Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-09-05331/USCOURTS-caDC-09-05331-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

Vxit~S sf ate5 aourf of appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

Argued April 6,201 0 Decided June 30,2010 

FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, DETA~NEE AND 

KEIALED AL ODAH, NEXT FRIEND OF FAWZI KHALID 

ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, 

APPELLANTS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., 

APPELLEES 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(NO. 1 :02-cv-00828-CKK) 

David J. Cynanzon argued the cause for appellants. With 

him on tlne briefs were Mattlzew J. Maclean and Tlzol~zas G. 

Alleiz. 

Clzarles W Scarborough, Attorney, U. S. Department of 

Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With hiin on the brief 

were Ialz Heath Gershengom, Deputy Assistant Attori~ey 

General, and Robert M. Loeb, Attomey. Atigtist E. Flentje, 

Attomey, entered an appearance. 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 1 of 17
Before: SENTELLE, Clzief Judge, ROGERS and GARLAND, 

Circuit Judges. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Clzief Judge SENTELLE. 

SENTELLE, Chief Judge: Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad a1 

Odah, a detainee at Guailtanamo Bay, Cuba, and his next friend 

appeal from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus. Appellants contend that the preponderance of 

the evidence standard employed by the district court is 

unconstitutioi~al. That argument is foreclosed by precedent. 

Appellants hrther coiltend that the district court erred in 

admitting hearsay evidence. Again, controlling precedent is 

against them. Lastly, they argue that the evidence is insufficient 

to show that a1 Odah was "part of' a1 Qaeda and Taliban forces. 

We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the district 

court's finding. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's 

denial of a1 Odah's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The legal framework that governs habeas petitions from 

detainees held at Guantanaino Bay, Cuba has been thoroughly 

explained in Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 869 (D.C. Cir. 

2010)andAwadv.Obama,No.09-5351, F.3d ,slipop. 

at 2-3 (D.C. Cir. June 2, 2010). As relevant to this appeal, 

Boullzediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), held that federal 

courts have jurisdiction over habeas petitions from individuals 

detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Azrtlzorization for Use 

of Militaly Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 1 15 Stat. 224 (200 1) 

("AUMF"), provides: 

That the President is authorized to use all necessary 

and appropriate force against those nations, 

organizations, or persons he determines planned, 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 2 of 17
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks 

that occurred on September 1 1,200 1, or harbored such 

orgailizations or persons, in order to prevent any future 

acts of international terrorisin against the United 

States by such nations, organizatioils or persons. 

This gives the United States government the authority to detain 

a persoil who is found to have been "part of' a1 Qaeda or Taliban 

forces. See Awad, slip op. at 19; Al-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 871-72; 

see also Barhounzi v. Obanza, No. 09-5383, F.3d , slip 

op. at 12-14 (D.C. Cis. June 11,2010). 

A. Factual Background 

Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad a1 Odah ("a1 Odah") was born 

ill Kuwait City, Kuwait in 1977. In August of 2001, a1 Odah 

traveled to Afghanistan. A1 Odah, a teacher, contends that he 

went there to do charity work and teach the Koran to the poor 

and needy for two weeks before the start of his next school year. 

The government coiltends that a1 Odah's purpose in making the 

trip was to join the Taliban in its fight against the Northern 

Alliance. 

On August 13,200 1, a1 Odah paid cash for a one-way ticket 

and flew from Kuwait to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The next 

day, he paid cash for a one-way ticket and flew froin Dubai to 

Karachi, Pakistan. A1 Odah stayed in Karachi for a day or two, 

and then paid cash for a one-way ticket and flew from Karachi 

to Quetta, Pakistan. A1 Odah then traveled by car froin Quetta, 

Pakistan to Spill Buldak, Afghanistan. 

Buldak, a1 Odah met with a man named 

was an official wi bail government. A1 

Odah claii~zs that he inet with seeking guidance on 

where he could teach the Koran. The United States asserts that 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 3 of 17
a1 Odali sought out a Taliban official to find information on 

joining a1 Qaeda and the Taliban. A1 Odah contends that 

E took him around the countryside to teach at several 

schools in the area. The government argues, and tlie district 

court found, that this contention was not credible because a1 

Odah could not provide tlie names of ally of the students he 

taught, the names of any of the schools at which he taught, or the 

naines of aiiy of his fellow teachers. 

