Court Opinion

ID: 4014498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-11 14:01:32.274541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:50:35.916741
License: Public Domain

UNCLASSIF| EDH-FOR PUBL|C RELEASE

 

I.TNITEI) S'I`ATES I)IS'I`RICT C'ULTRT Da-w
FOR TI~IE ])lS'l`RICT OF C(]'LL`MBI.A

 

)

}

Al_.l SHAH M{`)I_E'S(`J\»’I. er n!.. `)
)

'l"etitioners, _]

)

\-'. ) (_`ivil .»\ctiun No. US- l 124 (RMC)

)

HARA(.`K H., OBAI\'IA, et ¢1)'.., 
)

l£cspc)ndcnts. `)

__]

I]\' R]". l’l"`.'l`l'l`l()?~|` of HA.I] \\"Al'_.[ ]
NIOI']AYVI_M F,l) _\1 O_EI“{A l`*`!\ (]  560} 
__ __ )

OPINI()N

in his pcxilion f`urhs.l')cas corpus. I’el'itionel' l Iaji Wali Moh:u'nrned Morat`a ask.*'_~;:
"Is he the person the ('_in\'ernrv;cnt says he is?" This question has COHSLH\‘H;‘Li years 503 U.S. 602,

622 (]993) {internal quotation marks omitted)).

ll

UNCLASSIF|EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

UNCLASSIF|ED)')'FOR PUBLlC RELEASE

IB'EB¥|!EP

The critical issue is whether a detainee was "rno re likely than not" part of, or
acted in substantial support of, al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated enemy forces Af»,-idahi v.
Obomo, 613 F.3d 1102, l 106 (D.C. Cir. 2010). ln reviewing the record, a court must consider
the evidence in its entirety and should not weigh each piece of evidence in isolation. Sec»'
Barhoumi`, 609 F.3d at 424; Es'moil v. Obomrr, 639 F.3d 10?5 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (emphasizing the
importance of considering each fact in light of all of the evidence'). Even if no individual piece
of evidence alone would j ustify detention, the evidence rnay, when considered as a whoie and in
context, nonetheless demand the conclusion that the petitioner was 1nore likely than not part of
al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces or that he purposefully and materially supported such
forces. Af-Acz'.:rhi, 6_13 F.Sd at 1 105-06.

Further, a court may admit and consider hearsay evidence that is material and
relevant to the justification for petitioner’s detention, so long as the party introducing the
evidence can establish diet the hearsay evidence is reliable See Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.fv'd 834,
847 (D.C. Cir. 2008). "[T]he question a habeas court must ask when presented with hearsay is
not whether it is adrnissible_it is always admissible-but what probative vveiglat to ascribe to
whatever indicia of reliability it e:»:hibits." A€~Bz'haaz', 590 F.3d at 879-80; Borhoum:`, 609 F.Sd at
422 (hearsay evidence "must be accorded weight only in proportion to its reliabiiity"}. The task
of resolving "discrepancies among the various acco unts" offered into evidence is for the fact-
tinder. joy v. BefiHeficopter Texrron, Inc., 999 F.Zd 549, 561 [D_C. Cir. 1993).

C. Conduct l]efore September 11, 2001

As noted above, the AUMF authorizes holding a detainee at Guantanarno if he
was part of (or substantially supported) al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces ar the time of

his capture. .S'ee Ai-Bfho.rii, 590 F.§id at 8?2-'}"4;]'[1¢5'3¢;.::`:1, 713 F.Bd at 96'?. lr1 fact, courts

12

UNCLASSIF|EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

UNCLASS|F|EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

l

regularly rely on pre-September ll, 2001 evidence to find that a petitioner’s detention is lavvfu].
For e>692 F. Supp. 2d 85, 93 {D,D.C. 2010) (Government need not
show that petitioner had knowledge that the United States w“ould join the battle in Al"ghanistan or
that petitioner intended to fight the United S£ates, but instead must justify detention by showing
that petitioner had knowledge or intent to join or support al-Qaida, the "l`aliban, or associated
t`oroes).
Further, the AUMF also covers membe'rs vrho joined at-Qaida or an associated

terrorist organization after the Septernber l 1, 2001 attacks Such members are covered by the
AUMF because they are part of the organization that is covered by it. S`ce AUMF, Pub. L. 107-

40, § Z(a), 115 Stat. at 224 (Government may "'use all necessary and appropriate force against . . .

