Opinion ID: 149930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: We disagree with

Text: ~ G s a ~ a h broad contention that two pieces of evidence, 's each unreliable when viewed alone, cannot ever corroborate each other. Cf:United States v. Laws, 808 F.2d 92, 100-03 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (relying upon one informant's hearsay statement to corroborate another informant's hearsay statement even though neither was reliable standing alone). We agree, however, with his alternative argument that even if the additional evidence relied upon by the district court in this case is itself reliable, it is not sufficiently corroborative to support reliance upon the statements concerning Bensayah in 1. Evidence Linking Bensayah to A1 Qaeda The district court found fl were corroborated by Bensayah's connections to a1 Qaeda, viz., (1) Bensayah was directly linked to , - allegedly a senior al-Qaida operative and facilitator, and (2) - put forth more than sufficient credible evidence that was a senior al-Qaida operative and facilitator. Since the district court's decision, however, the Govemment - - has eschewed reliance upon much of that evidence; it now maintains the other evidence upon which the district court relied is sufficient to link to a1 Qaeda. In an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion filed by Bensayah, the district court indicated it would have concluded was sufficiently corroborated to be relied upon, even putting aside completely any evidence linking Bensayah to Assuming, as the Govemment contends, was connected to a1 Qaeda, the evidence linking Bensayah to and a1 Qaeda does not, by itself or together - with the other evidence discussed below, corroborate sufficiently so that it can be relied upon. The Government presented no direct evidence of actual communication between Bensayah and any a1 Qaeda member, much less evidence suggesting Bensayah communicated with or anyone else in order to facilitate travel by an a1 Qaeda member. Indeed, the district court determined the record did not support the allegations in concerning the only individuals named therein whose travel Bensayah allegedly planned to facilitate. 2. Travel History and Travel Plans The district court found the assertions in were corroborated by evidence that Bensayah (1) , 1 and (2) had experience in obtaining and traveling in and out of numerous countries on fraudulent passports. Bensayah admits to having used multiple travel documents, some of which were in an assumed name, but maintains he traveled under fraudulent documents in order to avoid being sent back to Algeria, where he reasonably feared persecution. He presented unrebutted declarations that mere possession and use of false travel documents is neither proof of involvement with terrorism nor evidence of facilitation of travel by others. We amee. That Bensavah had ex~erience with fraudulent travel Qaeda or anyone else. As noted in the prior paragraph, the district court determined the Government had failed to show that Bensayah's co-petitioners planned to travel to Afghanistan in order to engage U.S. forces. Therefore, Bensayah could not have been facilitating their travel for that purpose. 3.Evidence Calling into Question Bensayah's Credibility The district court found serious questions [had] been raised about Bensayah's whereabouts in the early 1990s. This finding af-most undermines Bensayah's own credibility; no account of his whereabouts ties him to a1 Qaeda or suggests he facilitated anyone's travel during that time. These questions in no way demonstrate that Bensayah had ties to and facilitated travel for a1 Qaeda in 200 1. Because the evidence, viewed in isolation or together, is insufficiently corroborative of , the district court on remand may not, in the absence of additional corroborative evidence not already considered, rely upon that exhibit in determining whether Bensayah was part of a1 Qaeda. 111. Conclusion The Government argues it is authorized by the AUMF to detain Bensayah solely on the ground he was functionally a member or part o f ' a1 Qaeda. The evidence upon which the district court relied in concluding Bensayah supported a1 Qaeda is insufficient, however, to show he was part of that organization. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for the district court to hear such evidence as the parties may submit and to decide in the first instance whether Bensayah was functionally part of a1 Qaeda. So ordered.