After some period of time, took a1 Odali to a 

Taliban-run camp for a day. While at this camp, a1 Odah admits 

that he engaged in target shooting with a Kalashnikov AK-47 

rifle. At some point (exactly when is unclear), a1 Odah then 

traveled with - from Spin Buldak to Kandahar. 

A1 Odali was in Kandahar on the day of tlie September 11, 

2001 terrorist attacks. After September 11, on 'S 

recoi~lmendation, a1 Odali rented a car and drove from Kandaliar 

to Logar Province, Afghanistan. A1 Odali argues that he made 

this trip to try to stay safe and get out of Afghanistan. The 

governillent points out that if a1 Odah felt unsafe, he could have 

left Afghanistan more quickly by retracing the route by which he 

arrived. 

While in Logar Province, a1 Odah sought out 

man recommei~ded by. The evidence 

a1 Odah stayed in Logar Province at's home, free of 

charge, for about a month. A1 Oda 

passport, and other documents with . There is no 

evidence as to what a1 Odah did during this month. 

After his time in Logar Province, a1 Odali, at 

suggestion, traveled to Jalalabad, Afghanistan. In Ja 

Odah stayed with a man named . There were a 

number of other people staying in s house. Some of 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 4 of 17
the inen there carried weapons. A1 Oda11 stayed at 'S 

out ten days. At some point during these ten days, 

gave a1 Odah a Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle. 

A1 Odah the11 left Jalalabad and, on foot, headed through the 

White Mountains in the Tora Bora region. He traveled with a 

group of about 1 50 men, some of whom were armed. A1 Odah 

carried his AK-47 with him throughout this journey. The group 

wit11 which a1 Odah was traveling was attacked by US and allied 

air strikes, but a1 Odah himself was never injured. 

When a1 Odah reached the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, he 

was detained by Pakistani guards. The exact date he was 

detained is disputed, but it was sometime between midNovember and mid-December 2001. At the time of his capture, 

a1 Odah still had his AK-47 wit11 him. A1 Odah was transferred 

to US custody, and has been detained at Guantanaino Bay, Cuba 

since early 2002. 

Since a1 Odah's initial detention, additional incriminating 

evidence has come to light. 

Additionally, a1 Odah's 

name and phone number appeared on a document on a1 Qaeda's 

official website. 

---- 

Lastly, a1 Odah's passport, which he left with 

in Logar Province, was later recovered from an a1 Qaeda 

safehouse in Kar an. Also at this safehouse, an 

individual nained was captured. 

B . Procedural Background 

On May 1,2002, a1 Odah, through his next friend, Khaled a1 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 5 of 17
Odah, along wit11 eleven other Guantanamo Bay detainees filed 

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia. Since then, the liabeas 

petitions have been the subject of extended litigation involving 

jurisdictional questions. See Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55 

(D.D.C. 2002); Al-Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. 

Cir. 2003); Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004); In re 

Guantananzo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.D.C. 

2005); Bounzediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2007); 

Bou~nediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008). After Bou~nediene 

v. Bush established that the district court had jurisdiction to hear 

a1 Odah's petition, the court considered a1 Odali's petition on the 

merits. 

After receiving the government's factual return and the 

parties' various filings, the district court held a three-day 

hearing. On August 24,2009, the district court denied a1 Odah's 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A1 Odah v. United States, 

648 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009). 

In Hanzdi v. Runzsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 533-34 (2004) 

(plurality op.), the Supreme Court said: 

[Tlhe exigencies of the circumstances may demand 

that, aside from these core elements, enemycombatant proceedings may be tailored to alleviate 

their uncommon potential to burden the Executive at 

a time of ongoing military conflict. Hearsay, for 

example, may need to be accepted as the most 

reliable available evidence from the Governi~lent in 

such a proceeding. 

Relying upon this language from the Supreme Court, the district 

comt stated that it would allow the use of hearsay by both 

parties. 648 F. Supp. 2d at 4-5. The district judge reasoned 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 6 of 17
"[tlhe Court is fully capable of considering whether a piece of 

evidence (whether hearsay or not) is reliable . . . ." Id. at 5. The 

court denied the government's motion to have its evidence 

admitted with a presumption of accuracy and authenticity. Id. 

at 5-6. The court then discussed how intelligence documents can 

be unreliable. Id. With regards to a1 Odah's motion to exclude 

certain pieces of evidence, the court declined to do so, and 

instead held that "the better approach is to make such 

determinations after considering all of the evidence in the record 

and hearing the parties' arguments thereto . . . . Accordingly, the 

Court's consideration of the evidence proffered by the parties 

shall encompass inquiries into authenticity, reliability, and 

relevance." Id. at 6. 