13 Thc Govern ment need not produce evidence of some affirmative action in support of a terrorist
organization that took place alter Septembcr ll, 2001 because this "wou}d lead to the illogical
and dangerous result that a proven `sleepcr agent’ vvho was actually sleeping on and after 9.+’ ll
could not be detained." Sa£ahf v. Ubrmro, ?10 F. Supp. 2d l, 5 (D.D.C. 20 I{}), vacated and
remandec?'on other grotrrm's, 625 [~".3£1 ?45, ?5{} {_D.C. Cil‘. ZUIU).

'SEQPY

13

UNCLASSIF|EDIIFOR PUBLlC RELEASE

UNCLASSIF|ED)')'FOR PUBLlC RELEASE

»...rn_.-\.,.¢_\_»_. .

organizations [that] p|anned, authorized, cornrnitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
on September l l, 2001 . . . ."); see also Curtis A. Bradley & lack L. Goldsrnith, Congressional
Authorization and the War on ”l`errorisrn, 118 i-Iarv, L. Rev, 2047, 2109 (May 2005).

In co ntrast, the Governrnent lacks authority to detain someone whose ties with
terrorism were "sut`t`ieientl_v vitiated by the passage of time, intervening ev ents, or both, such that
the detainee could no longer be considered to be ‘part of [al-Qaida, the 'I`aliban, or associated
forees] at the time he was taken into custody." Al G£nco v. ()!)amo, 626 F. Supp. 2d 123, 128
{_D.D.C. 2009), ln AI Gt`nco, the petitioner had stayed at an a}-Qaida guesthouse in 2000 and had
attended a training carnp, but later al-Qaida accused him of being a spy, tortured hint for three
rnonths, and handed him over to the Taliban. The '[`aliban then imprisoned the petitioner for
eighteen inontlrs until he was liberated by the Northern Alliance. The C`roverrnnent took the
position that despite two years of horrifc treatment by al-Qaida and the Taliban, the petitioner
\vas still part of al -Qai da and the Taliban. 'l`o determine whether a pre-exi sting relationship was
so sufficiently eroded over a sustained period of time that the reiationship was vitiated, courts
must look to the following faetors: {l) the nature of the relationship in the first instanoe; (2`} the
nature of the intervening events or oonduct; and (3) the amount of time that has passed between
the time of the pre-existing relationship and the point in time at which the detainee is taken into
eustody. id. at 129. Under this te st, the Al' Gr`nco court determined that while a brief relationship
had existed in ZU-UU, petitioner‘ s two-year torture and subsequent custody demonstrated that he
was no longer a trusted member of ai-Qaida or the Taliban by 2002 when he was captured

Because no relationship existed at the time of capture, the detention was not  ustified.

14

UNCLASSIF|EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

UNCLASS|F| EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

lll. Fl__\"l}l!\`{i$ ()li` F;~\(_‘.T` _AND (`()_\l(_`.l .IJSIO_\JS ()F I,_.-\\-'v'
"l`|ie C`oui'i :"c\'ie\»e'.i zuicl c.'cdrisiderecl xiii e\'icicriee el`l`ei'ei.l by |Juiii sicit':s ;¢lmi
assessed the evidence iieln-l)_\'-iieiri l`er eensisiene_\'. ihe caudill-ellis in \\hieli si'.iiemeriis ivei'e
izizule and cleei_nnelits t`euncl_. rlie personal l. .»"\l`ter days o l`negotiatititts, the investigators agreed that Petitioner could repay the debt

