showing physical manifestations ofclinical malnutrition in the form ofmuscle weakness; and he had made it clear that he would continue to refuse to eat and hydrate voluntarily. Resp'ts' Ex. 5 at ~ 6. Making it even more difficult for the staff to make an accurate determination of his situation, Mr. Dhiab "was refusing all diagnostic examinations." Id.
11 DOD Instruction 231 0.08E also confirms that "a medical determination that immediate treatment or intervention is necessary to prevent death or serious harm" is required to begin force-feeding. Resp'ts' Ex. 21 at 5.
-18-

Petitioner argues that the Government is wrongly using 85 percent of ideal body weight as a threshold for force-feeding. This argument is not convincing. Petitioner's expert witnesses presented their opinions regarding the appropriateness of using the percentage of 85 percent as a threshold. While that learned testimony was very interesting, it did not establish that the Government's reliance on the 85 percent number as a threshold indicator was erroneous. Nor was it proven in any way that by using that percentage, the Government was deliberately showing indifference to Petitioner's physical condition. Quite the contrary. The medical staffwas monitoring Mr. Dhiab closely during the period in question, even though Mr. Dhiab was refusing to cooperate with medical staff, was refusing lab tests and examinations, and was showing clinical signs of malnutrition. Even Dr. Crosby, one of Petitioner's expert witnesses, described his medical condition as "very complicated" and a "very complex case, even for senior doctors." See Hr'g Tr. 4, Oct. 6, 2014.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part of the Government. V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the Petitioner's Application for a Preliminary Injunction must be denied because he has failed to satisfy the "deliberate indifference" standard of proof. As the Court of Appeals stated in Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. HUD, 639 F.3d 1078, 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2011), "when a plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, we need not consider the other factors [required for a preliminary injunction]."
-19-

Having reached this conclusion, the Court feels constrained to make certain comments about the Government's treatment ofMr. Dhiab. It is very hard to understand why the Government refused to give Mr. Dhiab access to the wheelchair and/or crutches that he needed in order to walk to the room for enteral feedings. 12 Had that simple step been taken, numerous painful and humiliating forced cell extractions could have been avoided. While the Government ultimately--but only a short time before the hearing--allowed Mr. Dhiab to use the wheelchair, thereby inducing him to comply with the force- feeding as he had agreed to do, common sense and compassion should have dictated a much earlier result. By the same token, the Government refused Mr. Dhiab's request to provide him with an additional mattress. What could more reasonable than providing an additional mattress to a man with back pain so severe that he was given morphine to alleviate it?
Mr. Dhiab is clearly a very sick, depressed, and desperate man. It is hard for those of us in the Continental United States to fully understand his situation and the atmosphere at Guantanamo Bay. He has been cleared for release since 2009 and one can only hope that that release will take place shortly.
November 7, 2014
Copies via ECF to all counsel of record
12 The Court understands full well that the medical staff at Guantanamo Bay could not reach a conclusion as to what, if any, medical problem was interfering with Mr. Dhiab's walking.
-20-

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 383 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 1

~nit£~ ~tah~s Qluurt nf J\pprals
fOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 14-5276
Jihad Dhiab, Detainee, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station,
Appellant
Shaker Aamer, as Next Friend of Jihad Dhaib,
Appellee
v.
Barack Obama, President of the United States, et al.,
Appellees

September Term, 2014
1 :05-cv-01457-GK Filed On: March 9, 2015

BEFORE: Henderson, Srinivasan, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal as moot and to vacate the district court's memorandum opinion and order, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted and that this appeal be dismissed as moot in light of appellant's transfer from the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The district court's November 7, 2014, Memorandum Opinion and Order, as amended on January 20, 2015, are hereby vacated. See American Bar Ass'n v. FTC, 636 F.3d 641,648-49 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Pursuant to D. C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to issue forthwith to the district court a certified copy of this order in lieu of formal mandate.

Per Curiam

Atruecopy -

United States Court of Appeals for~mbla Circuli

By

·

Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 385 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 1

~nit:W ~tales Oinurt nf ffl~als
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 14-5299
Jihad Dhiab, Detainee, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station and Shaker Aamer, as Next Friend of Jihad Dhiab,
Appellees v. Barack Obama, President of the United States, et al.,
Appellants Hearst Corporation, et al.,
Appellees

September Term, 2014
1 :05-cv-01457-GK Filed On: June 25, 2015

BEFORE: Garland, Chief Judge; Millett and Wilkins, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion of appellees Hearst Corporation, et al. for immediate issuance of the mandate for good cause shown, and the response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/ Ken Meadows Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 387 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JIHAD DHIAB, Petitioner,
v.
BARACK OBAMA, et al., Respondents.

Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK)

ORDER On October 3, 2014, this Court granted Intervenors' Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence [Dkt. No. 349]. On that date, the Court's Order required redaction of all identifiers of individuals in the videotapes, ordered counsel to work cooperatively to ensure that all necessary redaction of the videotapes would be made so that redacted versions could then be entered on the public docket, and ruled that the videotapes would remain sealed until all redactions were completed. On October 9, 2014, the Court issued a separate Order, which set specific dates for completion of the previously ordered redactions, directed the Intervenors and the Government to submit a Joint Proposal as to how the videotapes could be made available to the public in the most efficient manner; and once again ruled that the videotapes would remain under seal until the Court approved the Joint Proposal of the Intervenors and the Government [Dkt. No. 355]. On October 15, 2014, the Government filed a Motion to Stay Order[s] Unsealing Classified Videotapes Pending Possible Appeal and Request for an Administrative Stay [Dkt. No. 356] so that the Government could consider and decide whether to take an appeal from the Court's earlier

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 387 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 5
Orders. The Court granted the Motion and entered a stay on December 3, 2014 [Dkt. No. 378]. That same day, the Government filed its Notice of Appeal to our Court of Appeals [Dkt. No. 377].
On May 29, 2015, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Government's appeal was premature and, therefore, it lacked jurisdiction. Dhiab v. Obama, 787 F.3d 563, 567 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The Court of Appeals then remanded the case back to this Court and issued its Mandate on June 25, 2015 [Dkt. No. 385].
On July 9, 2015, this Court held a hearing with all parties to determine how the case should proceed. The Court made it clear that given the ruling of the Court of Appeals, this Court's earlier grant of Intervenors' Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence was still the law of the case as it was on October 3, 2014, when Parties were ordered to take certain specific steps.
At the lengthy hearing held July 9, 2015, the Parties spelled out their positions regarding how to proceed. All Parties at the hearing were formulating their positions about further proceedings in the case on the assumption that any future ruling by this Court would again be appealed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner urged that the Government make the appropriate redactions, as quickly as possible, of the Compilation he had prepared of those parts of the videotapes which Petitioner presented to this Court during the sealed portion of an earlier evidentiary hearing and believed would be relevant to the Court of Appeals. That Compilation is only approximately one hour and 15 minutes. The Intervenors suggested that the Government redact Petitioner's Compilation, the Government's Compilation, and the eight videotapes that the Government had identified for redaction. The Government agreed to redaction of the eight videotapes that it believed to be most important and relevant for the Court of Appeals, but did not agree to redaction of both Petitioner's Compilation and its own Compilation by August 31, 2015.
2

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 387 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 5
The Parties had very different views as to the date on which redactions should be completed. The Government's estimate of how long redaction of the videotapes would take has varied widely over the course of this case. In its October 15, 2014 Motion to Stay, the Government estimated that it would take "approximately 25 business days, or 5 weeks" to redact all 32 videotapes in accordance with the Court's redaction Order, "assuming there are no technical issues such as equipment breakdowns or interruption of work due to other court deadlines." Gov't's Mot. to Stay at 7. The Government supported this representation with a partially-redacted and very detailed affidavit explaining precisely why, "process[ing] three videos at a time, it w[ould] take approximately 25 business days[] to process all 32 videos[.]" Declaration of Navy Commander [REDACTED], Department of Defense Security Classification/Declassification Review Team at
ir 19 [Dkt. No. 356-2].
However, at the July 9, 2015 Status Conference, the Government substantially changed its previous position. The Government stated that it now believes it will need until August 31, 2015, slightly more than 7 weeks, to redact just eight of the 32 videos. In other words, the Government now says that it needs 37 business days to process only one quarter of the video tapes at issue. At its new rate, it would take the Government 148 days -- six times the period the Government itself initially stated -- to process the 32 videos that it had preyiously said could be redacted in just 25 business days.
The only thing consistent about the Government's position has been its constant plea for more time. However, as the Court learned at the Status Conference, the Government has failed, after having managed to stall for nine months by filing a truly frivolous Appeal with the Court of Appeals, to use the additional time it has already received. In the months since the Court ordered
3

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 387 Filed 07/10/15 Page 4 of 5
redaction and release of the 32 videotapes, the Government has made almost no progress in completing its redactions.
For all these reasons, and based on the Parties' arguments, as well as the Declaration of Navy Commander [REDACTED], the Court has concluded that the Government shall redact Petitioner's Compilation, the Government's Compilation, and the eight videotapes that the Government believes will present the best record for review by the Court of Appeals. Because the Government now believes that it can redact its eight videotapes by August 31, 2015, it shall be ordered do so. As already noted, Petitioner's Compilation is less than one hour and 15 minutes in length and the Government's Compilation is shorter still. Accordingly, the Governmt(nt shall have an additional month to complete the redaction of the Compilations.1 However, the Parties are on notice that there will be no extensions of time.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Government shall complete redaction of the eight videotapes it has identified and file Notice of such completion on or before August 31, 2015; and it is further ORDERED, that the Government shall complete redaction of Petitioner's Compilation and the Government's Compilation and file Notice of such completion on or before September 30, 2015; and it is further
1 The Government's new timeline requires 37 business days to redact one quarter of the 11 hours of footage contained on the 32 videotapes at issue in this case (about two hours and 45 minutes of footage). Thus, by its current estimation, the Government should be able to redact about one hour of footage every 13 and a half business days.
Of course, according to the Declaration ofNavy Commander [REDACTED], the Government's initial 25-day timeline indicated a redaction rate of just over two days per hour of additional footage. Deel. at ~ 19. Thus, the Government should have little difficulty redacting both Compilations by the end of September.
4

Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 387 Filed 07/10/15 Page 5 of 5
ORDERED, that the Parties shall appear for a Status Conference on October 15, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

July 10, 2015 Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF

~'~~ .

4----~./

GldysKeSS

United States District Judge

5

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01457-GK Document 407 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABU WA'EL (JIHAD) DHIAB,

Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK)

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER On May 29, 2015, the Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion, remanded the case to this Court for "an opportunity to consider the supplemental declarations that the Government submitted in support of its Motion to Stay." After the Mandate was issued by the Court ofAppeals on June 25, 2015 [Dkt. No. 385], the Government moved for reconsideration of this Court's October 3, 2014, Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Motion of Press-Intervenors to Unseal Videotape Evidence [Dkt. No. 388]. Upon consideration ofthe Motion, the Oppositions by Petitioner and Press-Intervenors, and the Government's Reply, as well as the declarations submitted by the Government, it is this 27th day of October, 2015, hereby ORDERED, that the Government's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

G~~
Gladys~ 1
United States District Judge
Copies via ECF to all counsel of record

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABU WA'EL (JIHAD) DHIAB,

. .

Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK)

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 3, 2014, this Court issued a decision to grant, with specified conditions, the

Motion ofPress-Intervenors to Unseal Videotape Evidence consisting ofrecent classified videotapes

of forcible cell extraction and force feeding of Petitioner Dhiab, who had been detained for more

than 12 years at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay [Dkt. No. 349]. On October 15,

2014, the Government filed a Motion to Stay that ruling, accompanied by two additional declarations

in support ofthe Motion [Dkt. No. 356], only one ofwhich related to harm the Government believed

would result from unsealing the tapes. On November 7, 2014, the Court granted the Government's

Motion to Stay until midnight December 2, 2014 [Dkt. No. 367]. On November 10, 2014, the

Government filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals [Dkt. No. 368]. On December 2,

2014, the Government filed with this Court an Emergency Motion to Extend Stay of Orders

Unsealing Classified Videotapes Pending Final Resolution of Appeal [Dkt. No. 375], and filed two

additional declarations in support of its Emergency Motion. Redacted copies at Dkt. No. 375. On

December 3, 2014, this Court granted that Motion [Dkt. No. 378]. On December 5, 2014, the case

was transferred to the Court of Appeals as Case No. 14-5299.

On May 29, 2015, the Court of Appeals, in a per curiam Opinion, dismissed the appeal because this Court's Orders were not final orders over which the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction. In addition, it denied the request for a writ ofmandamus, and remanded the case back to this Court. In that Opinion, the Court of Appeals noted that the remand would give this Court "an opportunity to consider the supplemental declarations that the Government submitted in support of its motion to stay. When it ruled on the Intervenors' motion to unseal, the district court did not have an opportunity to consider those declarations which set out the harm associated with release of the videotapes in considerably more detail than the declarations the Government submitted in opposition to the initial motion." Dhiab v. Obama, 787 F.3d 563, 567 (D.C. Cir. 2015).1 The Mandate from the Court of Appeals was issued on June 25, 2015 [Dkt. No. 385].
On July 15, 2015, the Government moved for reconsideration ofthe Court's October 3, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order [Dkt. No. 388]. Both Petitioner and Press-Intervenors filed Oppositions [Dkt. Nos. 394, 396], and the Government filed its Reply on August 17, 2015 [Dkt. No. 397].
A. The Government Has Failed to Meet the Standard for Granting a Motion for Reconsideration
While the Government has not clearly identified the provisions ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which it is applying for reconsideration, the Court will assume that it is proceeding under Rule 54(b). Seep. 19, n. 4 of Mot. to Reconsider.
1 Since then, the Government has filed two more supplemental declarations. The Court has read and considered them carefully, including the classified portions, as well as the three original declarations submitted on October 15, 2014 and December 2, 2014. Redacted copies at Dkt. Nos.406, 391.
-2-

The law is clear and well established as to what the basic requirements are that must be satisfied in order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration. They are: "(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error oflaw in the first order." In re Guantanamo Detainee Litig., 706 F. Supp. 2d 120, 122-23 (D.D.C. 2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).
"A motion for reconsideration is not an 'opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled,' nor is it 'a vehicle for presenting theories or arguments that could have been advanced earlier.'" Gilmore v. Palestine Interim Self-Government Authority, 8 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting S.E.C. v. Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d 9, 14 (D.D.C. 2010)).
In addition, "the Supreme Court has cautioned that a Court should be 'loathe to do so [i.e., granting a motion for reconsideration] in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice."' Id. at 6 (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)).
Knowing full well that whatever decision this Court now files will find its way to the Court of Appeals because ofthe significance and complexity ofthe issues, and that there is need to obtain final rulings on those issues as soon as possible, the Court has chosen to be as brief and succinct as possible.
1. As to the first requirement for granting a motion for reconsideration, there has been no "intervening change in the law." Nor does the Government argue to the contrary.
2. As to the second requirement for granting a motion for reconsideration, there has been no discovery ofnew evidence that was "not previously available." The Government has offered no
-3-

explanation whatsoever as to why it could not have submitted the post-decision declarations in time for this Court to consider them before its initial ruling.
On June 20, 2014, Press-Intervenors filed their Motion to Unseal [Dkt. No. 263]. On June 23, 2014, the Court ordered any Opposition to that Motion to be filed no later than July 1, 2014. On June 26, 2014, the Court granted an unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to the Government to file its response to the Motion to Unseal by July 18, 2014 [Dkt. No. 272], and Press-Intervenors were given up to and including August 1, 2014, in which to file their Reply. Finally, on July 18, 2014, the Government did file its Opposition to the Motion to Unseal, along with the two unredacted declarations. [Dkt. No. 288].
Thus, after obtaining an extension of time from the Court, the Government received a total of 28 days in which to file its Opposition. In those 28 days, the Government could have filed a Motion for additional time in which to file additional declarations to support its Opposition to the Motion to Unseal. Moreover, when the Government did file its additional declarations, almost three months later, on October 15, 2014, they were in support of its Motion to Stay the Court's decision to grant the Motion to Unseal, not in support of its arguments on the merits.
In short, the Governrnent has proffered no information or justification as to why or how the new evidence it submitted after the Court ruled was "not previously available."
3. As to the third requirement for granting a motion for reconsideration, there has been no "clear error of law" for the following reasons.
a. The Governrnent's most emphatic argument is that no court has ever before, in any Guantanamo Bay habeas proceeding, allowed public disclosure ofclassified national security
-4-

information, in this case, the thirty-two videos classified as SECRET depicting Mr. Dhiab being
forcibly removed from his cell and forcibly fed against his will.
The simple answer to this argument is that no court has ever before, in any Guantanamo Bay
proceeding, refused to allow public disclosure of images of any kind, depicting detainees being
forcibly removed from their cells and forcibly fed against their will.2
As Judge Hogan pointed out in In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 624 F. Supp. 2d 27
(D.D.C. 2009), the "D.C. circuit has neither recognized nor rejected that the First Amendment
affords the public a right of access to civil proceedings. The Government interprets the D.C.
Circuit's silence as a denial of the right." Id. at 35. However, given that five "other circuits have
opined and uniformly held that the public has a First Amendment right ofaccess to civil proceedings
[such as habeas proceedings] and records," Judge Hogan concluded, and this Court agrees, that there
has been a long history in our country of public access to civil proceedings. Id. at 363
b. The Government also argues that the Court ignored "well established
precedent" regarding the Executive Branch's authority to classify national security information, and
2 It is true that another District Court in this Circuit, pursuant to the Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 522, declined to order release of several videotapes of a Guantanamo detainee being forcibly extracted from his cell. Int'l Counsel Bureau v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 906 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012). However, FOIA provides the Government with a significantly more lenient standard for denying release ofrecords than the First Amendment. Under FOIA, in order for the Government to withhold requested documents, "little proof or explanation is required beyond a plausible assertion that information is properly classified." Id. at 6 (quoting Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1124 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). By contrast, under the First Amendment, public access to judicial records is appropriate unless the Government demonstrates a "substantial probability" of harm to an "overriding interest," Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court ofCalifornia for Riverside Cnty., 478 U.S. 1, 10, 14 (1986), such as national security.
3 In dicta, the Supreme Court noted, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580, n.17 (1980), "that historically both civil and criminal trials have been presumptively open."
-5-

therefore, significant deference is owed to its determinations. What the Government is really saying is that its classification system trumps the decisions of the federal courts as to the public's access to official court records; in other words, the Executive Branch (in this case, the Military) purports to be a law unto itself.
Chief Justice John Marshall, long ago, in 1803, explained this concept far better than this Court ever could:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. . . . So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177-78, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). c. Aside from being repetitive,4 speculative, and extremely vague, the new declarations spend most of their time reciting examples of harassment and abuse of individual employees and military people working at Guantanamo Bay. There is no question that over those many years, there have been incidents where detainees have bit, hit, spit on, defecated on, urinated on and vomited on the hard-working people who serve at that facility. Guantanamo is, assuredly, not a desirable assignment. However, put in context there is no information provided in the new declarations about how often those events occur or whether they have caused serious bodily injury. Nor do the new declarations provide any concrete information or examples of particular incidents at Guantanamo Bay that have motivated extremist and/or insurgent groups to engage in violence
4 Some of that verbiage is almost identical to the original declarations. -6-

against United States personnel; the same is true as to the absence ofany information about detainees
developing countermeasures to the FCE tactics, techniques, and procedures used at Guantanamo Bay. 5
One particular example given in the declarations is flat out unbelievable, namely, that ifthe
videos are released, Mr. Dhiab's privacy would be invaded. Mr. Dhiab has already clearly stated,
in no uncertain terms, that "I want Americans to see what is going on at the prison today, so they will
understand why we are hunger-striking, and why the prison should be closed. If the American
people stand for freedom, they should watch these tapes. Ifthey truly believe in human rights, they
need to see these tapes."
d. The Court of Appeals in its Opinion gave this Court the "opportunity to
consider the supplemental declarations that the Government submitted in support of its motion for
a stay." Dhiab, 787 F.3d at 567. Having reviewed those new declarations in their entirety, the Court
concludes that they offer little, if any, additional factual support to the Government's Opposition to
unsealing the videotapes at issue. To put it bluntly, while the Government added a great deal more
5 It is true that the declarations did mention some specific instances where ISIL took actions containing Guantanamo Bay imagery in order to spread its anti-American propaganda to a global audience. However, when testifying before Congress recently, General John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, was asked if Guantanamo Bay is being used "by our enemies as a recruitment tool." He gave the following chilling answer:
Islamic terrorists are focused on doing us so much harm, not because of Guantanamo Bay or wherever we house these guys; it's really about us, as a people, as a country. . . . [T]hey don't need Guantanamo Bay to hate us.
Hearing to Receive Testimony on US. Northern Command and US. Southern Command in Review ofthe Def Authorization Requestfor Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Def Program Before the S. Comm. on ArmedServices, 113th Cong. 90-91 (2015), http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/ imo/media/doc/15-25%20-%203-12-15.pdf.
-7-

verbiage to the later declarations, its message remains the same. The declarations merely repeat the Government's fears and speculations "that release of the videos 'could (1) motivate extremist and insurgent groups to engage in violence against U.S. personnel; (2) lead to detainees developing countermeasures to FCE tactics, techniques and procedures; and (3) increase detainee resistance requiring more frequent FCEs," as well as invade the privacy of the men being detained at Guantanamo Bay. Govt.'s Reply in Support of Mot. for Reconsideration at 2 [Dkt. No. 397].
e. Finally, the importance of releasing the videotapes to the public in order to "enlighten the citizenry" and "improve perceptions of the proceeding's fairness," cannot be overstated. Dhiab v. Obama, 70 F. Supp. 3d 486, 495 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 728 (1971)). The detention and treatment for many years at Guantanamo Bay of individuals who have never been charged with a crime has been a burning, controversial issue in this country. From the beginning oftheir intervention in this case, Intervenors have emphasized the importance of their efforts to access the Court's videotapes6 in or,der to "evaluate the creditability" of Dhiab's allegations, to "assess the fairness" of his treatment "by the court," and to provide oversight of"the institutions of government." Dkt. 263-1 at 17-18.
Transparency about the actions of our government--including the judiciary--is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. This Court has found that the Government's justifications for barring the American public from seeing the videotapes are not sufficiently rational and plausible to justify barring release of the videotapes, which are part of the Court's official records, from the eyes and ears of the American public. As Justice Stewart.said in the Pentagon Papers case:
6 No objection was ever raised by the Government to including the videotapes in the record of the evidentiary hearing on Mr. Dhiab's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
-8-

In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may be in an enlightened citizenry -- in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can ... protect the values of democratic government.
New York Times Company v. United States, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 2148 (1971).
For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the Motion to Reconsider is denied.

October 27, 2015

Gla ·ys Kessl United States District Judge

Copies via ECF to all counsel of record

-9-

 
 USCA Case #14-5299 Document #1554796

Filed: 05/29/2015 Page 1 of 8

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 8, 2015

Decided May 29, 2015

No. 14-5299

JIHAD DHIAB, DETAINEE, GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION AND SHAKER AAMER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF JIHAD
DHIAB, APPELLEES

v.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPELLANTS

HEARST CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:05-cv-01457)

Catherine H. Dorsey, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Vincent H. Cohen, Jr., Acting U.S. Attorney, and Matthew M. Collette, Attorney.
David A. Schulz argued the cause for appellees Hearst Corporation, Inc., et al. With him on the brief was Matthew L. Schafer.

USCA Case #14-5299 Document #1554796

Filed: 05/29/2015 Page 2 of 8

2
Jon B. Eisenberg argued the cause for appellee Dhiab. With him on the brief were Lisa R. Jaskol, Cori Crider, Alka Pradhan, and Eric L. Lewis.
Ryan M. Keats was on the brief for amici curiae Constitutional Law Professors in support of appellees.
Rachel Levinson-Waldman was on the brief for amici curiae Brennan Center for Justice and Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of intervenors-appellees.
Hina Shamsi and Arthur B. Spitzer were on the brief for amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in support of intervenorsappellees.
Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, and MILLETT and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM: Abu Wa’el (Jihad) Dhiab was a detainee at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba until December 2014. During the course of his habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, Dhiab went on a hunger strike. Subsequently, he filed a motion asking the court to enjoin the government from forcibly extracting him from his cell and force-feeding him. In determining whether to grant the motion, the court examined 32 classified videotapes of Dhiab’s forcible cell extractions and force-feedings.
In June 2014, several news media organizations intervened in Dhiab’s habeas proceedings for the purpose of filing a motion to unseal and release the videotapes. Currently before us is the government’s appeal from the district court’s decision,

USCA Case #14-5299 Document #1554796

Filed: 05/29/2015 Page 3 of 8

3
effectuated in two orders, granting the media organizations’ motion with certain modifications. We cannot reach the merits of this appeal, however, because it is premature. The district court’s decision did not terminate the action, and it does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review it. Nor does this case present the extraordinary circumstances required to grant the government’s alternative request for a writ of mandamus.
I
Pursuant to statute, this court has “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A “‘final decisio[n]’ is typically one ‘by which a district court disassociates itself from a case.’” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42 (1995)). The “statute’s core application is to rulings that terminate an action.” Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897, 902 (2015) (citing Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)).
The district court’s two orders in this case plainly do not match that description. The first order granted the intervenors’ motion to unseal with the condition that “counsel shall work cooperatively . . . to ensure that all necessary redactions of the videotapes shall be made so that they may then be entered on the public docket.” Order at 2, Dhiab v. Obama, No. 05-1457 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 2014). The order further provided that “the videotapes shall remain sealed until all such redactions are made.” Id. The second order directed the parties to “submit a Joint Proposal regarding how the videotapes can be made available to the public most efficiently.” Order at 1, Dhiab v. Obama, No. 05-1457 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2014). It further provided

USCA Case #14-5299 Document #1554796

Filed: 05/29/2015 Page 4 of 8

4
that “the videotapes shall remain under seal until the Court has approved the Joint Proposal.” Id.
The government has not yet begun to make the redactions required by the district court, and no Joint Proposal has yet been prepared. At oral argument, the government and Dhiab agreed that it is likely that there will be disputes regarding the scope of the redactions once they are made, rendering further litigation over those disputes in the district court, and then on appeal, also likely. Oral Arg. Recording at 2:26-40; id. at 36:50-59; see Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 106 (recognizing that “[p]ermitting piecemeal, prejudgment appeals . . . undermines efficient judicial administration and encroaches upon the prerogatives of district court judges, who play a special role in managing ongoing litigation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, because the district court’s decision is not one that “‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment,’” it is not the kind of decision that typically falls within the meaning of § 1291. Gelboim, 135 S. Ct. at 902 (quoting Catlin, 324 U.S. at 233); see Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867 (1994)).
Nor does the decision fall within the collateral order doctrine, which holds that § 1291 “encompasses not only judgments that terminate an action, but also a small class of collateral rulings that, although they do not end the litigation, are appropriately deemed final.” Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 106 (internal quotation marks omitted). “That small category includes only decisions that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from the merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). At a minimum, the government has failed to satisfy the third requirement.

USCA Case #14-5299 Document #1554796

Filed: 05/29/2015 Page 5 of 8

5
The government maintains that the district court’s decision will be unreviewable on appeal because, by the time a final judgment is entered in the case, the videotapes will have been released and the “cat [will be] out of the bag.” Gov’t Br. 30 (quoting In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). But that is incorrect. As quoted above, the district court directed that “the videotapes shall remain sealed until all . . . redactions are made” and “until the Court has approved the Joint Proposal.” Hence, unless and until the district court approves the Joint Proposal and orders the unsealing and release of the redacted videotapes, the cat will remain comfortably in the bag. This is simply not a case in which the district court has already ordered disclosure of allegedly protected documents. Cf. Al Odah v. United States, 559 F.3d 539, 543-44 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (finding that an order “directing disclosure of . . . unredacted classified information” was “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment” because, “[o]nce the information is disclosed, the ‘cat is out of the bag’ and appellate review is futile” (quoting Papandreou, 139 F.3d at 251)).
Moreover, in light of the district court’s willingness to stay its interlocutory orders pending this appeal, we are confident that it would do so again with respect to an order directing the unsealing and release of the videotapes, or that it would at least grant a stay providing sufficient time for this court to act before the effective date of that order. If the district court does not do so, the government may, of course, apply to this court for an emergency stay pending appeal. Accordingly, the district court’s decision is not effectively unreviewable on appeal.
The government further contends that the district court’s decision is effectively unreviewable because, in the absence of an appeal, it will have to devote hundreds of hours of its employees’ labor to making the required redactions. But the Supreme Court has consistently declined to find litigation

USCA Case #14-5299 Document #1554796

Filed: 05/29/2015 Page 6 of 8

6
burdens sufficient to bring a case within the narrow scope of the collateral order doctrine. As the Court held in Mohawk Industries, “[t]hat a ruling ‘may burden litigants in ways that are only imperfectly reparable by appellate reversal of a final district court judgment . . . has never sufficed’” to satisfy the third requirement of the doctrine. 558 U.S. at 107 (quoting Digital Equip., 511 U.S. at 872); see, e.g., Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495, 499 (1989) (“‘[T]he possibility that a ruling may be erroneous and may impose additional litigation expense is not sufficient to set aside the finality requirement imposed by Congress’ in § 1291[.] Instead, we have insisted that the right asserted be one that is essentially destroyed if its vindication must be postponed until trial is completed.” (quoting Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 436 (1985))). Indeed, “[i]f the expense of litigation were a sufficient reason for granting an exception to the final judgment rule, the exception might well swallow the rule.” Richardson-Merrell, 472 U.S. at 436 (internal quotation marks omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to entertain the government’s interlocutory appeal. We further note that leaving this matter with the district court for the time being may have three salutary effects. First, it will give the district court an opportunity to consider whether the eight-day time frame it set for the redaction process is reasonable in light of the declaration the government subsequently filed concerning the complexity of the task, as well as the commitment Dhiab’s counsel made at oral argument to accommodate a request for more time. Second, it is possible that appropriate redactions will limit the scope of, or perhaps eliminate altogether, the government’s concerns over release of the videotapes. Finally, leaving the case in the district court will also give that court an opportunity to consider the supplemental declarations that the government submitted in support of its motion for a stay. When it ruled on the intervenors’ motion to

USCA Case #14-5299 Document #1554796

Filed: 05/29/2015 Page 7 of 8

7
unseal, the district court did not have an opportunity to consider those declarations, which set out the harm associated with release of the videotapes in considerably more detail than the declarations the government submitted in opposition to the initial motion.
II
We also conclude that the government’s alternative request for a writ of mandamus must be denied, for substantially the same reasons that we lack jurisdiction under § 1291. Mandamus is a “‘drastic and extraordinary’ remedy ‘reserved for really extraordinary causes.’” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (quoting Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (1947)). To qualify for a writ of mandamus, three conditions must be satisfied: “(1) the mandamus petitioner must have ‘no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires,’ (2) the mandamus petitioner must show that his right to the issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable,’ and (3) the court, ‘in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’” In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754, 760 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81).
As we have explained above, the government has another adequate means to prevent the release of the videotapes because it can appeal anew if the district court finally orders the videotapes unsealed and released. And just as the government’s desire to avoid litigation burdens is insufficient to bring the case within the scope of the collateral order doctrine, it is likewise insufficient to warrant mandamus. See In re Thornburgh, 869 F.2d 1503, 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953)). Under these circumstances, issuing a writ of mandamus would subvert the purpose of the no-other-adequate-means condition of

USCA Case #14-5299 Document #1554796

Filed: 05/29/2015 Page 8 of 8

8
mandamus, which is “designed to ensure that the writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81. And that is something we will not do.
III
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny the request for a writ of mandamus.
So ordered.

 
 United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 16-5011

September Term, 2016
FILED ON: MARCH 31, 2017

JIHAD DHIAB, DETAINEE, GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION AND SHAKER AAMER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF JIHAD DHIAB,
APPELLEES

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPELLANTS

HEARST CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES

Consolidated with 16-5012

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:05-cv-01457)
Before: ROGERS, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judges
J U D G M E N T
These causes came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and were argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in these causes be reversed and the intervenors’ cross-appeal about the extent of the redactions be dismissed as moot, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Ken Meadows Deputy Clerk
Date: March 31, 2017
Opinion for the court filed by Senior Circuit Judge Randolph, with whom Circuit Judge Rogers and Senior Circuit Judge William join except as to Part II. Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge Rogers. Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment filed by Senior Circuit Judge Williams.

 
 APPEAL,CLOSED,GITMO,HABEAS,STAYED,TYPE−G
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−01457−GK

DHIAB et al v. BUSH et al Assigned to: Judge Gladys Kessler Case in other court: USCA, 08−05277
USCA, 13−05276 USCA, 14−05276 USCA, 14−05299 USCA, 16−05011 USCA, 16−05012 Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa Petitioner

Date Filed: 07/22/2005 Date Terminated: 01/27/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 530 Prisoner Petition: General (Habeas Corpus) Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

JIHAD DHIAB Detainee, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station

represented by Alka Pradhan LEWIS BAACH KAUFMANN MIDDLEMISS PLLC 1101 New York Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 614−804−2561 Email: alka.pradhan@reprieve.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clive A. Staffordsmith REPRIEVE P.O. Box 72054 London EC3P 3BZ UK 44 207 553−8140 Fax: 44 207 553−8189 Email: clive@reprieve.org.uk LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth L. Marvin MARVIN LAW PLLC 4401−A Connecticut Avenue, NW #118 Washington, DC 20008 (202)288−2343 Fax: 202−466−5738 Email: elizabeth@marvinlawpllc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Leslie Lewis LEWIS BAACH KAUFMANN MIDDLEMISS PLLC 1101 New York Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 833−8900 Fax: (202) 466−5738 Email: eric.lewis@lbkmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard A. Soble

SOBLE ROWE KRICHBAUM, LLP 221 North Main Street Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 996−5600 Fax: (734) 662−0552 Email: dick@srkllp.com TERMINATED: 11/06/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zachary Katznelson Equal Justice Initiative 122 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−269−1803 Email: zkatznelson@gmail.com TERMINATED: 10/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ahmed Ghappour REPRIEVE P.O. Box 52742 22 Tudor Street London, UK EC4Y 0AY UK 011 44 207 353 Fax: 011 44 207 353 4641 Email: aghappour@gmail.com
Cori Crider REPRIEVE P.O. Box 52742 22 Tudor Street London, UK EC4Y 0AY 011 44 207 353 Fax: 011 44 207 353 4641 Email: cori@reprieve.org.uk TERMINATED: 07/01/2016
Jon B. Eisenberg HORITZ & LEVY LLP 15760 Ventura Blvd 18th Floor Encino, CA 91436 (510) 452−2581 Fax: (510) 452−3277 Email: jeisenberg@horvitzlevy.com TERMINATED: 10/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph A. Pace REPRIEVE 405 Lexington Avenue 62nd Floor New York, NY 10174 (646) 300−4304 Email: joe.pace@reprieve.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Jaskol 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Email: ljaskol@publiccounsel.org

Petitioner SHAKER AAMER as Next Friend of Jihad Dhaib
V. Respondent GEORGE WALKER BUSH President of the United States

TERMINATED: 01/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shayana Devendra Kadidal CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 (212) 614−6438 Fax: (212) 614−6499 Email: kadidal@ccrjustice.org
Shelby Sullivan−Bennis REPRIEVE US 405 Lexington Avenue Fl. 64 New York, NY 10174 (401) 835−4214 Email: Shelby.sullivan.bennis@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara L. Murray REPRIEVE P.O. Box 52742 London EC4P 4WS United Kingdom 011 44 207 353 4640 Fax: 44 011 207 353 4641 Email: TARA.MURRAY@REPRIEVE.ORG.UK ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard A. Soble (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zachary Katznelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shayana Devendra Kadidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Judry Laeb Subar UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 7132 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−3969 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: judry.subar@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/27/2008

LEAD ATTORNEY
Scott Michael Marconda U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 5130 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−0169 Email: scott.marconda@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
Terry Marcus Henry U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514−4107 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: terry.henry@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE U.S. Attorney's Office − District of Columbia 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353−8679 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: alexander.haas@usdoj.gov
Andrew I. Warden U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 616−5084 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: andrew.warden@usdoj.gov
August Edward Flentje U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 3613 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−3309 Email: august.flentje@usdoj.gov
David Hugh White U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 7119 Washington, DC 23050 (202) 514−3146 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: david.white2@usdoj.gov
James J. Schwartz U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 616−8267 Fax: (202) 616−8202

Email: james.schwartz@usdoj.gov
Jay Apperson U.S. DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−9203 Email: jay.apperson2@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/14/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Alexandra Heiman U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L St., NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 616−8480 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: julia.heiman@usdoj.gov
Kathryn Celia Davis U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616−8298 Fax: (202) 616−8460 Email: Kathryn.C.Davis@usdoj.gov
Patrick D. Davis U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 305−0879 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: patrick.davis2@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 04/03/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Preeya M. Noronha U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 7226 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−3338 Fax: (202) 616−8202 Email: preeya.noronha@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/21/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Prince U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 305−3654 Fax: (202) 616−8460 Email: robert.prince@usdoj.gov
Timothy B. Walthall U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division 450 Fifth Street, NW

Respondent DONALD RUMSFELD Secretary, United States Department of Defense
Respondent JAY HOOD Army Brigadier General, Commander, Joint Task Force−GTMO

Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−0692 Fax: (202) 514−6381 Email: timothy.walthall@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Judry Laeb Subar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Terry Marcus Henry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas (See above for address)
Andrew I. Warden (See above for address)
August Edward Flentje (See above for address)
David Hugh White (See above for address)
James J. Schwartz (See above for address)
Julia Alexandra Heiman (See above for address)
Kathryn Celia Davis (See above for address)
Patrick D. Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/03/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Preeya M. Noronha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Prince (See above for address)
represented by Judry Laeb Subar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Respondent
BRICE GYURISKO Army Colonel, Commander, Joint Detention, Operations Group, JTF−GTMO

Terry Marcus Henry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas (See above for address)
Andrew I. Warden (See above for address)
August Edward Flentje (See above for address)
David Hugh White (See above for address)
James J. Schwartz (See above for address)
Julia Alexandra Heiman (See above for address)
Kathryn Celia Davis (See above for address)
Patrick D. Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/03/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Preeya M. Noronha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Prince (See above for address)
represented by Judry Laeb Subar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Terry Marcus Henry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas (See above for address)
Andrew I. Warden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
August Edward Flentje (See above for address)

Movant ASSOCIATED PRESS
Movant

David Hugh White (See above for address)
James J. Schwartz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Alexandra Heiman (See above for address)
Kathryn Celia Davis (See above for address)
Patrick D. Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/03/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Preeya M. Noronha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Prince (See above for address)
represented by David A. Schulz BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1675 Broadway 19th Floor New York, NY 10019 (212) 850−6103 Fax: (212) 223−1942 Email: schulzd@ballardspahr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanette Melendez Bead LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP 1050 17th Street,NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 508−1100 Fax: (202) 861−9888 Email: jbead@lskslaw.com TERMINATED: 07/14/2014
Julie B. Ehrlich LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP 321 West 44th Street Suite 1000 New York, NY 10036 (212) 850−6134 Fax: (212) 850−6299 Email: jehrlich@lskslaw.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USA TODAY
Intervenor HEARST CORPORATION
Intervenor ABC, INC.
Intervenor ASSOCIATED PRESS

represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanette Melendez Bead (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer BUZZFEED INC. 111 East 18th Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10003 (646) 798−0693 Fax: (212) 431−7461 Email: matthew.schafer@buzzfeed.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE

Intervenor BLOOMBERG L.P.
Intervenor CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,
Intervenor THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION
Intervenor DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address)

Intervenor FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC.
Intervenor GUARDIAN US
Intervenor MCCLATCHY COMPANY
Intervenor NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC.

TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY
Intervenor REUTERS AMERICA LLC
Intervenor TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC
Intervenor

Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanette Melendez Bead (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USA TODAY
Intervenor WASHINGTON POST

represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Schulz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie B. Ehrlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Lynn Schafer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/29/2005 07/29/2005
08/02/2005 08/08/2005
08/08/2005 08/10/2005

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5.) filed by JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER.(lc, ) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER. Case related to Case No. 04−1254. (lc, ) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
3 RESPONSE to 2 Petitioners' Notice of Related Case filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Noronha, Preeya) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
4 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Related Appeals and for Continued Coordination by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Text of Proposed Order # 5 Certificate of Service)(Noronha, Preeya) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
5 Case Reassigned to Judge Gladys Kessler. Judge Henry H. Kennedy no longer assigned to the case. (lc, ) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
6 RESPONSE to 4 Respondents' Motion to Stay Proceedings (Petitioner's Conditional Consent) filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1.18.05 Unclassified Memorandum# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order re Motion to Stay)(Soble, Richard) Modified on 8/11/2005 (rje, ). (Entered: 08/08/2005)
7 REPLY 3 to Respondent's Objection to Petitioner's Related−Case Designation filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Soble, Richard) Modified on 8/11/2005 (rje, ). (Entered: 08/08/2005)
8 ORDER sustaining Respondents' Objection to Petitioners' Related Case Designation [#3]. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on August 10, 2005. (lcgk1, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)

08/16/2005
08/29/2005 11/02/2005
11/23/2005 01/04/2006 07/07/2006
07/07/2006 07/17/2006
07/17/2006 08/11/2006
08/15/2006
10/18/2006 12/18/2006 01/25/2007 04/19/2007

9 REPLY to opposition to motion re 4 Respondents' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Related Appeals And for Continued Coordination filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Schwartz, James) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 4 Respondents' Motion to Stay . Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 8/29/05. (CS, ) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
10 ORDER referring all motions pertaining to interpretation or construction of any protective order which has been entered in any of these cases to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay; referring to Magistrate Judge Kay all disputes pertaining to logistical issues, such as communications with or visits to clients and counsel. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler, Chair of Calendar and Case Management Committee, on 11/2/05. (Entered: 11/02/2005)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Terry Marcus Henry on behalf of GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO (Henry, Terry) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
12 NOTIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by respondents GEORGE WALKER BUSH, and DONALD RUMSFELD, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jeb, ) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
13 WITHDRAWN.....MOTION for procedures related to review of certain detainee materials and Motion for expedited briefing by Respondents, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Declaration of Harry B. Harris# 2 Exhibit B−Declaration of Carol Kishardt# 3 Text of Proposed Order for Briefing# 4 Text of Proposed Order regarding review of detainee materials)Associated Cases: (jeb) Modified on 8/14/2007 (tg, ). (Entered: 07/07/2006)
14 NOTICE regarding steps taken in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld by Respondents GEORGE WALKER BUSH, et al. (jeb, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
MINUTE ORDER setting settlement conference regarding Respondents' Motion for Procedures Related to Review of Certain Detainee Materials. The mediation will take place in chambers on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. Certain designated representatives will attend on behalf of Habeas Petitioners. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 7/17/2006. (lckay1, ) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
Set Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 7/19/2006 02:30 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay as set forth in the Court's Order this date. (Entered: 07/17/2006)
15 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM correcting July 7, 2006 MOTION for procedures related to review of certain detainee materials and response to supplemental memoranda of certain petitioners filed by Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C−Supplemental Declaration of Kisthardt)Associated Cases: (jeb, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
16 RESPONSE to Order of Court 206 directing respondents to file a notice by 8/15/06 that identifies any petitioner who respondents believe in good faith had not communicated with any counsel filed by Respondents (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Chart regarding seized materials and privileged communications) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
17 NOTICE of Filing Military Commission Act by Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Military Commision Act of 2006) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
18 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to GEORGE WALKER BUSH. Attorney Preeya M. Noronha terminated. (Entered: 12/21/2006)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Judry Laeb Subar on behalf of respondents. (Entered: 01/25/2007)
20 MOTION to Dismiss by Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Second Declaration of Karen L. Hecker# 2 Exhibit B−List of Released Enemy Combatant Detainees# 3 Exhibit C−List of Released−No Longer Enemy Combatant Detainees# 4

05/03/2007 05/03/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 08/13/2007 11/06/2007 12/17/2007 02/13/2008 03/20/2008
03/24/2008 03/24/2008 03/31/2008 04/01/2008 04/14/2008

Exhibit D−USCA Judgment−Kiyemba# 5 Exhibit E−USCA Judgment re: Paracha# 6 Exhibit F−Declaration of Matthew C. Waxman# 7 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00299−CKK et al.(jeb) (jeb, ). (Entered: 04/19/2007)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by Shayana Devendra Kadidal on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER (Kadidal, Shayana) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
22 Memorandum in opposition to re 20 MOTION to Dismiss , Motion for a Stay−and−Abey Order, and Notice of Intent to File Petition under the Detainee Treatment Act filed by JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
23 REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Zalita Order)(Schwartz, James) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
24 RESPONSE to Motion for a Stay−and−Abey Order, and Notice of Intent to File Petition under the Detainee Treatment Act filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Zalita Orders)(Schwartz, James) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
25 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO re 13 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for procedures related to review of certain detainee materials (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
26 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER. Attorney Richard A. Soble terminated. (Soble, Richard) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Zachary Katznelson on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
28 N0TICE Of Report Regarding Preservation Filed by GEORGE BUSH, et al.(jeb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
29 MOTION to Lift Stay Temporarily for Entry of Protective Order by JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PROCEDURES FOR COUNSEL ACCESS TO DETAINEES AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL BASE IN GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, # 2 Exhibit ORDER SUPPLEMENTING AND AMENDING FILING PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN NOVEMBER 8, 2004 AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER, # 3 Exhibit ORDER ADDRESSING DESIGNATION PROCEDURES FOR "PROTECTED INFORMATION", # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: The Government shall file, by March 31, 2008 at 12:00 noon, its Opposition to Petitioners' Motion to Lift Stay Temporarily for Entry of a Protective Order. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 3/24/08. (CL, ) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 3/31/2008 (CL, ) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
30 Memorandum in opposition to re 29 MOTION to Lift Stay Temporarily for Entry of Protective Order filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
31 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 30 Memorandum in Opposition filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
32 ORDER re: 29 Motion for Temporary Lift of Stay and Entry of Protective Order; ORDERED that the Amended Protective Order and Procedures for Counsel Access to Detainees at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, first issued on 11/8/04 (344 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2004)), the Order Supplementing and Amending Filing Procedures Contained in 11/8/04 Amended Protective Order, first issued on 12/13/04, and the Order Addressing Designation Procedures for "Protected Information," first issued on 11/10/04, all in the In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee

04/30/2008 05/05/2008
05/05/2008 05/19/2008 06/04/2008 07/02/2008 07/02/2008 07/03/2008
07/07/2008 07/09/2008 07/11/2008 07/11/2008
07/18/2008 07/18/2008 07/21/2008 07/23/2008

Cases, shall be entered in this case. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 4/14/08. (ztth, ) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
33 MOTION for Leave to Practice and Notice of Appearance for Cori Crider by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Protective Order Documents)(jeb, ) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
34 ORDER granting 33 counsel's Motion for Leave to Appear on behalf of Petitioner/Plaintiff with the condition that counsel file a praecipe, within 30 days, that counsel has obtained a copy of the Local Rules of this Court, is prepared to become familiar with them, and follow them. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 5/5/08. (CL, ) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Praecipe due 6/5/2008 (CL, ) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
35 NOTICE of Filing of Documents Required Pursuant to Protective Order by JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
36 NOTICE of Certification of Counsel by JIHAD DHIAB (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
37 ORDER transferring the case to Judge Thomas Hogan for coordination and management as reflected in the July 1, 2008, Resolution of the Executive Committee. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/2/08. (CL, ) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
38 ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION: Hearing set for July 8, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom. (ds) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
MINUTE ORDER advising the parties that, in the interest of convenience and judicial economy, notices of appearance need not be refiled under this Miscellaneous Case Number (08−MC−4422) if such a notice already has been filed in the docket for the corresponding Civil Action Number. New notices of appearance likewise should be filed exclusively in the docket for the applicable Civil Action Number. Accordingly, no notices of appearance need be filed in the docket for this Miscellaneous Case Number. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on July 3, 2008. (lctfh2) (Entered: 07/03/2008) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
39 ORDER. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 7/7/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
40 NOTICE Regarding Status Conference by MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Subar, Judry) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
41 VACATED PURSUANT TO USCA MANDATE FILED ON 3/15/2011.....ORDER; Regarding Representative Counsel's request for 30 days advance notice,Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 07/10/08. (hs) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/11/2008: # 1 Order) (zhs, ). Modified on 3/15/2011 (dr). (Entered: 07/11/2008)
42 SCHEDULING ORDER: setting forth deadlines: Parties' Status Report due by 7/18/2008; Joint Report due 7/21/08; Simultaneous Briefing on procedural framework issues due 7/25/08, and counsel for government and petitioners to file Responses by 8/1/08; Factual Returns and Motions to Amend Factual Returns due 8/29/08. (See order for full details) Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 7/11/08. (jeb, ) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
43 STATUS REPORT by JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION. (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
44 STATUS REPORT And Response To Court's July 11, 2008 Order by GEORGE W. BUSH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Part 1, # 2 Exhibit 1 −− Part 2, # 3 Exhibit 1 −− Part 3, # 4 Exhibit 1 −− Part 4, # 5 Exhibit 1 −− Part 5, # 6 Exhibit 1 −− Part 6, # 7 Exhibit 2, # 8 Exhibit 3)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
45 STATUS REPORT Submitted Jointly By Petitioners and Respondents In Response To Court's July 11, 2008 Scheduling Order by GEORGE W. BUSH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petitioners' Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Respondents Exhibits)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
46 ERRATA −− Corrections To Exhibts To Joint Status Report by GEORGE W. BUSH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6 −− Corrected)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

07/25/2008 07/25/2008

47 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to (52 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 52 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 52 in 1:05−cv−01497−RCL, 52 in 1:05−cv−00392−ESH) Order by JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JAY HOOD, J. HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DENNIS, WADE F. DAVIS, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, TERRY CARRICO. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Subar, Judry) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
48 MOTION for Order Regarding Procedural Framework Issues by JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, WADE F. DENNIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, RICHARD B. CHENEY, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Haas, Alexander) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

07/25/2008

49 MEMORANDUM by OMAR KHADR, FATMAH ELSAMNAH, FALEN GHEREBI, BISHER NASER ALI ALMARWALH, HUISSEN NASER ALI ALMARWALH, MASAAB OMAR AL−MADHWANI, ALI OMAR MADHWANI, ABDULKHALIQ AL−BAIDHANI, KHALID AL−BAIDHANI, ALI AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, ABDULLAH AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, SUHAIL ABDU ANAM, SAEED AHMED AL−SARIM, SAMIR AHMED AL−SARIM, IMAD ABDULLAH HASSAN, AMRO ABDULLAH HASSAN, JALAL SALIM BIN AMER, FAEZ BIN AMER, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, MOHAMED YAHYA MAHDI, ATAG ALI ABDOH, MOHAMED ABDU ANAM, KHALID AHMED KASSIM, FADHLE AHMED KASSIM, FAHMI ABDULLAH AHMED, KMAL ABDULLAH AHMED, ABDUALAZIZ ABDOH AL SWIDI, ADNAN ABDOH ALSWIDI, AL HUSSIN AL−TIS, HADI HUSSIN AL−TIS, FAHMI ABDULLAH UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, ALL PETITIONERS, ABDULLAH AHMED UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL−RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, AREF ABD IL RHEEM, AREF ABD AL RAHIM, YASEIN KHASEM MOHAMMAD ESMAIL, JAMEL KHASEM MOHAMMAD, ADNAN FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MOHAMED FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, JAMAL MAR'I, NABIL MOHAMED MAR'I, OTHMAN ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ARAF ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ADIL EL HAJ OBAID, NAZEM SAEED EL HAJ OBAID, MOHAMED MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, BASHIR MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, SADEQ MOHAMMED SAID, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, ABD ALSALAM MOHAMMED SAEED, FAROUK ALI AHMED SAIF, SHEAB AL MOHAMEDI, SALMAN YAHALDI HSAN MOHAMMED SAUD, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL−RBUAYE, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, IBRAHIM AHMED MAHMOUD AL QOSI, SAIFULLAH PARACHA, FARHAT PARACHA, ALI SALAH KAHLAH AL−MARRI, JARALLAH AL−MARRI, AHCENE ZEMIRI, KARINA DERESHTEANU, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, SAEED AHMED SIDDIQUE, OMAR DEGHAYES, TAHER DESGHAYES, JAMEL ABDULLAH KIYEMBA, THERESA NAMUDDU, RAMI BIN SAAD AL−OTEIBI, HANI SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, YOSRA SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, MAHMOOD SALIM AL MOHAMMED, ABDULLA SALIM AL−MOHAMMED, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, WAFFA EL−ARABIE, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHY, ZAHER OMER BEN HAMDON, MOHAMMED OMER KHAMIS HAMDON, MOHAMMED AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, SALEH ALI ABDULLA BAWAZER, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALLUL ALHAMI, DJAMEL AMEZIANE, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, NASSER DAHER AL SHAMMARI, ABDUL RAHMAN SHALBY, SHAKER AAMER, ABDULLAH AALI AL OTIABI, MUHAMMED FAHAD AL QAHTANY, MUSA AL MADANY, SALEH ABDULLA AL−OSHAN, MOHAMMED SAAD MOHAMMED AL−OSHAN, ZABEN DHAHER AL SHAMMARI, MUHAMMED KHAN TUMANI, ABD AL NISR KHAN TUMANI, MOHAMMEDOU OULD SALAHI, YAHDIH OULD SALAHI, OMER SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHAMMED SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ADEL HAMLILY, SHAKER AAMER, MOHAMMED AL NADOUR, MOHAMMED FAHREO, LAHCEN IKASRIEN, MOHAMMED MAZOZ, MOUSSA, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, SAID, RIDOUANE SHAKUR, YOUNIS SHAKUR, TAREQ, OMAR DEGHAYES, AHMED ABU IMRAN, NAJEEB AL HUSSEINI, OMAR DEGHAYES, AHMED ABDUL RAHMAN, OMAR DEGHAYES, ALLADEEN, ISMAIL AL−MASHAD, KHIALI−GUL, MOHAMEDOU OULD SLAHI, YASIN MUHAMMED BASARDH, ALI HUSSIAN MOHAMMAD MUETY SHAABAN, KARIN BOSTAN, MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA

SOHAIL, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL AL KARIM, ASIM BEN THABIT AL−KHALAQI, KASIMBEKOV KOMOLIDDIN TOHIRJANOVICH, MOHAMEDOU OULD SLAHI, ABDULSALAM ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, ABDULWAHAB ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, HONORGOL KHIALIGOL, HAJI NUSRAT, ABDUL WAHID, HAJI ROHULLAH WAKIL, MOHAMMAD WAKIL, SABAR LAL, MOHAMMED HASSAN, WALI MOHAMMED MORAFA, HADAYA MORAFA, ABDUL RAHMAN AZIZ KHAN, ABD AL RAHMAN, ABDUL RAZAK IKTIAR MOHAMMED, ALI SHAH MOUSOVI, MOHAMMAD SAYYED SHAH, IZAATULLAH NUSRAT, OMAR MOHAMMED KHALIFH, OMAR DEGHAYES, TARIQ MAHMOUD ALSAWAM, ABU ABDUL RAUF ZALITA, OMAR DEGHAYES, ABDULZAHER, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, MOTAI SAIB, BISHER AL−RAWI, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL−SALAHI, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, AHMED "DOE", OMAR DEGHAYES, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, JAWAD JABBAR SADKHAN, HAMMAD DOE, HUDHAIFA DOE, JALAAL DOE, KHALID DOE, SAABIR DOE, SAADIQ DOE, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUSABUR DOE, ABDUSAMAD DOE, ABDUNASIR DOE, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, MOAZZAM BEGG, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, ABDL HADI OMAR MAHMOUD FARAJ, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, SHAFIIQ, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, ABBAR SUFIAN AL HAWARY, SHAKER AAMER, BISHER AL−RAWI, IBRAHIM OSMAN IBRAHIM IDRIS, ABDUL HADI OMER HAMOUD FARAJ, HASSAN BIN ATTASH, BENYAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, A'AMER SHAKER, HAMID AL RAZAK, BISHER AL RAWI, EDHAM MAMET, IBRAHIM MAMET, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, ABDUL ZAHIR, HUSSAIN SALEM MOHAMMED ALMERFEDI, SALEM MOHAMMED SALEM ABDULLA ALMERFEDI, WALEED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, HUSSEIN SALEM MOHAMMAD ABDALLAH EL−MARQODI, MOHAMMED RAJEB ABU GHANEM, HIMIGER SADER ABU GHANEM, AMEEN MOHAMMAD ALBKRI, ALI SALEH ALBKRI, ALLA ALI BIN ALI AHMED, WAGDI ALI BIN ALI, SADAR DOE, ARKEEN DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, ABRAHIM OTHMAN ABRAHIM EDRIES, MOHAMMED AL−QAHTANI, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL−QAHTANI, ISMAIL ALKHEMISI, HASAN BALGAID, OMAR DEGHAYES, RAVIL MINGAZA GAMIL, DILIARA MINGAZOVA, ABDULKADR ABDULKHALIK DAD, KHALED ABD ELGABAR MOHAMMED OTHMAN, ABD AL MALIK ABD AL WAHAB, MUHAMMED AHMED MUHAMMED ALGHURBANY, ALI HAMZA AHMED SULIMAN BAHLOOL, ABDOUL MOHAMMED AHMED BAHLOOL, SALEH MOHAMMED SELEH AL THABBII, FATMAH QHASIM AL AHMADI, ABDUL AL QADER AHMED HUSSAIN, ABDULGADER AHMED HASIN ABOBAKER, ISSAM HAMID ALI BIN ALI AL JAYFI, HAMID ALI AL JAYFI, OTHMAN ALI MOHAMMED AL SHAMRANY, ALI MOHAMED OMAR AL SHOMRANY, KHALID MOHAMMED AL THABBI, JABBAROW OYBEK JAMOLIVICH, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL−MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL−MUDAFARI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ABDUALQADER HOSSIN ALI AL−MOTHAFRI, SALEH HOSSIN ALI AL−MOTHAFRI, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, ALI ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, AHMED BEN BACHA, BINYAM MOHAMMED, SALAH BELBACHA, TOORAN MOHAMMAD AMANNULLAH, MIRRA JAAN, MOHAMMAD WABI UMARI, GUL HYAT KHAN, ABDULLAH MUJAHID HAQ, FARID AHMED, MOHAMMAD RAHIM, MOHAMMAD KARIM, MOHAMMAD ZAHIR, ABDUL WAHAB, ABDULLAH WAZIR ZADRAN, GHULAM ROOHANI, GHULAM JEELANI, DR. HIYATULLAH, ABDUL ZAHIR, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, ZAHIR SHAH, ABDUL HAQ, ABDUL BARRI, AHMED AL DARBY, AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ALI MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED HASSEN, ABDUL HAMID ABDUL SALAM AL−GHIZZAWI, ALI YEHYA MAHDI AL−RIMI, ADHAM MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ISMAIL ALI AL RAMMI, SOAID SALH AHMAD AL RAMMI, ADEL ALI AHMAD AL RAMMI, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, BANDAR AL JAABIR, JAMAL KIYEMBA, MOHAMMED ZAHRANI, OMAR

DEGHAYES, SALIM SAID, ANWAR HANDAN AL SHIMMIRI, SULIMAN HONAHEEM ALOWAIDAH, SAAD AL QAHTAANI, ALI THABID, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, JOBRAN SAAD AL−QUHTANI, NAWAL MADAY AL−QUHTANI, ZAKARIA AL−BAIDANY, ABDEL AZIZ AL−SWIDI, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, MOHAMMED AL PALESTINI, OMAR (LNU), SOFAINE MOHAMMED BERHOUMI, ALI LNU, ABDUL AZIZ NAJI, ABIN ALHAMED ABID ALSALLAM ALKESAWI, ABU RAWDA, UMAR ABDULLAH AL KUNDUZI, KHALED ABDALLAH AL−IDAN, ABDUL RAUF ASIBI, ABDUL RAZAK ALI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, MAHER LNU, MAHER EL FALESTENY, MUSTAFA AL SHAMILI, SHARGOWI LNU, BISHER AL−RAWI, JABBAROV OYBECK JAMOLOVICH, SANAD ALI ALKALIEMI, FADL DAHIMI, ABDUL SALAM DEIFF, OMAR DOE, SHARAF AL SANANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, FAHD ABU HAFSA, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUL HAQ, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, OMAR RAMAH, ABD AL ZAHER, FAWZI KHALED ABDALLAH AL−AUDHA, ABDULLAH BO OMER HAMZA YOYEJ, ABU RAHAN, NAJEEB DOE, SAD AL GAHTANI, AMER MOHAMMON, FAHD AL HARAAZI, JABIR AL QUATANY, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHSEN, FAHD AL FAWZAN, ADEL LNU, RASHED AL QAMDI, BANDAR AL SHAIBANI, ALI SHER HAMIDULLAH, MARSHAL DOE, KHALD AL BARKATI, ABDULAL AL THANI, ABU AHMED AL JOFI, SLAIM HARBI, ABU RAD AL JOFI, MUHAMMED HARBI, ABDULAZIZ LNU, ABDULAL DOE, SAD AL MATERI, BOUCETTA FIHI, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, SEED FARHA, SALEH DOE, AHMED ADNAN AHJAM, MAGED DOE, ZEYAD AL GASSMY, ADEL HASSAN, HAMAD DOE, JAMIL AHMAD SAEED, HALA AHMAD SAEED AL−ADAHG, AMIR DOE, ALKHADR ABDULLAH AL YAFIE, TOFIQ NASSER AWAD AL BIHANI, ABU AHMED, WALEED DOE, WALEED LNU, SAMIR DOE, ELHAM BATAIF, ZEIN AL−ABEDEEN, YAGOOB AL SOURY, ABDUL RHMAN, ADEL AL TUNISI, ZAKER CHAN, SADER DOE, MOHAMMED AHMED SLAM AL−KHATEEB, ALI AL KAZMI, ADNAN AL BIHANI, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, ABDULLAH LNU, ABDURAZZAK LNU, KHADER DOE, BILAL LNU, MOSHEN DOE, ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDURRAZAKH LNU, FAHD DOE, JAMIL EL−BANNA, MSTAFA AL SHAMILI, ADEL LNU, OSAMA DOE, MOHAMED HMADI, ABDUL−RAHMAN ABDO ABULGHAITH SULAIMAN, FAHMI DOE, ESAM DOE, TALAH AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, AHMED AL−DELEBANY, ALI KADAMI, AYMAN, FAWAZ, HOUMAD WARZLY, MOHAMED RAJAB, OTHMAN ALI MUHAMMED OMAR, MOHAMMED KAMEEN, SABRY MOHAMMED, SALEH, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA, KHALID MOHAMMED, MUHAMMAD NUR UTHMAN MUHAMMAD, MAHDI SALIH, SAKI BACHA, SHAMSULLAH, ABOU YASSIR JEZAIRI, ABDAL RAUF ZALITINI, ABDAUL RAZAK ALI−HAJ, ADNAN, AHAMED, SALAH DEEN IBN SHAIKH, SALIH, SALEH LIBI, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH AL HALMANDY, MUHAMMED SAAD IQBAL MADNI, SAID MADANY, ABDULLAH JAFFA, ABU HADIFA, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, SANJAWEZ RAWEEL KAMEEL WEEJ, ABUL AZIZ AL MATRAFI, MAJED BARYAN, MOHAMED FAHAD SAAD AL ZU'BI, MOUSSA, ABDULRAHMAN, SAUD AL JOUHANY, SULTAN AL SHAREEF, ABDU TAWAB, ABDUL AZIZ, ABU RAWDAH, ABDUL AL HAMMAN, ABDUL LATIF, ABDULLA HAJI, ABDULLA, ADEL, INSHANULLAH, BITAL ADEL HALAMI, HISHAM, RAFIOVE BIN BASHIR, RIAD NARGERI, RIDAH, SAIF, MASOUD, ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ALI SALEH, AMAR BILOUSHI, KHALID DESHIRE, IBRAHIM NAYIF ADBALLAH IBRAHIM, MOHAMMED CHINGUITY, ABDO ALI AL HAJ, ABU BAKER SHAMMRANY, GHANIM−ABDULRAHMAN AL−HARBI, RAVIL MINGAZOV, ZAINULABIDIN MEROZHEV, ELHAM BATTAYAV, ABDULLI FEGHOUL, QARI SAAD IQBAL, MOHAMMAD SHARIEF, ALI ABDULLAH ALI, MOHAMMED AHMED TAHER, QARI HAMDULLAH, MOHAMMAD NASIR, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH MOHAMMED BA ODAH, TARIQ ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, NASSER ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, MAJID KHAN, RABIA KHAN, FAIZ AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, HADDAD AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, MOHAMED MUQBEL AHMED ALSABRI, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ELISHER, SABIR, FADHEL HUSSEIN SALEH HENTIF, HAYKAL MOHAMMED SALEH HENTIF, ACHRAF SALIM ABDESSALAM, IYOB MURSHAD ALI SALEH, MURSHAD ALI SALEH, ABDULRAHMAN MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, MUHAMMAD

07/28/2008
07/29/2008 08/01/2008

MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, RIDAH BIN SALEH AL YAZIDI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDURRAHMAN ABDALLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, ABDULLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDUL RAHIM HUSSEIN MUHAMMED ALI NASHIR, SCOTT L. FENSTERMAKER, BASHIR GHALAAB, SHAWALI KHAN, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, ABD AL−RAHIM HUSSAIN MOHAMMED AL−NASHIRI, MANSOUR K. A. KAMEL, ABDULAZIZ SAYER OWAIN AL SHAMMARI, SAYER O. Z. AL SHAMMARI, ABDULLAH SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MESFER SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MOHAMMED FUNAITEL AL DIHANI, MUBARA F. S. M. AL DAIHANI, FAYIZ MOHAMMED AHMED AL KANDARI, MOHAMMAD A. J. M. H. AL KANDARI, FWAD MAHMOUD AL RABIAH, MONZER M. H. A. AL RABIEAH, ADIL ZAMIL ABDULL MOHSSIN AL ZAMIL, WALID Z. A. AL ZAMEL, FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, KHALED A.F. AL ODAH, NASSER NIJER NASER AL MUTAIRI, ABDULLAH KAMAL ABDULLAH KAMAL AL KANDARI, SAAD MADAI SAAD HAWASH AL−AZMI, HAMAD MADAI SAAD, OMAR RAJAB AMIN, MOHAMMAD R.M.R. AMEEN, NAYEF N. N. B. J. AL MUTAIRI, KHALID ABDULLAH MISHAL AL MUTAIRI, MESHAL A. M. TH AL MUTAIRI. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Entered: 07/26/2008)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re (48 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 39 in 1:05−cv−02010−HHK, 83 in 1:05−cv−00359−GK, 47 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 26 in 1:06−cv−01668−HHK, 99 in 1:04−cv−02035−GK, 46 in 1:06−cv−01765−HHK, 63 in 1:05−cv−02199−HHK, 49 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 43 in 1:06−cv−01766−HHK, 216 in 1:04−cv−01194−HHK, 19 in 1:06−cv−01691−GK, 16 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 255 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK, 85 in 1:05−cv−00247−HHK, 83 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 39 in 1:07−cv−02337−HHK, 73 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 39 in 1:07−cv−02338−HHK, 143 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 102 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK) Notice of Appeal (tr) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
50 ORDER lifting stays, vacating dismissals, entering protective order, requiring authorizations, and holding motions in abeyance. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 7/29/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
51 REPLY ADDRESSING PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK ISSUES filed by BISHER NASER ALI ALMARWALH, HUISSEN NASER ALI ALMARWALH, MASAAB OMAR AL−MADHWANI, ABDULKHALIQ AL−BAIDHANI, KHALID AL−BAIDHANI, ALI AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, ABDULLAH AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, SAEED AHMED AL−SARIM, SAMIR AHMED AL−SARIM, ATAG ALI ABDOH, FAHMI ABDULLAH AHMED, KMAL ABDULLAH AHMED, ABDUALAZIZ ABDOH AL SWIDI, ADNAN ABDOH ALSWIDI, AL HUSSIN AL−TIS, HADI HUSSIN AL−TIS, FAHMI ABDULLAH UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, ALL PETITIONERS, ABDULLAH AHMED UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL−RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, AREF ABD AL RAHIM, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL−RBUAYE, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, IBRAHIM AHMED MAHMOUD AL QOSI, ALI SALAH KAHLAH AL−MARRI, JARALLAH AL−MARRI, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, RAMI BIN SAAD AL−OTEIBI, HANI SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, YOSRA SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, MAHMOOD SALIM AL MOHAMMED, ABDULLA SALIM AL−MOHAMMED, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHY, MOHAMMED AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALLUL ALHAMI, NASSER DAHER AL SHAMMARI, SHAKER AAMER, SALEH ABDULLA AL−OSHAN, MOHAMMED SAAD MOHAMMED AL−OSHAN, ZABEN DHAHER AL SHAMMARI, OMER SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHAMMED SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHSEN ABDRUB

ABOASSY, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SHAKER AAMER, ALLADEEN, ISMAIL AL−MASHAD, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL AL KARIM, ASIM BEN THABIT AL−KHALAQI, ABDULSALAM ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, ABDULWAHAB ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, TARIQ MAHMOUD ALSAWAM, ABDULZAHER, BISHER AL−RAWI, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL−SALAHI, AHMED "DOE", SHAKER AAMER, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, ABBAR SUFIAN AL HAWARY, SHAKER AAMER, BISHER AL−RAWI, FOUZIA AHMMED, HUSSAIN SALEM MOHAMMED ALMERFEDI, SALEM MOHAMMED SALEM ABDULLA ALMERFEDI, HUSSEIN SALEM MOHAMMAD ABDALLAH EL−MARQODI, AMEEN MOHAMMAD ALBKRI, ALI SALEH ALBKRI, ALLA ALI BIN ALI AHMED, WAGDI ALI BIN ALI, MOHAMMED AL−QAHTANI, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL−QAHTANI, ISMAIL ALKHEMISI, ABD AL MALIK ABD AL WAHAB, MUHAMMED AHMED MUHAMMED ALGHURBANY, SALEH MOHAMMED SELEH AL THABBII, FATMAH QHASIM AL AHMADI, ABDULGADER AHMED HASIN ABOBAKER, ISSAM HAMID ALI BIN ALI AL JAYFI, HAMID ALI AL JAYFI, OTHMAN ALI MOHAMMED AL SHAMRANY, ALI MOHAMED OMAR AL SHOMRANY, KHALID MOHAMMED AL THABBI, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL−MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL−MUDAFARI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ABDUALQADER HOSSIN ALI AL−MOTHAFRI, SALEH HOSSIN ALI AL−MOTHAFRI, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, ALI ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, FARID AHMED, AHMED AL DARBY, AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ALI MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ABDUL HAMID ABDUL SALAM AL−GHIZZAWI, ALI YEHYA MAHDI AL−RIMI, BANDAR AL JAABIR, ANWAR HANDAN AL SHIMMIRI, SULIMAN HONAHEEM ALOWAIDAH, SAAD AL QAHTAANI, JOBRAN SAAD AL−QUHTANI, NAWAL MADAY AL−QUHTANI, ZAKARIA AL−BAIDANY, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, MOHAMMED AL PALESTINI, ABIN ALHAMED ABID ALSALLAM ALKESAWI, UMAR ABDULLAH AL KUNDUZI, KHALED ABDALLAH AL−IDAN, ABDUL RAZAK ALI, MUSTAFA AL SHAMILI, BISHER AL−RAWI, SANAD ALI ALKALIEMI, SAIF ULLAH, SHARAF AL SANANI, FAWZI KHALED ABDALLAH AL−AUDHA, FAHD AL HARAAZI, JABIR AL QUATANY, ADEL LNU, ABU AHMED AL JOFI, ABU RAD AL JOFI, SAD AL MATERI, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, AHMED ADNAN AHJAM, ZEYAD AL GASSMY, HALA AHMAD SAEED AL−ADAHG, ALKHADR ABDULLAH AL YAFIE, TOFIQ NASSER AWAD AL BIHANI, ABU AHMED, ZEIN AL−ABEDEEN, YAGOOB AL SOURY, ADEL AL TUNISI, MOHAMMED AHMED SLAM AL−KHATEEB, ALI AL KAZMI, ADNAN AL BIHANI, TALAH AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, AHMED AL−DELEBANY, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ABDAUL RAZAK ALI−HAJ, ADNAN, AHAMED, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH AL HALMANDY, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, ABUL AZIZ AL MATRAFI, MOHAMED FAHAD SAAD AL ZU'BI, ABDULRAHMAN, SAUD AL JOUHANY, SULTAN AL SHAREEF, ABDUL AL HAMMAN, ABDULLA, ADEL, ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ALI SALEH, IBRAHIM NAYIF ADBALLAH IBRAHIM, ABDO ALI AL HAJ, GHANIM−ABDULRAHMAN AL−HARBI, ALI ABDULLAH ALI, MOHAMED MUQBEL AHMED ALSABRI, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ACHRAF SALIM ABDESSALAM, IYOB MURSHAD ALI SALEH, RIDAH BIN SALEH AL YAZIDI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDURRAHMAN ABDALLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, ABDULLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, ABDUL RAHIM HUSSEIN MUHAMMED ALI NASHIR, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, ABD AL−RAHIM HUSSAIN MOHAMMED AL−NASHIRI, ABDULAZIZ SAYER OWAIN AL SHAMMARI, SAYER O. Z. AL SHAMMARI, ABDULLAH SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MESFER SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MOHAMMED FUNAITEL AL DIHANI, MUBARA F. S. M. AL DAIHANI, FAYIZ MOHAMMED AHMED AL KANDARI, MOHAMMAD A. J. M. H. AL KANDARI, FWAD MAHMOUD AL RABIAH, MONZER M. H. A. AL RABIEAH, ADIL ZAMIL ABDULL MOHSSIN AL ZAMIL, WALID Z. A. AL ZAMEL, FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, KHALED A.F. AL ODAH, NASSER NIJER NASER AL MUTAIRI, ABDULLAH KAMAL ABDULLAH KAMAL AL KANDARI, SAAD MADAI SAAD HAWASH AL−AZMI, NAYEF N. N. B. J. AL MUTAIRI, KHALID