The court held that the government had the burden of 

demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that a1 Odah 

was lawfully detained. Id. at 8. It further held that the President 

had the authority under the AUMF to detain a1 Odah if the 

government established according to that evidentiary standard 

that he was "part of' the Taliban, a1 Qaeda, or associated enemy 

forces. Id. at 6-7. 

In weighing the evidence, the court found that a1 Odah had 

not offered any credible explanation for his trip to Dubai en route 

to Afghanistan. Id. at 8-9. It also found that a1 Odah's travels 

through Afghanistan contradicted his other statements that his 

intention was only to teach in Afghanistan for two weeks. Id. at 

9. The court also found that a1 Odah's offered reason for going 

to Afghanistan lacked credibility because although he claimed lie 

taught at schools in Afghanistan for two weeks, he was unable to 

provide the names of the places where he taught, the names of 

any of his fellow teachers, or the names of ally of his students. 

Id. at 9-10. The court discussed evidence that the travel route 

used by a1 Odah was a comlnon travel route for those going to 

Afghanistan to join the Taliban. Id. at 9- 10. It found "that this 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 7 of 17
record supports a reasonable inference that A1 Odah may have 

also been traveling to Afghanistan to engage in jihad, and not to 

teach the poor and needy for two weeks." Id. at 10. 

The district court also found that the reasons a1 Odah offered 

for not leaving Afghanistan immediately after September 1 1 

lacked credibility and were not consistent with his other 

statements. Id. at 11-12. The court found that a1 Odah's pattern 

of staying at houses and his surrendering of his passport were 

consistent with a1 Qaeda and Taliban operating procedures. Id. 

at 12. The court recounted the time line of a1 Odah's travels, and 

found that his capture occurred on or around December 18,200 1, 

id. at 12- 13, a date that corresponds with the Battle of Tora Bora, 

which occurred between approximately December 6 and 18, 

2001. 

The court noted that a1 Odah's statements failed to account 

for one inontl~ of his time in Afghanistan. Id. at 13. It stated that 

a1 Odah's explanation for why he was traveling through the Tora 

Bora nzountains was not credible. Id. at 13-14. The district court 

wrote that the "evidence reflects that A1 Odah made a conscious 

choice to ally himself with the Taliban instead of extricating 

himself from the country." Id. at 1 5. The court found, based on 

this evidence, that it was "more likely than not that A1 Odah 

became part of the Taliban's forces." Id. 

The court noted that there was other evidence presented 

(eyewitness identification 

-), 

of a1 Odah and 

but that 

- 

it did not need to 

consider that evidence because it had already found that the 

Government had presented adequate factual information to meet 

its burden by a preponderance of the evidence to show that a1 

Odah was "part of' a1 Qaeda and the Taliban. Id. at 15,11. 17. 

The court also made an additional finding that the camp that 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 8 of 17
a1 Odah attended where he engaged in the target shooting with 

the AK-47 was "more likely than not A1 Farouq," a terrorist 

training camp. Id. at 16. The court discussed similarities in 

geography and operation between the camp a1 Odah attended and 

the A1 Farouq camp. Id. The court noted the fact that there was 

a trainer at A1 Farouq who went by the name , which was 

very siinilar to the name of the Taliban official from whom a1 

Odah followed directions for several weeks. Id. at 16- 17. It also 

noted similarities between the physical descriptions of the two. 

Id. at 17. The court then concluded 

that the Government has met its burden based on the 

evidence in the record without specifically identifying 

that the Taliban-run camp attended by A1 Odah was, 

in fact, A1 Farouq. Nevertheless, the Court also finds 

that it is more likely than not that the camp was A1 

Farouq, which also makes it more likely than not, 

when combined wit11 the other evidence in tl~e record, 

that A1 Odah became a part of the forces of the 

Taliban and a1 Qaeda. 

Id. at 18. On September 8, 2009, a1 Odah filed a notice of 

appeal. 

11. ANALYSIS 

A1 Odah challenges the procedure followed by the district 

court in admitting evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence 

to support its findings and judgment. Because the procedural 

issues inform our analysis of the sufficiency questions, we shall 

address the procedural challenges first. 