tltrottglt installments and that his ctiusiri wt»ttld be released t`rt_int ail_ but l\/ltt|lalt Z.ahid`s
jan ar rita name aaa nat t~¢gtarat_ 'r.-_ o t)o_os;__'rht- 't»tttit_»aa ata am

charge or jail l’ctitioncr. Tr'. at 33. 'l'lic Talil:tztlt"s leniency in responding to the !tdss ol' on
ez"tormous tlt'rtount' ol_ r‘noncy says loudly that petitioner was a respected part ol`tbc
'l`aliban.

l'-l. Petitioncr argues that hi s support ot`tlte 'l`aliban before 1999 can not be a basis t"or
detention because at that time the `[`aliban was 'tnerel}»' a retigit“)tts and pt)litical group
in\-'tdl\-'cd ortly in internal At`gltan al`l`ail's. Pctititttter`°s c'arl_\_-' support of the `l`alibatt at a
Iitne most necessary to that organization`s sltecess in seizing control ofr\l`ghz-tnistatt is
critically tellint_a. As Lhc `l`alibatt became stronger in Al§ltattistan._ it protected al-Qaida_
t_t'sarna bin I_,adin, and the plan to ttttae.k the t_:'nitetl .‘itates,

w `l`l'te exact ttature ol" the transaction is not clear_. as Pctitioncr stat- d \»'ari
partnership t_Tr. at 5')'-59, RS_ ‘Jo)_ a cotttrttct (Tr_ at 91

  

UNCLASS|FI EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

UNCLASS|F| EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

IS. Pulilinriur Lc_'~'liiicd lh:n he weis iiuvc:‘ close in :\*iililaii ilzlhiwzliii. 'i`i'. al IUI _ "l`h_.is
Icslin".ciri_\' is huli<~:-'.i ivy his prior hnzisling lh;l| he weis rcinsc in bench |\=ii.:||z\ii Rah";\:-_iiii and 10
Rzahhaiii`s clause i`:'ic‘rid_ Mu|inh _»~‘-\hdiil S:il:iri': ziwi. PTX' 1154

   

   

l{i_ |n m '.ai:c:;npi in iiislaincc.~ liir\iscli`i_`r_on*. inc `]`zilit):in._ l’ciitiniicr also ccsii[`iud that his
ti'ainsni:ticiri v\-'ilh thc ,*\I`giiaiti L`cnlrai }S'clizk weis not appi‘:_')\'r:d i_‘)¢\_-' |'\-Iiiilzili f_`)iiial:"_ `I`i'. al ‘JT".
i UI_ l)iic 10 the circuni:ila\nccs $Lrri'nunditi~_; the lr:_iais£is.“iioli_ :hc C`uun is neil cnn\-'iiici‘ii.
|’ciiiii_nici' |. Shc;~r Khan is
zlisu i'.

_“-_‘3. l’cti\‘inner' was part r_)f`, and prn\~'icicff In:lterizll sr.l[)pu rt tu, HI(}.

29 petitioner dues iic)§ Llispillc‘ that Ilcxh-i-lesl'.-ii1ii ('ii:|hiiv.'lcl 2{1, 3§-33 (l).L`. L`.ir', 301 l }.

31 Pelilia'ii‘.<;:r`:»' i§lriiil\.' is cuiiilecicd 10 lll('i leader {"iu|liiid iii |~l

 
 
  

Pciiiiuner described Obaiclul laii aaa his "‘lzr'ai-ilir:r iii
l:i\\'," 'l'i'. 111 ll`l§-`L`J(i_ .»'X:~; iic)luni ;il_i<)\u. l’uiiliulicr \\-'z-:S palc‘lner.'<. \\itii i\/|Lisl‘\lid iii Il‘sc~
.'“_§lia`nccii li.xcli;aii~`_»c. `l'i'. ul lUS-U(u.