08/01/2008
08/07/2008 08/20/2008

ABDULLAH MISHAL AL MUTAIRI, MESHAL A. M. TH AL MUTAIRI. (MacLean, Matthew) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
52 Memorandum in opposition to re (110 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 52 in 1:05−cv−02088−RWR, 61 in 1:05−cv−02104−RBW, 54 in 1:05−cv−01602−RMU, 86 in 1:05−cv−00247−HHK, 41 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 21 in 1:05−cv−02083−JDB, 104 in 1:05−cv−01220−RMU, 48 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 48 in 1:05−cv−01244−CKK, 17 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB, 18 in 1:05−cv−02200−JDB, 69 in 1:05−cv−01607−RMU, 62 in 1:05−cv−00993−RMU, 50 in 1:05−cv−00883−RBW, 39 in 1:06−cv−01761−ESH, 61 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 18 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 33 in 1:05−cv−01649−RBW, 45 in 1:05−cv−01189−JR, 144 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 63 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU, 78 in 1:04−cv−02046−CKK, 91 in 1:05−cv−01490−PLF, 35 in 1:05−cv−02387−RMC, 94 in 1:05−cv−01704−RMU, 55 in 1:05−cv−00889−ESH, 49 in 1:05−cv−00998−RMU, 30 in 1:05−cv−02381−JDB, 77 in 1:05−cv−01505−RMC, 82 in 1:05−cv−02249−RMC, 25 in 1:06−cv−01674−RMC, 74 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 20 in 1:06−cv−01691−GK, 55 in 1:05−cv−01645−PLF, 97 in 1:05−cv−01592−RCL, 112 in 1:05−cv−01429−RMU, 47 in 1:05−cv−02385−RMU, 27 in 1:06−cv−01668−HHK, 37 in 1:05−cv−02477−RMU, 40 in 1:05−cv−00881−JR, 173 in 1:04−cv−02022−PLF, 18 in 1:08−cv−00987−JDB, 93 in 1:05−cv−00329−PLF, 84 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 63 in 1:05−cv−00892−CKK, 33 in 1:05−cv−01623−RWR, 61 in 1:05−cv−00392−ESH, 67 in 1:05−cv−02371−RCL, 195 in 1:04−cv−01136−JDB, 122 in 1:04−cv−01164−RBW, 68 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 136 in 1:05−cv−01509−RMU, 10 in 1:08−cv−01185−HHK, 7 in 1:08−cv−01207−RWR, 67 in 1:05−cv−02379−JR, 57 in 1:05−cv−02349−RMC, 88 in 1:05−cv−01555−JR, 127 in 1:05−cv−01048−RMU, 49 in 1:05−cv−01646−JDB, 71 in 1:05−cv−00999−RBW, 40 in 1:07−cv−02338−HHK, 101 in 1:05−cv−01124−RMC, 49 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 44 in 1:06−cv−01766−HHK, 62 in 1:05−cv−00994−JDB, 115 in 1:05−cv−00023−RWR, 22 in 1:05−cv−00995−JR, 18 in 1:05−cv−01590−JDB, 51 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 84 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 45 in 1:05−cv−02112−RBW, 43 in 1:05−cv−00833−JR, 59 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 40 in 1:07−cv−02337−HHK, 61 in 1:06−cv−00618−RWR, 100 in 1:04−cv−02035−GK, 14 in 1:06−cv−01688−RMC, 47 in 1:06−cv−01765−HHK, 112 in 1:05−cv−02384−RWR, 78 in 1:05−cv−01506−RMC, 53 in 1:05−cv−01971−RMC, 15 in 1:08−cv−01085−PLF, 67 in 1:05−cv−00763−JDB, 26 in 1:05−cv−02444−RMC, 103 in 1:05−cv−00569−JR, 49 in 1:05−cv−01639−RBW, 72 in 1:05−cv−02380−CKK, 40 in 1:05−cv−02010−HHK, 217 in 1:04−cv−01194−HHK, 131 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 55 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 108 in 1:05−cv−02378−JDB, 256 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK, 75 in 1:05−cv−01638−CKK, 51 in 1:05−cv−01458−ESH−AK, 67 in 1:05−cv−02398−RMU, 64 in 1:05−cv−02199−HHK, 104 in 1:05−cv−02367−RWR, 39 in 1:05−cv−01236−RWR, 50 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 65 in 1:05−cv−01983−RMU, 32 in 1:07−cv−01710−RBW, 84 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 55 in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 522 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 92 in 1:05−cv−01353−RMC, 103 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 73 in 1:05−cv−01504−RMC, 76 in 1:05−cv−02185−JR, 29 in 1:05−cv−01725−JR, 23 in 1:06−cv−01759−JDB, 84 in 1:05−cv−00359−GK, 69 in 1:05−cv−02186−ESH, 59 in 1:05−cv−01497−RCL, 34 in 1:04−cv−01937−PLF, 80 in 1:05−cv−01487−RMC) MOTION for Order filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, et al. (jeb, ) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
USCA Case Number 08−5277 for 47 Notice of Appeal,, filed by MICHAEL BUMGARNER, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JAY HOOD, BRUCE VARGO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR., DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, WADE F. DENNIS, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, J. HOOD, WADE F. DAVIS, MARK H. BUZBY, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR., COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, ROBERT M. GATES, GORDON R. ENGLAND, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, TERRY CARRICO. (tr, ) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: By August 26, 2008, the government shall file a response to petitioners' request that the Court amend the Standard Protective Order to require the government to do the following: "provide to [petitioners'] counsel and the Court a version of each court filing containing classified or protected information that is suitable for filing on the public record within two weeks of the original filing date." Joint Report In Response To Court's July 11, 2008 Scheduling Order 3 n.1 (08−mc−442, docket # 170). Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 8/20/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 08/20/2008)

08/26/2008 08/29/2008 09/03/2008 09/05/2008 09/08/2008 09/08/2008
09/09/2008
09/11/2008

53 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, of Aug. 20, 2008 filed by JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, RICHARD B. CHENEY, BRUCE VARGO. (Henry, Terry) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
54 MOTION Partial and Temporary Relief from Court's July 11, 2008 Scheduling Order re (53 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) Scheduling Order, by JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, ROBERT M. GATES, COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, DAVID M. THOMAS, RICHARD B. CHENEY, BRUCE VARGO (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 08/30/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: Petitioners shall respond by Monday, September 8, 2008, to the government's Motion For Partial And Temporary Relief From The Court's July 11, 2008 Scheduling Order (08−mc−0442, docket number 317). Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 9/3/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: By September 19, 2008, petitioners Al Swidhi (ISN 578), 04−cv−1194, Al Haj (ISN 256), 04−cv−1194, Amer (ISN 564), 04−cv−1194, Al Baidhani (ISN 553), 04−cv−1194, Al Wrafie (ISN 117), 04−cv−1254, Al−Mohammed (ISN 537), 05−cv−247, Bawazir (ISN 440), 05−cv−280, and Tumani (ISN 312), 05−cv−526, shall respond to the government's Motion For Leave To File Amended Factual Return. Additionally, hereafter, in all cases in which the government moves for leave to file amended factual returns, petitioners shall respond to the government's motions within 10 days of the date of filing. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 9/5/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
Pursuant to transfer order of this Court, this case is administratively assigned to Judge Thomas F. Hogan for coordination and management. (jeb, ) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
55 NOTICE AND SUMMARY OF FILING by MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL−RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, YASEIN KHASEM MOHAMMAD ESMAIL, JAMEL KHASEM MOHAMMAD, ADNAN FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MOHAMED FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, JAMAL MAR'I, NABIL MOHAMED MAR'I, OTHMAN ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ARAF ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ADIL EL HAJ OBAID, NAZEM SAEED EL HAJ OBAID, MOHAMED MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, BASHIR MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, FAROUK ALI AHMED SAIF, SALMAN YAHALDI HSAN MOHAMMED SAUD, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL−RBUAYE, ALL PETITIONERS, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, SAIFULLAH PARACHA, FARHAT PARACHA, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, HASSAN BIN ATTASH, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION (Pemberton, Alan) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
56 NOTICE OF JOINDER IN PETITIONERS' RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS' REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULING ORDER by SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, JIHAD DHIAB, NABIL, AHMED BEN BACHA, AHMED OMAR, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, MOHAMMED ABDULMALIK re (77 in 1:05−cv−00764−UNA−AK, 94 in 1:04−cv−02215−UNA, 55 in 1:05−cv−01457−UNA, 67 in 1:05−cv−02349−UNA, 62 in 1:05−cv−00748−UNA, 120 in 1:05−cv−00270−UNA, 7 in 1:08−cv−01440−UNA, 357 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 557 in 1:05−cv−02386−UNA) Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
57 PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PROCEDURES FOR COUNSEL ACCESS TO DETAINEES AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL BASE IN GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 9/11/08. (lctfh1) (Entered:

09/12/2008
09/12/2008 09/15/2008 09/19/2008

09/11/2008)
58 NOTICE of Filing of MOU and Acknowledgment Required Pursuant to Protective Order Dated September 11, 2008 by SAIFULLAH PARACHA, FARHAT PARACHA, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, SAEED AHMED SIDDIQUE, OMAR DEGHAYES, TAHER DESGHAYES, JAMEL ABDULLAH KIYEMBA, THERESA NAMUDDU, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALLUL ALHAMI, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, MOHAMMED AL NADOUR, MOHAMMED FAHREO, LAHCEN IKASRIEN, MOHAMMED MAZOZ, MOUSSA, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, SAID, RIDOUANE SHAKUR, YOUNIS SHAKUR, TAREQ, OMAR DEGHAYES, AHMED ABU IMRAN, NAJEEB AL HUSSEINI, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, AHMED BEN BACHA, SALAH BELBACHA, AHMED OMAR, SHARAF AL SANANI, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, MOHAMMED ABDULMALIK, SALIM JUMA KHAMISI re (57 in 1:05−cv−01457−UNA, 409 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 94 in 1:05−cv−00492−UNA, 26 in 1:08−cv−01185−UNA, 96 in 1:04−cv−02215−UNA, 85 in 1:05−cv−01504−UNA, 123 in 1:05−cv−00270−UNA, 107 in 1:05−cv−00329−UNA, 69 in 1:05−cv−02349−UNA, 9 in 1:08−cv−01440−UNA, 62 in 1:05−cv−01347−UNA, 79 in 1:05−cv−01607−UNA, 65 in 1:05−cv−00748−UNA, 93 in 1:05−cv−00359−UNA, 185 in 1:04−cv−02022−UNA, 79 in 1:05−cv−00764−UNA−AK, 573 in 1:05−cv−02386−UNA) Order (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: The government shall reply by Monday, September 15, 2008, to petitioners' oppositions to the government's Motion For Partial And Temporary Relief From The Court's July 11, 2008 Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 9/12/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
59 REPLY to opposition to motion re (317 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) MOTION Partial and Temporary Relief from Court's July 11, 2008 Scheduling Order re (53 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) Scheduling Order, MOTION Partial and Temporary Relief from Court's July 11, 2008 Scheduling Order re (53 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) Scheduling Order, MOTION Partial and Temporary Relief from Court's July 11, 2008 Scheduling Order re (53 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) Scheduling Order, filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, WADE F. DAVIS, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, ROBERT GATES. (Prince, Robert) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
60 ORDER granting (204) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:04−cv−01136−UNA; granting (129) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:04−cv−01164−UNA; granting (227) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:04−cv−01194−UNA; granting (273) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:04−cv−01254−UNA; granting (41) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:04−cv−01937−UNA; granting (181) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:04−cv−02022−UNA; granting (112) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:04−cv−02035−GK; granting (85) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:04−cv−02046−UNA; granting (93) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:04−cv−02215−UNA; granting (122) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00023−UNA; granting (94) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00247−UNA; granting (119) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00270−UNA; granting (152) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00280−UNA; granting (104) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00329−UNA; granting (91) Motion Relief From

Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00359−UNA; granting (68) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00392−UNA; granting (91) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00492−UNA; granting (138) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00520−UNA; granting (69) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00526−UNA; granting (110) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00569−UNA; granting (66) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00634−UNA; granting (61) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00748−UNA; granting (74) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00763−UNA; granting (75) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00764−UNA−AK; granting (62) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00877−UNA; granting (62) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00889−UNA; granting (69) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00892−UNA; granting (57) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00883−UNA; granting (68) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00993−UNA; granting (56) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00998−UNA; granting (78) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00999−UNA; granting (68) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−00994−UNA; granting (135) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01048−UNA; granting (52) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01189−UNA; granting (55) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01244−UNA; granting (112) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01220−UNA; granting (57) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01347−UNA; granting (101) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01353−UNA; granting (121) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01429−UNA; granting (57) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01458−UNA−AK; granting (54) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01457−UNA; granting (87) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01487−UNA; granting (157) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01509−UNA; granting (66) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01497−UNA; granting (98) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01490−UNA; granting (80) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01504−UNA; granting (85) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01506−UNA; granting (84) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01505−UNA; granting (94) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01555−UNA; granting (106) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01592−UNA; granting (97) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01601−UNA; granting (74) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01602−UNA; granting (76) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01607−UNA; granting (39) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01623−UNA; granting (61) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01645−UNA; granting (55) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01646−UNA; granting (81) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01638−UNA; granting (55) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01639−UNA; granting (80) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01678−UNA; granting (114) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01704−UNA; granting (60) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01971−UNA; granting (72) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−01983−UNA; granting (47) Motion Relief From

Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02010−UNA; granting (59) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02088−UNA; granting (68) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02104−UNA; granting (83) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02185−UNA; granting (76) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02186−UNA; granting (71) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02199−UNA; granting (89) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02249−UNA; granting (65) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02349−UNA; granting (116) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02367−UNA; granting (74) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02371−UNA; granting (115) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02378−UNA; granting (74) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02379−UNA; granting (37) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02381−UNA; granting (121) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02384−UNA; granting (81) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02398−UNA; granting (43) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02387−UNA; granting (80) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02380−UNA; granting (549) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02386−UNA; granting (33) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02444−UNA; granting (58) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02385−UNA; granting (110) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:05−cv−02479−UNA; granting (68) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−00618−UNA; granting (57) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−01684−UNA; granting (34) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−01668−UNA; granting (70) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−01690−RBW; granting (48) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−01758−UNA; granting (70) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−01767−UNA; granting (30) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−01759−JDB; granting (51) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−01766−UNA; granting (46) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−01761−UNA; granting (54) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:06−cv−01765−UNA; granting (39) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:07−cv−01710−UNA; granting (47) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:07−cv−02337−UNA; granting (47) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:07−cv−02338−UNA; granting (26) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−00987−UNA; granting (29) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01085−UNA; granting (20) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01104−UNA; granting (26) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01101−UNA; granting (317) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−mc−00442−TFH; granting (26) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01153−UNA; granting (22) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01185−UNA; granting (25) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01207−UNA; granting (17) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01224−UNA; granting (15) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01237−UNA; granting (14) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01228−UNA; granting (14) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01232−UNA; granting (17) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01230−UNA; granting (17) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01223−UNA; granting (17) Motion Relief From

09/19/2008 09/22/2008 09/27/2008
09/27/2008 09/30/2008

Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01233−UNA; granting (11) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01221−UNA; granting (17) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01227−UNA; granting (16) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01236−UNA; granting (15) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01238−UNA; granting (16) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01229−UNA; granting (16) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01235−UNA; granting (15) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01231−UNA; granting (17) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01310−UNA; granting (22) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01360−RWR; granting (6) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:08−cv−01440−UNA; granting (367) Motion Relief From Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling Order in case 1:02−cv−00828−UNA. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 9/19/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
61 MEMORANDUM OPINION re government's Motion For Partial And Temporary Relief From The Court's July 11, 2008, Scheduling. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 9/19/08 (lctfh1) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
NOTICE regarding Court's Website. Please be advised that the Court has on its external website information regarding the Guantanamo Bay Cases. The information gives instructions for filing in these cases. The website is http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/public−docs/gitmo (jeb, ) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
62 NOTICE of Appearance by Ahmed Ghappour on behalf of SAIFULLAH PARACHA, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, AYMEN SAEED BATARFI, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, HISHAM SLITI, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, AHMED ABU IMRAN, BENJAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, JIHAD DHIAB, NABIL, SALAH BELBACHA, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH (Ghappour, Ahmed) (Entered: 09/27/2008)
63 NOTICE of Filing of Documents Required Pursuant to Protective Order by JIHAD DHIAB (Ghappour, Ahmed) (Entered: 09/27/2008)
64 STATUS REPORT Regarding the Filing of Factual Returns and Request for Exception from Sequencing by JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD,

10/02/2008 10/14/2008

MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, WADE F. DENNIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, RICHARD B. CHENEY, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, TERRY CARRICO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court directs counsel in these consolidated cases to its order of July 2, 2008, and its minute order of July 3, 2008, which require that, with the exception of notices of appearance, all filings be filed in the applicable civil case and in 08−mc−442. For instructions on how to file in multiple cases, see http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/public−docs/files/filing_instructions.pdf. Additionally, the Court directs counsel to Local Civil Rule 7(c), which reads, "Each motion and opposition shall be accompanied by a proposed order." Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 10/2/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
65 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Michael Marconda on behalf of JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG,

10/14/2008

JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, WADE F. DENNIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, HARRY B. HARRIS, MIKE BUMGARNER, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO (Marconda, Scott) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
66 MOTION to Dismiss Improper Respondents by JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE

10/27/2008

BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, WADE F. DENNIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, HARRY B. HARRIS, MIKE BUMGARNER, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Marconda, Scott) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
67 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, JAY HOOD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRYCE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, PORTER J. GOSS, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD,

10/28/2008
10/30/2008 10/30/2008

MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, WADE F. DENNIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID VARGO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO. (Subar, Judry) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court directs counsel in these consolidated cases to the Court's Minute Order of October 2, 2008, which directed counsel to the Court's previous orders that require all filings, with the exception of notices of appearance, be filed in the applicable civil case and in 08−mc−442 and directed counsel to Local Civil Rule 7(c), which reads: "Each motion and opposition shall be accompanied by a proposed order." Further, the Court directs counsel to Local Civil Rule 7(m), which reads: "Before filing any nondispositive motion in a civil action, counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel, either in person or by telephone, in a good faith effort to determine whether there is any opposition to the relief sought and, if there is opposition, to narrow the areas of disagreement.... A party shall include in its motion a statement that the required discussion occurred, and a statement as to whether the motion is opposed." Finally, the Court cautions counsel that failure to follow the Court's orders and local rules may result in the Court denying motions and striking filings. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 10/28/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
68 NOTICE of Filing of Factual Returns by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER (Ahern, Paul) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
69 Memorandum in opposition to re (106 in 1:05−cv−01504−RMC, 141 in 1:05−cv−01704−RMU, 36 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB, 98 in 1:05−cv−01505−RMC, 123 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 628 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 71 in 1:05−cv−01971−RMC, 81 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU, 128 in 1:05−cv−01220−RMU, 316 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK, 24 in 1:06−cv−01688−RMC, 123 in 1:05−cv−01353−RMC, 5 in 1:08−cv−01628−PLF, 89 in 1:05−cv−01607−RMU, 69 in 1:05−cv−02385−RMU, 104 in 1:05−cv−01555−JR, 26 in 1:08−cv−01227−ESH, 135 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 48 in 1:05−cv−01623−RWR, 83 in 1:05−cv−02371−RCL, 68 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 87 in 1:05−cv−02379−JR, 86 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 186 in 1:05−cv−01509−RMU, 64 in 1:05−cv−00998−RMU, 80 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 87 in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 39 in 1:08−cv−00987−JDB, 47 in 1:08−cv−01310−RMU, 80 in 1:05−cv−02199−HHK, 109 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 66 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK,

97 in 1:05−cv−01506−RMC, 148 in 1:05−cv−01048−RMU, 82 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 62 in 1:05−cv−01639−RBW, 102 in 1:05−cv−01602−RMU, 86 in 1:05−cv−00392−ESH, 48 in 1:05−cv−02477−RMU, 151 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 57 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 143 in 1:05−cv−01429−RMU, 723 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 70 in 1:05−cv−02088−RWR, 91 in 1:05−cv−02380−CKK, 41 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 64 in 1:05−cv−01458−ESH−AK, 83 in 1:05−cv−01497−RCL, 68 in 1:05−cv−00883−RBW, 22 in 1:08−cv−01221−CKK, 78 in 1:05−cv−00994−JDB, 96 in 1:05−cv−02185−JR, 86 in 1:05−cv−02186−ESH, 37 in 1:06−cv−01759−JDB, 37 in 1:08−cv−01185−HHK, 177 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK) MOTION to Dismiss "Improper" Respondents filed by MARTIN MUBANGA, KATHLEEN MUBANGA, JAMIL EL−BANNA, SABAH SUNNRQROUT, BISHER AL−RAWI, JAHIDA SAYYADI, MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL−RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, AREF ABD IL RHEEM, AREF ABD AL RAHIM, YASEIN KHASEM MOHAMMAD ESMAIL, JAMEL KHASEM MOHAMMAD, ADNAN FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MOHAMED FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, JAMAL MAR'I, NABIL MOHAMED MAR'I, OTHMAN ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ARAF ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ADIL EL HAJ OBAID, NAZEM SAEED EL HAJ OBAID, MOHAMED MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, BASHIR MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, SADEQ MOHAMMED SAID, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, ABD ALSALAM MOHAMMED SAEED, FAROUK ALI AHMED SAIF, SHEAB AL MOHAMEDI, SALMAN YAHALDI HSAN MOHAMMED SAUD, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL−RBUAYE, ALL PETITIONERS, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, WAFFA EL−ARABIE, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHY, ZAHER OMER BEN HAMDON, MOHAMMED OMER KHAMIS HAMDON, MOHAMMED AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, SALEH ALI ABDULLA BAWAZER, DJAMEL AMEZIANE, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, NASSER DAHER AL SHAMMARI, ABDUL RAHMAN SHALBY, SHAKER AAMER, ABDULLAH AALI AL OTIABI, MUHAMMED FAHAD AL QAHTANY, MUSA AL MADANY, SALEH ABDULLA AL−OSHAN, MOHAMMED SAAD MOHAMMED AL−OSHAN, ZABEN DHAHER AL SHAMMARI, MUHAMMED KHAN TUMANI, ABD AL NISR KHAN TUMANI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, KARIN BOSTAN, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL AL KARIM, KASIMBEKOV KOMOLIDDIN TOHIRJANOVICH, ABDULSALAM ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, ABDULWAHAB ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, ABU ABDUL RAUF ZALITA, OMAR DEGHAYES, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, MOTAI SAIB, BISHER AL−RAWI, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL−SALAHI, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, AHMED "DOE", OMAR DEGHAYES, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, HAMMAD DOE, HUDHAIFA DOE, JALAAL DOE, KHALID DOE, SAABIR DOE, SAADIQ DOE, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUSABUR DOE, ABDUSAMAD DOE, ABDUNASIR DOE, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, MOAZZAM BEGG, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, SHAFIIQ, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, ABBAR SUFIAN AL HAWARY, SHAKER AAMER, BISHER AL−RAWI, IBRAHIM OSMAN IBRAHIM IDRIS, EDHAM MAMET, IBRAHIM MAMET, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, ABDUL ZAHIR, AMEEN MOHAMMAD ALBKRI, ALI SALEH ALBKRI, SADAR DOE, ARKEEN DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHAMMED AL−QAHTANI, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL−QAHTANI, KHALED ABD ELGABAR

MOHAMMED OTHMAN, ABD AL MALIK ABD AL WAHAB, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL−MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL−MUDAFARI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, AHMED AL DARBY, AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ALI MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED HASSEN, ADHAM MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA AL−BAIDANY, ABDEL AZIZ AL−SWIDI, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, MOHAMMED AL PALESTINI, OMAR (LNU), SOFAINE MOHAMMED BERHOUMI, ABDUL AZIZ NAJI, ABIN ALHAMED ABID ALSALLAM ALKESAWI, UMAR ABDULLAH AL KUNDUZI, KHALED ABDALLAH AL−IDAN, ABDUL RAUF ASIBI, ABDUL RAZAK ALI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, MAHER LNU, MAHER EL FALESTENY, SHARGOWI LNU, BISHER AL−RAWI, JABBAROV OYBECK JAMOLOVICH, FADL DAHIMI, ABDUL SALAM DEIFF, ABDURAHMAN LNU, AHMED OMAR, ALI LNU, EDRESS LNU, MOHAMMED AHMED SAEED HIDAR, SAIF ULLAH, YOYEJ, SAEED, OMAR DOE, SHARAF AL SANANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, FAHD ABU HAFSA, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUL HAQ, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, OMAR RAMAH, ABD AL ZAHER, FAWZI KHALED ABDALLAH AL−AUDHA, ABDULLAH BO OMER HAMZA YOYEJ, ABU RAHAN, NAJEEB DOE, SAD AL GAHTANI, FAHD AL HARAAZI, JABIR AL QUATANY, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHSEN, FAHD AL FAWZAN, ADEL LNU, RASHED AL QAMDI, BANDAR AL SHAIBANI, ALI SHER HAMIDULLAH, MARSHAL DOE, KHALD AL BARKATI, ABDULAL AL THANI, ABU AHMED AL JOFI, SLAIM HARBI, ABU RAD AL JOFI, MUHAMMED HARBI, ABDULAL DOE, SAD AL MATERI, BOUCETTA FIHI, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, SEED FARHA, SALEH DOE, AHMED ADNAN AHJAM, MAGED DOE, ZEYAD AL GASSMY, ADEL HASSAN, HAMAD DOE, JAMIL AHMAD SAEED, HALA AHMAD SAEED AL−ADAHG, AMIR DOE, ABU AHMED, WALEED DOE, WALEED LNU, SAMIR DOE, ELHAM BATAIF, ZEIN AL−ABEDEEN, YAGOOB AL SOURY, ABDUL RHMAN, ADEL AL TUNISI, ZAKER CHAN, SADER DOE, ALI AL KAZMI, ADNAN AL BIHANI, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, ABDULLAH LNU, ABDURAZZAK LNU, KHADER DOE, BILAL LNU, MOSHEN DOE, ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDURRAZAKH LNU, FAHD DOE, JAMIL EL−BANNA, OSAMA DOE, MOHAMED HMADI, FAHMI DOE, ESAM DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, ABDUR RAZAKAH, AHMAD DOE, AHMED AL−DELEBANY, ALI KADAMI, AYMAN, FAWAZ, HOUMAD WARZLY, MOHAMED RAJAB, OTHMAN ALI MUHAMMED OMAR, MOHAMMED KAMEEN, SABRY MOHAMMED, SALEH, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA, KHALID MOHAMMED, MUHAMMAD NUR UTHMAN MUHAMMAD, MAHDI SALIH, SAKI BACHA, SHAMSULLAH, ABOU YASSIR JEZAIRI, ABDAL RAUF ZALITINI, ABDAUL RAZAK ALI−HAJ, ADNAN, AHAMED, SALAH DEEN IBN SHAIKH, SALIH, SALEH LIBI, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH AL HALMANDY, MUHAMMED SAAD IQBAL MADNI, SAID MADANY, ABDULLAH JAFFA, ABU HADIFA, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, SANJAWEZ RAWEEL KAMEEL WEEJ, ABUL AZIZ AL MATRAFI, MAJED BARYAN, MOHAMED FAHAD SAAD AL ZU'BI, MOUSSA, ABDULRAHMAN, SAUD AL JOUHANY, SULTAN AL SHAREEF, ABDU TAWAB, ABDUL AZIZ, ABU RAWDAH, ABDUL AL HAMMAN, ABDUL LATIF, ABDULLA HAJI, ABDULLA, ADEL, INSHANULLAH, BITAL ADEL HALAMI, HISHAM, RAFIOVE BIN BASHIR, RIAD NARGERI, RIDAH, SAIF, MASOUD, ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ALI SALEH, AMAR BILOUSHI, KHALID DESHIRE, IBRAHIM NAYIF ADBALLAH IBRAHIM, MOHAMMED CHINGUITY, ABDO ALI AL HAJ, ABU BAKER SHAMMRANY, GHANIM−ABDULRAHMAN AL−HARBI, RAVIL MINGAZOV, ZAINULABIDIN MEROZHEV, ELHAM BATTAYAV, ALI ABDULLAH ALI, MOHAMMED AHMED TAHER, QARI SAAD IQBAL, MOHAMMAD SHARIEF, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, MAJID KHAN, RABIA KHAN, FAIZ AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, HADDAD AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, MOHAMED MUQBEL AHMED ALSABRI, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ELISHER, SABIR, MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, SHAWALI KHAN, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, SHAKHRUKH HAMIDUVA, ADINA HAMIDOVA, FNU HAFIZULLAH, ABDUL GHAFFAR, ADEL NOORI,

10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008
11/06/2008

MUSTAFA AHMED HAMLILY, MUSTAFA AIT IDIR. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
70 NOTICE of Proposed Order regarding Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Improper Respondents by GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION re (886 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) Memorandum in Opposition,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (Kadidal, Shayana) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
71 NOTICE of Appearance by Jay Apperson on behalf of GEORGE W. BUSH (Apperson, Jay) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
72 STATUS REPORT of Oct.31, 2008 Regarding Filing of Factual Returns by JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, GORDON R. ENGLAND, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, WADE F. DENNIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, RICHARD B. CHENEY, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, DAVID VARGO, ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD B. MYERS, TERRY CARRICO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
73 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 11/6/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
74 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathryn Celia Mason on behalf of JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, HARRY B. HARRIS, MIKE BUMGARNER (Mason, Kathryn) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
75 REPLY to opposition to motion re (27 in 1:08−cv−01235−JDB, 51 in 1:05−cv−02387−RMC, 106 in 1:05−cv−01504−RMC, 99 in 1:05−cv−01487−RMC, 141 in 1:05−cv−01704−RMU, 36 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB, 98 in 1:05−cv−01505−RMC, 123 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 628 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 71 in 1:05−cv−01971−RMC, 109 in 1:05−cv−02398−RMU, 81 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU, 128 in 1:05−cv−01220−RMU, 316 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK,

11/07/2008

81 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 24 in 1:06−cv−01688−RMC, 123 in 1:05−cv−01353−RMC, 5 in 1:08−cv−01628−PLF, 89 in 1:05−cv−01607−RMU, 69 in 1:05−cv−02385−RMU, 104 in 1:05−cv−01555−JR, 120 in 1:05−cv−01592−RCL, 26 in 1:08−cv−01227−ESH, 135 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 48 in 1:05−cv−01623−RWR, 272 in 1:04−cv−01194−HHK, 83 in 1:05−cv−02371−RCL, 68 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 87 in 1:05−cv−02379−JR, 86 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 186 in 1:05−cv−01509−RMU, 64 in 1:05−cv−00998−RMU, 80 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 47 in 1:06−cv−01668−HHK, 131 in 1:05−cv−01124−RMC, 87 in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 125 in 1:05−cv−00329−PLF, 39 in 1:08−cv−00987−JDB, 134 in 1:05−cv−02384−RWR, 47 in 1:08−cv−01310−RMU, 80 in 1:05−cv−02199−HHK, 109 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 66 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 97 in 1:05−cv−01506−RMC, 148 in 1:05−cv−01048−RMU, 43 in 1:08−cv−01207−RWR, 139 in 1:05−cv−02367−RWR, 26 in 1:08−cv−01238−RWR, 82 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 62 in 1:05−cv−01639−RBW, 102 in 1:05−cv−01602−RMU, 86 in 1:05−cv−00392−ESH, 48 in 1:05−cv−02477−RMU, 75 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 151 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 57 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 58 in 1:06−cv−01761−ESH, 143 in 1:05−cv−01429−RMU, 63 in 1:05−cv−01244−CKK, 723 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 70 in 1:05−cv−02088−RWR, 91 in 1:05−cv−02380−CKK, 41 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 120 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 223 in 1:04−cv−01136−JDB, 64 in 1:05−cv−01458−ESH−AK, 104 in 1:05−cv−02249−RMC, 83 in 1:05−cv−01497−RCL, 68 in 1:05−cv−00883−RBW, 22 in 1:08−cv−01221−CKK, 78 in 1:05−cv−00994−JDB, 96 in 1:05−cv−02185−JR, 37 in 1:06−cv−01759−JDB, 86 in 1:05−cv−02186−ESH, 37 in 1:08−cv−01185−HHK, 177 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 26 in 1:08−cv−01237−RMC) MOTION to Dismiss Improper Respondents filed by JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, HARRY B. HARRIS, MIKE BUMGARNER. (Mason, Kathryn) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
76 ORDER granting government's motions to amend factual returns and amending the Court's July 11, 2008, order. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 11/7/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 11/07/2008)

11/10/2008
11/12/2008 11/17/2008 11/18/2008 11/18/2008 11/18/2008

77 NOTICE of Filing by Clive Stafford Smith of Documents Required Pursuant to Protective Order by SAIFULLAH PARACHA, FARHAT PARACHA, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, SAEED AHMED SIDDIQUE, OMAR DEGHAYES, TAHER DESGHAYES, JAMEL ABDULLAH KIYEMBA, THERESA NAMUDDU, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, MOHAMMED AL NADOUR, MOHAMMED FAHREO, LAHCEN IKASRIEN, MOHAMMED MAZOZ, MOUSSA, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, SAID, RIDOUANE SHAKUR, YOUNIS SHAKUR, TAREQ, OMAR DEGHAYES, AHMED ABU IMRAN, NAJEEB AL HUSSEINI, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, AHMED BEN BACHA, SALAH BELBACHA, NADIR OMAR ADULLAH BIN SAADOUN ALSAARY, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, MOHAMMED ABDULMALIK, SALIM JUMA KHAMISI (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Court's entry of the Case Management Order (docket # 940, 08−mc−442), the Court denies as moot the government's motion to enter a case management order (docket # 205, 08−mc−442). Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 11/12/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
78 ORDER #1 −− case management order. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/17/08. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
79 MOTION for Reconsideration, MOTION for Certification for interlocatory appeal, MOTION to Stay Of This Court's November 6, 2008 Case Management Order by GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit England Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Mueller Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Request Letter #1, # 4 Exhibit Request Letter #2, # 5 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
80 NOTICE Of Filing Of Classified Declarations by GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
81 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re (150 in 1:05−cv−01429−RMU, 92 in 1:05−cv−01983−RMU, 112 in 1:05−cv−00359−GK, 397 in 1:02−cv−00828−CKK, 204 in 1:04−cv−02022−PLF, 50 in 1:05−cv−02385−RMU, 71 in 1:05−cv−01646−JDB, 107 in 1:05−cv−02185−JR, 86 in 1:05−cv−00892−CKK, 93 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 73 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 113 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 98 in 1:05−cv−02380−CKK, 102 in 1:05−cv−00392−ESH, 94 in 1:05−cv−02186−ESH, 115 in 1:05−cv−01504−RMC, 108 in 1:05−cv−01487−RMC, 85 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 195 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 99 in 1:05−cv−01607−RMU, 112 in 1:05−cv−02249−RMC, 98 in 1:05−cv−01638−CKK, 89 in 1:05−cv−00763−JDB, 149 in 1:05−cv−02367−RWR, 96 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 940 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 79 in 1:05−cv−00889−ESH, 99 in 1:04−cv−02046−CKK, 130 in 1:05−cv−02378−JDB, 91 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 130 in 1:05−cv−00329−PLF, 142 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 142 in 1:05−cv−00023−RWR, 90 in 1:05−cv−00994−JDB, 76 in 1:05−cv−01971−RMC, 86 in 1:05−cv−02199−HHK, 92 in 1:05−cv−02379−JR, 136 in 1:05−cv−01220−RMU, 84 in 1:05−cv−00993−RMU, 115 in 1:05−cv−01555−JR, 285 in 1:04−cv−01194−HHK, 114 in 1:05−cv−00247−HHK, 68 in 1:05−cv−01244−CKK, 64 in 1:05−cv−01189−JR, 91 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 114 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 158 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 329 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK, 140 in 1:05−cv−02384−RWR, 53 in 1:05−cv−01623−RWR, 80 in 1:05−cv−01645−PLF, 78 in 1:05−cv−02088−RWR, 125 in 1:05−cv−01592−RCL, 83 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 119 in 1:05−cv−01490−PLF, 85 in 1:05−cv−02385−RMU) Order of November 6, 2008 filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD,

11/20/2008 11/21/2008 11/26/2008
11/28/2008

NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO. (White, David) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: Petitioners shall respond by Wednesday, November 26, 2008, to the government's Motion For Clarification And Reconsideration Of This Court's November 6, 2008 Case Management Order And Supplemental Amended Orders Or, In the Alternative, Motion For Certification For Appeal Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) And To Stay Certain Obligations Pending Resolution Of The Motion And Any Appeal (docket # 1004, 08−mc−442). Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 11/20/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
82 ORDER attached staying due dates pending resolution of the Government's Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration 1004 . Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on November 21, 2008. (lctfh2) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
83 Memorandum in opposition to re (116 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 116 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 116 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 95 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 95 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 95 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 21 in 1:08−cv−01440−CKK, 21 in 1:08−cv−01440−CKK, 21 in 1:08−cv−01440−CKK, 703 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 703 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 703 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 90 in 1:05−cv−02349−RMC, 90 in 1:05−cv−02349−RMC, 90 in 1:05−cv−02349−RMC, 120 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 120 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 120 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 148 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 148 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 148 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 1004 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 1004 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 1004 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 79 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 79 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 79 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 97 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 97 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 97 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK) MOTION for Reconsideration MOTION for Certification for interlocatory appeal MOTION to Stay filed by SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, JIHAD DHIAB, AHMED BEN BACHA, NADIR OMAR ADULLAH BIN SAADOUN ALSAARY, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, MOHAMMED ABDULMALIK, ISMAIL MOHAMED. (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: By Wednesday, December 3, 2008, the government shall file one consolidated reply to the petitioners' oppositions to the Government's Motion For Clarification And Reconsideration Of This Court's November 6, 2008 Case Management Order And Supplemental Amended Orders Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Certification For Appeal Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) And To Stay Certain Obligations Pending Resolution Of The Motion And Any Appeal. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 11/28/2008. (lctfh1) (Entered: 11/28/2008)