A. Procedural Challenges 

A1 Odah makes two procedural challenges. As we noted 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 9 of 17
above, the district court held both that the government had to 

meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and that it 

would admit hearsay evidence subject to review for reliability. 

A1 Odah argues that the preponderance of the evidence standard 

is unconstitutional and that the district court cannot admit 

hearsay evidence unless it complies with the Federal Rules of 

Evidence. We review a1 Odah's challenge to the evidentiary 

standard de novo because it is a question of law. See Awad, slip 

op. at 17; Al-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 870. Our review of the district 

court's admission of evidence, including its admission of hearsay 

evidence, is for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Bailey, 

3 19 F.3d 5 14,5 17 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Morrison v. Int'l Programs 

Consortium, Inc., 253 F.3d 5, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2001). We can 

dispatch both of these assignments of error in short order. 

A1 Odah argues that the government can deprive a person of 

his liberty only if it meets its evidentiary burden by clear and 

convincing evidence. But this argument fails under binding 

precedent in this circuit. It is now well-settled law that a 

preponderance of the evidence standard is constitutional in 

considering a habeas petition from an individual detained 

pursuant to authority granted by the AUMF. See Awad, slip op. 

at 17- 18 ("A preponderance of the evidence standard satisfies 

constitutional requirements in considering a habeas petition from 

a detainee held pursuant to the AUMF."); Al-Biha~zi, 590 F.3d at 

878 ("Our narrow charge is to determine whether a 

preponderance standard is unconstitutional. Absent more 

specific and relevant guidance, we find no indication that it is."); 

see also Barhounzi, slip op. at 11 (holding that under circuit 

precedent "a preponderance of the evidence standard is 

constitutional in evaluating a habeas petition from a detainee 

held at Guantanarno Bay, Cuba," and that the detainee's 

argument that "the Government should have been required to 

establish that [he] is lawfully detained under a standard of at 

least clear and convincing evidence" is "foreclosed by circuit 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 10 of 17
precedent") (internal quotation marks omitted). 

A1 Odah's second procedural argument fares no better. He 

argues that the Federal Rules of Evidence and the habeas corpus 

statute, 28 U.S.C. 5 2241 et seq., restrict the situations in which 

a district court may admit hearsay evidence in considering a 

petition from a person detained pursuant to the AUMF. The law 

is against him. As we quoted above, the Supreme Court in 

Hamdi stated that "[hlearsay . . . may need to be accepted as the 

most reliable available evidence from the Government" in this 

type of proceeding. 542 U.S. at 533-34. We applied the 

teachings of Hanzdi in Awad, in which we explicitly held that 

"[Tlhe fact that the district court generally relied on items of 

evidence that contained hearsay is of no consequence. To show 

error in the court's reliance on hearsay evidence, the habeas 

petitioner must establish not that it is hearsay, but that it is 

unreliable hearsay." Slip op. at 11; see also Barhoumi, slip op. 

at 10 (holding that under circuit precedent, "hearsay evidence is 

admissible in this type of habeas proceeding if the hearsay is 

reliable") (internal quotation marks omitted); Al-Bihani, 590 

F.3d at 879 ("[Tlhe question a habeas court must ask when 

presented wit11 hearsay is not whether it is admissible . . . but 

what probative weight to ascribe to whatever indicia of reliability 

it exhibits."). 

Whether a piece of evidence is hearsay is not at issue in this 

appeal. Rather, we review the decision of the district court as to 

whether the hearsay is reliable. The government offered reasons 

why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability, and the court 

considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight 

to give the hearsay evidence. For example, in considering 

interrogation reports of a third party concerning a1 Qaeda and 

Taliban travel routes into Afghanistan, the court noted that this 

hearsay was corroborated by "multiple other examples of 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 11 of 17
individuals who used this route to travel to Afghanistan for the 

purpose of jihad." 648 F. Supp. 2d at 10. The court indicated 

that it was aware of the limitations of this evidence when it 

concluded that "[allthough far froin conclusive, the 

Government's evidence suggests that an individual using this 

travel route to reach Kandahar may have done so because it was 

a route used by some individuals seeking to enter Afghanistan 

for the purpose of jihad." Id. This is exactly the analysis of 

hearsay which we subsequently approved in Al-Bihani and Awad. 

The district court correctly applied the law, and therefore, there 

was no abuse of its discretion. 

