Court Opinion

ID: 9880641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 21:01:15.859908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:18.304782
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KHALID AHMED QASSIM, )
Petitioner,
v. Civil Case No. 04-1194 (RJL)
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al., )
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

(September %°?, 2023) [Dkt. #1197]

One week after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”), authorizing the President

to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,

organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or

aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored

such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of

international terrorism against the United States by such nations,

organizations or persons.
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMEF), Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat.
224, 224 (2001). The Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld interpreted “necessary and
appropriate force” to include the authority to detain individuals, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004)
(plurality opinion), and that detention authority was affirmed in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1021(a), 125 Stat. 1298,
1562 (2011).

Petitioner Khalid Ahmed Qassim was detained pursuant to that authority, and he is

currently in the custody of the United States at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. Pet’r’s
Mot. for Summ. J. (““Mot.”) [Dkt. #1197] at 1. In a summary judgment motion, he claims
that, because U.S. troops have withdrawn from Afghanistan, the active combat operations
that justified his detention have likewise concluded. Jd. at 2-3. That argument relies on
Hamdi, in which the Supreme Court noted the “clearly established principle of the law of
war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities” and thus understood the
AUMF’s detention authority to last “for the duration of the relevant conflict.” 542 U.S. at
520-21. “If the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in active
combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of ‘necessary and
appropriate force,’ and therefore are authorized by the AUMF.” Jd. at 521. But active
combat in Afghanistan has ended, says Qassim, so his detention is no longer authorized.
Mot. at 2-3.

The problem with Qassim’s argument, however, is that the AUMF’s grant of
authority does not extend to conflict only in Afghanistan; it extends to “conflict between
the United States and the Taliban and al Qaeda.” Al-Alwi v. Trump, 901 F.3d 294, 299
(D.C. Cir. 2018); see AUMF § 2(a); see also Husayn v. Austin, 2022 WL 2093067, at *2
(D.D.C. June 10, 2022) (Sullivan, J.) (“[T]he AUMF contains no geographical
limitation.”). The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan therefore does not necessarily
mark the conclusion of detention authority granted by the AUMF. See Gul v. Biden, 2021
WL 5206199, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2021) (Mehta, J.) (‘The end of the United States’
ground war in Afghanistan marks the end of just one aspect of the United States’ hostilities

with al Qaeda.”).
Qassim reads too much into Hamdi’s note that troops’ involvement “in active
combat in Afghanistan” justified continued detention under the AUMF. 542 U.S. at 521.
The Supreme Court framed troop involvement in Afghanistan as a sufficient, but not
necessary, condition to detention authority. See id. And nowhere else did the Court
“provide any analysis that would support the proposition that the 2001 AUMF is limited to
‘hostilities in Afghanistan.’” Cf Gul, 2021 WL 5206199, at *3 (rejecting similar argument
based on “passing reference to ‘in Afghanistan’” in Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866
(D.C. Cir. 2010)). Hamdi therefore did not, as Qassim argues, call for the end of detention
authority upon U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Afghanistan.

It is instead “a political act” to call for the termination of hostilities. A/-Alwi, 901
F.3d at 299 (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 168-69 (1948)). “The
determination of when hostilities have ceased is a political decision, and [courts] defer to
the Executive’s opinion on the matter, at least in the absence of an authoritative
congressional declaration purporting to terminate the war.” A/-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 874.
And according to the Executive, those hostilities did not cease with the withdrawal of U.S.
troops on August 31, 2021. See Paracha v. Biden, 2022 WL 2952493, at *4 (D.D.C. July
26, 2022) (Friedman, J.).

On September 9, 2021, President Biden observed that “[t]he terrorist threat that led
to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues.” Letter to
Congressional Leaders on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to
Certain Terrorist Attacks, 2021 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. 728 (Sept. 9, 2021) [Dkt. #1198-

11]. Later that month, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
September 28, General Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified not
only that al Qaeda was still in Afghanistan and still “at war with the United States” but also
that it “displaced to other parts of the world” and that its affiliates “definitely have
aspirations to attack the United States.” Hearing to Receive Testimony on the Conclusion
of Military Operations in Afghanistan and Plans for Future Counterterrorism Operations
Before the S. Comm. on Armed Servs. (“SASC Hearing’’) [Dkt. #1198-5] at 70, 93; see
Paracha, 2022 WL 2952493, at *5 (citing Gen. Milley’s testimony). Similarly, General
Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., then commander of U.S. Central Command, testified that al
Qaeda “maintains a presence in Afghanistan” and “aspire[s] to attack us in our own land.”
SASC Hearing at 91; see Husayn, 2022 WL 2093067, at *5 (citing Gen. McKenzie’s
testimony). The Government also submitted a redacted declaration from then—Major
General Dagvin R.M. Anderson, then the vice director for operations for the Office of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who explained that “U.S. Armed Forces remain
engaged in active hostilities with Al-Qaeda and associated forces in a number of different
theaters and countries.” Anderson Decl. [Dkt. #1198-2] 9 7; see Gul, 2021 WL 5206199,
at *4 (citing Anderson declaration). Indeed, days before the Government filed its
opposition brief in October 2021, U.S. troops conducted an airstrike that killed a senior al
Qaeda leader in Syria. Statement, U.S. Cent. Command, US. Strike in the Vicinity of
Suluk, Syria (Oct. 22, 2021) [Dkt. #1198-6]. Thus, notwithstanding President Biden’s
April 2021 call to end the war, see Remarks on United States Military Operations in
Afghanistan, 2021 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. 313 (Apr. 14, 2021), the political branches have

not yet decided it’s at an end.
Because “the ‘relevant conflict’ has not ended[, t]he Government’s authority to
detain [Qassim] pursuant to the AUMF has not terminated.” A/-Alwi, 901 F.3d at 300
(quoting Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 521). And because the Government still has authority to
detain Qassim, it is hereby

ORDERED that Qassim’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #1197] is
DENIED.

SO ORDERED. ’

RICHARD J. LE
United States District Judge