12/01/2008 12/01/2008 12/02/2008 12/03/2008

84 STATUS REPORT Regarding Filing of Factual Returns and Request for Exception from Sequencing by MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, WADE F. DAVIS, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID M. THOMAS, ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, RICHARD B. MYERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
85 MOTION for Exception from Sequencing (same document as dkt. no. 1156 in No. 08−mc−0442) by JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, WADE F. DENNIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, RICHARD B. CHENEY, ROBERT GATES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
86 ORDER setting hearing for December 10, 2008. (Motion Hearing set for 12/10/2008 03:00 PM before Judge Thomas F. Hogan.) Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 12/2/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
87 REPLY to opposition to motion re (1004 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 1004 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 1004 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) MOTION for Reconsideration MOTION for Certification for interlocatory appeal MOTION to Stay Of This Court's November 6, 2008 Case Management Order filed by JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PRIVILEGE TEAM, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, WADE F. DENNIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES,

12/12/2008 12/16/2008
12/17/2008 12/29/2008 12/29/2008

DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, TERRY CARRICO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Boumediene Case Mgmt. Order)(Prince, Robert) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
88 NOTICE of service of unclassified return by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO (Apperson, Jay) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
89 ORDER granting in part and denying in part government's Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration of this Court's November 6, 2008 Case Management Order and Supplemental Amended Orders or, in the Alternative, Motion for Certification for Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and to Stay Certain Obligations Pending Resolution of the Motion and any Appeal (docket # 1004, 08−mc−442). Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 12/16/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
90 ORDER requiring joint filing regarding consolidation by January 5, 2009. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 12/17/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
91 ORDER #2 −− Case Management Order. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 12/29/08. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
92 MOTION for Order to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as Protected Information by GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, GEORGE

12/30/2008 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 12/31/2008
12/31/2008 12/31/2008 12/31/2008 01/02/2009
01/07/2009

WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(White, David) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: By Wednesday, January 7, 2009, the petitioners shall file one consolidated response to the government's Motion To Confirm Designation Of Unclassified Factual Returns As Protected (docket # 1416, 08−mc−442). Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 12/30/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
93 MOTION for Extension of Time to Comply with Case Management Orders Requiring Exculpatory Disclosures/Certifications by ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, GEORGE W. BUSH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Needle, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 20 Motion to Dismiss, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 12/31/08. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: Because the government's Notice of Prior Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence and Motion for Extension of Time (docket # 1431, 08−mc−442) and Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Discovery Pursuant to Amended Case Management Order Section I.E.1(3) (docket # 1432, 08−mc−442) are motions to amend the Case Management Order this Court entered on November 6, 2008, and amended on December 16, 2008, as well as case management orders entered by many of the Merits Judges, pursuant to this Court's order of December 16, 2008, the Merits Judges will address the motions in their individual cases. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the motions are DENIED in 08−mc−442. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 12/31/08. (lctfh1) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
94 ERRATA by GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR (1431 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) MOTION for Extension of Time to Comply with Case Management Orders Requiring Exculpatory Disclosures/Certifications filed by GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (corrected))(Needle, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
95 STATUS REPORT Regarding Filing of Factual Returns for December 2008 by GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, WADE F. DAVIS, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
96 MOTION for Exception from Sequencing Regarding Factual Returns (also filed as dkt. no. 1443 in No. 08−mc−0442) by GEORGE W. BUSH, WADE F. DAVIS, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that, by Friday, January 30, 2009, the government shall file factual returns for petitioners approved for transfer or release for whom the government has yet to file factual returns. The Court further ORDERS that, by Friday, February 27, 2009, the government shall file factual returns for petitioners charged with violations of the laws of war under the Military Commission Act of 2006 for whom the government has yet to file factual returns. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 1/2/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 01/02/2009)
97 Memorandum in opposition to re (1416 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) MOTION for Order to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as Protected Information filed by FALEN GHEREBI, BISHER NASER ALI ALMARWALH, HUISSEN NASER ALI ALMARWALH, MASAAB OMAR AL−MADHWANI, ALI OMAR MADHWANI, ABDULKHALIQ AL−BAIDHANI, KHALID AL−BAIDHANI, ALI AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, ABDULLAH AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, SUHAIL ABDU ANAM, SAEED AHMED AL−SARIM, SAMIR AHMED AL−SARIM, IMAD ABDULLAH HASSAN, AMRO ABDULLAH HASSAN, JALAL SALIM BIN AMER, FAEZ BIN AMER, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, MOHAMED YAHYA MAHDI, ATAG ALI ABDOH, MOHAMED ABDU ANAM, KHALID AHMED KASSIM, FADHLE AHMED KASSIM, FAHMI ABDULLAH AHMED, KMAL ABDULLAH AHMED, ABDUALAZIZ ABDOH AL SWIDI,

ADNAN ABDOH ALSWIDI, AL HUSSIN AL−TIS, HADI HUSSIN AL−TIS, FAHMI ABDULLAH UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, ALL PETITIONERS, ABDULLAH AHMED UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL−RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, AREF ABD IL RHEEM, AREF ABD AL RAHIM, YASEIN KHASEM MOHAMMAD ESMAIL, JAMEL KHASEM MOHAMMAD, ADNAN FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MOHAMED FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, JAMAL MAR'I, NABIL MOHAMED MAR'I, OTHMAN ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ARAF ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ADIL EL HAJ OBAID, NAZEM SAEED EL HAJ OBAID, MOHAMED MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, BASHIR MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, SADEQ MOHAMMED SAID, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, ABD ALSALAM MOHAMMED SAEED, FAROUK ALI AHMED SAIF, SHEAB AL MOHAMEDI, SALMAN YAHALDI HSAN MOHAMMED SAUD, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL−RBUAYE, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, SAIFULLAH PARACHA, FARHAT PARACHA, PRIVILEGE TEAM, AHCENE ZEMIRI, KARINA DERESHTEANU, RAMI BIN SAAD AL−OTEIBI, HANI SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, YOSRA SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, MAHMOOD SALIM AL MOHAMMED, ABDULLA SALIM AL−MOHAMMED, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, WAFFA EL−ARABIE, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHY, ZAHER OMER BEN HAMDON, MOHAMMED OMER KHAMIS HAMDON, MOHAMMED AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, SALEH ALI ABDULLA BAWAZER, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALLUL ALHAMI, DJAMEL AMEZIANE, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, NASSER DAHER AL SHAMMARI, ABDUL RAHMAN SHALBY, SHAKER AAMER, ABDULLAH AALI AL OTIABI, MUHAMMED FAHAD AL QAHTANY, MUSA AL MADANY, SALEH ABDULLA AL−OSHAN, MOHAMMED SAAD MOHAMMED AL−OSHAN, ZABEN DHAHER AL SHAMMARI, MUHAMMED KHAN TUMANI, ABD AL NISR KHAN TUMANI, OMER SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHAMMED SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, MOHAMMED AL NADOUR, MOHAMMED FAHREO, LAHCEN IKASRIEN, MOHAMMED MAZOZ, MOUSSA, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, SAID, RIDOUANE SHAKUR, YOUNIS SHAKUR, TAREQ, OMAR DEGHAYES, AHMED ABU IMRAN, NAJEEB AL HUSSEINI, KHIALI−GUL, YASIN MUHAMMED BASARDH, ALI HUSSIAN MOHAMMAD MUETY SHAABAN, KARIN BOSTAN, MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA SOHAIL, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL AL KARIM, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, HONORGOL KHIALIGOL, HAJI NUSRAT, ABDUL WAHID, HAJI ROHULLAH WAKIL, MOHAMMAD WAKIL, SABAR LAL, MOHAMMED HASSAN, WALI MOHAMMED MORAFA, HADAYA MORAFA, ABDUL RAHMAN AZIZ KHAN, ABD AL RAHMAN, ABDUL RAZAK IKTIAR MOHAMMED, ALI SHAH MOUSOVI, MOHAMMAD SAYYED SHAH, IZAATULLAH NUSRAT, OMAR MOHAMMED KHALIFH, OMAR DEGHAYES, ABU ABDUL RAUF ZALITA, OMAR DEGHAYES, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, MOTAI SAIB, BISHER AL−RAWI, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL−SALAHI, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, JAWAD JABBAR SADKHAN, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, MOAZZAM BEGG, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, ABDL HADI OMAR MAHMOUD FARAJ, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, SHAFIIQ, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, BISHER AL−RAWI, IBRAHIM OSMAN IBRAHIM IDRIS, HASSAN BIN ATTASH, BENYAMIN MOHAMMED

AL HABASHI, A'AMER SHAKER, HAMID AL RAZAK, BISHER AL RAWI, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, ABDUL ZAHIR, HUSSAIN SALEM MOHAMMED ALMERFEDI, SALEM MOHAMMED SALEM ABDULLA ALMERFEDI, WALEED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED RAJEB ABU GHANEM, HIMIGER SADER ABU GHANEM, ALLA ALI BIN ALI AHMED, WAGDI ALI BIN ALI, MOHAMMED AL−QAHTANI, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL−QAHTANI, ISMAIL ALKHEMISI, HASAN BALGAID, OMAR DEGHAYES, MUHAMMED AHMED MUHAMMED ALGHURBANY, ALI HAMZA AHMED SULIMAN BAHLOOL, ABDOUL MOHAMMED AHMED BAHLOOL, SALEH MOHAMMED SELEH AL THABBII, FATMAH QHASIM AL AHMADI, ABDUL AL QADER AHMED HUSSAIN, ABDULGADER AHMED HASIN ABOBAKER, ISSAM HAMID ALI BIN ALI AL JAYFI, HAMID ALI AL JAYFI, OTHMAN ALI MOHAMMED AL SHAMRANY, ALI MOHAMED OMAR AL SHOMRANY, KHALID MOHAMMED AL THABBI, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL−MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL−MUDAFARI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, ALI ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, TOORAN MOHAMMAD AMANNULLAH, MIRRA JAAN, MOHAMMAD WABI UMARI, GUL HYAT KHAN, ABDULLAH MUJAHID HAQ, FARID AHMED, MOHAMMAD RAHIM, MOHAMMAD KARIM, MOHAMMAD ZAHIR, ABDUL WAHAB, ABDULLAH WAZIR ZADRAN, GHULAM ROOHANI, GHULAM JEELANI, DR. HIYATULLAH, ABDUL ZAHIR, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, ZAHIR SHAH, ABDUL HAQ, ABDUL BARRI, ADHAM MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, BANDAR AL JAABIR, JAMAL KIYEMBA, MOHAMMED ZAHRANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, SALIM SAID, ANWAR HANDAN AL SHIMMIRI, SULIMAN HONAHEEM ALOWAIDAH, SAAD AL QAHTAANI, JOBRAN SAAD AL−QUHTANI, NAWAL MADAY AL−QUHTANI, ZAKARIA AL−BAIDANY, ABDEL AZIZ AL−SWIDI, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, MOHAMMED AL PALESTINI, OMAR (LNU), SOFAINE MOHAMMED BERHOUMI, ABDUL AZIZ NAJI, ABIN ALHAMED ABID ALSALLAM ALKESAWI, ABU RAWDA, UMAR ABDULLAH AL KUNDUZI, KHALED ABDALLAH AL−IDAN, ABDUL RAUF ASIBI, ABDUL RAZAK ALI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, MAHER LNU, MAHER EL FALESTENY, MUSTAFA AL SHAMILI, SHARGOWI LNU, BISHER AL−RAWI, JABBAROV OYBECK JAMOLOVICH, SANAD ALI ALKALIEMI, FADL DAHIMI, ABDUL SALAM DEIFF, ABDURAHMAN LNU, AHMED OMAR, ALI LNU, EDRESS LNU, MOHAMMED AHMED SAEED HIDAR, SAIF ULLAH, SAMIR LNU, YOYEJ, SAEED, OMAR DOE, SHARAF AL SANANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, FAHD ABU HAFSA, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUL HAQ, NADIR OMAR ADULLAH BIN SAADOUN ALSAARY, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, OMAR RAMAH, ABD AL ZAHER, FAWZI KHALED ABDALLAH AL−AUDHA, ABDULLAH BO OMER HAMZA YOYEJ, ABU RAHAN, NAJEEB DOE, SAD AL GAHTANI, AMER MOHAMMON, FAHD AL HARAAZI, JABIR AL QUATANY, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHSEN, FAHD AL FAWZAN, ADEL LNU, RASHED AL QAMDI, BANDAR AL SHAIBANI, ALI SHER HAMIDULLAH, MARSHAL DOE, KHALD AL BARKATI, ABDULAL AL THANI, ABU AHMED AL JOFI, SLAIM HARBI, ABU RAD AL JOFI, MUHAMMED HARBI, ABDULAZIZ LNU, ABDULAL DOE, SAD AL MATERI, BOUCETTA FIHI, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, SEED FARHA, SALEH DOE, AHMED ADNAN AHJAM, MAGED DOE, ZEYAD AL GASSMY, ADEL HASSAN, HAMAD DOE, JAMIL AHMAD SAEED, HALA AHMAD SAEED AL−ADAHG, AMIR DOE, ALKHADR ABDULLAH AL YAFIE, TOFIQ NASSER AWAD AL BIHANI, ABU AHMED, WALEED DOE, WALEED LNU, SAMIR DOE, ELHAM BATAIF, ZEIN AL−ABEDEEN, YAGOOB AL SOURY, ABDUL RHMAN, ADEL AL TUNISI, ZAKER CHAN, SADER DOE, MOHAMMED AHMED SLAM AL−KHATEEB, ALI AL KAZMI, ADNAN AL BIHANI, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, ABDULLAH LNU, ABDURAZZAK LNU, KHADER DOE, BILAL LNU, MOSHEN DOE, ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDURRAZAKH LNU, FAHD DOE, JAMIL EL−BANNA, ADEL LNU, OSAMA DOE, MOHAMED HMADI, ABDUL−RAHMAN ABDO ABULGHAITH SULAIMAN, FAHMI DOE, ESAM DOE, ALI KADAMI, AYMAN, FAWAZ, HOUMAD WARZLY, MOHAMED RAJAB, OTHMAN ALI

01/08/2009 01/09/2009

MUHAMMED OMAR, MOHAMMED KAMEEN, SABRY MOHAMMED, SALEH, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA, KHALID MOHAMMED, MUHAMMAD NUR UTHMAN MUHAMMAD, MAHDI SALIH, SAKI BACHA, SHAMSULLAH, ABOU YASSIR JEZAIRI, ABDAL RAUF ZALITINI, ABDAUL RAZAK ALI−HAJ, ADNAN, AHAMED, SALAH DEEN IBN SHAIKH, SALIH, SALEH LIBI, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH AL HALMANDY, MUHAMMED SAAD IQBAL MADNI, SAID MADANY, ABDULLAH JAFFA, ABU HADIFA, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, SANJAWEZ RAWEEL KAMEEL WEEJ, ABUL AZIZ AL MATRAFI, MAJED BARYAN, MOHAMED FAHAD SAAD AL ZU'BI, MOUSSA, ABDULRAHMAN, SAUD AL JOUHANY, SULTAN AL SHAREEF, ABDU TAWAB, ABDUL AZIZ, ABU RAWDAH, ABDUL AL HAMMAN, ABDUL LATIF, ABDULLA HAJI, ABDULLA, ADEL, INSHANULLAH, BITAL ADEL HALAMI, HISHAM, RAFIOVE BIN BASHIR, RIAD NARGERI, RIDAH, SAIF, MASOUD, ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ALI SALEH, AMAR BILOUSHI, KHALID DESHIRE, IBRAHIM NAYIF ADBALLAH IBRAHIM, MOHAMMED CHINGUITY, ABDO ALI AL HAJ, ABU BAKER SHAMMRANY, GHANIM−ABDULRAHMAN AL−HARBI, RAVIL MINGAZOV, ZAINULABIDIN MEROZHEV, ELHAM BATTAYAV, ALI ABDULLAH ALI, MOHAMMED AHMED TAHER, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH MOHAMMED BA ODAH, TARIQ ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, NASSER ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, MAJID KHAN, RABIA KHAN, FAIZ AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, HADDAD AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, MOHAMED MUQBEL AHMED ALSABRI, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ACHRAF SALIM ABDESSALAM, ABDULRAHMAN MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, ABDURRAHMAN ABDALLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, ABDULLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, BASHIR GHALAAB, SHAWALI KHAN, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, AWAL GUL, SALEM AHMED HADI, MAHMMOUD OMAR MOHAMMED BIN ATEF, MONSOOR MUHAMMED ALI QATTAA, SHAKHRUKH HAMIDUVA, ADINA HAMIDOVA, MUIEEN ADEEN JAMAL ADEEN ABD AL F. ABD AL SATTAR, SHAWKI AWAD BALZUHAIR, AHMED YASLAM SAID KUMAN, ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN, MOHAMMED ABDULMALIK, SALIM JUMA KHAMISI, ISMAIL MOHAMED, ALI MOHAMED, KHAIRULLA KHAIRKHWA, SAMI AL HAJJ, MULLAH NORULLAH NOORI, SAMI AL HAJJ, MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH AL ANSI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDUL RAHMAN UMIR AL QYATI, SAAD MASIR MUKBL AL AZANI, MANSOUR K. A. KAMEL, ABDULAZIZ SAYER OWAIN AL SHAMMARI, SAYER O. Z. AL SHAMMARI, ABDULLAH SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MESFER SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MOHAMMED FUNAITEL AL DIHANI, MUBARA F. S. M. AL DAIHANI, FAYIZ MOHAMMED AHMED AL KANDARI, MOHAMMAD A. J. M. H. AL KANDARI, FWAD MAHMOUD AL RABIAH, MONZER M. H. A. AL RABIEAH, ADIL ZAMIL ABDULL MOHSSIN AL ZAMIL, WALID Z. A. AL ZAMEL, FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, KHALED A.F. AL ODAH, NASSER NIJER NASER AL MUTAIRI, ABDULLAH KAMAL ABDULLAH KAMAL AL KANDARI, SAAD MADAI SAAD HAWASH AL−AZMI, HAMAD MADAI SAAD, OMAR RAJAB AMIN, MOHAMMAD R.M.R. AMEEN, NAYEF N. N. B. J. AL MUTAIRI, KHALID ABDULLAH MISHAL AL MUTAIRI, MESHAL A. M. TH AL MUTAIRI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dixon, J.) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that all filings related to the November 6, 2008, Case Management Order, as amended by the Court's December 16, 2008, order ("Amended Case Management Order"), shall only be filed in the individual civil case(s) to which they apply. For example, filings related to discovery, presumptions, use of hearsay, and extensions of time to comply with the Amended Case Management Order need not be filed in 08−mc−442. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 1/8/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
98 MOTION for Certification for interlocatory appeal, MOTION for Reconsideration or Clarification of Three Case Management Order Provisions by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT

01/12/2009

M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit England Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Mueller Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Flentje, August) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
99 REPLY to opposition to motion re (150 in 1:05−cv−00329−PLF, 226 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 40 in 1:08−cv−01232−JR, 378 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK, 110 in 1:05−cv−01497−RCL, 92 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 134 in 1:05−cv−01490−PLF, 425 in 1:02−cv−00828−CKK, 55 in 1:08−cv−01236−JDB, 105 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU, 828 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 42 in 1:08−cv−01228−RMC, 87 in 1:05−cv−00998−RMU, 14 in 1:08−cv−01923−GK, 139 in 1:05−cv−01555−JR, 183 in 1:05−cv−01429−RMU, 86 in 1:06−cv−01761−ESH, 111 in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 94 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 124 in 1:05−cv−01607−RMU, 60 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 157 in 1:05−cv−01220−RMU, 76 in 1:06−cv−01668−HHK, 51 in 1:08−cv−01238−RWR, 159 in 1:05−cv−01124−RMC, 114 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 118 in 1:05−cv−00763−JDB, 78 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 58 in 1:08−cv−01235−JDB, 105 in 1:05−cv−00993−RMU, 174 in 1:05−cv−02384−RWR, 31 in 1:08−cv−01440−CKK, 113 in 1:05−cv−01983−RMU, 155 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 144 in 1:05−cv−01592−RCL, 105 in 1:05−cv−02199−HHK, 121 in 1:05−cv−02104−RBW, 101 in 1:05−cv−00883−RBW, 316 in 1:04−cv−01194−HHK, 153 in 1:05−cv−01353−RMC, 137 in 1:05−cv−01504−RMC, 101 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 138 in 1:05−cv−00392−ESH, 127 in 1:05−cv−01487−RMC, 61 in 1:08−cv−00987−JDB, 179 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 95 in 1:05−cv−01971−RMC, 103 in 1:05−cv−00889−ESH, 73 in 1:05−cv−02387−RMC, 107 in 1:05−cv−00892−CKK, 95 in 1:05−cv−01645−PLF, 120 in 1:05−cv−01638−CKK, 44 in 1:08−cv−01224−RMC, 117 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 94 in 1:05−cv−01244−CKK, 112 in 1:05−cv−02379−JR, 12 in 1:08−cv−02019−RBW, 157 in 1:05−cv−02378−JDB, 77 in 1:07−cv−02338−HHK, 137 in 1:05−cv−00359−GK, 223 in 1:04−cv−02022−PLF, 133 in 1:05−cv−02249−RMC, 176 in 1:05−cv−00023−RWR, 130 in 1:05−cv−02186−ESH, 118 in 1:04−cv−02046−CKK, 128 in 1:05−cv−02385−RMU, 166 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 135 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 69 in 1:07−cv−01710−RBW, 112 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 120 in 1:05−cv−01506−RMC, 58 in 1:08−cv−01233−ESH, 22 in 1:08−cv−01789−RWR, 75 in 1:05−cv−01623−RWR, 120 in 1:05−cv−02380−CKK, 100 in 1:05−cv−01646−JDB, 1416 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 117 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 78 in 1:05−cv−01189−JR, 7 in 1:08−cv−01828−RMU, 31 in 1:08−cv−01805−RMU, 154 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 68 in 1:08−cv−01360−RWR, 132 in 1:05−cv−00247−HHK, 112 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 46 in 1:08−cv−01104−CKK, 185 in 1:05−cv−02367−RWR, 112 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 131 in 1:05−cv−02185−JR, 60 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB) MOTION for Order, (166 in 1:04−cv−01164−RBW) MOTION for Order to Designate Unclassified Returns as "Protected" Information filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H.

01/14/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009
01/21/2009

RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO. (White, David) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
100 ORDER directing the government to provide the Court with additional information. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 1/14/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
101 MOTION to Intervene by ASSOCIATED PRESS, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, USA TODAY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Corporate Disclosure)(nmw, ) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: By 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 30, 2009, the government shall reply to Press Applicants' Motion to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Opposing Government's Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected" (docket # 1526, 08−mc−442). Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 1/21/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 01/21/2009) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
102 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick D. Davis on behalf of JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE

01/21/2009

VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER, PRISON CAMP, GTMO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO (Davis, Patrick) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
103 NOTICE of Filing of Detainee Information Pursuant to the Court's January 14, 2009 Order by JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER, PRISON CAMP, GTMO, UNITED STATES OF

01/22/2009 01/22/2009

AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Davis, Patrick) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
104 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, B. OBAMA, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER, PRISON CAMP, GTMO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO. Attorney Scott Michael Marconda terminated. (Marconda, Scott) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
105 NOTICE of Ex Parte Filing Under Seal of Detainee Information Pursuant to the Court's January 14, 2009 Order by JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR,

01/26/2009

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, B. OBAMA, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER, PRISON CAMP, GTMO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO (Davis, Patrick) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
106 Memorandum in opposition to re (162 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 162 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 125 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 125 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 98 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 98 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 237 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 237 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 25 in 1:08−cv−01923−GK, 25 in 1:08−cv−01923−GK, 125 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 125 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK) MOTION for Certification for interlocatory appeal MOTION for Reconsideration Jointly filed by MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ(As next friend of Muhammad Al−Adahi), MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, HAMID AL RAZAK, BISHER AL RAWI, ALLA ALI BIN ALI AHMED, WAGDI ALI BIN ALI, MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH AL ANSI, SAMI AL HAJJ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Wilhelm, Kristin) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/26/2009
01/26/2009 01/28/2009 01/29/2009
01/29/2009 01/30/2009

107 ORDER: A Status Conference is hereby scheduled for February 10, 2009 at 10:45 a.m.; by February 5, 2009 by 4:00 p.m., the parties shall file a Joint Status Report (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 1/26/09. (CL, ) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 2/5/2009 Status Conference set for 2/10/2009 10:45 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (CL, ) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
108 Unopposed MOTION to Stay by JIHAD DHIAB (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
109 ORDER granting 108 Petitiner's Unopposed Motion for a Stay; the Protective Order in place in this action shall remain in force during the stay; Petitioner shall file a Status Report every 30 days regarding any change in circumstances. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 1/29/09. (CL, ) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of this Court's Order granting Petitioner's Unopposed Motion for a Stay, the Status Conference now set for February 10, 2009 is cancelled. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 1/29/09. (CL, ) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
110 Memorandum in opposition to re (88 in 1:05−cv−01623−RWR, 158 in 1:05−cv−02385−RMU, 17 in 1:08−cv−01828−RMU, 171 in 1:05−cv−02378−JDB, 131 in 1:05−cv−02380−CKK, 245 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 144 in 1:05−cv−02185−JR, 130 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 66 in 1:08−cv−01238−RWR, 52 in 1:08−cv−01232−JR, 174 in 1:05−cv−01124−RMC, 117 in 1:05−cv−02199−HHK, 135 in 1:05−cv−02104−RBW, 194 in 1:05−cv−02384−RWR, 192 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 442 in 1:02−cv−00828−CKK, 152 in 1:05−cv−01555−JR, 64 in 1:08−cv−01236−JDB, 346 in 1:04−cv−01194−HHK, 87 in 1:06−cv−01668−HHK, 139 in 1:05−cv−01607−RMU, 110 in 1:05−cv−01244−CKK, 57 in 1:08−cv−01104−CKK, 109 in 1:05−cv−00889−ESH, 403 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK, 159 in 1:05−cv−00329−PLF, 87 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 121 in 1:05−cv−01497−RCL, 140 in 1:05−cv−01487−RMC, 115 in 1:05−cv−00883−RBW, 175 in 1:04−cv−01164−RBW, 123 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 109 in 1:05−cv−01971−RMC, 88 in 1:07−cv−02338−HHK, 123 in 1:05−cv−01983−RMU, 131 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 145 in 1:05−cv−01504−RMC, 131 in 1:05−cv−00763−JDB, 55 in 1:08−cv−01224−RMC, 146 in 1:05−cv−00392−ESH, 145 in 1:05−cv−01490−PLF, 133 in 1:04−cv−02046−CKK, 204 in 1:05−cv−02367−RWR, 154 in 1:05−cv−01592−RCL, 110 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 167 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 71 in 1:08−cv−00987−JDB, 69 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB, 124 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 42 in 1:08−cv−01805−RMU, 93 in 1:06−cv−01761−ESH, 31 in 1:08−cv−01789−RWR, 85 in 1:05−cv−02387−RMC, 123 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 99 in 1:05−cv−00998−RMU, 144 in 1:05−cv−00247−HHK, 118 in 1:05−cv−00892−CKK, 141 in 1:05−cv−02186−ESH, 135 in 1:05−cv−01638−CKK, 70 in 1:08−cv−01235−JDB, 104 in 1:05−cv−01645−PLF, 39 in 1:08−cv−01440−CKK, 170 in 1:05−cv−01220−RMU, 88 in 1:05−cv−01189−JR, 177 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 111 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 119 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU, 192 in 1:05−cv−00023−RWR, 80 in 1:07−cv−01710−RBW, 72 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 26 in 1:08−cv−02019−RBW, 123 in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 1526 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 53 in 1:08−cv−01228−RMC, 128 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 51 in 1:08−cv−01221−CKK, 114 in 1:05−cv−00993−RMU, 70 in 1:08−cv−01233−ESH, 166 in 1:05−cv−01353−RMC, 905 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 146 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 236 in 1:04−cv−02022−PLF, 122 in 1:05−cv−02379−JR, 90 in 1:08−cv−01360−RWR, 29 in 1:08−cv−01923−GK, 101 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 145 in 1:05−cv−02249−RMC, 149 in 1:05−cv−00359−GK, 132 in 1:05−cv−01506−RMC, 198 in 1:05−cv−01429−RMU, 165 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 121 in 1:05−cv−01646−JDB) MOTION to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Opposing Government's Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected" filed by JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J.

02/02/2009 02/04/2009

CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, B. OBAMA, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER, PRISON CAMP, GTMO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO. (Berman, Julia) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
111 REPLY to opposition to motion re (162 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 162 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 125 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 125 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 98 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 98 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 237 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 237 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK, 103 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 103 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 25 in 1:08−cv−01923−GK, 25 in 1:08−cv−01923−GK, 125 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 125 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 143 in 1:05−cv−00359−GK, 143 in 1:05−cv−00359−GK) MOTION for Certification for interlocatory appeal MOTION for Reconsideration filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO. (Flentje, August) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
112 ERRATA −− Corrections to Respondents' Exhibits to their January 21, 2009 Filing by JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD

02/04/2009

RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, BARACK H. OBAMA, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER, PRISON CAMP, GTMO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Davis, Patrick) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
113 NOTICE of Ex Parte Filing Under Seal of Errata Concerning Respondents' January 22, 2009 Ex Parte Filing Under Seal by JAY HOOD, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, GORDON R. ENGLAND, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J.

02/09/2009

CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, BARACK H. OBAMA, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JOHN D. ALTENBURG, JR, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, JOHN DOE, RICHARD B. CHENEY, CONDELEEZA RICE, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, GEORGE TENET, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER, PRISON CAMP, GTMO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO (Davis, Patrick) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
114 REPLY to opposition to motion re (88 in 1:05−cv−01623−RWR, 158 in 1:05−cv−02385−RMU, 17 in 1:08−cv−01828−RMU, 171 in 1:05−cv−02378−JDB, 131 in 1:05−cv−02380−CKK, 144 in 1:05−cv−02185−JR, 130 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 66 in 1:08−cv−01238−RWR, 52 in 1:08−cv−01232−JR, 174 in 1:05−cv−01124−RMC, 117 in 1:05−cv−02199−HHK, 135 in 1:05−cv−02104−RBW, 194 in 1:05−cv−02384−RWR, 192 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 442 in 1:02−cv−00828−CKK, 152 in 1:05−cv−01555−JR, 64 in 1:08−cv−01236−JDB, 87 in 1:06−cv−01668−HHK, 139 in 1:05−cv−01607−RMU, 110 in 1:05−cv−01244−CKK, 57 in 1:08−cv−01104−CKK, 109 in 1:05−cv−00889−ESH, 87 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 121 in 1:05−cv−01497−RCL, 140 in 1:05−cv−01487−RMC, 115 in 1:05−cv−00883−RBW, 175 in 1:04−cv−01164−RBW, 123 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 109 in 1:05−cv−01971−RMC, 88 in 1:07−cv−02338−HHK, 123 in 1:05−cv−01983−RMU, 131 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 145 in 1:05−cv−01504−RMC, 131 in 1:05−cv−00763−JDB, 55 in 1:08−cv−01224−RMC, 146 in 1:05−cv−00392−ESH, 145 in 1:05−cv−01490−PLF, 133 in 1:04−cv−02046−CKK, 154 in 1:05−cv−01592−RCL, 204 in 1:05−cv−02367−RWR, 110 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 167 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 71 in 1:08−cv−00987−JDB, 69 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB, 124 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 42 in 1:08−cv−01805−RMU, 93 in 1:06−cv−01761−ESH, 31 in 1:08−cv−01789−RWR, 85 in 1:05−cv−02387−RMC, 123 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 99 in 1:05−cv−00998−RMU, 118 in 1:05−cv−00892−CKK, 141 in 1:05−cv−02186−ESH, 135 in 1:05−cv−01638−CKK, 70 in 1:08−cv−01235−JDB, 104 in 1:05−cv−01645−PLF, 39 in 1:08−cv−01440−CKK, 170 in 1:05−cv−01220−RMU, 88 in 1:05−cv−01189−JR, 177 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 111 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 119 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU, 80 in 1:07−cv−01710−RBW, 72 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 26 in 1:08−cv−02019−RBW, 123 in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 53 in 1:08−cv−01228−RMC, 128 in 1:05−cv−01678−GK, 51 in 1:08−cv−01221−CKK, 114 in

02/12/2009
02/27/2009 03/01/2009 03/03/2009 03/13/2009

1:05−cv−00993−RMU, 70 in 1:08−cv−01233−ESH, 166 in 1:05−cv−01353−RMC, 905 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 146 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 122 in 1:05−cv−02379−JR, 90 in 1:08−cv−01360−RWR, 29 in 1:08−cv−01923−GK, 101 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 132 in 1:05−cv−01506−RMC, 145 in 1:05−cv−02249−RMC, 198 in 1:05−cv−01429−RMU, 165 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 121 in 1:05−cv−01646−JDB) MOTION to Intervene filed by ASSOCIATED PRESS, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, USA TODAY. (Bead, Jeanette) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
115 ORDER denying (237) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting in part and denying in part (237) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:05−cv−00280−GK; denying (143) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting in part and denying in part (143) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:05−cv−00359−GK; denying (125) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting in part and denying in part (125) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:05−cv−01347−GK; denying (98) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting in part and denying in part (98) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:05−cv−01457−GK; denying (162) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting in part and denying in part (162) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:05−cv−01601−GK; denying (125) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting in part and denying in part (125) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:05−cv−01678−GK; denying (103) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting in part and denying in part (103) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:06−cv−01684−GK; denying (25) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting in part and denying in part (25) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:08−cv−01923−GK. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 2/12/09. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: On Thursday, March 26, 2009, at 2:00 pm, the parties shall appear for a hearing on Respondents' Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected" (docket #1416, 08−mc−0442) AND Press Applicants' Motion to Intervene for the Limited Purposes of Opposing Government's Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected" (docket #1526, 08−mc−0442) in Courtroom 25A before Judge Thomas F. Hogan. Each party (Petitioners, Respondents, and Press Applicants) shall designate one counsel to speak on their behalf. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 2/27/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
116 STATUS REPORT by JIHAD DHIAB. (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 03/01/2009)
117 MEMORANDUM OPINION declining to consolidate petitions in 08−mc−0442 and recommending reassignment of fifteen petitions. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 2/27/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
118 MEMORANDUM by JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, BARACK H. OBAMA, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD,

03/18/2009 03/24/2009

GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DONALD RUMSFELD, WADE F. DAVIS, GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, ROBERT M. GATES, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, DONALD RUMSFELD, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, RICHARD B. CHENEY, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID VARGO, ROBERT GATES, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT M. GATES, MARK H. BUZBY, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, BRUCE VARGO, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, COMMANDER, PRISON CAMP, GTMO, ROBERT GATES, DAVID THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, TERRY CARRICO. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Decl. of Att'y General Eric H. Holder, Jr.)(Hardee, Norman) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
119 ORDER regarding hearing on March 26, 2009. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 3/18/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
120 Joint MOTION to Continue Deadline For Filing Petitioners' Response To Government's Motion To Amend Protective Orders And Counsel Access Procedures by OMAR KHADR, FATMAH ELSAMNAH, FALEN GHEREBI, BISHER NASER ALI ALMARWALH, HUISSEN NASER ALI ALMARWALH, MASAAB OMAR AL−MADHWANI, ALI OMAR MADHWANI, ABDULKHALIQ AL−BAIDHANI, KHALID AL−BAIDHANI, ALI AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, ABDULLAH AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, SUHAIL ABDU ANAM, SAEED AHMED AL−SARIM, SAMIR AHMED AL−SARIM, IMAD ABDULLAH HASSAN, AMRO ABDULLAH HASSAN, JALAL SALIM BIN AMER, FAEZ BIN AMER, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, MOHAMED YAHYA MAHDI, ATAG ALI ABDOH, MOHAMED ABDU ANAM, KHALID AHMED KASSIM, FADHLE AHMED KASSIM, FAHMI ABDULLAH AHMED, KMAL ABDULLAH AHMED, ABDUALAZIZ ABDOH AL SWIDI, ADNAN ABDOH ALSWIDI, AL HUSSIN AL−TIS, HADI HUSSIN AL−TIS, FAHMI ABDULLAH UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, ALL PETITIONERS, ABDULLAH AHMED UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL−RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, AREF ABD IL RHEEM, AREF ABD AL RAHIM, YASEIN KHASEM MOHAMMAD ESMAIL, JAMEL KHASEM MOHAMMAD, ADNAN FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MOHAMED FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, JAMAL MAR'I, NABIL MOHAMED MAR'I, OTHMAN ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ARAF ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ADIL EL HAJ OBAID, NAZEM SAEED EL HAJ OBAID, MOHAMED MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, BASHIR MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, SADEQ MOHAMMED SAID, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, ABD ALSALAM MOHAMMED SAEED, FAROUK ALI AHMED SAIF, SHEAB AL MOHAMEDI, SALMAN YAHALDI HSAN MOHAMMED SAUD, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL−RBUAYE, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, IBRAHIM AHMED MAHMOUD AL QOSI, SAIFULLAH PARACHA, FARHAT PARACHA, ALI SALAH KAHLAH