 

"»"'is ii .S`<:ci?;\':\i' [iilc||igciicc .~=\iialyst i‘hr the l)»:fc"ii.~'sc: lriicl|i;__rciiuc _.-\};L‘ii\:y.

| 3

UNCLASS|F|ED.".FFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

UNCLASSEF| ED;'.='FOR PUBL|C RELEASE

w
-\

 5

""' _\~1311_\~' 01` the pl'upur uuuns used in thin ()pir‘1im1 have spell ing \zn`izzll\‘»n.‘s then can he seen in fhc
rcce_'n'al_ Fol' 1‘_><;11'11;_\1+;. Lhc name ;\-!011111111111~.':1 cnn he \-\'r'illcn ns ;\-'Ic_)]'n£i=.“nl'lh”l£l._ 'l`21lihzn1 cam he

"1 zlluhnv__ 'n[~()_alicln cam bs.‘ .-'\§-{\);uzda m .»\l~f`}zl`ida, L_.`.~sa1ana1 inn [,aldin can he (`)521111;1hir1 i.aacimx._ nncl
Mu_~slirn sam be F\‘Ic_\slcln.

l‘_}

UNCLASS!F| ED)‘:'FOR PUBL|C RELEASE

UNCLASS|F| EDHFOR F’UBLIC RELEASE

 

36 Pc':lilic\.rwcr`s service 10 Gll|h='.;cfdirw H€kl'rlzil_\'zir' in late Dcc;‘clrlhel' 1[}01 i_~_a s'rli`i"lcicrzl 111
cstalu]i:655 F.3d 20, 32-33 (D.C. Cir. 201 l).

4 Mullah Ornar’s death was not reported until 2()15.

UNCLASSIF|EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

UNCLASS|F| EDHFOR F’UBL|C RELEASE

-1(}_

`!

41.'|'[1¢ <:\'id<:r.cc: 15 cu:n;d::llin<._; and ine'\-'itzlblj\~' leads m thc l':m;ling lh'.il l‘clilimlc:r' <1:"[1‘1'¢£1
L~lr.i\-ic:€ and .~acr\'icc m Hl(i. Pclilicn'u:r`.~; -‘.c.~;'r.ir*r¢<')¢'\}' in thc Corul:‘ur§' is 1101 Crc<='li'b|»c. F"L'.rth<:r.
|’clil`u;ul<;r has nor 5§10\=\':1 chen aims or events renninat-cci his nwrnb<:r_~;hi[) i.n_. or :~_;u`r)stantia'l|_
¢au|d|_‘.-L'vrl l`ur. }§[G. .S`ce .=I}' (`_?:`):;~n_ 626 F. .‘iupp. 2d all l IS_

4.'3. l’ciiliu ner provided support tn al~Q-ai¢l:a in 1998. |Jul there is insufficient e'\'id.cncc
llml he weis still pru\'illillg.'__', support fu :\'l-Qaida in .lanuzn'}' 2002 \\'l\l.‘n I’-ctitioner was
:n"restecl.

43. .'\1 the L‘.'¢‘L_;§c1a1i11~'_; <_1!` llzi:' cz=::~;c_ lhc Go\'c.‘:`nmclll a*.llc\;;cai thc-11 Pc1lli0nr.‘r 
 h0bnc)l‘,hcci cmm~alunll_\' \\ilh l_.`._"§. cz‘lcmic.~j»' and Fc\-\-' all

c_)\-'cr' }"_urc_)pc; ;11_ bin I,'¢lc_iin"§ ¢;01‘:1:7:1'._-1‘.1;1, 'I`h\; (':iq)\~'cr'rdlncnl haw \.'.~'itll£lr“'a\x':\\ some o'i`th€
\:\ialr:llcc ns marc »'.101111111¢111;11§011 has been Llisc;r,)\'cr@d. \_\:(11'\:.‘£&1@!€55_ the (`in\'c1"11rnu11l
u¢_\.rwlinu<.‘s m argue :|1:11 !’cliri553 U.S. 723, 779 (2{]08), that district
courts have habeas jurisdiction over Guantanarno detainees, this case became active again
Procedural and logistical matters in this case were consolidated with other Gtiantanarno cases for
coordination and management before judge Thomas Hogan in Miscellaneous Case No. US-mc-
442. See Order ?»’2;“08 [Dkt. SS}.?