Having thus rejected a1 Odah's two procedural challenges, 

we proceed to his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. 

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

A1 Odah argues that the evidence submitted to the district 

court was insufficient to establish that he was "part of' a1 Qaeda 

and Taliban forces. A1 Odah has a heavy burden to meet to have 

this court reverse the district court's factual findings that are the 

underpinnings of its deterrnination. As we have recently stated 

in an appeal with an identical procedural context: 

We review a district court's factual findings for clear 

error, regardless of whether the factual findings were 

based on live testimony or, as in this case, 

documentary evidence. See Anderson v. City of 

Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 572 (1985). "We further 

note that '[tlhis standard applies to the inferences 

drawn from findings of fact as well as to the findings 

themselves. "' Overby v. Nat '1 Ass 'n of Letter 

Carriers, 595 F.3d 1290, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Halberstanz v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472, 486 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 12 of 17
(D.C. Cir. 1983) (alteration in Overby). "A finding is 

'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence 

to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record 

is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been committed." Boca Investerings 

Partnership v. US., 3 14 F.3d 625, 629-30 (D.C. Cir. 

2003) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum 

Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1 948)). But "[ilf the district 

court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of 

the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals 

may not reverse it . . . Where there are two 

permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's 

choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous." 

Overby, 595 F.3d at 1294 (quoting City ofBessen?er, 

470 U.S. at 573-74) (omission in Overby). 

Awad, slip op. at 10. 

A1 Odah makes several challenges to individual pieces of 

evidence. In considering these challenges to the individual 

pieces of evidence, we must keep in mind that the purpose of our 

inquiry is to determine whether, overall, the district court's 

finding was supported by sufficient evidence. See Awad, slip op. 

at 10-1 1 ("We will begin with Awad's challenges to the 

individual items of evidence. In evaluating these challenges, we 

do not weigh each piece of evidence in isolation, but consider all 

of the evidence taken as a whole."). 

A1 Odah argues that the district court made several errors in 

not adopting his understanding of the facts and in drawing 

inferences unfavorable to him from the undisputed evidence. A1 

Odah defends his following instructions froin . He 

argues that while I was a Taliban official, he was a 

civilian official and not part of the Taliban's military. A1 Odah 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 13 of 17
argues that it was reasonable for him, a foreigner in a strange 

country at a time of war, to seek out and follow the advice of 

knowledgeable locals. But this argument asks the court to ignore 

all the other evidence in the case. What matters is not only the 

formal positioil of in the Taliban government, but 

what kind of instructions he gave that a1 Odah followed. 

took a1Odah to a camp where he trained on a Kalashnikov 

AK-47 rifle. I gave a1 Odah instructions on where to 

go after the September 11,2001 attacks. A1 Odah followed I 

's instructions to go to a house. At this house, a1 Odah 

gave the person in charge of this house his passport and major 

possessions, which was standard a1 Qaeda and Taliban operating 

procedures. gave a1 Odah instructions on where to 

receive weapons training, where to go after the September 11 

terrorist attacks, where he could stay for free, and introduced him 

to people from whom he acquired an AK-47. For several 

months, a1 Odah followed instructions of a military nature from 

a member of the Taliban. We uphold the district court's 

rejection of a1 Odah's attempt to put an innocuous gloss over 

these undisputed facts. 

A1 Odah also argues that it was not nefarious for him to 

carry a rifle while in Afghanistan. A1 Odah argues that rifles 

were common in Afghanistan, and that he carried the AK-47 for 

self defense. Again, a1 Odah is asking this court to examine this 

single piece of evidence in isolation. A1 Odah did not simply 

possess a weapon. Rather, the evidence shows that -, 

a Taliban official, took a1 Odah to a Taliban-run camp to train on 

an AK-47 rifle. then provided a1 Odah a 

recoinmendation to find a person, who subsequently introduced 

him to another person who gave a1 Odah the same type of AK-47 

rifle as that on which he trained. A1 Odah the11 carried this rifle 

for days during an armed march through the Tora Bora 

mountains, a march during which a1 Odah and his fellow 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 14 of 17
travelers were attacked by US and allied warplanes. 