AL−MARRI, JARALLAH AL−MARRI, AHCENE ZEMIRI, KARINA DERESHTEANU, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, SAEED AHMED SIDDIQUE, OMAR DEGHAYES, TAHER DESGHAYES, JAMEL ABDULLAH KIYEMBA, THERESA NAMUDDU, MAHMOOD SALIM AL MOHAMMED, ABDULLA SALIM AL−MOHAMMED, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, WAFFA EL−ARABIE, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHY, ZAHER OMER BEN HAMDON, MOHAMMED OMER KHAMIS HAMDON, MOHAMMED AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, SALEH ALI ABDULLA BAWAZER, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALLUL ALHAMI, DJAMEL AMEZIANE, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, NASSER DAHER AL SHAMMARI, ABDUL RAHMAN SHALBY, SHAKER AAMER, ABDULLAH AALI AL OTIABI, MUHAMMED FAHAD AL QAHTANY, MUSA AL MADANY, SALEH ABDULLA AL−OSHAN, MOHAMMED SAAD MOHAMMED AL−OSHAN, ZABEN DHAHER AL SHAMMARI, MUHAMMED KHAN TUMANI, ABD AL NISR KHAN TUMANI, MOHAMMEDOU OULD SALAHI, YAHDIH OULD SALAHI, OMER SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHAMMED SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ADEL HAMLILY, SHAKER AAMER, MOHAMMED AL NADOUR, MOHAMMED FAHREO, LAHCEN IKASRIEN, MOHAMMED MAZOZ, MOUSSA, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, SAID, RIDOUANE SHAKUR, YOUNIS SHAKUR, TAREQ, OMAR DEGHAYES, AHMED ABU IMRAN, NAJEEB AL HUSSEINI, KHIALI−GUL, YASIN MUHAMMED BASARDH, ALI HUSSIAN MOHAMMAD MUETY SHAABAN, KARIN BOSTAN, MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA SOHAIL, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL AL KARIM, ASIM BEN THABIT AL−KHALAQI, KASIMBEKOV KOMOLIDDIN TOHIRJANOVICH, ABDULSALAM ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, ABDULWAHAB ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, HONORGOL KHIALIGOL, HAJI NUSRAT, ABDUL WAHID, HAJI ROHULLAH WAKIL, MOHAMMAD WAKIL, SABAR LAL, MOHAMMED HASSAN, WALI MOHAMMED MORAFA, HADAYA MORAFA, ABDUL RAHMAN AZIZ KHAN, ABD AL RAHMAN, ABDUL RAZAK IKTIAR MOHAMMED, ALI SHAH MOUSOVI, MOHAMMAD SAYYED SHAH, IZAATULLAH NUSRAT, OMAR MOHAMMED KHALIFH, OMAR DEGHAYES, TARIQ MAHMOUD ALSAWAM, ABU ABDUL RAUF ZALITA, OMAR DEGHAYES, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, MOTAI SAIB, BISHER AL−RAWI, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL−SALAHI, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, AHMED "DOE", OMAR DEGHAYES, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, JAWAD JABBAR SADKHAN, HAMMAD DOE, HUDHAIFA DOE, JALAAL DOE, KHALID DOE, SAABIR DOE, SAADIQ DOE, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUSABUR DOE, ABDUSAMAD DOE, ABDUNASIR DOE, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, MOAZZAM BEGG, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, ABDL HADI OMAR MAHMOUD FARAJ, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, SHAFIIQ, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, ABBAR SUFIAN AL HAWARY, SHAKER AAMER, BISHER AL−RAWI, IBRAHIM OSMAN IBRAHIM IDRIS, HASSAN BIN ATTASH, BENYAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, A'AMER SHAKER, HAMID AL RAZAK, BISHER AL RAWI, EDHAM MAMET, IBRAHIM MAMET, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, ABDUL ZAHIR, HUSSAIN SALEM MOHAMMED ALMERFEDI, SALEM MOHAMMED SALEM ABDULLA ALMERFEDI, WALEED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED RAJEB ABU GHANEM, HIMIGER SADER ABU GHANEM,

AMEEN MOHAMMAD ALBKRI, ALI SALEH ALBKRI, ALLA ALI BIN ALI AHMED, WAGDI ALI BIN ALI, SADAR DOE, ARKEEN DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHAMMED AL−QAHTANI, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL−QAHTANI, ISMAIL ALKHEMISI, HASAN BALGAID, OMAR DEGHAYES, RAVIL MINGAZA GAMIL, DILIARA MINGAZOVA, KHALED ABD ELGABAR MOHAMMED OTHMAN, ABD AL MALIK ABD AL WAHAB, MUHAMMED AHMED MUHAMMED ALGHURBANY, ALI HAMZA AHMED SULIMAN BAHLOOL, ABDOUL MOHAMMED AHMED BAHLOOL, SALEH MOHAMMED SELEH AL THABBII, FATMAH QHASIM AL AHMADI, ABDUL AL QADER AHMED HUSSAIN, ABDULGADER AHMED HASIN ABOBAKER, ISSAM HAMID ALI BIN ALI AL JAYFI, HAMID ALI AL JAYFI, OTHMAN ALI MOHAMMED AL SHAMRANY, ALI MOHAMED OMAR AL SHOMRANY, KHALID MOHAMMED AL THABBI, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL−MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL−MUDAFARI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, ALI ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, AHMED BEN BACHA, BINYAM MOHAMMED, SALAH BELBACHA, TOORAN MOHAMMAD AMANNULLAH, MIRRA JAAN, MOHAMMAD WABI UMARI, GUL HYAT KHAN, ABDULLAH MUJAHID HAQ, FARID AHMED, MOHAMMAD RAHIM, MOHAMMAD KARIM, MOHAMMAD ZAHIR, ABDUL WAHAB, ABDULLAH WAZIR ZADRAN, GHULAM ROOHANI, GHULAM JEELANI, DR. HIYATULLAH, ABDUL ZAHIR, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, ZAHIR SHAH, ABDUL HAQ, ABDUL BARRI, AHMED AL DARBY, AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ALI MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED HASSEN, ABDUL HAMID ABDUL SALAM AL−GHIZZAWI, ALI YEHYA MAHDI AL−RIMI, ADHAM MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ISMAIL ALI AL RAMMI, SOAID SALH AHMAD AL RAMMI, ADEL ALI AHMAD AL RAMMI, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, BANDAR AL JAABIR, JAMAL KIYEMBA, MOHAMMED ZAHRANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, SALIM SAID, ANWAR HANDAN AL SHIMMIRI, SULIMAN HONAHEEM ALOWAIDAH, SAAD AL QAHTAANI, JOBRAN SAAD AL−QUHTANI, NAWAL MADAY AL−QUHTANI, ZAKARIA AL−BAIDANY, ABDEL AZIZ AL−SWIDI, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, MOHAMMED AL PALESTINI, OMAR (LNU), SOFAINE MOHAMMED BERHOUMI, ABDUL AZIZ NAJI, ABIN ALHAMED ABID ALSALLAM ALKESAWI, ABU RAWDA, UMAR ABDULLAH AL KUNDUZI, KHALED ABDALLAH AL−IDAN, ABDUL RAUF ASIBI, ABDUL RAZAK ALI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, MAHER LNU, MUSTAFA AL SHAMILI, SHARGOWI LNU, BISHER AL−RAWI, OYBEK JAMOLDINIVICH JABBAROV, SANAD ALI ALKALIEMI, FADL DAHIMI, ABDUL SALAM DEIFF, ABDURAHMAN LNU, AHMED OMAR, ALI LNU, EDRESS LNU, MOHAMMED AHMED SAEED HIDAR, SAIF ULLAH, SAMIR LNU, YOYEJ, SAEED, OMAR DOE, SHARAF AL SANANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, FAHD ABU HAFSA, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUL HAQ, NADIR OMAR ADULLAH BIN SAADOUN ALSAARY, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, OMAR RAMAH, ABD AL ZAHER, FAWZI KHALED ABDALLAH AL−AUDHA, ABDULLAH BO OMER HAMZA YOYEJ, ABU RAHAN, NAJEEB DOE, SAD AL GAHTANI, AMER MOHAMMON, FAHD AL HARAAZI, JABIR AL QUATANY, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHSEN, FAHD AL FAWZAN, ADEL LNU, RASHED AL QAMDI, BANDAR AL SHAIBANI, ALI SHER HAMIDULLAH, MARSHAL DOE, KHALD AL BARKATI, ABDULAL AL THANI, ABU AHMED AL JOFI, SLAIM HARBI, ABU RAD AL JOFI, MUHAMMED HARBI, ABDULAZIZ LNU, ABDULAL DOE, SAD AL MATERI, BOUCETTA FIHI, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, SEED FARHA, SALEH DOE, AHMED ADNAN AHJAM, MAGED DOE, ZEYAD AL GASSMY, ADEL HASSAN, HAMAD DOE, JAMIL AHMAD SAEED, HALA AHMAD SAEED AL−ADAHG, AMIR DOE, ALKHADR ABDULLAH AL YAFIE, TOFIQ NASSER AWAD AL BIHANI, ABU AHMED, WALEED DOE, WALEED LNU, SAMIR DOE, ELHAM BATAIF, ZEIN AL−ABEDEEN, YAGOOB AL SOURY, ABDUL RHMAN, ADEL AL TUNISI, ZAKER CHAN, SADER DOE, MOHAMMED AHMED SLAM AL−KHATEEB, ALI AL KAZMI, ADNAN AL BIHANI, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, ABDULLAH LNU, ABDURAZZAK LNU, KHADER DOE, BILAL LNU, MOSHEN DOE, ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDURRAZAKH LNU, FAHD DOE, JAMIL EL−BANNA, ADEL LNU, OSAMA DOE, MOHAMED HMADI, ABDUL−RAHMAN ABDO ABULGHAITH

SULAIMAN, FAHMI DOE, ESAM DOE, TALAH AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, ABDUR RAZAKAH, AHMAD DOE, ALI KADAMI, AYMAN, FAWAZ, HOUMAD WARZLY, MOHAMED RAJAB, OTHMAN ALI MUHAMMED OMAR, MOHAMMED KAMEEN, SABRY MOHAMMED, SALEH, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA, KHALID MOHAMMED, MUHAMMAD NUR UTHMAN MUHAMMAD, MAHDI SALIH, SAKI BACHA, SHAMSULLAH, ABOU YASSIR JEZAIRI, ABDAL RAUF ZALITINI, ABDAUL RAZAK ALI−HAJ, ADNAN, AHAMED, SALAH DEEN IBN SHAIKH, SALIH, SALEH LIBI, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH AL HALMANDY, MUHAMMED SAAD IQBAL MADNI, SAID MADANY, ABDULLAH JAFFA, ABU HADIFA, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, SANJAWEZ RAWEEL KAMEEL WEEJ, ABUL AZIZ AL MATRAFI, MAJED BARYAN, MOHAMED FAHAD SAAD AL ZU'BI, MOUSSA, ABDULRAHMAN, SAUD AL JOUHANY, SULTAN AL SHAREEF, ABDU TAWAB, ABDUL AZIZ, ABU RAWDAH, ABDUL AL HAMMAN, ABDUL LATIF, ABDULLA HAJI, ABDULLA, ADEL, INSHANULLAH, BITAL ADEL HALAMI, HISHAM, RAFIOVE BIN BASHIR, RIAD NARGERI, RIDAH, SAIF, MASOUD, ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ALI SALEH, AMAR BILOUSHI, KHALID DESHIRE, IBRAHIM NAYIF ADBALLAH IBRAHIM, MOHAMMED CHINGUITY, ABDO ALI AL HAJ, ABU BAKER SHAMMRANY, GHANIM−ABDULRAHMAN AL−HARBI, RAVIL MINGAZOV, ZAINULABIDIN MEROZHEV, ELHAM BATTAYAV, ABDULLI FEGHOUL, ALI ABDULLAH ALI, MOHAMMED AHMED TAHER, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH MOHAMMED BA ODAH, TARIQ ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, NASSER ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, MAJID KHAN, RABIA KHAN, FAIZ AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, HADDAD AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, MOHAMED MUQBEL AHMED ALSABRI, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ELISHER, SABIR, FADHEL HUSSEIN SALEH HENTIF, HAYKAL MOHAMMED SALEH HENTIF, ACHRAF SALIM ABDESSALAM, IYOB MURSHAD ALI SALEH, MURSHAD ALI SALEH, ABDULRAHMAN MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, RIDAH BIN SALEH AL YAZIDI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDURRAHMAN ABDALLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, ABDULLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDUL RAHIM HUSSEIN MUHAMMED ALI NASHIR, SCOTT L. FENSTERMAKER, BASHIR GHALAAB, SHAWALI KHAN, MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, ABD AL−RAHIM HUSSAIN MOHAMMED AL−NASHIRI, AWAL GUL, HAMOUD ABDULLAH HAMOUD HASSAN AL WADY, SALEM AHMED HADI, MAHMMOUD OMAR MOHAMMED BIN ATEF, KAHLID SAAD MOHAMMED, MAHBUB RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD RAHMAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, MONSOOR MUHAMMED ALI QATTAA, SHAKHRUKH HAMIDUVA, ADINA HAMIDOVA, FNU HAFIZULLAH, MUIEEN ADEEN JAMAL ADEEN ABD AL F. ABD AL SATTAR, SHAWKI AWAD BALZUHAIR, YAKUBI, AHMED YASLAM SAID KUMAN, ABDULAH ALHAMIRI, ABDUL GHAFFAR, ADEL NOORI, ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN, MOHAMMED ABDULMALIK, SALIM JUMA KHAMISI, HASSAN ABDUL SAID, SAMI AL HAJJ, KHAIRULLA KHAIRKHWA, SAMI AL HAJJ, MULLAH NORULLAH NOORI, SAMI AL HAJJ, MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH AL ANSI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDUL RAHMAN UMIR AL QYATI, SAAD MASIR MUKBL AL AZANI, AMMAR AL−BALUCHI, MOHAMMED NAZIR BIN LEP, MANSOUR K. A. KAMEL, ABDULAZIZ SAYER OWAIN AL SHAMMARI, SAYER O. Z. AL SHAMMARI, ABDULLAH SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MESFER SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MOHAMMED FUNAITEL AL DIHANI, MUBARA F. S. M. AL DAIHANI, FAYIZ MOHAMMED AHMED AL KANDARI, MOHAMMAD A. J. M. H. AL KANDARI, FWAD MAHMOUD AL RABIAH, MONZER M. H. A. AL RABIEAH, ADIL ZAMIL ABDULL MOHSSIN AL ZAMIL, WALID Z. A. AL ZAMEL, FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, KHALED A.F. AL ODAH, NASSER NIJER NASER AL MUTAIRI, ABDULLAH KAMAL ABDULLAH KAMAL AL KANDARI, SAAD MADAI SAAD HAWASH AL−AZMI, HAMAD MADAI SAAD, OMAR RAJAB AMIN, MOHAMMAD R.M.R. AMEEN, NAYEF N. N. B. J. AL MUTAIRI, KHALID ABDULLAH MISHAL AL MUTAIRI, MESHAL A. M. TH AL MUTAIRI (Thompson, Darin) (Entered: 03/24/2009)

04/01/2009 04/03/2009 04/07/2009
04/08/2009 04/10/2009
04/20/2009 05/01/2009 05/10/2009 05/11/2009

121 RESPONSE re (1705 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH) Joint MOTION to Continue Deadline For Filing Petitioners' Response to Government's Motion To Amend Protective Orders And Counsel Access Procedures filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, ROBERT GATES. (Berman, Julia) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
122 NOTICE Regarding Order in Batarfi v. Gates, 05−CV−409 (EGS) by ROBERT M. GATES, BARACK OBAMA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting Press Applicants' Motion to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Opposing Government's Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected" (Dkt. No. 1526, 08−mc−0442). For the reasons set forth during the hearing on March 26, 2009, Press Applicants are permitted to intervene only to oppose the government's Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected" (Dkt. No. 1416, 08−mc−0442) before this Court. This order does not permit Press Applicants to intervene in any case before the Merits Judges. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 4/2/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
123 NOTICE Of Respondents' Response To Order To Show Cause In Batarfi v. Gates, 05−CV−409 (EGS) by BARACK H. OBAMA, ROBERT M. GATES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting in part Joint Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Petitioners' Response to Government's Motion to Amend Protective Orders and Counsel Access Procedures (Dkt. No. 1705, 08−mc−0442). Petitioners are granted until May 11, 2009, to file a consolidated opposition to the government's motion to amend. The government is directed to file its reply within five days after Petitioners' opposition is filed. While the government's motion to amend the protective orders and counsel access procedures (Dkt. No. 1684, 08−mc−0442) is pending, the Court suspends its orders of January 15, 2009 and January 30, 2009, to the extent they permit a detainee besides Petitioner Tariq Alsawam (ISN 535) to review documents that contain classified statements made by the detainee to agents of the United States government. This suspension may be superseded by Merits Judges entering such orders as they deem necessary in individual cases. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 4/10/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
124 NOTICE Of Filing Of Status Report Addressing Information Gathering Efforts Of Guantanamo Review Task Force by BARACK OBAMA, ROBERT M. GATES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
125 STATUS REPORT Concerning Production Of Information In The Possession Of The Guantanamo Review Task Force by ROBERT M. GATES, BARACK OBAMA. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
126 STATUS REPORT −− UPDATED STATUS REPORT CONCERNING DISCOVERY RELATED TO INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF THE GUANTANAMO REVIEW TASK FORCE by BRICE GYURISKO, BARACK OBAMA, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO. (Henry, Terry) (Entered: 05/10/2009)
127 RESPONSE re (263 in 1:04−cv−01136−JDB, 73 in 1:08−cv−01104−CKK, 89 in 1:08−cv−01237−RMU−AK, 91 in 1:07−cv−02337−HHK, 77 in 1:08−cv−01310−RMU, 142 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 106 in 1:06−cv−01766−HHK, 85 in 1:08−cv−01236−JDB, 66 in 1:08−cv−01228−RMC, 6 in 1:09−cv−00031−JDB, 175 in 1:05−cv−00329−PLF, 115 in 1:06−cv−01668−HHK, 92 in 1:08−cv−01238−RWR, 58 in 1:08−cv−01223−JR, 127 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 68 in 1:08−cv−01232−JR, 86 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB, 1064 in 1:09−cv−00745−RCL, 115 in 1:08−cv−01360−RWR, 257 in 1:04−cv−02022−PLF, 144 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 460 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK, 100 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 104 in 1:07−cv−01710−RBW, 98 in 1:06−cv−01765−HHK, 170 in 1:05−cv−00763−JDB, 53 in 1:08−cv−01923−GK, 114 in 1:05−cv−02387−RMC, 127 in 1:04−cv−02035−GK, 91 in 1:08−cv−01233−ESH, 172 in 1:05−cv−00359−UNA, 1064 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 92 in 1:04−cv−01937−PLF, 44 in 1:06−cv−01759−JDB, 400 in 1:04−cv−01194−TFH, 36 in 1:08−cv−01828−RMU, 160 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 84 in 1:08−cv−01235−JDB, 177 in 1:05−cv−00392−UNA, 91 in 1:08−cv−00987−JDB, 156 in 1:04−cv−02046−CKK, 138 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU, 199 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 140 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 103 in 1:06−cv−00618−RWR, 160

in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 103 in 1:07−cv−02338−HHK, 1684 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 142 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 37 in 1:08−cv−01229−JDB, 62 in 1:08−cv−01805−RMU, 58 in 1:05−cv−02444−RMC, 44 in 1:08−cv−01227−ESH, 114 in 1:06−cv−01761−ESH, 83 in 1:08−cv−01230−RMC, 138 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 92 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 83 in 1:08−cv−01221−CKK, 58 in 1:08−cv−02019−RBW, 72 in 1:08−cv−01224−RMC, 161 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 76 in 1:08−cv−01085−PLF, 197 in 1:04−cv−01164−RBW, 37 in 1:08−cv−02083−PLF, 105 in 1:08−cv−01207−RWR, 502 in 1:02−cv−00828−UNA, 39 in 1:08−cv−01733−JDB, 218 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 187 in 1:05−cv−00569−JR, 194 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 302 in 1:05−cv−00280−UNA, 59 in 1:08−cv−01440−CKK, 70 in 1:08−cv−01185−HHK, 42 in 1:08−cv−01231−CKK, 161 in 1:05−cv−00247−UNA) MOTION to Amend/Correct PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO AMEND SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 PROTECTIVE ORDER AND COUNSEL ACCESS PROCEDURES AND JANUARY 9, 2009 TS/SCI PROTECTIVE ORDER AND COUNSEL ACCESS PROCEDURES filed by OMAR KHADR, FATMAH ELSAMNAH, FALEN GHEREBI, BISHER NASER ALI ALMARWALH, HUISSEN NASER ALI ALMARWALH, MASAAB OMAR AL−MADHWANI, ALI OMAR MADHWANI, ABDULKHALIQ AL−BAIDHANI, KHALID AL−BAIDHANI, ALI AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, ABDULLAH AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, SUHAIL ABDU ANAM, SAEED AHMED AL−SARIM, SAMIR AHMED AL−SARIM, IMAD ABDULLAH HASSAN, AMRO ABDULLAH HASSAN, JALAL SALIM BIN AMER, FAEZ BIN AMER, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, MOHAMED YAHYA MAHDI, ATAG ALI ABDOH, MOHAMED ABDU ANAM, KHALID AHMED KASSIM, FADHLE AHMED KASSIM, FAHMI ABDULLAH AHMED, KMAL ABDULLAH AHMED, ABDUALAZIZ ABDOH AL SWIDI, ADNAN ABDOH ALSWIDI, AL HUSSIN AL−TIS, HADI HUSSIN AL−TIS, FAHMI ABDULLAH UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, ALL PETITIONERS, ABDULLAH AHMED UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL−RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, AREF ABD IL RHEEM, AREF ABD AL RAHIM, YASEIN KHASEM MOHAMMAD ESMAIL, JAMEL KHASEM MOHAMMAD, ADNAN FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MOHAMED FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, JAMAL MAR'I, NABIL MOHAMED MAR'I, OTHMAN ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ARAF ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ADIL EL HAJ OBAID, NAZEM SAEED EL HAJ OBAID, MOHAMED MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, BASHIR MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, SADEQ MOHAMMED SAID, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, ABD ALSALAM MOHAMMED SAEED, FAROUK ALI AHMED SAIF, SHEAB AL MOHAMEDI, SALMAN YAHALDI HSAN MOHAMMED SAUD, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL−RBUAYE, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, IBRAHIM AHMED MAHMOUD AL QOSI, SAIFULLAH PARACHA, FARHAT PARACHA, ALI SALAH KAHLAH AL−MARRI, JARALLAH AL−MARRI, AHCENE ZEMIRI, KARINA DERESHTEANU, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, SAEED AHMED SIDDIQUE, OMAR DEGHAYES, TAHER DESGHAYES, JAMEL ABDULLAH KIYEMBA, THERESA NAMUDDU, MAHMOOD SALIM AL MOHAMMED, ABDULLA SALIM AL−MOHAMMED, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, WAFFA EL−ARABIE, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHY, ZAHER OMER BEN HAMDON, MOHAMMED OMER KHAMIS HAMDON, MOHAMMED AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, SALEH ALI ABDULLA BAWAZER, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALLUL ALHAMI, DJAMEL AMEZIANE, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, NASSER DAHER AL SHAMMARI, ABDUL RAHMAN SHALBY, SHAKER AAMER, ABDULLAH AALI AL OTIABI, MUHAMMED FAHAD AL QAHTANY, MUSA AL MADANY, SALEH ABDULLA AL−OSHAN,

MOHAMMED SAAD MOHAMMED AL−OSHAN, ZABEN DHAHER AL SHAMMARI, MUHAMMED KHAN TUMANI, ABD AL NISR KHAN TUMANI, MOHAMMEDOU OULD SALAHI, YAHDIH OULD SALAHI, OMER SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHAMMED SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ADEL HAMLILY, SHAKER AAMER, MOHAMMED AL NADOUR, MOHAMMED FAHREO, LAHCEN IKASRIEN, MOHAMMED MAZOZ, MOUSSA, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, SAID, RIDOUANE SHAKUR, YOUNIS SHAKUR, TAREQ, OMAR DEGHAYES, AHMED ABU IMRAN, NAJEEB AL HUSSEINI, KHIALI−GUL, YASIN MUHAMMED BASARDH, ALI HUSSIAN MOHAMMAD MUETY SHAABAN, KARIN BOSTAN, MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA SOHAIL, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL AL KARIM, ASIM BEN THABIT AL−KHALAQI, KASIMBEKOV KOMOLIDDIN TOHIRJANOVICH, ABDULSALAM ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, ABDULWAHAB ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, HONORGOL KHIALIGOL, HAJI NUSRAT, ABDUL WAHID, HAJI ROHULLAH WAKIL, MOHAMMAD WAKIL, SABAR LAL, MOHAMMED HASSAN, WALI MOHAMMED MORAFA, HADAYA MORAFA, ABDUL RAHMAN AZIZ KHAN, ABD AL RAHMAN, ABDUL RAZAK IKTIAR MOHAMMED, ALI SHAH MOUSOVI, MOHAMMAD SAYYED SHAH, IZAATULLAH NUSRAT, OMAR MOHAMMED KHALIFH, OMAR DEGHAYES, TARIQ MAHMOUD ALSAWAM, ABU ABDUL RAUF ZALITA, OMAR DEGHAYES, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, MOTAI SAIB, BISHER AL−RAWI, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL−SALAHI, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, AHMED "DOE", OMAR DEGHAYES, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, JAWAD JABBAR SADKHAN, HAMMAD DOE, HUDHAIFA DOE, JALAAL DOE, KHALID DOE, SAABIR DOE, SAADIQ DOE, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUSABUR DOE, ABDUSAMAD DOE, ABDUNASIR DOE, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, MOAZZAM BEGG, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, ABDL HADI OMAR MAHMOUD FARAJ, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, SHAFIIQ, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, ABBAR SUFIAN AL HAWARY, SHAKER AAMER, BISHER AL−RAWI, IBRAHIM OSMAN IBRAHIM IDRIS, HASSAN BIN ATTASH, BENYAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, A'AMER SHAKER, HAMID AL RAZAK, BISHER AL RAWI, EDHAM MAMET, IBRAHIM MAMET, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, ABDUL ZAHIR, HUSSAIN SALEM MOHAMMED ALMERFEDI, SALEM MOHAMMED SALEM ABDULLA ALMERFEDI, WALEED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED RAJEB ABU GHANEM, HIMIGER SADER ABU GHANEM, AMEEN MOHAMMAD ALBKRI, ALI SALEH ALBKRI, ALLA ALI BIN ALI AHMED, WAGDI ALI BIN ALI, SADAR DOE, ARKEEN DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHAMMED AL−QAHTANI, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL−QAHTANI, ISMAIL ALKHEMISI, HASAN BALGAID, OMAR DEGHAYES, RAVIL MINGAZA GAMIL, DILIARA MINGAZOVA, KHALED ABD ELGABAR MOHAMMED OTHMAN, ABD AL MALIK ABD AL WAHAB, MUHAMMED AHMED MUHAMMED ALGHURBANY, ALI HAMZA AHMED SULIMAN BAHLOOL, ABDOUL MOHAMMED AHMED BAHLOOL, SALEH MOHAMMED SELEH AL THABBII, FATMAH QHASIM AL AHMADI, ABDUL AL QADER AHMED HUSSAIN, ABDULGADER AHMED HASIN ABOBAKER, ISSAM HAMID ALI BIN ALI AL JAYFI, HAMID ALI AL JAYFI, OTHMAN ALI MOHAMMED AL SHAMRANY, ALI MOHAMED OMAR AL SHOMRANY, KHALID MOHAMMED AL THABBI, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL−MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL−MUDAFARI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, ALI ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, AHMED BEN BACHA, BINYAM MOHAMMED, SALAH BELBACHA, TOORAN MOHAMMAD AMANNULLAH, MIRRA JAAN, MOHAMMAD WABI UMARI, GUL HYAT KHAN, ABDULLAH MUJAHID HAQ, FARID AHMED, MOHAMMAD RAHIM, MOHAMMAD KARIM, MOHAMMAD ZAHIR, ABDUL WAHAB, ABDULLAH WAZIR ZADRAN, GHULAM ROOHANI, GHULAM

JEELANI, DR. HIYATULLAH, ABDUL ZAHIR, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, ZAHIR SHAH, ABDUL HAQ, ABDUL BARRI, AHMED AL DARBY, AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ALI MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED HASSEN, ABDUL HAMID ABDUL SALAM AL−GHIZZAWI, ALI YEHYA MAHDI AL−RIMI, ADHAM MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ISMAIL ALI AL RAMMI, SOAID SALH AHMAD AL RAMMI, ADEL ALI AHMAD AL RAMMI, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, BANDAR AL JAABIR, JAMAL KIYEMBA, MOHAMMED ZAHRANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, SALIM SAID, ANWAR HANDAN AL SHIMMIRI, SULIMAN HONAHEEM ALOWAIDAH, SAAD AL QAHTAANI, JOBRAN SAAD AL−QUHTANI, NAWAL MADAY AL−QUHTANI, ZAKARIA AL−BAIDANY, ABDEL AZIZ AL−SWIDI, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, MOHAMMED AL PALESTINI, OMAR (LNU), SOFAINE MOHAMMED BERHOUMI, ABDUL AZIZ NAJI, ABIN ALHAMED ABID ALSALLAM ALKESAWI, UMAR ABDULLAH AL KUNDUZI, KHALED ABDALLAH AL−IDAN, ABDUL RAUF ASIBI, MAHER LNU, MUSTAFA AL SHAMILI, BISHER AL−RAWI, OYBEK JAMOLDINIVICH JABBAROV, SANAD ALI ALKALIEMI, FADL DAHIMI, ABDUL SALAM DEIFF, ALI LNU, MOHAMMED AHMED SAEED HIDAR, SAIF ULLAH, SAMIR LNU, YOYEJ, SAEED, OMAR DOE, SHARAF AL SANANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, FAHD ABU HAFSA, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUL HAQ, NADIR OMAR ADULLAH BIN SAADOUN ALSAARY, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, OMAR RAMAH, ABD AL ZAHER, FAWZI KHALED ABDALLAH AL−AUDHA, ABDULLAH BO OMER HAMZA YOYEJ, ABU RAHAN, NAJEEB DOE, SAD AL GAHTANI, AMER MOHAMMON, FAHD AL HARAAZI, JABIR AL QUATANY, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHSEN, FAHD AL FAWZAN, ADEL LNU, RASHED AL QAMDI, BANDAR AL SHAIBANI, ALI SHER HAMIDULLAH, MARSHAL DOE, KHALD AL BARKATI, ABDULAL AL THANI, ABU AHMED AL JOFI, SLAIM HARBI, ABU RAD AL JOFI, MUHAMMED HARBI, ABDULAZIZ LNU, ABDULAL DOE, SAD AL MATERI, BOUCETTA FIHI, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, SEED FARHA, SALEH DOE, AHMED ADNAN AHJAM, MAGED DOE, ZEYAD AL GASSMY, ADEL HASSAN, HAMAD DOE, JAMIL AHMAD SAEED, HALA AHMAD SAEED AL−ADAHG, AMIR DOE, ALKHADR ABDULLAH AL YAFIE, TOFIQ NASSER AWAD AL BIHANI, ABU AHMED, WALEED DOE, WALEED LNU, SAMIR DOE, ELHAM BATAIF, ZEIN AL−ABEDEEN, YAGOOB AL SOURY, ABDUL RHMAN, ADEL AL TUNISI, ZAKER CHAN, SADER DOE, ALI AL KAZMI, ADNAN AL BIHANI, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, ABDULLAH LNU, ABDURAZZAK LNU, KHADER DOE, BILAL LNU, MOSHEN DOE, ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDURRAZAKH LNU, FAHD DOE, JAMIL EL−BANNA, ADEL LNU, OSAMA DOE, MOHAMED HMADI, ABDUL−RAHMAN ABDO ABULGHAITH SULAIMAN, FAHMI DOE, ESAM DOE, TALAH AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, ABDUR RAZAKAH, AHMAD DOE, ALI KADAMI, AYMAN, FAWAZ, HOUMAD WARZLY, MOHAMED RAJAB, OTHMAN ALI MUHAMMED OMAR, MOHAMMED KAMEEN, SABRY MOHAMMED, SALEH, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA, KHALID MOHAMMED, MUHAMMAD NUR UTHMAN MUHAMMAD, MAHDI SALIH, SAKI BACHA, SHAMSULLAH, ABOU YASSIR JEZAIRI, ABDAL RAUF ZALITINI, ABDAUL RAZAK ALI−HAJ, ADNAN, AHAMED, SALAH DEEN IBN SHAIKH, SALIH, SALEH LIBI, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH AL HALMANDY, MUHAMMED SAAD IQBAL MADNI, SAID MADANY, ABDULLAH JAFFA, ABU HADIFA, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, SANJAWEZ RAWEEL KAMEEL WEEJ, ABUL AZIZ AL MATRAFI, MAJED BARYAN, MOHAMED FAHAD SAAD AL ZU'BI, MOUSSA, ABDULRAHMAN, SAUD AL JOUHANY, SULTAN AL SHAREEF, ABDU TAWAB, ABDUL AZIZ, ABU RAWDAH, ABDUL AL HAMMAN, ABDUL LATIF, ABDULLA HAJI, ABDULLA, ADEL, INSHANULLAH, BITAL ADEL HALAMI, HISHAM, RAFIOVE BIN BASHIR, RIAD NARGERI, RIDAH, SAIF, MASOUD, ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ALI SALEH, AMAR BILOUSHI, KHALID DESHIRE, IBRAHIM NAYIF ADBALLAH IBRAHIM, MOHAMMED CHINGUITY, ABDO ALI AL HAJ, ABU BAKER SHAMMRANY, GHANIM−ABDULRAHMAN AL−HARBI, RAVIL MINGAZOV, ZAINULABIDIN MEROZHEV, ELHAM BATTAYAV, ABDULLI FEGHOUL, ALI ABDULLAH ALI, MOHAMMED AHMED TAHER, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH MOHAMMED BA ODAH, TARIQ ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, NASSER ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, MAJID KHAN, RABIA KHAN, FAIZ AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN,

05/12/2009 05/13/2009 05/15/2009

HADDAD AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, MOHAMED MUQBEL AHMED ALSABRI, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ELISHER, SABIR, FADHEL HUSSEIN SALEH HENTIF, HAYKAL MOHAMMED SALEH HENTIF, ACHRAF SALIM ABDESSALAM, IYOB MURSHAD ALI SALEH, MURSHAD ALI SALEH, ABDULRAHMAN MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, RIDAH BIN SALEH AL YAZIDI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDURRAHMAN ABDALLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, ABDULLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDUL RAHIM HUSSEIN MUHAMMED ALI NASHIR, SCOTT L. FENSTERMAKER, BASHIR GHALAAB, SHAWALI KHAN, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, ABD AL−RAHIM HUSSAIN MOHAMMED AL−NASHIRI, AWAL GUL, HAMOUD ABDULLAH HAMOUD HASSAN AL WADY, SALEM AHMED HADI, MAHMMOUD OMAR MOHAMMED BIN ATEF, KAHLID SAAD MOHAMMED, MAHBUB RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD RAHMAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, MONSOOR MUHAMMED ALI QATTAA, SHAKHRUKH HAMIDUVA, ADINA HAMIDOVA, FNU HAFIZULLAH, MUIEEN ADEEN JAMAL ADEEN ABD AL F. ABD AL SATTAR, SHAWKI AWAD BALZUHAIR, YAKUBI, AHMED YASLAM SAID KUMAN, ABDULAH ALHAMIRI, ABDUL GHAFFAR, ADEL NOORI, ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN, MOHAMMED ABDULMALIK, SALIM JUMA KHAMISI, HASSAN ABDUL SAID, SAMI AL HAJJ, KHAIRULLA KHAIRKHWA, SAMI AL HAJJ, MULLAH NORULLAH NOORI, SAMI AL HAJJ, MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH AL ANSI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDUL RAHMAN UMIR AL QYATI, SAAD MASIR MUKBL AL AZANI, AMMAR AL−BALUCHI, MOHAMMED NAZIR BIN LEP, ABU RAWDA, ABDUL RAZAK ALI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, SHARGOWI LNU, ABDURAHMAN LNU, AHMED OMAR, EDRESS LNU, MOHAMMED AHMED SLAM AL−KHATEEB, MANSOUR K. A. KAMEL, ABDULAZIZ SAYER OWAIN AL SHAMMARI, SAYER O. Z. AL SHAMMARI, ABDULLAH SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MESFER SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MOHAMMED FUNAITEL AL DIHANI, MUBARA F. S. M. AL DAIHANI, FAYIZ MOHAMMED AHMED AL KANDARI, MOHAMMAD A. J. M. H. AL KANDARI, FWAD MAHMOUD AL RABIAH, MONZER M. H. A. AL RABIEAH, ADIL ZAMIL ABDULL MOHSSIN AL ZAMIL, WALID Z. A. AL ZAMEL, FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, KHALED A.F. AL ODAH, NASSER NIJER NASER AL MUTAIRI, ABDULLAH KAMAL ABDULLAH KAMAL AL KANDARI, SAAD MADAI SAAD HAWASH AL−AZMI, HAMAD MADAI SAAD, OMAR RAJAB AMIN, MOHAMMAD R.M.R. AMEEN, NAYEF N. N. B. J. AL MUTAIRI, KHALID ABDULLAH MISHAL AL MUTAIRI, MESHAL A. M. TH AL MUTAIRI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Declararion Brown, # 2 Exhibit B−Declaration Abraham, # 3 Exhibit C−Status Report)(Thompson, Darin) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
128 MOTION for Reconsideration OF ORDERS REGARDING DISCOVERY FROM THE GUANTANAMO REVIEW TASK FORCE by JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, BARACK OBAMA, BRICE GYURISKO, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, ROBERT M. GATES (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order 1, # 3 Text of Proposed Order 2, # 4 Exhibit Perrelli Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Olsen Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Benkert Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Cummings Declaration, # 8 Exhibit Hackett Declaration)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
129 MOTION for Order −− CONSOLIDATED ORDER REGARDING TASK FORCE DISCOVERY by BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order 1, # 3 Text of Proposed Order 2, # 4 Exhibit Perrelli Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Olsen Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Benkert Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Cummings Declaration, # 8 Exhibit Hackett Declaration)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
130 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of the Governments Motion to Amend September 11, 2008 Protective Order and Counsel Access Procedures and January 9, 2009 Amended TS/SCI Protective Order and Counsel Access Procedures by GEORGE W. BUSH, BARACK OBAMA, ROBERT GATES (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berman, Julia) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/18/2009 05/19/2009 05/20/2009 05/22/2009 05/22/2009
05/22/2009