Tl:‘le Governrnent ii led a Factual Return regarding petitioner in 2003 See Factual
Retus'n l IYZS}OB [Dlct. 143]; Unclassiiied Factual Retum l.*'$l(l_‘) [[_`)kt. l'iU]. fn january 2009,
after President Baracl-t Oba.tria took ofiice_. the Goverrn‘nerit notified the Court that it had
identified additional relevant documents that were undergoing clearance re\»'iew. See Notice

1)'3 ()2'09 [Dkt. 183]. On December l, 2009, Respondents filed an Amended Factual Return_, Dkt.

? judge Hogan issued case management orders that govern this case and othcrs. See Order

11!6!08 [Dkt. 136]; Moditied Order 12!16:'08 [Dl»;t. 154].

UNCLASSIF|EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

UNCLASSIF|ED)')'FOR PUBLlC RELEASE

257, and Petitioner responded with a Traverse on January 15, 20]0, Dl555 F.3d 20, 31 (D.C. Cir.

2011). A court should grant the Govemment’s motion to provide a substitute instead of turning
over classified material if the substitute provides substantially the same information as the

classified material ./ll'-()dah, 559 F.Sd at 547.

'[ his Cout't reviewed the Top Secret material and the Government’s proposed
S€ Cret substitutes ex parte and in camera and found that the substitutes were adequate to permit
meaningful habeas review because all relevant and material information was provided by the

substitutes See Op. 1)*9»' 13 [Dkt. 386]. Accordingly, the Court allowed the Government to
-S'E€'lil-Eili-

7

UNCLASSIF|EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE

UNCLASSIF|ED)')'FOR PUBLlC RELEASE

l

produce the adequate substitutes to Petitioner’s counsel and expert instead of producing Top
Secret intbrmation. See ia'.; see also Order 9!28!`11 [Dltt. 343]; Order Denying Reconsideration
?!23!12 [Dl at 21 status
conference on Mey |5_. ZUI§. in re.<;pottsc._ the (ioverntttettt filed the follow'il'tg: Respottse lo l.ht:
Cottrt Qttestions and |;€)t l’arte Resitonse_ l)ltl_ 42? ('z’e'l 5_.-'15); EX Porte llespotise, Dltt. 429
tS-'_"~..-"l 5); and  l‘orte Respoose. Dkt, 431 (S.t`t@s'l$}. in its july l ':`., 2015 t`t|in_t;. the Gtweritrltettt
specified precisely those li)thibits ttptm \t~'hieh it relies to prove that petitioner is a petit of or
acted itt substantial .<;ttpport ot`, u|~()_aidzt, the '[`ttlib:ttt, and l-[IG. Oo October 26, ?.Ul$. Petitionet'
fled his tt\\.'n Re.~spottst: to the C`ottt't Qttes`litttt:;. l'_)l533 U.S.
289, 302 (2001)). "The writ of habeas corpus remains the sole means by which Guantanam_o
detainees may challenge the legality of their detention." A?jam v. Obama, 37 F. Supp, 3d 273,
2?3 {D.D.C. 2014), appeal dtsmfsseal, No. ill-51 16 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2015).

The D.C. Circuit requires that district courts use a flexible standard in determining
whether a detainee is lawfully held under the AUMF. A lawfully detained person is, at a
minirnurn, one who (l) is part of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated enemy forces; or {2) has

substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated enemy forees. Set> AI-Bihanf v.
-SE€'R!E*F-

10

UNCLASSIF|EDHFOR PUBL|C RELEASE