A1 Odah argues that the district court was also in error to 

fault him for not leaving Afghanistan immediately after 

September 1 1,200 1, and that the district court failed to consider 

that he was stuck in a foreign country trying to do the best he 

could in a chaotic situation. But the district court considered 

exactly that. It considered, and rejected, a1 Odah's argument that 

he chose what he thought was the quickest way to leave the 

country. It found that when a1 Odah had a choice to head out of 

the country or to stay, he consistently chose to remain in 

Afghanistan following directions of a member of the Taliban. 

A1 Odah further argues that there are benign reasons why 

someone would not travel with his passport while in 

Afghanistan. Perhaps there may be valid reasons for such 

behavior, but the district court considered this fact in the context 

of all the evidence in the case and found it to be incriminating. 

It was not clear error for the district court to do so. 

We have considered, and rejected, a1 Odah's challenges to 

the individual pieces of evidence. The only remaining question 

is whether all the evidence before the district court was sufficient 

to support its finding that a1 Odah was "part of' the Taliban and 

a1 Qaeda forces. To simply recite the evidence and the 

inferences the district court drew therefrom is to answer the 

question in the affirmative regardless of the standard of review 

we use. See Awad, slip op. at 17 ("Determining whether Awad 

is 'part or a1 Qaeda is a mixed question of law and fact. 

Whether our review of the district court's finding on this 

question is de novo or for clear error does not matter in this case 

because the evidence is so strong."). 

A1 Odah traveled to Afghanistan on a series of one-way 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 15 of 17
plane tickets purchased with cash in a manner consistent with 

travel patterns of those going to Afghanistan to join the Taliban 

and a1 Qaeda. Once in Afghanistan, a1 Odah sought out a 

Taliban official. This Taliban official led a1 Odah for a month 

doing we know not what, but culminated in the Taliban official 

taking a1 Odah to a Taliban-run camp to train on an AK-47 rifle. 

After the September 1 1, 200 1, terrorist attacks, I told 

a1 Odah where he should go and who he should seek out to help 

him. A1 Odah did what I recommended to him. He 

gave up his passport and other possessions, and obtained an AK47 rifle, as he stayed with several individuals over several 

months. He then went on a march through the Tora Bora region 

for ten days with 150 men, some of whom, including a1 Odah, 

were armed. This march was attacked by US and allied 

warplanes. 

A1 Odah attempts to rebut the government's case only by 

presenting a gloss of innocent activity over several of the 

undisputed facts. The district court considered all the evidence, 

rejected a1 Odah's explanation of the evidence, and held that a1 

Odah was "part of' a1 Qaeda and Taliban forces. There was no 

error in this finding, under either a de novo or clear error 

standard of review. 

The district court had before it further evidence that 

supported the correctness of its conclusion. The district court did 

not need to rely upon this further evidence because of the weight 

of the other evidence, but it mentioned the existence of the 

evidence, and we note it to emphasize that it is further support 

for the district court's finding. 

discovered in an a1 Qaeda safehouse. Two other individuals 

have identified a1 Odah as a Taliban and a1 Qaeda member. All 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 16 of 17
this evidence is above and beyond what is necessary for us to 

affirm the district court's coilclusion that a1 Odah was "part of' 

a1 Qaeda and Taliban forces. 

The district court's alternative basis for finding that a1 Odah 

was "part of' a1 Qaeda and Taliban forces was that he trained at 

the A1 Farouq training camp. A1 Odah raises several challenges 

to the factual findings underlying this conclusion by the district 

court. But as we have upheld the district court's finding that a1 

Odah was "part of' a1 Qaeda and the Taliban by his activities in 

Afghanistan separate from the allegations that the camp he 

attended was A1 Farouq, we do not need to consider this issue. 

Once the government has established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that a1 Odah was "part of' a1 Qaeda and Taliban forces, 

the requirements of the AUMF are satisfied and the government 

has authority to detain a1 Odah. 

111. CONCLUSION 

The law of this circuit is that a preponderance of the 

evidence standard is constitutional in considering a habeas 

petition from an alien detained pursuant to authority granted by 

the AUMF. Awad, slip op. at 17-1 8. Decisions of this court and 

of the Supreme Court have established that in this type of habeas 

proceeding, hearsay evidence is admissible if it is reliable. In 

our review of the record, we see strong support for the district 

court's finding that a1 Odah was "part of' a1 Qaeda and Taliban 

forces in the fall of 2001. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court's denial of a1 Odah's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

So ordered. 

USCA Case #09-5331 Document #1253722 Filed: 07/07/2010 Page 17 of 17