MINUTE ORDER granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of the Government's Motion to Amend Protective Orders and Counsel Access Procedures (Dkt. No. 1762, 08−mc−0442). The government is ordered to file its reply on or before Friday, May 22, 2009. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 05/18/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
131 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Henry, Terry) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: By Wednesday, May 27, 2009, petitioners shall file one consolidated opposition to the Government's Motion for Reconsideration of Orders Regarding Discovery from the Guantanamo Review Task Force (Dkt No. 1755, 08−mc−0442). The government's reply is due by Wednesday, June 3, 2009. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 5/20/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
132 ORDER setting hearing on Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 1755, 08−mc−0442) for June 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 25A before Judge Thomas F. Hogan. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 5/22/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
133 REPLY to opposition to motion re (263 in 1:04−cv−01136−JDB, 73 in 1:08−cv−01104−CKK, 89 in 1:08−cv−01237−RMU−AK, 91 in 1:07−cv−02337−HHK, 77 in 1:08−cv−01310−RMU, 142 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 106 in 1:06−cv−01766−HHK, 85 in 1:08−cv−01236−JDB, 66 in 1:08−cv−01228−RMC, 6 in 1:09−cv−00031−JDB, 175 in 1:05−cv−00329−PLF, 115 in 1:06−cv−01668−HHK, 92 in 1:08−cv−01238−RWR, 58 in 1:08−cv−01223−JR, 127 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 68 in 1:08−cv−01232−JR, 86 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB, 115 in 1:08−cv−01360−RWR, 257 in 1:04−cv−02022−PLF, 144 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 460 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK, 217 in 1:05−cv−00023−RWR, 100 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 104 in 1:07−cv−01710−RBW, 98 in 1:06−cv−01765−HHK, 170 in 1:05−cv−00763−JDB, 53 in 1:08−cv−01923−GK, 127 in 1:04−cv−02035−GK, 91 in 1:08−cv−01233−ESH, 172 in 1:05−cv−00359−UNA, 1064 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 92 in 1:04−cv−01937−PLF, 44 in 1:06−cv−01759−JDB, 400 in 1:04−cv−01194−TFH, 36 in 1:08−cv−01828−RMU, 160 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 84 in 1:08−cv−01235−JDB, 177 in 1:05−cv−00392−UNA, 91 in 1:08−cv−00987−JDB, 156 in 1:04−cv−02046−CKK, 138 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU, 199 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 140 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 103 in 1:06−cv−00618−RWR, 160 in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 103 in 1:07−cv−02338−HHK, 1684 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 142 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 37 in 1:08−cv−01229−JDB, 62 in 1:08−cv−01805−RMU, 58 in 1:05−cv−02444−RMC, 44 in 1:08−cv−01227−ESH, 114 in 1:06−cv−01761−ESH, 83 in 1:08−cv−01230−RMC, 138 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 92 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 83 in 1:08−cv−01221−CKK, 58 in 1:08−cv−02019−RBW, 72 in 1:08−cv−01224−RMC, 161 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 76 in 1:08−cv−01085−PLF, 197 in 1:04−cv−01164−RBW, 37 in 1:08−cv−02083−PLF, 502 in 1:02−cv−00828−UNA, 105 in 1:08−cv−01207−RWR, 39 in 1:08−cv−01733−JDB, 218 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 187 in 1:05−cv−00569−JR, 194 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 302 in 1:05−cv−00280−UNA, 59 in 1:08−cv−01440−CKK, 70 in 1:08−cv−01185−HHK, 42 in 1:08−cv−01231−CKK, 161 in 1:05−cv−00247−UNA) MOTION to Amend/Correct SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 PROTECTIVE ORDER AND COUNSEL ACCESS PROCEDURES AND JANUARY 9, 2009 AMENDED TS/SCI PROTECTIVE ORDER AND COUNSEL ACCESS PROCEDURES filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, BARACK OBAMA, ROBERT GATES. (Berman, Julia) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
134 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Briefs by OMAR KHADR, FATMAH ELSAMNAH, FALEN GHEREBI, MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL−RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, AREF ABD IL RHEEM, AREF ABD AL RAHIM, YASEIN KHASEM MOHAMMAD ESMAIL, JAMEL KHASEM MOHAMMAD, ADNAN FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MOHAMED FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, JAMAL MAR'I, NABIL MOHAMED MAR'I, OTHMAN ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ARAF ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ADIL EL HAJ OBAID, NAZEM SAEED EL HAJ OBAID, MOHAMED MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, BASHIR MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, SADEQ MOHAMMED SAID, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, ABD ALSALAM MOHAMMED SAEED,

FAROUK ALI AHMED SAIF, SHEAB AL MOHAMEDI, SALMAN YAHALDI HSAN MOHAMMED SAUD, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL−RBUAYE, ALL PETITIONERS, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, IBRAHIM AHMED MAHMOUD AL QOSI, SAIFULLAH PARACHA, FARHAT PARACHA, ALI SALAH KAHLAH AL−MARRI, JARALLAH AL−MARRI, AHCENE ZEMIRI, KARINA DERESHTEANU, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER, SAEED AHMED SIDDIQUE, OMAR DEGHAYES, TAHER DESGHAYES, JAMEL ABDULLAH KIYEMBA, THERESA NAMUDDU, RAMI BIN SAAD AL−OTEIBI, HANI SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, YOSRA SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, MAHMOOD SALIM AL MOHAMMED, ABDULLA SALIM AL−MOHAMMED, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, WAFFA EL−ARABIE, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHY, ZAHER OMER BEN HAMDON, MOHAMMED OMER KHAMIS HAMDON, MOHAMMED AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, SALEH ALI ABDULLA BAWAZER, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALLUL ALHAMI, DJAMEL AMEZIANE, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, NASSER DAHER AL SHAMMARI, ABDUL RAHMAN SHALBY, SHAKER AAMER, ABDULLAH AALI AL OTIABI, MUHAMMED FAHAD AL QAHTANY, MUSA AL MADANY, SALEH ABDULLA AL−OSHAN, MOHAMMED SAAD MOHAMMED AL−OSHAN, ZABEN DHAHER AL SHAMMARI, MUHAMMED KHAN TUMANI, ABD AL NISR KHAN TUMANI, MOHAMMEDOU OULD SALAHI, YAHDIH OULD SALAHI, OMER SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHAMMED SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ADEL HAMLILY, SHAKER AAMER, MOHAMMED AL NADOUR, MOHAMMED FAHREO, LAHCEN IKASRIEN, MOHAMMED MAZOZ, MOUSSA, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, SAID, RIDOUANE SHAKUR, YOUNIS SHAKUR, TAREQ, OMAR DEGHAYES, AHMED ABU IMRAN, NAJEEB AL HUSSEINI, BENJAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, AHMED GHAPPOUR, CLIVE A. STAFFORD SMITH, SHAKER AAMER, KHIALI−GUL, YASIN MUHAMMED BASARDH, ALI HUSSIAN MOHAMMAD MUETY SHAABAN, NASRULLAH, ABDUL WAHAB, KARIN BOSTAN, TAJ MOHAMMAD, MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA SOHAIL, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL AL KARIM, ASIM BEN THABIT AL−KHALAQI, KASIMBEKOV KOMOLIDDIN TOHIRJANOVICH, ABDULSALAM ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, ABDULWAHAB ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, HONORGOL KHIALIGOL, HAJI NUSRAT, ABDUL WAHID, HAJI ROHULLAH WAKIL, MOHAMMAD WAKIL, SABAR LAL, MOHAMMED HASSAN, WALI MOHAMMED MORAFA, HADAYA MORAFA, ABDUL RAHMAN AZIZ KHAN, ABD AL RAHMAN, ABDUL RAZAK IKTIAR MOHAMMED, ALI SHAH MOUSOVI, MOHAMMAD SAYYED SHAH, IZAATULLAH NUSRAT, OMAR MOHAMMED KHALIFH, OMAR DEGHAYES, LABED AHMED, TARIQ MAHMOUD ALSAWAM, ABU ABDUL RAUF ZALITA, OMAR DEGHAYES, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, MOTAI SAIB, BISHER AL−RAWI, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL−SALAHI, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, AHMED "DOE", OMAR DEGHAYES, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, HAMMAD DOE, HUDHAIFA DOE, JALAAL DOE, KHALID DOE, SAABIR DOE, SAADIQ DOE, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUSABUR DOE, ABDUSAMAD DOE, ABDUNASIR DOE, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, MOAZZAM BEGG, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, ABDL HADI OMAR MAHMOUD FARAJ, MOHAMMED AMON, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, SHAFIIQ, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, ABBAR SUFIAN AL HAWARY, SHAKER

AAMER, BISHER AL−RAWI, IBRAHIM OSMAN IBRAHIM IDRIS, HASSAN BIN ATTASH, BENYAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, A'AMER SHAKER, HAMID AL RAZAK, BISHER AL RAWI, EDHAM MAMET, IBRAHIM MAMET, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, ABDUL ZAHIR, HUSSAIN SALEM MOHAMMED ALMERFEDI, SALEM MOHAMMED SALEM ABDULLA ALMERFEDI, WALEED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED RAJEB ABU GHANEM, HIMIGER SADER ABU GHANEM, AMEEN MOHAMMAD ALBKRI, ALI SALEH ALBKRI, ABDALHADI M. AL−SOPAI, ABDULLAH M. AL−SOPAI, ALLA ALI BIN ALI AHMED, WAGDI ALI BIN ALI, MUSA'AB AL MADHWANI, JAWAD JABBAR SADKHAN, JABBAR SADKHAN AL−SAHLANI, SADAR DOE, ARKEEN DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHAMMED AL−QAHTANI, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL−QAHTANI, ISMAIL ALKHEMISI, HASAN BALGAID, OMAR DEGHAYES, RAVIL MINGAZA GAMIL, DILIARA MINGAZOVA, KHALED ABD ELGABAR MOHAMMED OTHMAN, ABD AL MALIK ABD AL WAHAB, MUHAMMED AHMED MUHAMMED ALGHURBANY, ALI HAMZA AHMED SULIMAN BAHLOOL, ABDOUL MOHAMMED AHMED BAHLOOL, SALEH MOHAMMED SELEH AL THABBII, FATMAH QHASIM AL AHMADI, ABDUL AL QADER AHMED HUSSAIN, ABDULGADER AHMED HASIN ABOBAKER, ISSAM HAMID ALI BIN ALI AL JAYFI, HAMID ALI AL JAYFI, OTHMAN ALI MOHAMMED AL SHAMRANY, ALI MOHAMED OMAR AL SHOMRANY, KHALID MOHAMMED AL THABBI, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL−MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL−MUDAFARI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, ALI ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, AHMED BEN BACHA, BINYAM MOHAMMED, SALAH BELBACHA, GHASSAN ABDULLAH AL SHARBI, TOORAN MOHAMMAD AMANNULLAH, MIRRA JAAN, MOHAMMAD WABI UMARI, GUL HYAT KHAN, ABDULLAH MUJAHID HAQ, FARID AHMED, MOHAMMAD RAHIM, MOHAMMAD KARIM, MOHAMMAD ZAHIR, ABDUL WAHAB, ABDULLAH WAZIR ZADRAN, GHULAM ROOHANI, GHULAM JEELANI, DR. HIYATULLAH, ABDUL ZAHIR, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, ZAHIR SHAH, ABDUL HAQ, ABDUL BARRI, AHMED AL DARBY, AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ALI MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED HASSEN, ABDUL HAMID ABDUL SALAM AL−GHIZZAWI, ALI YEHYA MAHDI AL−RIMI, ADHAM MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ISMAIL ALI AL RAMMI, SOAID SALH AHMAD AL RAMMI, ADEL ALI AHMAD AL RAMMI, ZAKARIA AL−BAIDANY, ABDEL AZIZ AL−SWIDI, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, TALAH AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, ABDUR RAZAKAH, AHMAD DOE, ALI KADAMI, AYMAN, FAWAZ, HOUMAD WARZLY, MOHAMED RAJAB, OTHMAN ALI MUHAMMED OMAR, MOHAMMED KAMEEN, SABRY MOHAMMED, SALEH, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA, KHALID MOHAMMED, MUHAMMAD NUR UTHMAN MUHAMMAD, MAHDI SALIH, SAKI BACHA, SHAMSULLAH, ABOU YASSIR JEZAIRI, ABDAL RAUF ZALITINI, ABDAUL RAZAK ALI−HAJ, ADNAN, AHAMED, SALAH DEEN IBN SHAIKH, SALIH, SALEH LIBI, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH AL HALMANDY, MUHAMMED SAAD IQBAL MADNI, SAID MADANY, ABDULLAH JAFFA, ABU HADIFA, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, SANJAWEZ RAWEEL KAMEEL WEEJ, ABUL AZIZ AL MATRAFI, MAJED BARYAN, MOHAMED FAHAD SAAD AL ZU'BI, MOUSSA, ABDULRAHMAN, SAUD AL JOUHANY, SULTAN AL SHAREEF, ABDU TAWAB, ABDUL AZIZ, ABU RAWDAH, ABDUL AL HAMMAN, ABDUL LATIF, ABDULLA HAJI, ABDULLA, ADEL, INSHANULLAH, BITAL ADEL HALAMI, HISHAM, RAFIOVE BIN BASHIR, RIAD NARGERI, RIDAH, SAIF, MASOUD, ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ALI SALEH, AMAR BILOUSHI, KHALID DESHIRE, IBRAHIM NAYIF ADBALLAH IBRAHIM, MOHAMMED CHINGUITY, ABDO ALI AL HAJ, ABU BAKER SHAMMRANY, GHANIM−ABDULRAHMAN AL−HARBI, RAVIL MINGAZOV, ZAINULABIDIN MEROZHEV, ELHAM BATTAYAV, ABDULLI FEGHOUL, WASIM, QAYED, ALI ABDULLAH ALI, MOHAMMED AHMED TAHER, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH MOHAMMED BA ODAH, TARIQ ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH,

05/26/2009 05/29/2009

NASSER ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, RAMZI BIN AL−SHIBH, ZAKARIA BIN AL−SHIBH, FAIZ AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, HADDAD AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, MOHAMED MUQBEL AHMED ALSABRI, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ELISHER, SABIR, FADHEL HUSSEIN SALEH HENTIF, HAYKAL MOHAMMED SALEH HENTIF, IYOB MURSHAD ALI SALEH, MURSHAD ALI SALEH, ABDULRAHMAN MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, RIDAH BIN SALEH AL YAZIDI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDURRAHMAN ABDALLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, ABDULLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, AHMED ZAID SALEM ZUHAIR, MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ABDUL RAHIM HUSSEIN MUHAMMED ALI NASHIR, SCOTT L. FENSTERMAKER, BASHIR GHALAAB, SHAWALI KHAN, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, ABD AL−RAHIM HUSSAIN MOHAMMED AL−NASHIRI, AWAL GUL, HAMOUD ABDULLAH HAMOUD HASSAN AL WADY, SALEM AHMED HADI, MAHMMOUD OMAR MOHAMMED BIN ATEF, KAHLID SAAD MOHAMMED, MAHBUB RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD RAHMAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, MONSOOR MUHAMMED ALI QATTAA, SHAKHRUKH HAMIDUVA, ADINA HAMIDOVA, FNU HAFIZULLAH, MUIEEN ADEEN JAMAL ADEEN ABD AL F. ABD AL SATTAR, SHAWKI AWAD BALZUHAIR, YAKUBI, AHMED YASLAM SAID KUMAN, SHARIFULLAH, SUBHANULLAH, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDULAH ALHAMIRI, ABDUL GHAFFAR, ADEL NOORI, ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN, MOHAMMED ABDULMALIK, SALIM JUMA KHAMISI, HASSAN ABDUL SAID, SAMI AL HAJJ, KHAIRULLA KHAIRKHWA, SAMI AL HAJJ, MULLAH NORULLAH NOORI, SAMI AL HAJJ, MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH AL ANSI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDUL RAHMAN UMIR AL QYATI, SAAD MASIR MUKBL AL AZANI, AMMAR AL−BALUCHI, MOHAMMED NAZIR BIN LEP, ABU RAWDA, ABDUL RAZAK ALI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, SHARGOWI LNU, ABDURAHMAN LNU, AHMED OMAR, EDRESS LNU, MOHAMMED AHMED SLAM AL−KHATEEB, MANSOUR K. A. KAMEL, ABDULAZIZ SAYER OWAIN AL SHAMMARI, SAYER O. Z. AL SHAMMARI, ABDULLAH SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MESFER SALEH ALI AL AJMI, MOHAMMED FUNAITEL AL DIHANI, MUBARA F. S. M. AL DAIHANI, FAYIZ MOHAMMED AHMED AL KANDARI, MOHAMMAD A. J. M. H. AL KANDARI, FWAD MAHMOUD AL RABIAH, MONZER M. H. A. AL RABIEAH, ADIL ZAMIL ABDULL MOHSSIN AL ZAMIL, WALID Z. A. AL ZAMEL, FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, KHALED A.F. AL ODAH, NASSER NIJER NASER AL MUTAIRI, ABDULLAH KAMAL ABDULLAH KAMAL AL KANDARI, SAAD MADAI SAAD HAWASH AL−AZMI, HAMAD MADAI SAAD, OMAR RAJAB AMIN, MOHAMMAD R.M.R. AMEEN, NAYEF N. N. B. J. AL MUTAIRI, KHALID ABDULLAH MISHAL AL MUTAIRI, MESHAL A. M. TH AL MUTAIRI (Ryan, Peter) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting in part Petitioners' Consent Motion to Extend Briefing Deadlines (Dkt. No. 1772, 08−mc−0442). Petitioners may file one consolidated opposition to the government's Motion for Reconsideration by Friday, May 29, 2009. The government may file a reply brief by Friday, June 5, 2009. The hearing date is reset from June 8, 2009 to June 9, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 5/26/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
135 MOTION to Strike , and in Opposition to, Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration of Orders Regarding Discovery from the Guantanamo Review Task Force by OMAR KHADR, FATMAH ELSAMNAH, FALEN GHEREBI, BISHER NASER ALI ALMARWALH, HUISSEN NASER ALI ALMARWALH, MASAAB OMAR AL−MADHWANI, ALI OMAR MADHWANI, ABDULKHALIQ AL−BAIDHANI, KHALID AL−BAIDHANI, ALI AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, ABDULLAH AHMED MOHAMMED AL RAZEHI, SUHAIL ABDU ANAM, SAEED AHMED AL−SARIM, SAMIR AHMED AL−SARIM, IMAD ABDULLAH HASSAN, AMRO ABDULLAH HASSAN, JALAL SALIM BIN AMER, FAEZ BIN AMER, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, MOHAMED YAHYA MAHDI, ATAG ALI ABDOH, MOHAMED ABDU ANAM, KHALID AHMED KASSIM, FADHLE AHMED KASSIM, FAHMI ABDULLAH AHMED, KMAL ABDULLAH AHMED,

ABDUALAZIZ ABDOH AL SWIDI, ADNAN ABDOH ALSWIDI, AL HUSSIN AL−TIS, HADI HUSSIN AL−TIS, FAHMI ABDULLAH UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, ALL PETITIONERS, ABDULLAH AHMED UBAD AL−TAWLAQI, MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL−RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL−WRAFIE, AREF ABD IL RHEEM, AREF ABD AL RAHIM, YASEIN KHASEM MOHAMMAD ESMAIL, JAMEL KHASEM MOHAMMAD, ADNAN FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MOHAMED FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, JAMAL MAR'I, NABIL MOHAMED MAR'I, OTHMAN ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ARAF ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ADIL EL HAJ OBAID, NAZEM SAEED EL HAJ OBAID, MOHAMED MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, BASHIR MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, SADEQ MOHAMMED SAID, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, ABD ALSALAM MOHAMMED SAEED, FAROUK ALI AHMED SAIF, SHEAB AL MOHAMEDI, SALMAN YAHALDI HSAN MOHAMMED SAUD, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL−RBUAYE, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, SAIFULLAH PARACHA, FARHAT PARACHA, ALI SALAH KAHLAH AL−MARRI, JARALLAH AL−MARRI, AHCENE ZEMIRI, KARINA DERESHTEANU, RAMI BIN SAAD AL−OTEIBI, HANI SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, YOSRA SALEH RASHID ABDULLAH, MAHMOOD SALIM AL MOHAMMED, ABDULLA SALIM AL−MOHAMMED, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, WAFFA EL−ARABIE, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHY, ZAHER OMER BEN HAMDON, MOHAMMED OMER KHAMIS HAMDON, MOHAMMED AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, SALEH ALI ABDULLA BAWAZER, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI, DJAMEL AMEZIANE, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, NASSER DAHER AL SHAMMARI, ABDUL RAHMAN SHALBY, SHAKER AAMER, ABDULLAH AALI AL OTIABI, MUHAMMED FAHAD AL QAHTANY, MUSA AL MADANY, SALEH ABDULLA AL−OSHAN, MOHAMMED SAAD MOHAMMED AL−OSHAN, ZABEN DHAHER AL SHAMMARI, MUHAMMED KHAN TUMANI, ABD AL NISR KHAN TUMANI, MOHAMMEDOU OULD SALAHI, YAHDIH OULD SALAHI, OMER SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHAMMED SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ADEL HAMLILY, SHAKER AAMER, MOHAMMED AL NADOUR, MOHAMMED FAHREO, LAHCEN IKASRIEN, MOHAMMED MAZOZ, MOUSSA, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, SAID, RIDOUANE SHAKUR, YOUNIS SHAKUR, TAREQ, OMAR DEGHAYES, AHMED ABU IMRAN, NAJEEB AL HUSSEINI, BENJAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, SHAKER AAMER, KHIALI−GUL, YASIN MUHAMMED BASARDH, ALI HUSSIAN MOHAMMAD MUETY SHAABAN, NASRULLAH, ABDUL WAHAB, KARIN BOSTAN, TAJ MOHAMMAD, MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA SOHAIL, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL AL KARIM, ASIM BEN THABIT AL−KHALAQI, KASIMBEKOV KOMOLIDDIN TOHIRJANOVICH, ABDULSALAM ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, ABDULWAHAB ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, HONORGOL KHIALIGOL, HAJI NUSRAT, ABDUL WAHID, HAJI ROHULLAH WAKIL, MOHAMMAD WAKIL, SABAR LAL, MOHAMMED HASSAN, WALI MOHAMMED MORAFA, HADAYA MORAFA, ABDUL RAHMAN AZIZ KHAN, ABD AL RAHMAN, ABDUL RAZAK IKTIAR MOHAMMED, ALI SHAH MOUSOVI, MOHAMMAD SAYYED SHAH, IZAATULLAH NUSRAT, OMAR MOHAMMED KHALIFH, OMAR DEGHAYES, LABED AHMED, TARIQ MAHMOUD ALSAWAM, ABU ABDUL RAUF ZALITA, OMAR DEGHAYES, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, MOTAI SAIB, BISHER AL−RAWI, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH

HATIM, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL−SALAHI, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, AHMED "DOE", OMAR DEGHAYES, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, HAMMAD DOE, HUDHAIFA DOE, JALAAL DOE, KHALID DOE, SAABIR DOE, SAADIQ DOE, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUSABUR DOE, ABDUSAMAD DOE, ABDUNASIR DOE, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, MOAZZAM BEGG, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, ABDL HADI OMAR MAHMOUD FARAJ, MOHAMMED AMON, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, SHAFIIQ, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, ABBAR SUFIAN AL HAWARY, SHAKER AAMER, BISHER AL−RAWI, IBRAHIM OSMAN IBRAHIM IDRIS, HASSAN BIN ATTASH, BENYAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, A'AMER SHAKER, HAMID AL RAZAK, BISHER AL RAWI, EDHAM MAMET, IBRAHIM MAMET, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, ABDUL ZAHIR, HUSSAIN SALEM MOHAMMED ALMERFEDI, SALEM MOHAMMED SALEM ABDULLA ALMERFEDI, WALEED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMMED RAJEB ABU GHANEM, HIMIGER SADER ABU GHANEM, AMEEN MOHAMMAD ALBKRI, ALI SALEH ALBKRI, ABDALHADI M. AL−SOPAI, ABDULLAH M. AL−SOPAI, ALLA ALI BIN ALI AHMED, WAGDI ALI BIN ALI, JAWAD JABBAR SADKHAN, JABBAR SADKHAN AL−SAHLANI, SADAR DOE, ARKEEN DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHAMMED AL−QAHTANI, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL−QAHTANI, ISMAIL ALKHEMISI, HASAN BALGAID, OMAR DEGHAYES, RAVIL MINGAZA GAMIL, DILIARA MINGAZOVA, KHALED ABD ELGABAR MOHAMMED OTHMAN, ABD AL MALIK ABD AL WAHAB, MUHAMMED AHMED MUHAMMED ALGHURBANY, ALI HAMZA AHMED SULIMAN BAHLOOL, ABDOUL MOHAMMED AHMED BAHLOOL, SALEH MOHAMMED SELEH AL THABBII, FATMAH QHASIM AL AHMADI, ABDUL AL QADER AHMED HUSSAIN, ABDULGADER AHMED HASIN ABOBAKER, ISSAM HAMID ALI BIN ALI AL JAYFI, HAMID ALI AL JAYFI, OTHMAN ALI MOHAMMED AL SHAMRANY, ALI MOHAMED OMAR AL SHOMRANY, KHALID MOHAMMED AL THABBI, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL−MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL−MUDAFARI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, ALI ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, AHMED BEN BACHA, BINYAM MOHAMMED, SALAH BELBACHA, GHASSAN ABDULLAH AL SHARBI, TOORAN MOHAMMAD AMANNULLAH, MIRRA JAAN, MOHAMMAD WABI UMARI, GUL HYAT KHAN, ABDULLAH MUJAHID HAQ, FARID AHMED, MOHAMMAD RAHIM, MOHAMMAD KARIM, MOHAMMAD ZAHIR, ABDUL WAHAB, ABDULLAH WAZIR ZADRAN, GHULAM ROOHANI, GHULAM JEELANI, DR. HIYATULLAH, ABDUL ZAHIR, CHAMAN GUL KHIALIGOL, ZAHIR SHAH, ABDUL HAQ, ABDUL BARRI, AHMED AL DARBY, AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ALI MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED HASSEN, ABDUL HAMID ABDUL SALAM AL−GHIZZAWI, ALI YEHYA MAHDI AL−RIMI, ADHAM MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ISMAIL ALI AL RAMMI, SOAID SALH AHMAD AL RAMMI, ADEL ALI AHMAD AL RAMMI, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, BANDAR AL JAABIR, JAMAL KIYEMBA, MOHAMMED ZAHRANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, SALIM SAID, ANWAR HANDAN AL SHIMMIRI, SULIMAN HONAHEEM ALOWAIDAH, SAAD AL QAHTAANI, JOBRAN SAAD AL−QUHTANI, NAWAL MADAY AL−QUHTANI, ZAKARIA AL−BAIDANY, ABDEL AZIZ AL−SWIDI, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, MOHAMMED AL PALESTINI, SOFAINE MOHAMMED BERHOUMI, ABDUL AZIZ NAJI, ABIN ALHAMED ABID ALSALLAM ALKESAWI, ABU RAWDA, UMAR ABDULLAH AL KUNDUZI, KHALED ABDALLAH AL−IDAN, ABDUL RAUF ASIBI, ABDUL RAZAK ALI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, MAHER LNU, MAHER EL FALESTENY, MUSTAFA AL SHAMILI, SHARGOWI LNU, BISHER AL−RAWI, OYBEK JAMOLDINIVICH JABBAROV, SANAD ALI ALKALIEMI, FADL DAHIMI, ABDUL SALAM DEIFF, ABDURAHMAN LNU, AHMED OMAR, ALI LNU, EDRESS LNU, MOHAMMED AHMED SAEED HIDAR, SAIF ULLAH, SAMIR LNU, YOYEJ, SAEED, OMAR DOE, OMAR DEGHAYES, FAHD ABU HAFSA, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUL HAQ, NADIR OMAR ADULLAH BIN SAADOUN ALSAARY, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, OMAR RAMAH, ABD AL ZAHER, FAWZI KHALED

ABDALLAH AL−AUDHA, ABDULLAH BO OMER HAMZA YOYEJ, ABU RAHAN, NAJEEB DOE, SAD AL GAHTANI, AMER MOHAMMON, JABIR AL QUATANY, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHSEN, FAHD AL FAWZAN, ADEL LNU, RASHED AL QAMDI, BANDAR AL SHAIBANI, ALI SHER HAMIDULLAH, MARSHAL DOE, KHALD AL BARKATI, ABDULAL AL THANI, ABU AHMED AL JOFI, SLAIM HARBI, ABU RAD AL JOFI, MUHAMMED HARBI, ABDULAZIZ LNU, ABDULAL DOE, SAD AL MATERI, BOUCETTA FIHI, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, SEED FARHA, SALEH DOE, AHMED ADNAN AHJAM, MAGED DOE, ZEYAD AL GASSMY, ADEL HASSAN, HAMAD DOE, JAMIL AHMAD SAEED, HALA AHMAD SAEED AL−ADAHG, AMIR DOE, ALKHADR ABDULLAH AL YAFIE, TOFIQ NASSER AWAD AL BIHANI, ABU AHMED, WALEED DOE, WALEED LNU, SAMIR DOE, ELHAM BATAIF, ZEIN AL−ABEDEEN, YAGOOB AL SOURY, ABDUL RHMAN, ADEL AL TUNISI, ZAKER CHAN, SADER DOE, MOHAMMED AHMED SLAM AL−KHATEEB, ALI AL KAZMI, ADNAN AL BIHANI, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, ABDULLAH LNU, ABDURAZZAK LNU, KHADER DOE, BILAL LNU, MOSHEN DOE, ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDURRAZAKH LNU, FAHD DOE, JAMIL EL−BANNA, ADEL LNU, OSAMA DOE, MOHAMED HMADI, ABDUL−RAHMAN ABDO ABULGHAITH SULAIMAN, FAHMI DOE, ESAM DOE, TALAH AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, ABDUR RAZAKAH, AHMAD DOE, ALI KADAMI, AYMAN, FAWAZ, HOUMAD WARZLY, MOHAMED RAJAB, OTHMAN ALI MUHAMMED OMAR, MOHAMMED KAMEEN, SABRY MOHAMMED, SALEH, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA, KHALID MOHAMMED, MUHAMMAD NUR UTHMAN MUHAMMAD, MAHDI SALIH, SAKI BACHA, SHAMSULLAH, ABOU YASSIR JEZAIRI, ABDAL RAUF ZALITINI, ABDAUL RAZAK ALI−HAJ, ADNAN, AHAMED, SALAH DEEN IBN SHAIKH, SALIH, SALEH LIBI, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH AL HALMANDY, MUHAMMED SAAD IQBAL MADNI, SAID MADANY, ABDULLAH JAFFA, ABU HADIFA, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, SANJAWEZ RAWEEL KAMEEL WEEJ, ABUL AZIZ AL MATRAFI, MAJED BARYAN, MOHAMED FAHAD SAAD AL ZU'BI, MOUSSA, ABDULRAHMAN, SAUD AL JOUHANY, SULTAN AL SHAREEF, ABDU TAWAB, ABDUL AZIZ, ABU RAWDAH, ABDUL AL HAMMAN, ABDUL LATIF, ABDULLA HAJI, ABDULLA, ADEL, INSHANULLAH, BITAL ADEL HALAMI, HISHAM, RAFIOVE BIN BASHIR, RIAD NARGERI, RIDAH, SAIF, MASOUD, ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ALI SALEH, AMAR BILOUSHI, KHALID DESHIRE, IBRAHIM NAYIF ADBALLAH IBRAHIM, MOHAMMED CHINGUITY, ABDO ALI AL HAJ, ABU BAKER SHAMMRANY, GHANIM−ABDULRAHMAN AL−HARBI, RAVIL MINGAZOV, ZAINULABIDIN MEROZHEV, ELHAM BATTAYAV, ABDULLI FEGHOUL, WASIM, QAYED, ALI ABDULLAH ALI, MOHAMMED AHMED TAHER, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH MOHAMMED BA ODAH, TARIQ ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, NASSER ALI ABDULLAH BA ODAH, MAJID KHAN, RABIA KHAN, RAMZI BIN AL−SHIBH, ZAKARIA BIN AL−SHIBH, FAIZ AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, HADDAD AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, MOHAMED MUQBEL AHMED ALSABRI, MOHAMED AL−ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ELISHER, SABIR, FADHEL HUSSEIN SALEH HENTIF, HAYKAL MOHAMMED SALEH HENTIF, ACHRAF SALIM ABDESSALAM, IYOB MURSHAD ALI SALEH, MURSHAD ALI SALEH, ABDULRAHMAN MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD SALEH NASSER, RIDAH BIN SALEH AL YAZIDI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDURRAHMAN ABDALLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, ABDULLAH ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, ABDUL RAHIM HUSSEIN MUHAMMED ALI NASHIR, SCOTT L. FENSTERMAKER, BASHIR GHALAAB, SHAWALI KHAN, MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, ABD AL−RAHIM HUSSAIN MOHAMMED AL−NASHIRI, AWAL GUL, HAMOUD ABDULLAH HAMOUD HASSAN AL WADY, SALEM AHMED HADI, MAHMMOUD OMAR MOHAMMED BIN ATEF, KAHLID SAAD MOHAMMED, MAHBUB RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD RAHMAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, MONSOOR MUHAMMED ALI QATTAA, SHAKHRUKH HAMIDUVA, ADINA HAMIDOVA, FNU HAFIZULLAH, MUIEEN ADEEN JAMAL ADEEN ABD AL F. ABD AL SATTAR, SHAWKI AWAD BALZUHAIR, YAKUBI, AHMED YASLAM SAID KUMAN, SHARIFULLAH, SUBHANULLAH, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDULAH ALHAMIRI,

06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/05/2009
06/10/2009 06/26/2009
06/26/2009 07/10/2009 07/10/2009
07/10/2009 07/10/2009 07/29/2009 08/03/2009

ABDUL GHAFFAR, ADEL NOORI, ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN, MOHAMMED ABDULMALIK, SALIM JUMA KHAMISI, HASSAN ABDUL SAID, SAMI AL HAJJ, ISMAIL MOHAMED, ALI MOHAMED, KHAIRULLA KHAIRKHWA, SAMI AL HAJJ, MULLAH NORULLAH NOORI, SAMI AL HAJJ, MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH AL ANSI, SAMI AL HAJJ, ABDUL RAHMAN UMIR AL QYATI, SAAD MASIR MUKBL AL AZANI, AMMAR AL−BALUCHI, MOHAMMED NAZIR BIN LEP, NADIR OMAR ABDULLAH BIN SA'ADO ALS'AARY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Breckinridge, Alexander) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
136 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 6/1/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
137 ORDER denying without prejudice government's Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected." Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 6/1/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
138 REPLY to opposition to motion re (105 in 1:08−cv−01238−RWR) MOTION for Reconsideration, (106 in 1:08−cv−01238−RWR) MOTION for Order Regarding Discovery From The Guantanamo Review Task Force filed by BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, BARACK OBAMA, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, ROBERT GATES. (Henry, Terry) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
139 ORDER denying without prejudice government's Motion for Reconsideration of Orders Regarding Discovery from the Guantanamo Review Task Force. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 6/10/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
140 ORDER, that on or before July 10, 2009, Respondents shall file with the Court ex parte and under seal a report detailing the current status of the Guantanamo Review Task Force review process with respect to each Petitioner (see Order for more details). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/25/09. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Government ex parte Report due by 7/10/2009 (CL, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
141 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 7/10/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
142 ORDER granting in part and denying in part government's Motion to Amend the September 11, 2008 Protective Order and Counsel Access Procedures and the January 9, 2009 Amended TS/SCI Protective Order and Counsel Access Procedures. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 7/10/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
143 NOTICE by Respondents of Ex Parte, Under Seal Submission by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO (Ahern, Paul) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
144 SEALED NOTICE filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO.(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztr) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
145 NOTICE of Public Filing of Factual Return by GEORGE W. BUSH (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Apperson, Jay) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
146 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DONALD RUMSFELD, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, JR, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, J. HOOD, NELSON J. CANNON, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, BRICE A. GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, NELSON J. CANNON, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE W. BUSH, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, BARACK H. OBAMA, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE

08/11/2009 08/25/2009 09/09/2009
10/09/2009 10/14/2009 11/17/2009 11/17/2009
12/15/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009
12/30/2009 03/24/2010

GYURISKO, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, BARACK H. OBAMA, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, BARACK OBAMA, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, MICHAEL BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MIKE BUMGARNER, BARACK OBAMA, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, WADE F. DAVIS, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, RICHARD B. MYERS, RICK BACCUS, TERRY CARRICO. Attorney Paul Edward Ahern terminated. (Ahern, Paul) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
147 ORDER that Petitioners shall, from this date forward, file with this Court two copies of all classified submissions. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 8/11/09. (CL, ) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
148 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick D. Davis on behalf of GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO (Davis, Patrick) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Improper Respondents (Dkt. No. 723, 08−mc−0442). In light of subsequent rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and pending matters before this Court that are related to the motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 9/9/09. (lctfh1) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
149 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER. Attorney Zachary Katznelson terminated. (Katznelson, Zachary) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
150 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to GEORGE W. BUSH. Attorney Jay Apperson terminated. (Apperson, Jay) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
151 NOTICE of Filing Under Seal by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO (Davis, Patrick) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
152 SEALED NOTICE filed by GEORGE W. BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO. re 151 Notice filed by BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(zdr) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
153 NOTICE of Appearance by Tara L. Murray on behalf of OMAR DEGHAYES, ABDUL LATIF MOHAMMED NASSER, SAID (Murray, Tara) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
154 NOTICE of Appearance by Tara L. Murray on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB (Murray, Tara) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
155 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Filing of Documents Pursuant to Protective Order by JIHAD DHIAB (Murray, Tara) Modified on 12/16/2009 to enter in error (dr). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 155 Notice (Other) was entered in error because the docket entry does not coincide with the document. Counsel is instructed to refile said pleading along with a corresponding docket entry. (dr) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
156 NOTICE to the Court by BARACK OBAMA, ROBERT GATES (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Major General Curtis M. Scaparrotti)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 12/30/2009)
157 STIPULATION Regarding Bagram Theater Internment Facility by MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER. (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 03/24/2010)

04/14/2010 04/19/2010 05/03/2010

158 NOTICE Of Filing −− Respondents' Motion To Amend And For Clarification Of The Court's January 14, 2010 Order Regarding Public Returns by BARACK OBAMA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: By Monday, May 3, 2010, the petitioners shall file one consolidated response to the Respondents' Motion to Amend and for Clarification of the Court's January 14, 2010 Order Regarding Public Returns [Dkt. No. 1942, 08−mc−442]. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 4/19/10. (lctfh1) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
159 Unopposed MOTION to Continue Deadline of Filing Consolidated Response to Respondents Motion to Amend and for Clarification of the Courts January 14, 2010 Order Regarding Public Returns by USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, ALI THABID, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL−MITHALI, ABDULZAHER, SHAKER AAMER, ADEL HAMLILY, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL−MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL−MUDAFARI, ABDUL WAHAB, GHASSAN ABDULLAH AL SHARBI, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, NABIL, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI, MOHAMEDOU OULD SLAHI, ADEL ALI AHMAD AL RAMMI, ISMAIL ALI AL RAMMI, SOAID SALH AHMAD AL RAMMI, HASSAN BIN ATTASH, BENYAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, A'AMER SHAKER, MOAZZAM BEGG, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MAHMOOD SALIM AL MOHAMMED, ABDULLA SALIM AL−MOHAMMED, HAJI NASRAT, LABED AHMED, KHIALI−GUL, ARKEEN DOE, SADAR DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, OMAR DEGHAYES, ABU ABDUL RAUF ZALITA, ABDULRAHIM ABDUL RAZAK AL GINCO, ALI SALEH ALBKRI, AMEEN MOHAMMAD ALBKRI, ABDULSALAM ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, ABDULWAHAB ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL−HELA, FOUZIA AHMMED, MALIKA, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, ALI HUSSIAN MOHAMMAD MUETY SHAABAN, KASIMBEKOV KOMOLIDDIN TOHIRJANOVICH, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, WAFFA EL−ARABIE, SHERIF EL−MASHAD, OMAR DEGHAYES, OMAR MOHAMMED KHALIFH, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALLUL ALHAMI, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA SOHAIL, SYED MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH, MOHAMMEDOU OULD SALAHI, YAHDIH OULD SALAHI, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL−SALAHI, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL−QAHTANI, MOHAMMED AL−QAHTANI, MUHAMMED MUBARAK AL KURBI, SALEM MUBARAK AL KURBI, MAJED ABDULLA AL NAKHEELAN, NAIF ABDULLA AL NAKHEELAN, BISHER AL RAWI, HAMID AL RAZAK, AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, TALAH AHMED MOHAMMED ALI ALMJRD, AHMED "DOE", OMAR DEGHAYES, EDHAM MAMET, IBRAHIM MAMET, BISHER AL−RAWI, MOTAI SAIB, BISHER AL−RAWI, IBRAHIM OSMAN IBRAHIM IDRIS, MOHAMMED IDRIS, DJAMEL AMEZIANE, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, SHAFIIQ, ASIM BEN THABIT AL−KHALAQI, AYMEN SAEED BATARFI, SAEED ABDULLAH BATARFI, ABDUL SALAAM, MOHAMMED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, WALEED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MOHAMMED AL−ADAHI, MUHAMMAD AL−ADAHI, FAHMI SALEM AL−ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL−ASSANI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL−HAJ, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL−NADHY, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL−NAHDI, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SALEH ALI ABDULLA BAWAZER, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, MOHAMMED OMER KHAMIS HAMDON, ZAHER OMER BEN HAMDON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, ABDULHADI ABDULLA AL−SHAREKH, ABDULLA AL−SHAREKH, ABDULLA AL−SHAREKH, ABDULRAZZAQ ABDULLA AL−SHAREKH, YASIN MUHAMMED BASARDH, TAJ MOHAMMAD, TARIQ MAHMOUD ALSAWAM, ABDUL ZAHIR, AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ALI MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, AHMED AL DARBY, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED HASSEN, ABDL HADI OMAR MAHMOUD FARAJ, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ,

05/04/2010 05/06/2010

SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, ABD AL MALIK ABD AL WAHAB, KHALED ABD ELGABAR MOHAMMED OTHMAN, JABBAR SADKHAN AL−SAHLANI, JAWAD JABBAR SADKHAN, SALEH ZAID AL KHATEMI, SHAG ZUHAYID AL SUHAID, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, AHMED BEN BACHA, SALAH BELBACHA, BINYAM MOHAMMED, MOHAMMED SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, OMER SAEED SALEM AL DAINI, ISMAIL ALKHEMISI, HASAN BALGAID, OMAR DEGHAYES, GHALEB NASSAR AL BIHANI, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, MOAZZAM BEGG, RAVIL MINGAZA GAMIL, DILIARA MINGAZOVA, MOHAMEDOU OULD SLAHI, ALI ADEL MOTALEB AWEID AL KHAIY, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, ZAKARIA AL−BAIDANY, ABDEL AZIZ AL−SWIDI, AHMAD DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, ABDUR RAZAKAH, ABRAHIM OTHMAN ABRAHIM EDRIES, ADHAM MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, SHAKER AAMER, JIHAD DHIAB, HIMIGER SADER ABU GHANEM, MOHAMMED RAJEB ABU GHANEM, ALI ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN AL−SHIMRANI, KARIN BOSTAN, HUSSAIN SALEM MOHAMMED ALMERFEDI, SALEM MOHAMMED SALEM ABDULLA ALMERFEDI, ABDUL HAMID ABDUL SALAM AL−GHIZZAWI, ALI YEHYA MAHDI AL−RIMI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Proposed Order)(Thompson, Darin) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting the Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline of Filing Consolidated Respone to the Respondents Motion to Amend and for Clarification of the Courts January 14, 2010 Order Regarding Public Returns. Accordingly, the petitioners response shall be due to be filed on or before June 2, 2010. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on May 4, 2010. (lctfh2) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
160 ORDER of USCA as to (103 in 1:05−cv−01220−RMU, 42 in 1:05−cv−00833−JR, 48 in 1:05−cv−01347−GK, 107 in 1:05−cv−02378−JDB, 83 in 1:05−cv−00359−GK, 47 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 20 in 1:05−cv−02083−JDB, 54 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 38 in 1:06−cv−01761−ESH, 22 in 1:06−cv−01759−JDB, 76 in 1:05−cv−01505−RMC, 70 in 1:05−cv−00999−RBW, 63 in 1:05−cv−02199−HHK, 74 in 1:05−cv−01638−CKK, 49 in 1:06−cv−01684−GK, 75 in 1:05−cv−02185−JR, 60 in 1:05−cv−02104−RBW, 90 in 1:05−cv−01490−PLF, 111 in 1:05−cv−02384−RWR, 46 in 1:05−cv−02385−ESH, 51 in 1:05−cv−02088−RWR, 28 in 1:05−cv−01725−UNA, 61 in 1:05−cv−00993−RMU, 111 in 1:05−cv−01429−RMU, 60 in 1:06−cv−00618−RWR, 40 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 72 in 1:05−cv−01504−RMC, 50 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 49 in 1:05−cv−00883−RBW, 130 in 1:05−cv−00520−RMU, 68 in 1:05−cv−01607−RMU, 50 in 1:05−cv−01458−ESH−AK, 13 in 1:06−cv−01688−RMC, 44 in 1:05−cv−01189−JR, 32 in 1:05−cv−01649−RBW, 109 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 21 in 1:05−cv−00995−UNA, 31 in 1:07−cv−01710−RBW, 60 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 39 in 1:07−cv−02337−HHK, 91 in 1:05−cv−01353−RMC, 39 in 1:05−cv−00881−JR, 48 in 1:05−cv−01646−JDB, 39 in 1:07−cv−02338−HHK, 102 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 81 in 1:05−cv−02249−RMC, 100 in 1:05−cv−01124−RMC, 58 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 87 in 1:05−cv−01555−JR, 56 in 1:05−cv−02349−UNA, 66 in 1:05−cv−02379−JR, 67 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK−AK, 39 in 1:05−cv−02010−HHK, 64 in 1:05−cv−01983−RMU, 96 in 1:05−cv−01592−RCL, 92 in 1:05−cv−00329−PLF, 103 in 1:05−cv−02367−RWR, 60 in 1:05−cv−00392−UNA, 48 in 1:05−cv−00998−RMU, 26 in 1:06−cv−01668−HHK, 58 in 1:05−cv−01497−RCL, 52 in 1:05−cv−01971−RMC, 25 in 1:05−cv−02444−RMC, 71 in 1:05−cv−02380−CKK, 135 in 1:05−cv−01509−RMU, 11 in 1:08−cv−01104−CKK, 17 in 1:05−cv−02200−JDB, 521 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 54 in 1:05−cv−01645−UNA, 102 in 1:05−cv−00569−JR, 54 in 1:05−cv−00889−UNA, 47 in 1:05−cv−01244−CKK, 32 in 1:05−cv−01623−RWR, 48 in 1:05−cv−01639−RBW, 83 in 1:05−cv−00492−JR, 66 in 1:05−cv−02371−UNA, 38 in 1:05−cv−01236−RWR, 19 in 1:06−cv−01691−GK, 16 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB, 16 in 1:08−cv−01153−HHK, 29 in 1:05−cv−02381−JDB, 62 in 1:05−cv−00892−CKK, 85 in 1:05−cv−00247−UNA, 83 in 1:05−cv−01601−GK, 54 in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 68 in 1:05−cv−02186−UNA, 34 in 1:05−cv−02387−RMC, 14 in 1:08−cv−01085−PLF, 126 in 1:05−cv−01048−RMU, 77 in 1:05−cv−01506−RMC, 24 in 1:06−cv−01674−RMC, 61 in 1:05−cv−00994−JDB, 36 in 1:05−cv−02477−RMU, 93 in 1:05−cv−01704−RMU, 143 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK) Notice of Appeal,, filed by MICHAEL BUMGARNER,

05/12/2010 05/18/2010
06/23/2010 06/29/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/07/2010 07/09/2010 07/27/2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JAY HOOD, BRUCE VARGO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR., DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, WADE F. DENNIS, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, J. HOOD, WADE F. DAVIS, MARK H. BUZBY, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR., COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, ROBERT M. GATES, GORDON R. ENGLAND, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, TERRY CARRICO, USCA Case Number, USCA Case Number, (30 in 1:06−cv−01766−HHK) Notice of Appeal filed by DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR., (25 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU) Notice of Appeal filed by DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR., USCA Case Number, ; USCA Case Number 08−5233.ORDERED that Nos. 08−5271, 08−5331, and 08−5348 be dismissed as moot, FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidation of Nos. 08−5271, 08−5331, and 08−5348 with Nos. 08−5233, et al., be terminated, FURTHER ORDERED to terminate party Atag Ali Abdoh in 08−5235, Jamal Mar'i, Nabil Mohamed Mar'i and Farouk Ali Ahmed Saif in 08−5236, Waffa El−Arabie and Sherif El−Mashad in 08−5244, Mohammad Karim and Mohammad Rahim in 08−5314, Riad Nargeri in 08−5321 and Adel Lnu and Saif Ullah in 08−5322; dismissing as moot motion to hold case in abeyance [1177160−3]; FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the remaining appellees in these consolidated cases show cause, within 30 days of the date of this order why the district courts orders requiring advance notice of transfer should not be vacated and the cases remanded. Response to Order due 06/01/2010. Response may not exceed 10 pages [See Order for further details]The Clerk is directed to issue forthwith to the district court a certified copy of this order in lieu of formal mandate in Nos. 08−5271, 08−5331, and 08−5348. The Clerk is further directed to withhold issuance of the mandate in Nos. 08−5235, 08−5236, 08−5244, 08−5314, 08−5321, and 08−5322 until resolution of the remainder of those appeals. (mmh, ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
161 Unopposed MOTION to File a Consolidated Reply and for an Extension of Time to Reply to the Responses of Petitioners and Press Intervenors by BARACK H. OBAMA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Lisa) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting Respondents' Unopposed Motion to File a Consolidated Reply and for an Extension of Time to Reply to the Responses of Petitioners and Press Intervenors. Accordingly, the respondents' consolidated reply brief shall be due to be filed on or before June 24, 2010. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on May 13, 2010 nunc pro tunc. (lctfh2) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
162 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by BARACK OBAMA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Lisa) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting Respondent's Unopposed Motion for A Brief Extension of Time to File Reply Brief. Accordingly, the reply brief shall be due to be filed on or before July 1, 2010. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 6/29/2010. (lctfh2) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
163 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Respondents Consent Motion for a Five Page Enlargement of the Page Limitation for Their Reply Brief) by BARACK H. OBAMA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Lisa) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
164 NOTICE of Filing of Reply Brief in Further Support of Respondents Motion to Amend and for Clarification of the Courts January 14, 2010 Order Regarding Public Returns by BARACK H. OBAMA (Marcus, Lisa) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting Respondents' Consent Motion for a Five Page Enlargement of the Page Limitation for Their Reply Brief. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on July 7, 2010. (lctfh2) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
165 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time Regarding Proposed Public Returns by BARACK H. OBAMA (Attachments: # 1 Revised Proposed Order)(Marcus, Lisa) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
167 ORDER granting respondents' motion to amend and for clarification of the 1/14/10 order. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 7/27/10 nunc pro tunc to 7/23/10. This order originally was filed in 08−mc−442 but also should have been docketed in all

07/30/2010 08/19/2010
09/15/2010 10/01/2010 03/07/2011 03/15/2011

cases captioned herein. (Entered: 09/15/2010)
166 NOTICE of Compliance by BARACK OBAMA (Marcus, Lisa) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
MINUTE ORDER scheduling a hearing regarding the pending Motion to Amend and for Clarification of the Courts January 14, 2010 Order Regarding Public Returns. The hearing shall take place on October 7, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 25A before Judge Thomas F. Hogan. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on August 19, 2010. (lctfh2) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
MINUTE ORDER staying the Court's July 27, 2010 Order pending the hearing scheduled to take place on October 7, 2010. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on September 15, 2010. (lctfh2) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
168 STATUS REPORT : Joint Pre−Hearing Statement. (Marcus, Lisa) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
169 NOTICE Of Entry Of Protective Order Governing Military Commission Proceedings by BARACK H. OBAMA, ROBERT M. GATES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Military Commission Protective Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
170 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) discharging the order to show cause, granting the motion to exceed the page limit, ordering the Clerk to file the lodged joint response, and vacating the District Court's order requiring advance notice of transfer as to (42 in 1:05−cv−00833−UNA, 48 in 1:05−cv−01347−UNA, 83 in 1:05−cv−00359−GK, 47 in 1:05−cv−01457−GK, 20 in 1:05−cv−02083−JDB, 54 in 1:05−cv−00877−JR, 22 in 1:06−cv−01759−JDB, 76 in 1:05−cv−01505−RMC, 99 in 1:04−cv−02035−GK, 70 in 1:05−cv−00999−RBW, 63 in 1:05−cv−02199−UNA, 74 in 1:05−cv−01638−CKK, 33 in 1:04−cv−01937−UNA, 49 in 1:06−cv−01684−UNA, 83 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 75 in 1:05−cv−02185−RCL, 60 in 1:05−cv−02104−RBW, 90 in 1:05−cv−01490−UNA, 43 in 1:06−cv−01766−UNA, 111 in 1:05−cv−02384−RWR, 46 in 1:05−cv−02385−ESH, 51 in 1:05−cv−02088−RWR, 28 in 1:05−cv−01725−UNA, 111 in 1:05−cv−01429−RMU, 60 in 1:06−cv−00618−RWR, 40 in 1:06−cv−01758−RMC, 72 in 1:05−cv−01504−UNA, 50 in 1:05−cv−00748−RMC, 49 in 1:05−cv−00883−RBW, 130 in 1:05−cv−00520−UNA, 68 in 1:05−cv−01607−RMU, 50 in 1:05−cv−01458−ESH −AK, 13 in 1:06−cv−01688−RMC, 194 in 1:04−cv−01136−UNA, 44 in 1:05−cv−01189−UNA, 32 in 1:05−cv−01649−RBW, 109 in 1:05−cv−00270−JR, 21 in 1:05−cv−00995−UNA, 31 in 1:07−cv−01710−RBW, 60 in 1:05−cv−00526−RMU, 39 in 1:07−cv−02337−HHK, 91 in 1:05−cv−01353−UNA, 39 in 1:05−cv−00881−JR, 48 in 1:05−cv−01646−UNA, 204 in 1:08−mc−00442−TFH, 39 in 1:07−cv−02338−HHK, 102 in 1:05−cv−02479−HHK, 81 in 1:05−cv−02249−RMC, 100 in 1:05−cv−01124−RMC, 58 in 1:05−cv−00634−RWR, 87 in 1:05−cv−01555−JR, 56 in 1:05−cv−02349−UNA, 66 in 1:05−cv−02379−JR, 67 in 1:05−cv−00764−CKK −AK, 39 in 1:05−cv−02010−HHK, 64 in 1:05−cv−01983−RMU, 96 in 1:05−cv−01592−UNA, 92 in 1:05−cv−00329−PLF, 114 in 1:05−cv−00023−RWR, 103 in 1:05−cv−02367−RWR, 521 in 1:10−cv−01020−RJL, 60 in 1:05−cv−00392−UNA, 48 in 1:05−cv−00998−RMU, 62 in 1:06−cv−01767−RMU, 26 in 1:06−cv−01668−UNA, 58 in 1:05−cv−01497−UNA, 46 in 1:06−cv−01765−UNA, 52 in 1:05−cv−01971−RMC, 25 in 1:05−cv−02444−RMC, 71 in 1:05−cv−02380−CKK, 521 in 1:09−cv−00745−RCL, 135 in 1:05−cv−01509−RMU, 11 in 1:08−cv−01104−CKK, 17 in 1:05−cv−02200−JDB, 66 in 1:05−cv−00763−JDB, 521 in 1:05−cv−02386−RBW, 54 in 1:05−cv−01645−UNA, 172 in 1:04−cv−02022−PLF, 102 in 1:05−cv−00569−EGS, 32 in 1:05−cv−01623−RWR, 47 in 1:05−cv−01244−CKK, 54 in 1:05−cv−00889−UNA, 48 in 1:05−cv−01639−RBW, 216 in 1:04−cv−01194−TFH, 83 in 1:05−cv−00492−UNA, 66 in 1:05−cv−02371−UNA, 38 in 1:05−cv−01236−RWR, 19 in 1:06−cv−01691−GK, 16 in 1:08−cv−01101−JDB, 29 in 1:05−cv−02381−JDB, 62 in 1:05−cv−00892−CKK, 83 in 1:05−cv−01601−UNA, 255 in 1:04−cv−01254−HHK, 85 in 1:05−cv−00247−UNA, 54 in 1:06−cv−01690−RBW, 68 in 1:05−cv−02186−UNA, 34 in 1:05−cv−02387−RMC, 14 in 1:08−cv−01085−PLF, 126 in 1:05−cv−01048−RMU, 77 in 1:05−cv−01506−RMC, 24 in 1:06−cv−01674−RMC, 61 in 1:05−cv−00994−JDB, 36 in 1:05−cv−02477−RMU, 93 in 1:05−cv−01704−RMU, 77 in 1:04−cv−02046−CKK, 121 in 1:04−cv−01164−RBW, 143 in 1:05−cv−00280−GK) Notices of Appeal filed by MICHAEL BUMGARNER, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JAY HOOD, BRUCE VARGO, BRICE GYURISKO, NELSON J. CANNON, DAVID M.

05/16/2012 09/21/2012 10/24/2012
05/23/2013 06/30/2013 07/01/2013 07/02/2013 07/02/2013 07/03/2013
07/03/2013 07/03/2013

THOMAS, JR., DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE W. BUSH, WADE F. DENNIS, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, J. HOOD, WADE F. DAVIS, MARK H. BUZBY, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR., COMMANDER OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE, GTMO, ROBERT M. GATES, GORDON R. ENGLAND, COMMANDER OF PRISON CAMP, GTMO, and TERRY CARRICO; USCA Case Number: 08−5233 (consolidated with 08−5234−08−5262, 08−5264−08−5270, 08−5272−08−5278, 08−5280−08−5286, 08−5288, 08−5289, 08−5291−08−5297, 08−5299−08−5306, 08−5308−08−5315, 08−5317−08−5323, 08−5325−08−5330, 08−5332−08−5336, 08−5338−08−5343, and 08−5345−08−5347.) (tnr, ) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
171 STIPULATION Concerning Public Factual Return by GEORGE W. BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Maskew, Trish) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
172 NOTICE Lifting Protected Information Designation of Decisions By The Guantanamo Bay Review Task Force Approving Detainees For Transfer by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1: Fried Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2: Chart Listing Current GTMO Detainees Approved For Transfer)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
173 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to GEORGE WALKER BUSH, MARK H. BUZBY, ROBERT M. GATES, BRUCE VARGO, TOM COPEMAN, ROBERT M. GATES, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BRUCE VARGO, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, JAY HOOD, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, DONALD RUMSFELD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BRICE GYURISKO, WADE F. DAVIS, HARRY B. HARRIS, JR, DONALD RUMSFELD, ROBERT GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO. (Maskew, Trish) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
174 NOTICE of Appearance by Cori Crider on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
175 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Against Force−Feeding by JIHAD DHIAB, AHMED BEN BACHA, NABIL, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Crider Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Miles Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Xenakis Declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Crider, Cori) (Entered: 06/30/2013)
MINUTE ORDER: Respondents shall file a response to Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Againts Force−Feeding [Dkt. No. 175] no later than 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on July 3, 2013. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/1/13. (CL, ) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
176 NOTICE of Appearance by Jon B. Eisenberg on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB (Eisenberg, Jon) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
177 MEMORANDUM by JIHAD DHIAB. (Eisenberg, Jon) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
178 Memorandum in opposition to re (212 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 243 in 1:05−cv−02349−UNA, 291 in 1:05−cv−01504−UNA, 175 in 1:05−cv−01457−UNA) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Against Force−Feeding filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Senior Medical Officer Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
179 NOTICE Of Under Seal Filing − Declaration of JTF−GTMO Senior Medical Officer by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
180 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd, ) (Entered: 07/03/2013)

07/04/2013 07/08/2013 07/08/2013 07/08/2013
07/11/2013 07/12/2013 07/15/2013 07/29/2013 07/30/2013 08/08/2013
08/13/2013
08/29/2013

181 REPLY to opposition to motion re (212 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 243 in 1:05−cv−02349−UNA, 291 in 1:05−cv−01504−UNA, 175 in 1:05−cv−01457−UNA) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Against Force−Feeding filed by JIHAD DHIAB, AHMED BEN BACHA, NABIL HADJARAB, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER. (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 07/04/2013)
182 NOTICE of Supplemental Declaration by JIHAD DHIAB, AHMED BEN BACHA, NABIL HADJARAB, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER re (212 in 1:04−cv−02215−RMC, 243 in 1:05−cv−02349−UNA, 291 in 1:05−cv−01504−UNA, 175 in 1:05−cv−01457−UNA) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Against Force−Feeding (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Crider declaration)(Crider, Cori) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
183 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 175 Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (see Memorandum Order for details). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/8/13. (CL, ) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
184 NOTICE By Respondents Lifting Protected Information Designation Of Decisions By the Guantanamo Bay Review Task Force by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, ROBERT M. GATES, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, ROBERT M. GATES, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit GTMO Task Force Chart)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
185 MOTION for Reconsideration re (183 in 1:05−cv−01457−UNA) Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB, AHMED BEN BACHA, NABIL HADJARAB, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Crider, Cori) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
186 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by JIHAD DHIAB, AHMED BEN BACHA, NABIL HADJARAB, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Crider, Cori) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
187 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by JIHAD DHIAB, AHMED BEN BACHA, NABIL HADJARAB, SHAKER ABDURRAHEEM AAMER (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Crider, Cori) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
188 Memorandum in opposition to re 185 MOTION for Reconsideration re (183 in 1:05−cv−01457−UNA) Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Berman, Julia) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
189 REPLY to opposition to motion re 185 MOTION for Reconsideration re (183 in 1:05−cv−01457−UNA) Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
190 NOTICE Of Privilege Team Review Of Documents And Materials Recovered From JTF−GTMO Camp 6 by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
191 NOTICE Of Memorandum Of Understanding Governing Private Counsel Representation Of Guantanamo Bay Detainees In Periodic Review Board Proceedings Pursuant To Executive Order 13567 by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
192 ORDER denying 185 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 8/29/13. (CL, ) (Entered: 08/29/2013)

09/03/2013 09/03/2013 09/04/2013
09/13/2013 09/16/2013
09/19/2013 11/06/2013
04/18/2014 04/18/2014 04/18/2014 04/18/2014 04/18/2014
04/18/2014
04/18/2014 04/18/2014
04/23/2014
04/24/2014

193 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 183 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
194 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Crider, Cori) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
195 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. Motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis has been filed. Another transmission will be forwarded when the motion has been decided re 193 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (rdj) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
196 STATUS REPORT Addressing The Privilege Team's Review Of Materials Recovered From JTF−GTMO Camp 6 by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
197 ERRATA − Status Report Addressing The Privilege Team's Review of Documents and Materials Recovered From JTF−GTMO Camp 6 by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Status Report Filed Sept. 13, 2013, # 2 Exhibit Status Report filed Aug. 8, 2013)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
USCA Case Number 13−5276 for 193 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (kb) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
198 STATUS REPORT −− Supplemental Status Report Addressing The Privilege Team's Review of Documents and Materials Recovered from JTF−GTMO Camp 6 by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
199 NOTICE of Appearance by Clive A. Staffordsmith on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB (Staffordsmith, Clive) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
200 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric Leslie Lewis on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
201 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth L. Marvin on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB (Marvin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
202 NOTICE of Appearance by alka pradhan on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB (pradhan, alka) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Jon Eisenberg, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Text of Proposed Order 1, # 10 Text of Proposed Order 2)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
204 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JIHAD DHIAB re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit G, # 2 Exhibit H, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
205 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Memorandum by JIHAD DHIAB re 204 Sealed Document (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
206 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) as to 193 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JIHAD DHIAB ; ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the District Courts' denials of petitioners' applications for a preliminary injunction appealed from in these causes are hereby affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date. USCA Case Number 13−5223, 13−5224, 13−5225, 13−5276. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Opinion) (md, ) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
207 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply To Petitioner's Motion For Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 203) by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
208 STATUS REPORT by JIHAD DHIAB. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cori Crider)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 04/24/2014)

04/24/2014 04/24/2014 05/02/2014 05/02/2014 05/02/2014
05/02/2014 05/05/2014 05/05/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014
05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/13/2014 05/14/2014
05/14/2014 05/15/2014
05/16/2014

209 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JIHAD DHIAB re 208 Status Report (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
210 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Declaration by JIHAD DHIAB re 209 Sealed Document (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
211 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
212 RESPONSE re 211 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
MINUTE ORDER: Respondents' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [Dkt. No. 207] is hereby granted; Respondents' Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 211]; Respondents shall have until May 7, 2014, to file an Opposition to Petitioner's Motion; Petitioner shall have until May 14, 2014, to file a Reply. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 05/02/2014. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
MINUTE ORDER: A Motions Hearing on Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is hereby scheduled for May 21, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 05/02/2014. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Response due by 5/7/2014. Reply due by 5/14/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 5/21/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (zmm, ) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
213 NOTICE of Appearance by Timothy Burke Walthall on behalf of All Defendants (Walthall, Timothy) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
214 SEALED OPPOSITION filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Certificate of Service, # 13 Text of Proposed Order)(Davis, Patrick) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
215 SEALED REPLY TO OPPOSITION filed by JIHAD DHIAB re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
216 NOTICE of Filing by JIHAD DHIAB re 215 Sealed Reply (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
217 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Preservation of Evidence and Limited Discovery by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
218 ORDER: Government shall respond to Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Order Compelling Preservation of Evidence and Limited Discovery [Dkt. No. 217] no later than May 15, 2014; Petitioner may file a reply to that response by May 16, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 05/14/2014. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Emergency Motion for Order Compelling Preservation of Evidence and Limited Discovery due by 5/15/2014 Reply due by 5/16/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
219 Memorandum in opposition to re 217 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Preservation of Evidence and Limited Discovery filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit #1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order #1, # 3 Text of Proposed Order #2)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
220 REPLY to opposition to motion re 217 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Preservation of Evidence and Limited Discovery filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis,

05/16/2014
05/19/2014 05/20/2014 05/20/2014 05/21/2014 05/22/2014 05/23/2014 05/23/2014
05/28/2014 05/28/2014
06/03/2014 06/03/2014
06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/05/2014

Eric) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
221 ORDER: The Motion Hearing set for May 21, 2014 is converted to a Status Conference wherein the Government shall inform the Court when Petitioner's medical records, videotapes of Petitioner's Forcible Cell Extractions for purposes of enteral feeding, and videotapes of Petitioner's enteral feedings can be produced; Respondents shall also preserve and maintain all relevant videotapes; and Respondents are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from any Forcible Cell Extractions of Petitioner for purposes of enteral feeding and any enteral feeding of Petitioner until May 21, 2014 (see Order for further details). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 05/16/2014. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/21/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (tth) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
222 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa Jaskol on behalf of JIHAD DHIAB (Jaskol, Lisa) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
223 MOTION for Leave to File Declaration of Cortney Busch and Second Supplemental Declaration of Cori Crider by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Cortney Busch, # 2 Declaration Second Supplemental Declaration of Cori Crider, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gladys Kessler: Status Conference held on 5/21/2014; Order forthcoming. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (tth) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
224 ORDER: The Temporary Restraining Order in this case will not be reissued (See Order for details). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 05/22/2014. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
225 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 217 Motion for Order. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 05/23/2014. (lcgk3, ) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
226 NOTICE Of Filing Of Public Versions Of Petitioner's And Respondents' Briefs Related To Petitioner's Motion For Preliminary Injunction by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petitioner's Supplemental Brief, # 2 Exhibit Repondents' Opposition Brief, # 3 Exhibit Petitioner's Reply Brief)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/18/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Unassigned. (CL, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
227 ORDER that the Court Reporter is authorized to release the entire transcript of the May 21, 2014, Status Conference, including the sealed portion of the transcript, to counsel for Petitioner (Jon Eisenberg) and Respondents (Andrew Warden); see Order for more details. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 5/28/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
228 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Jon B. Eisenberg by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Jon B. Eisenberg, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
229 RESPONSE re 228 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Jon B. Eisenberg, 223 MOTION for Leave to File Declaration of Cortney Busch and Second Supplemental Declaration of Cori Crider filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
230 ORDER granting 228 Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Jon B. Eisenberg. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/3/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
232 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Jon B. Eisenberg re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB. (znmw, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
231 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Production of Original Mini−DV Videotapes at Secure Facility by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

06/05/2014 06/05/2014 06/06/2014 06/09/2014 06/09/2014 06/09/2014 06/10/2014 06/11/2014
06/11/2014 06/12/2014 06/12/2014 06/12/2014
06/12/2014
06/12/2014 06/13/2014

233 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Production of May 29−30, 2014 Videotapes by June 13, 2014 by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
MINUTE ORDER: The Government's Oppositions to Petitioner's Emergency Motions [Dkt. Nos. 231, 233] shall be filed no later than June 11, 2014, at 4 p.m.; Petitioner's Replies, if any, shall be filed no later than June 13, 2014, at 4 p.m. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 06/05/2014. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Oppositions due by 6/11/2014, at 4:00 p.m.; Replies due by 6/13/2014, at 4:00 p.m. (tth) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 223 Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Declaration of Courtney Busch and Second Supplemental Declaration of Cori Crider. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/9/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
234 DECLARATION of Cortney Busch re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB. (znmw, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
235 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Cori Crider re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB. (znmw, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
236 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 225 Order on Motion for Order Respondents' List of Standard Operating Procedures Governing Enteral Feeding and Use Of A Restraint Chair filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
237 Memorandum in opposition to re 231 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Production of Original Mini−DV Videotapes at Secure Facility filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript, # 2 Exhibit E−mail, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
238 Memorandum in opposition to re 233 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Production of May 29−30, 2014 Videotapes by June 13, 2014 filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
239 REPLY to opposition to motion re 231 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Production of Original Mini−DV Videotapes at Secure Facility filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
240 REPLY to opposition to motion re 233 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Production of May 29−30, 2014 Videotapes by June 13, 2014 filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court has been informed that Petitioner has filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order; the Government's Opposition to that Motion shall be filed no later than 6 p.m. on Friday, June 13, 2014; Petitioner's Reply shall be filed no later than 6 p.m. on Saturday, June 14, 2014; a hearing on the Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order shall take place at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 16, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 06/12/2014. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
241 Joint MOTION for Protective Order , Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Interim Protective Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Briefing Schedule)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
242 MOTION for Extension of Time to produce DVD copies of 10 FCE videos by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
243 ORDER adopting the Parties' proposed briefing scheduling to govern Respondents' forthcoming motion for protective order; the following schedule shall be followed: Respondents' Motion for Protective Order is due on June 25, 2014; Petitioner's Opposition Brief is due on July 2, 2014; Respondents' Reply Brief is due on July 9,

06/13/2014 06/13/2014 06/13/2014 06/13/2014 06/13/2014 06/13/2014
06/13/2014
06/13/2014 06/13/2014 06/13/2014 06/13/2014 06/13/2014 06/13/2014

2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/13/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion for Protective Order due by 6/25/2014. Responses due by 7/2/2014. Replies due by 7/9/2014. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
244 ORDER granting 241 the Joint Motion for Interim Protective Order and granting 241 Motion for Briefing Schedule (see separate docket entry for proposed Briefing Schedule); the Interim Protective Order is posted here. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/13/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
245 Memorandum in opposition to re 242 MOTION for Extension of Time to produce DVD copies of 10 FCE videos filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
MINUTE ORDER: A sealed hearing in this case is hereby scheduled for June 16, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/13/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
Set/Reset Hearing: Sealed Hearing set for 6/16/2014 @ 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (zmm, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
246 SEALED TRANSCRIPT re 227 ORDER that the Court Reporter is authorized to release the entire transcript of the May 21, 2014, Status Conference, including the sealed portion of the transcript, to counsel for Petitioner (Jon Eisenberg) and Respondents (Andrew Warden); see Order for more details. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(zjf, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
247 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Gladys Kessler held on May 21, 2014; Page Numbers: 1−37. Date of Issuance: June 13, 2014. Court Reporter: William Zaremba; Telephone number (202)354−3249; Email Address: William_Zaremba@dcd.uscourts.gov. For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, PDF, or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 7/4/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/14/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/11/2014.(Zaremba, William) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
248 AFFIDAVIT OF AHMAD RABBANI by JIHAD DHIAB. (pradhan, alka) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
249 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert J. Prince on behalf of GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Prince, Robert) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
250 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 242 Motion for Extension of Time; Respondents shall have up to and including June 16, 2014, at 5:00 p.m., in which to produce the 10 Forced Cell Extraction Videotapes of Petitioner to the Secure Facility. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/13/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Videotapes shall be produced by 6/16/14, at 5:00 p.m. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order due by 6 p.m. 6/13/2014 Repliy due by 6 p.m. 6/14/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
251 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5)(Prince, Robert) (Entered: 06/13/2014)

06/14/2014 06/15/2014 06/16/2014 06/16/2014 06/16/2014
06/17/2014 06/17/2014 06/18/2014 06/18/2014 06/18/2014
06/18/2014
06/18/2014 06/18/2014 06/19/2014 06/19/2014 06/20/2014

252 NOTICE of Filing of Reply by JIHAD DHIAB (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 06/14/2014)
253 NOTICE OF FILING by JIHAD DHIAB (pradhan, alka) (Entered: 06/15/2014)
254 ORDER denying without prejudice Petitioner's Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/16/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
255 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Barring Prohibition on the Use of Wheelchairs and to Mandate Continued Videotaping of All FCE Procedures by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gladys Kessler: (Closed Hearing) Motion Hearing held on 6/16/2014 re 255 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Barring Prohibition on the Use of Wheelchairs and to Mandate Continued Videotaping of All FCE Procedures filed by JIHAD DHIAB; heard and denied without prejudice. (Court Reporter: Cathryn Jones) (tth) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
256 MOTION for Order GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE DECLARATION OF ALKA PRADHAN by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF ALKA PRADHAN, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(pradhan, alka) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
257 NOTICE of Motion For Leave to File 13 FCE Videotapes by JIHAD DHIAB (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/18/2014, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (tth) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gladys Kessler: Status Conference held on 6/18/2014. Order to be issued. (Court Reporter: Barbara DeVico) (tth) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
258 ORDER denying as moot 231 Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Order Compelling Production of Original Min−DV Videotapes; granting 233 Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Order Compelling Production of May 29−30, 2014 Videotapes; and granting 256 Petitioner's Motion for Order Granting Leave to File Pradhan Declaration (see Order for details and dates). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/18/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Respondents shall produce the May 29−30, 2014 Videotapes no later than 7/3/14. Government Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File 13 FCE Videotapes and Petitioner's Oral Supplement at the June 18, 2014, Status Conference shall be due no later than 6/19/14; Petitioner's Notice identifying any additional procedures or protocols is due no later than 6/19/14; Government shall produce to the protocols for in camera review no later than 6/25/13; Petitioner's Motion for Further Discovery is due no later than 6/20/14, Government's Opposition is due no later than 7/7/14, and Petitioner's Reply is due no later than 7/10/14 (CL, ) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
259 REPLY to opposition to motion re 255 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Barring Prohibition on the Use of Wheelchairs and to Mandate Continued Videotaping of All FCE Procedures filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
302 DECLARATION of Alka Pradhan re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB. (znmw, ) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
260 RESPONSE re 257 Notice (Other) Respondents' Response to Petitioner's Motion To File 13 FCE Videotapes and Oral Supplement To File 28 FCE Videotapes filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
261 MOTION to Compel Production of Restraint Chair Protocols by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
262 ORDER granting Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File 13 Videotapes of Forced Cell Extractions, as amended by Petitioner's Oral Supplement made June 18, 2014;

06/20/2014 06/20/2014 06/20/2014 06/20/2014
06/20/2014
06/20/2014 06/23/2014 06/23/2014 06/25/2014 06/25/2014 06/25/2014 06/25/2014 06/26/2014 06/26/2014 06/26/2014

Petitioner shall file the remaining 15 videotapes with the Court by June 27, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/19/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Videotapes to be filed with the Court by 6/27/2014 (CL, ). (Entered: 06/20/2014)
MINUTE ORDER: The Government shall file its Response, if any, to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of Restraint Chair Protocols no later than June 30, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/20/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 6/30/2014 (CL, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
263 MOTION to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence by HEARST CORPORATION, ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate of Corporate Disclosure, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulz, David) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
264 NOTICE of Appearance by David A. Schulz on behalf of ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST (Schulz, David) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
265 MOTION for Discovery In Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
MINUTE ORDER: Any Opposition to Press Applicants' Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence [Dkt. No. 263] shall be filed no later than July 1, 2014; any Reply shall be filed no later than July 8, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 06/23/2014. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Any Opposition due by 7/1/2014; Reply due by 7/8/2014. (tth) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
266 Supplemental MOTION for Leave to File 12 Videotapes by JIHAD DHIAB (pradhan, alka) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
267 ORDER granting 266 Petitioner's Supplemental Motion for Leave to File 12 Videotapes. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/25/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
268 NOTICE Of Filing Of Respondents' Response To The Court's June 18, 2014 Order Requiring In Camera Review of JTF−GTMO Protocols by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD re 258 Order on Motion for Order,,,,, (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
269 NOTICE of Classified Filing of Respondents' Motion for a Supplemental Protective Order by BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Berman, Julia) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
270 ORDER that the Government shall produce the materials listed in this Order and that the Government may make certain redactions (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/26/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
271 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Intervene ECF No. 263 by GEORGE WALKER BUSH (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walthall, Timothy) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
272 ORDER granting 271 Respondents' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time; Respondents shall have up to and including July 18, 2014, in which to file their response to Press Applicants' Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence;

06/26/2014 06/30/2014 07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/03/2014
07/07/2014 07/07/2014 07/09/2014 07/10/2014 07/10/2014 07/10/2014 07/10/2014 07/14/2014

the Press Applicants shall file their Reply no later than August 1, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/26/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 7/18/2014. Replies due by 8/1/2014. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
273 Memorandum in opposition to re 261 MOTION to Compel Production of Restraint Chair Protocols filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
274 REPLY to opposition to motion re 261 MOTION to Compel Production of Restraint Chair Protocols filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
275 NOTICE of Classified Filing of Petitioner's Opposition to Respondents' Motion for a Supplemental Protective Order by JIHAD DHIAB re 269 Notice (Other) (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
276 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Gladys Kessler held on 6−18−14; Page Numbers: 1−30. Date of Issuance:7−3−14. Court Reporter/Transcriber Barbara DeVico, Telephone number 202−354−3118, Court Reporter Email Address : barbara_devico@dcd.uscourts.gov.For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 7/24/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/3/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/1/2014.(DeVico, Barbara) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
MINUTE ORDER denying 261 Petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of All Prior Proocols that previously governed use of the restraint chair between June 30, 2013, and May 30, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/7/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
277 Memorandum in opposition to re 265 MOTION for Discovery In Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
278 NOTICE of Classified Filing of Reply in Support of Respondents' Motion for a Supplemental Protective Order by BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Berman, Julia) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
279 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
280 REPLY to opposition to motion re 265 MOTION for Discovery In Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
281 SEALED REPLY TO OPPOSITION filed by JIHAD DHIAB re 265 MOTION for Discovery In Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
282 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Reply to Respondents' Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Further Discovery In Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB re 281 Sealed Reply (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
283 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ASSOCIATED PRESS, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, USA TODAY. Attorney Jeanette Melendez Bead terminated. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014
07/14/2014 07/15/2014 07/17/2014
07/18/2014 07/18/2014 07/29/2014 07/30/2014 08/01/2014
08/01/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014

284 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Julie B. Ehrlich, :Firm− Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, :Address− 321 West 44th Street, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10036. Phone No. − 212−850−6100. Fax No. − 212−850−6299 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−3777698. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulz, David) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 284 the Motion for Leave of Julie B. Ehrlich to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/14/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
285 SEALED ORDER (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/15/2014.(ztth) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
286 NOTICE of Appearance by Julie B. Ehrlich on behalf of ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST (Ehrlich, Julie) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
287 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Cortney Busch by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortney Busch, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Crider, Cori) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
288 Memorandum in opposition to re 263 MOTION to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rear Admiral Richard W. Butler, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Prince, Robert) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
289 APPLICATION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration by JIHAD DHIAB. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit)(pradhan, alka) Modified on 7/30/2014 (kb). (Entered: 07/29/2014)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 289 Motion for Leave to File; emailed to alka.pradhan@reprieve.org, cc'd 25 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Incorrect event used, 2. Event modified to read application. Do not refile. Modified by Clerk. (zkb, ) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
290 REPLY to opposition to motion re 263 MOTION to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence filed by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
291 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Walthall, Timothy) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
292 Supplemental MEMORANDUM for Discovery In Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Lewis, Eric) Modified on 8/8/2014 (tth). (Entered: 08/04/2014)
293 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JIHAD DHIAB re 291 Sealed Document (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/05/2014 08/05/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/08/2014 08/08/2014 08/12/2014 08/12/2014
08/12/2014 08/14/2014
08/15/2014 08/18/2014

294 RESPONSE re 287 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Cortney Busch filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Prince, Robert) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
295 SEALED ORDER (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 8/4/2014.(zmm, ) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
296 ORDER granting 287 Petitioner's Application for Permission to File Supplemental Declaration of Cortney Busch. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 8/5/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
297 NOTICE of Classified Filing of Order granting Respondent's Classified Motion for a Supplemental Protective Order.(lcgk2, ) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
298 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 296 Order on Motion for Leave to File filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Walthall, Timothy) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
299 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Walthall, Timothy) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
Case directly reassigned to Judge Gladys Kessler. Unassigned no longer assigned to the case. (gt, ) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
300 REPLY to opposition to motion re 292 Supplemental MOTION for Discovery In Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
301 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JIHAD DHIAB(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
303 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Cortny Busch re 263 MOTION to Intervene and to Unseal Videotape Evidence by JIHAD DHIAB. (znmw, ) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
MINUTE ORDER: The parties shall appear for a closed, on−the−record hearing in this case at 12:00 p.m. on August 12, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 8/8/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 8/12/2014 12:00 PM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler; this status conference shall be a closed hearing. (CL, ) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
304 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 265 Petitioner's Motion for Further Discovery in Aid of Application for Preliminary Injunction (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 8/12/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Petitioner's clear statement of claims is due by 8/19/2014. Government's responses to Petitioner's questions are due by 9/5/2014. Petitioner's expert reports shall be provided to Respondents by 9/15/2014. A Motion Hearing is scheduled for 10/6−7/2014. (CL, ) Modified on 8/12/2014 (CL, ). (Entered: 08/12/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gladys Kessler: (Closed Hearing) Status Conference held on 8/12/2014. (Court Reporter: Patty Gels) (tth) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
305 Unclassified version of the ORDER granting Respondent's Classified Motion for a Supplemental Protective Order, pursuant to the Court's Notice of Filing [Dkt. No. 297] docketed on 08/05/2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 08/14/2014. (lcgk2, ) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
306 RESPONSE re 289 MOTION for Leave to File filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
307 NOTICE of Petitioner's Statement of Claims Asserted and Relief Requested on Application for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

08/19/2014 08/20/2014 08/20/2014 08/21/2014
08/21/2014
08/21/2014 08/26/2014
08/26/2014
08/27/2014 09/02/2014 09/05/2014
09/09/2014 09/09/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014
09/15/2014 09/15/2014

308 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 289 unopposed Application for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 08/20/2014. (lcgk1, ) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
309 NOTICE of supplemental declaration 265 by JIHAD DHIAB (td, ) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
310 Emergency MOTION for Order Specifying Conditions of Independent Medical Examinations by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Sondra Crosby, # 2 Declaration Stephen N. Xenakis, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
311 ORDER that the Government shall respond to the Petitioner's Emergency Motion [Dkt. No. 310] no later than August 26, 2014 (see Order for details to be addressed in the response). Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 8/21/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 8/26/2014 (CL, ). (Entered: 08/21/2014)
312 Memorandum in opposition to re 310 Emergency MOTION for Order Specifying Conditions of Independent Medical Examinations filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Heath Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Bogdan Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
313 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD re 312 Memorandum in Opposition, (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
314 REPLY to opposition to motion re 310 Emergency MOTION for Order Specifying Conditions of Independent Medical Examinations filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
315 ORDER denying 310 Petitioner's Emergency Motion for an Order Specifying the Conditions of Expert Medical Examination. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 9/2/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
316 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by DONALD RUMSFELD re 304 Order on Motion for Discovery (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
317 NOTICE of Filing, from Secure Facility, a Motion for Leave to File DVD by JIHAD DHIAB (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
318 NOTICE of Filing, from Secure Facility, a Supplemental Motion for Leave to File Four Videotapes by JIHAD DHIAB (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
319 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File the Expert Report of Sondra Crosby, M.D. by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
320 ORDER granting 319 Petitioner's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Expert Report; Petitioner shall submit the expert report of Dr. Sondra Crosby on or before September 19, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 9/15/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Expert Report of Dr. Sondra Crosby due by 9/19/2014 (CL, ) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
321 NOTICE Of Filing Of Public Versions Of Responses Of JTF−Guantanamo Officials To The Questions Posed In The Courts August 12, 2014 Order by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Warden, Andrew)

09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/16/2014 09/16/2014
09/16/2014
09/17/2014 09/18/2014 09/19/2014 09/26/2014 09/26/2014 09/26/2014 09/26/2014 09/29/2014

(Entered: 09/15/2014)
322 NOTICE of Filing Expert Report of Dr. Steven Miles by JIHAD DHIAB (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
323 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Report of Dr. Stephen Xenakis by JIHAD DHIAB (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
324 SEALED MOTION filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
325 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD re 324 SEALED MOTION filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
326 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD re 325 Sealed Document, 324 SEALED MOTION filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
327 NOTICE: This Court filed with the Court's Classified Information Security Officer a classificed Order on Petitioner's Supplemental Motion for Leave to File Four Videotapes (CL, ) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
328 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
329 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Report of Sondra S. Crosby M.D, by JIHAD DHIAB (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
330 NOTICE that on September 26, 2014, this Court filed with the Court's Classified Information Security Officer a Transcript of a classified Motions Hearing in this case (CL, ). (Entered: 09/26/2014)
331 STATUS REPORT Filed Jointly By Petitoiner And Respondents Addressing Procedural Issues For Preliminary Injunction Hearing by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
332 RESPONSE re 317 Notice (Other) Respondents' Response To Petitioner's Motion For Leave To File DVD Of Clips Of FCE Videos filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
333 MOTION to Seal Case For Preliminary Injunction Hearing On October 6−7, 2014 by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
334 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Respondents' Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Part 1, # 3 Exhibit 1 − Part 2, # 4 Exhibit 1 − Part 3, # 5 Exhibit 1 − Part 4, # 6 Exhibit 1 − Part 5, # 7 Exhibit 1 − Part 6, # 8 Exhibit 1 − Part 7, # 9 Exhibit 1 − Part 8, # 10 Exhibit 1 − Part 9, # 11 Exhibit 1 − Part 10, # 12 Exhibit 1 − Part 11, # 13 Exhibit 1 − Part 12, # 14 Exhibit 1 − Part 13, # 15 Exhibit 2, # 16 Exhibit 3, # 17 Exhibit 4, # 18 Exhibit 5, # 19 Exhibit 6, # 20 Exhibit 7, # 21 Exhibit 8, # 22 Exhibit 9, # 23 Exhibit 10, # 24 Exhibit 11, # 25 Exhibit 12, # 26 Exhibit 13, # 27 Exhibit 14, # 28 Exhibit 15, # 29 Exhibit 16, # 30 Exhibit 17, # 31 Exhibit 18, # 32 Exhibit 19, # 33 Exhibit 20, # 34 Exhibit 21, # 35 Exhibit 22, # 36 Exhibit 23, # 37 Exhibit 24, # 38 Exhibit 25, # 39 Exhibit 26, # 40 Exhibit 27, # 41 Exhibit 28, # 42 Exhibit 29, # 43 Exhibit 30, # 44 Exhibit 31, # 45 Exhibit 32, # 46 Exhibit 33, # 47 Exhibit 34, # 48 Exhibit 35, # 49 Exhibit 36, # 50 Exhibit 37, # 51 Exhibit 38)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/29/2014)

09/29/2014
09/29/2014 09/29/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014
10/01/2014 10/02/2014 10/02/2014 10/02/2014

335 NOTICE OF FILING OF PETITIONER'S UNCLASSIFIED EXHIBIT LIST AND EXHIBITS by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petitioner's List of Unclassified Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit JX0001, # 3 Exhibit JX0002, # 4 Exhibit JX0003, # 5 Exhibit JX0004, # 6 Exhibit JX0005, # 7 Exhibit JX0006, # 8 Exhibit JX0007, # 9 Exhibit JX0008, # 10 Exhibit JX0009, # 11 Exhibit JX0010, # 12 Exhibit JX0011, # 13 Exhibit JX0012, # 14 Exhibit JX0013, # 15 Exhibit JX0014, # 16 Exhibit JX0015, # 17 Exhibit JX0016, # 18 Exhibit JX0017, # 19 Exhibit JX0018, # 20 Exhibit JX0019, # 21 Exhibit JX0020, # 22 Exhibit JX0021, # 23 Exhibit JX0022, # 24 Exhibit JX0023, # 25 Exhibit JX0024, # 26 Exhibit JX0025, # 27 Exhibit JX0026, # 28 Exhibit JX0027, # 29 Exhibit JX0028, # 30 Exhibit JX0029, # 31 Exhibit JX0030, # 32 Exhibit JX0031, # 33 Exhibit JX0032, # 34 Exhibit JX0033, # 35 Exhibit JX0034, # 36 Exhibit JX0035, # 37 Exhibit JX0036, # 38 Exhibit JX0037, # 39 Exhibit JX0038, # 40 Exhibit JX0039, # 41 Exhibit JX0040, # 42 Exhibit JX0041, # 43 Exhibit JX0042, # 44 Exhibit JX0043, # 45 Exhibit JX0044, # 46 Exhibit JX0045, # 47 Exhibit JX0046, # 48 Exhibit JX0047, # 49 Exhibit JX0048, # 50 Exhibit JX0049, # 51 Exhibit JX0050)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
336 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JIHAD DHIAB(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 PETITONER'S LIST OF CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS, # 2 Exhibit PX0051, # 3 Exhibit PX0052, # 4 Exhibit PX0053, # 5 Exhibit PX0054, # 6 Exhibit PX0055, # 7 Exhibit PX0056, # 8 Exhibit PX0057, # 9 Exhibit PX0058, # 10 Exhibit PX0059, # 11 Exhibit PX0060, # 12 Exhibit PX0061, # 13 Certificate of Service)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
337 NOTICE OF FILING UNDER SEAL by JIHAD DHIAB (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
338 RESPONSE re 333 MOTION to Seal Case For Preliminary Injunction Hearing On October 6−7, 2014 filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
339 NOTICE that this Court filed with the Court's Classified Information Security Officer a classified Order on Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File DVD of Clips Depicting Forcible Cell Extraction and Force−Feeding (CL, ) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
340 Memorandum in opposition to re 333 MOTION to Seal Case For Preliminary Injunction Hearing On October 6−7, 2014 filed by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
341 REPLY re 338 Response to motion, 340 Memorandum in Opposition, in Support of Motion to Seal Preliminary Injunction Hearing filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Prince, Robert) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
342 NOTICE of Filing of Corrected Exhibit List and Exhibits Containing Unclassified Information by JIHAD DHIAB re 335 Notice (Other),,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petitioner's Corrected Exhibit List of Unclassified Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit PX0043 (Corrected), # 3 Exhibit PX0049 (Corrected))(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
343 NOTICE of Filing of Corrected, Final Exhibit List by JIHAD DHIAB re 342 Notice (Other), (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petitioner's Corrected Final Exhibit List of Unclassified Exhibits)(Pradhan, Alka) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
344 MOTION for Leave to File a Sur Reply to the Government's Motion to Close Evidentiary Hearing by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulz, David) (Entered: 10/02/2014)

10/02/2014 10/02/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014
10/03/2014 10/03/2014
10/06/2014 10/06/2014 10/06/2014 10/07/2014 10/07/2014 10/08/2014 10/09/2014

345 ORDER denying 333 Motion to Seal Case Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10−2−2014. (lcgk3, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
346 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION denying [#333] Motion to Seal Preliminary Injunction Hearing Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10−2−2014. (lcgk3, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
347 ORDER that the Press Applicants 344 Motion for Leave to File a Sur Reply be Denied as Moot. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10/3/2014. (jth) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
348 ORDER granting 263 Press Applicants' Motion to Intervene and Unseal Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10−03−2014. (lcgk3, ) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
349 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting Press Intervenors' Motion [#263]to Intervene and Unseal Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10−03−2014. (lcgk3, ) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
350 NOTICE of Filing −− Respondents' Filing Of Public Versions of Sealed Exhibits by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2A, # 2 Exhibit 3A, # 3 Exhibit 4A, # 4 Exhibit 5A, # 5 Exhibit 6A, # 6 Exhibit 7A, # 7 Exhibit 8A, # 8 Exhibit 12A, # 9 Exhibit 13A, # 10 Exhibit 14A, # 11 Exhibit 15A, # 12 Exhibit 17A, # 13 Exhibit 18A, # 14 Exhibit 19A, # 15 Exhibit 20A, # 16 Exhibit 33A, # 17 Exhibit 37A)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
351 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Errata, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Wiltsie, Ronald) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
352 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC., DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST (znmw, ) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 10/6/2014, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (tth) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
Minute Entry; for proceedings held before Judge Gladys Kessler: Motion Hearing held on 10/6/2014 re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JIHAD DHIAB. Motion Hearing continued for 10/7/2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (Court Reporter Scott L. Wallace.) (hs) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
353 SEALED ORDER (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10/2/2014.(ztth) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gladys Kessler: Motion Hearing held on 10/7/2014 re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JIHAD DHIAB. Motion Hearing continued to 10/8/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (Court Reporter Scott Wallace.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
354 SEALED DOCUMENT (Supplemental Declaration of JTF−GTMO Senior Medical Officer) filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(znmw, ) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
Minute Entry; for proceedings held before Judge Gladys Kessler: Motion Hearing held and concluded on 10/8/2014 re 203 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JIHAD DHIAB. Closing Briefs to be submitted by noon on 10/17/2014. (Court Reporter Scott L. Wallace.) (hs) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
355 ORDER re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene and Unseal Videotape Evidence. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10/09/2014. (lcgk1, ) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014
10/16/2014
10/16/2014
10/16/2014 10/17/2014 10/17/2014 10/27/2014 11/03/2014 11/07/2014 11/07/2014

356 MOTION to Stay re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order Pending Possible Appeal by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration Regarding Redaction Process, # 3 Declaration of RDML Kyle J. Cozad)(Prince, Robert) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
357 Emergency MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration Regarding Redaction Process, # 3 Declaration of RDML Kyle J. Cozad)(Prince, Robert) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
358 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD re 356 MOTION to Stay re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order Pending Possible Appeal, 357 Emergency MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Protected Version of Declaration Regarding Redaction Process)(Prince, Robert) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
359 Memorandum in opposition to re 356 MOTION to Stay re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order Pending Possible Appeal, 357 Emergency MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order filed by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
360 ORDER that Petitioner and Intervenors shall respond to the Government's Motion to Stay Order Unsealing Classified Videos Pending Possible Appeal no later than October 27, 2014; the Government shall file a Reply no later than November 3, 2014; the Government's Request for an Administrative Stay of the Court's Orders of October 3, 2014 and October 9, 2014, is hereby granted; the Administrative Stay will remain in place for a period of 30 calendar days. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10/16/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 10/27/2014. Replies due by 11/3/2014. (CL, ). (Entered: 10/16/2014)
361 MEMORANDUM re: 203 Petitioner's Post−Hearing Brief In Support of Application for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) Modified on 10/20/2014 (td, ). (Entered: 10/17/2014)
362 MEMORANDUM re: [203[ Filed By Respondents Supporting Denial Of Petitioner's Motion For Preliminary Injunction by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Warden, Andrew) Modified on 10/20/2014 (td, ). (Entered: 10/17/2014)
363 Memorandum in opposition to re 356 MOTION to Stay re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order Pending Possible Appeal, 357 Emergency MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order Pending Possible Appeal filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
364 REPLY to opposition to motion re 356 MOTION to Stay re 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order Pending Possible Appeal filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Prince, Robert) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
365 ORDER denying 203 Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and an Immediate Order for Disclosure of Protocols Forthwith. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/7/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
366 MEMORANDUM OPINION to the Order denying Petitioner's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/7/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 11/10/2014 11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/14/2014
11/14/2014
11/14/2014

367 ORDER granting 356 Respondents' Motion to Stay Order[s] Unsealing Classified Videos Pending Possible Appeal and Request for an Administrative Stay; Respondents' stay is granted until midnight December 2, 2014. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/7/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
368 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 366 Memorandum & Opinion, 365 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by JIHAD DHIAB. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
369 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Fee remains to be paid and another notice will be transmitted when the fee has been paid in the District Court re 368 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (znmw, ) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
USCA Case Number 14−5276 for 368 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (kb) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
370 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Gladys Kessler held on 10−06−14; Page Numbers: 1−234. Date of Issuance:11−14−14. Court Reporter/Transcriber Scott Wallace, Telephone number 202−354−3196, Court Reporter Email Address : scottlyn01@aol.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 12/5/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/15/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/12/2015.(Wallace, Scott) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
371 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Gladys Kessler held on 10−7−14; Page Numbers: 1−158. Date of Issuance:11−14−14. Court Reporter/Transcriber Scott Wallace, Telephone number 202−354−3196, Court Reporter Email Address : scottlyn01@aol.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 12/5/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/15/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/12/2015.(Wallace, Scott) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
372 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Gladys Kessler held on 10−8−14; Page Numbers: 1−85. Date of Issuance:11−14−14. Court Reporter/Transcriber Scott Wallace, Telephone number 202−354−3196, Court Reporter Email Address : scottlyn01@aol.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 12/5/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/15/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/12/2015.(Wallace, Scott) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/19/2014 11/19/2014 11/20/2014 12/02/2014 12/02/2014 12/02/2014 12/03/2014 12/03/2014 12/05/2014
12/05/2014 12/08/2014 01/20/2015 03/09/2015

373 MOTION for Leave to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jon Eisenberg, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Eisenberg, Jon) Modified event title on 11/20/2014 (znmw, ). (Entered: 11/19/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 373 Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/19/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
374 Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ;USCA Case Number 14−5276. (znmw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
375 Emergency MOTION to Extend Stay of Orders Unsealing Classified Videos Pending Final Resolution of Appeal by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of RADM Harris−Public Version, # 3 Declaration of RADM Cozad−Public Version)(Prince, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
376 NOTICE of Filing Classified Declarations by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD re 375 Emergency MOTION to Extend Stay of Orders Unsealing Classified Videos Pending Final Resolution of Appeal (Prince, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
377 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 355 Order, 349 Memorandum & Opinion by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Prince, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
378 ORDER granting 375 Respondents' Motion to Extend Stay of Orders Unsealing Videos Pending Final Resolution of Appeal; the stay of the Court's Orders of October 3, 2014 and October 9, 2014, will remain in effect until such time as Respondents' appeal of those Orders is finally resolved. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 12/3/14. (CL, ) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
379 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals docketing fee was not paid because the fee was an Appeal by the Government re 377 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (znmw, ) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
380 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST. Attorney Julie B. Ehrlich terminated. (Ehrlich, Julie) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
USCA Case Number 14−5299 for 377 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (rd) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
381 NOTICE Of Transfer Of Petitioner Dhiab (ISN 722) by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
382 (AMENDED) MEMORANDUM OPINION to the Order denying Petitioner's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; this Amended Memorandum Opinion's only change is to put the pages that were out of order in proper order. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 11/7/2014. (CL, ) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
383 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 193 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JIHAD DHIAB ; ORDERED that the motion be granted and that this appeal be dismissed as moot in light of appellant's transfer from the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. USCA Case Number 14−5276. (md, ) (Entered: 03/10/2015)

04/03/2015
06/25/2015 06/29/2015 06/29/2015 06/29/2015
07/08/2015 07/08/2015 07/09/2015 07/10/2015
07/10/2015 07/15/2015 07/20/2015

384 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MIKE BUMGARNER, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, NELSON J. CANNON, ROBERT M. GATES, DAVID M. THOMAS, JR, BRUCE VARGO, MIKE BUMGARNER, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, NELSON J. CANNON, MIKE BUMGARNER, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, MIKE BUMGARNER, MICHAEL I. BUMGARNER, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, DONALD RUMSFELD, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, MIKE BUMGARNER, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD. Attorney Patrick D. Davis terminated. (Davis, Patrick) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
385 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) as to 377 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. ORDERED that the motion be granted. USCA Case Number 14−5299. (rd) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
MINUTE ORDER: A Status Conference is hereby set in this case for July 9, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 6/29/15. (CL) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 7/9/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (CL) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
386 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew L. Schafer on behalf of ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST (Schafer, Matthew) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
MINUTE ORDER: The time for the Status Conference to be held on July 9, 2015, is hereby changed to 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/8/15. (CL) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 7/9/2015 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (CL) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gladys Kessler: Status Conference held on 7/9/2015. Order to be issued. (Court Reporter: Lisa Foradori) (tth) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
387 ORDER that the Government shall complete redaction of the eight videotapes it has identified and file Notice of such completion on or before August 31, 2015; the Government shall complete redaction of Petitioner's Compilation and the Government's Compilation and file Notice of such completion on or before September 30, 2015; the Parties shall take notice that there will be NO extensions of time granted; a Status Conference is hereby scheduled for October 15, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/10/15. (CL) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Eight videotape redactions due on or before 8/31/2015. Redaction of Petitioner's Compilation and the Government's Compilation due on or before 9/30/2015.Status Conference set for 10/15/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (CL) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
388 NOTICE Of Classified Filing: Respondents' Motion For Reconsideration of the Court's October 3, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
389 Consent MOTION re 387 Order,, by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY,

07/20/2015 07/20/2015 07/21/2015 07/22/2015
07/27/2015
07/28/2015 07/28/2015 08/05/2015 08/05/2015 08/05/2015
08/17/2015 08/31/2015 09/29/2015

WASHINGTON POST (Schulz, David) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
390 ORDER granting 389 Intervenors' request to change the date of the Status Conference from October 15, 2015, to Wednesday, October 14, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.; counsel should note that any further "requests" should take the form of a Motion rather than a letter to the Court. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/20/15. (CL) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/14/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (CL) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 389 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; emailed to dschulz@lskslaw.com, cc'd 21 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Incorrect format (Letter); In future, format motion in accordance with Local Rules; Do not refile. (znmw, ) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
391 MOTION for Reconsideration Notice of Public Filing: Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's October 3, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Reconsideration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5)(Warden, Andrew) Modified event title on 8/18/2015 (znmw). (Entered: 07/22/2015)
392 Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulz, David) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
393 ORDER granting 392 the Parties' Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule; Petitioner and Press Intevernors shall have up to and including August 5, 2015, to respond to Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/28/15. (CL) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 8/5/2015 (CL) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
394 RESPONSE re 391 Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner's Opposition to Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's October 3, 2014 Memorandum and Order filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Lewis, Eric) Modified on 8/18/2015 (znmw). (Entered: 08/05/2015)
395 NOTICE Of Filing by JIHAD DHIAB re 394 Response to Document (Pradhan, Alka) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
396 RESPONSE re 391 Motion for Reconsideration filed by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST. (Schulz, David) Modified on 8/18/2015 (znmw). (Entered: 08/05/2015)
397 REPLY re 391 Motion for Reconsideration In Support of Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Henry, Terry) Modified on 8/18/2015 (znmw). (Entered: 08/17/2015)
398 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 387 Order,, Respondents' Notice of Disclosure of Redacted Versions of Eight Forced Cell Extraction Videos filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
399 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Joseph A. Pace, :Firm− Reprieve, :Address− 405 Lexington Avenue, 62nd Floor, New York, NY 10174.

09/30/2015 09/30/2015 10/02/2015 10/02/2015 10/06/2015 10/12/2015 10/13/2015 10/20/2015 10/20/2015 10/23/2015
10/27/2015 10/27/2015 11/03/2015
11/06/2015

Phone No. − (646) 300−4304. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4260539. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Joseph A. Pace, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
400 ORDER granting 399 the Motion for Leave of Joseph A. Pace to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 9/30/15. (CL) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
401 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 387 Order,, Respondents' Notice of Disclosure of Redacted Versions of Two Compilation Forced Cell Extraction Videos filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
ENTERED IN ERROR . . . . .MINUTE ORDER: The time for the Status Conference to be held on October 15, 2015, is hereby changed to 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10/2/15. (CL) Modified on 10/2/2015 (CL). (Entered: 10/02/2015)
ENTERED IN ERROR . . . . .Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/15/2015 10:30 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (CL) Modified on 10/2/2015 (CL). (Entered: 10/02/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re Set/Reset Hearings and Minute Order filed on 10/2/2015 was entered in error. The Status Conference is set for 10/14/2015, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (tth) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
402 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to JIHAD DHIAB. Attorney Jon B. Eisenberg terminated. (Eisenberg, Jon) (Entered: 10/12/2015)
403 NOTICE of Classified Filing: Respondents' Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's October 3, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
404 MOTION to Compel Respondents to Produce Videos Without Unnecessary Audio Redactions and to Provide Audio Subtitles and a Written Transcript by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Morrison Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Crider, Cori) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
405 NOTICE of Classified Filing by JIHAD DHIAB (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
406 NOTICE of Public Filing: Respondents' Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's October 3, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Exhibit K − Monteagudo Declaration, # 3 Exhibit L −− Lewis Declaration)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
407 ORDER denying 391 the Government's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10/27/15. (CL) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
408 MEMORANDUM OPINION to the Order denying the Government's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 10/27/15. (CL) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
409 NOTICE of Joinder by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST re 404 MOTION to Compel Respondents to Produce Videos Without Unnecessary Audio Redactions and to Provide Audio Subtitles and a Written Transcript (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Schulz, David) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
410 Memorandum in opposition to re 404 MOTION to Compel Respondents to Produce Videos Without Unnecessary Audio Redactions and to Provide Audio Subtitles and a Written Transcript filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/06/2015 11/06/2015 11/13/2015 11/13/2015
12/22/2015 12/22/2015 12/31/2015 01/04/2016
01/05/2016 01/21/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016

411 NOTICE of Classified Filing: Respondents' Classified Exhibits In Support of Opposition To Petitioner's Motion To Compel Public Release of Voices of U.S. Personnel In Forced Cell Extraction Videos by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
412 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD re 410 Memorandum in Opposition, (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
413 REPLY to opposition to motion re 404 MOTION to Compel Respondents to Produce Videos Without Unnecessary Audio Redactions and to Provide Audio Subtitles and a Written Transcript filed by JIHAD DHIAB. (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
414 REPLY to opposition to motion re 404 MOTION to Compel Respondents to Produce Videos Without Unnecessary Audio Redactions and to Provide Audio Subtitles and a Written Transcript filed by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
415 ORDER denying 404 Petitioner's Motion to Compel Respondents to Produce Videos without Unnecessary Audio Redaction and to Provide Audio Subtitles and a Written Transcript; the FCE videos redacted by the Government shall be unsealed no later than January 10, 2016. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 12/22/15. (CL) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
416 MEMORANDUM OPINION to the Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 12/22/15. (CL) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
417 Unopposed MOTION to Clarify the Court's December 22, 2015 Order, Unopposed MOTION to Stay re 415 Order on Motion to Compel, by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 12/31/2015)
418 ORDER granting 417 Respondents' Unopposed Motion to Clarify the Deadline Imposed by the Court's December 22, 2015 Order and for a Stay Pending Appeal; the December 22, 2015, is amended to clarify that the 10 FCE videos redacted by Respondents shall be unsealed no later than January 11, 2016; the Court's December 22, 2015, Order, as clarified, shall be stayed up to and including January 22, 2016; and in the event Respondents file a Notice of Appeal of the Court's December 22, 2015, Order, on or before January 22, 2015, then the stay of the Court's Order shall automatically be extended pending the final resolution of the Appeal. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 1/4/16. (CL) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
419 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to JIHAD DHIAB. Attorney Lisa Jaskol terminated. (Marvin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
420 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 407 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 415 Order on Motion to Compel, by GEORGE WALKER BUSH, BRICE GYURISKO, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Warden, Andrew) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
421 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals docketing fee was not paid because the fee was an Appeal by the Government re 420 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (znmw) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
422 NOTICE of filing of Acknowledgement and Memorandum of Understanding by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Pace, Joseph) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
423 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL as to 348 Order on Motion to Intervene, 415 Order on Motion to Compel, by ABC, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, BLOOMBERG L.P., CBS

01/25/2016 01/25/2016 01/27/2016 01/28/2016 01/28/2016 03/23/2016
07/01/2016 05/23/2017

BROADCASTING, INC.,, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., GUARDIAN US, HEARST CORPORATION, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0090−4388160. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
424 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 423 Notice of Cross Appeal. (znmw) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
425 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Shelby Sullivan−Bennis, :Firm− Reprieve, :Address− 31 West 34th Street, Suite 8036, New York, NY 10001. Phone No. − (401) 835−4214. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4388709. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JIHAD DHIAB (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Shelby Sullivan−Bennis, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Eric) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
426 ORDER granting 425 the Motion for Leave of Shelby Sullivan−Bennis to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 1/27/16. (CL) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
USCA Case Number 16−5011 for 420 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD. (zrdj) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
USCA Case Number 16−5012 for 423 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC., DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., THE CONTENTLY FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON POST, MCCLATCHY COMPANY, CBS BROADCASTING, INC., NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, USA TODAY, HEARST CORPORATION, REUTERS AMERICA LLC, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, BLOOMBERG L.P., GUARDIAN US, FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC., ASSOCIATED PRESS, ABC, INC. (zrdj) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
427 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Gladys Kessler held on 7−9−15; Page Numbers: 1−46. Date of Issuance:3−23−16. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa M. Foradodri, Telephone number 202−354−3269, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the <a href=http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/node/2189>Transcript Order Form.</a><P></P><P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 4/13/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/23/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/21/2016.(Foradori, Lisa) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
428 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to SHAKER AAMER, JIHAD DHIAB, FARHAT PARACHA, SAIFULLAH PARACHA, IMAD ABDULLAH HASSAN, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, AHMED ABDULLAH AL−WAZAN, YOUNOUS CHEKKOURI. Attorney Cori Crider terminated. (Crider, Cori) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
429 MANDATE of USCA as to 420 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by BRICE GYURISKO, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, JAY HOOD, DONALD RUMSFELD ; USCA Case Number 16−5011. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order 16−5011)(ztd) (Entered: 05/24/2017)