Mahmoad Abdah et al., Petitioners, v. Barack H. Obama et al., Respondents

Court	United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
Case number	Civil Action No. 04-1254
Decision title	Memorandum Opinion
Decision date	21 July 2010
Parties	Mahmoad Abdah et al. Barack H. Obama et al.
Categories	Terrorism
Keywords	Guantanamo Bay, Habeas corpus, jurisdiction, Terrorism
Links	Memorandum Opinion
Other countries involved	Pakistan Yemen

Summary

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the men filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

After partially rejecting a motion to dismiss submitted by the Government of the United States, the District Court stayed the proceedings in order to give the possibility to the Petitioners to appeal the decision. In the meantime, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction (which is a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts), requiring the US Government to provide a 30 days’ notice of any intention to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba). The District Court granted the motion.

In the present decision of 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful. The case is the first time that the standard laid out in Bensayah v. Obama et al. has been applied concerning the requirement for the government to demonstrate evidence that an enemy combatant is “part of” a terrorist organisation.

Procedural history

On 27 July 2004, the Petitioners of the present case filed a writ of habeas corpus, in order to obtain a judicial determination on the legality of their detention, arguing that the US Government had no justification for their confinement.

Pursuant to the Petitioners filing, the US Government filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear their claims because all of the detainees were non-US nationals, and were being held outside the territory of the United States.

On 31 January 2005, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion, finding that the Petitioners have a right to due process stemming from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 463, 31 January 2005.

In order to grant the Petitioners the right to appeal the decision of 31 January 2005, the District Court, on 3 February 2005, ordered the stay of proceedings pending the resolution of the Petitioners’ appeal. See also In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, No. 04-12544 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2005).

In light of the stay of proceedings, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction requiring the Government to provide the Petitioners’ counsel with 30 days’ notice if it intends to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The District Court granted the motion on 29 March 2005.

Related developments

On 14 October 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the District Court’s decision of 21 July 2010 with respect to the release of Latif. As a result, Latif remained in captivity at the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

On 11 June 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal from Latif. See also A. Liptak, 'Justices Reject Detainees’ Appeal, Leaving Cloud Over Earlier Guantánamo Ruling', The New York Times, 11 June 2012; and B. Mears, 'Supreme Court Declines Fresh Review of Guantanamo Detainee Issue', CNN, 11 June 2012.

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif died at the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba on 8 September 2012.

See also C. Savage, 'Military Identifies Guantánamo Detainee Who Died', The New York Times, 11 September 2012; and United States Southern Command Public Affairs, Press Release, 'NEWS RELEASE: Joint Task Force Guantanamo Releases Deceased Detainee’s Identity', 11 September 2012.

Legally relevant facts

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, also known as Allal Ab Aljallil Abd al Rahman, is a Yemeni national who was arrested in Pakistan, together with twelve other Yemeni nationals. They were all arrested by the Pakistani authorities as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nations in 2001 and 2002. The men contended that they travelled to Pakistan for religious, medical and employment reasons. The Pakistani police transferred them to the United States military, which transferred them to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002, where they were held as enemy combatants (p. 5).

The Detainees petitioned for writs of habeas corpus on 27 July 2004, seeking a judicial determination on the legality of their detention and arguing that there is no justification for their arrest, transportation and continued incarceration (p. 5-6) .

On 29 March 2005, the District Court ruled in favour of Latif and his co-plaintiffs in granting a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Opinion ruled that the US must givedetainees lawyers 30 days’ notice before transferring a detainee from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba to the custody of foreign governments in order to allow the transfer to be challenged.

Core legal questions

Is the detention of Latif lawful?
Did the Government provide sufficient evidence to prove that Latif is part of a terrorist organization?

Specific legal rules and provisions

Paragraph 2(a) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Court's holding and analysis

The US District Court for Columbia granted the habeas corpus petition and ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence.

The District Court examined the main piece of evidence against Latif, which was an intelligence report, drafted after his capture, stating that Latif incriminated himself. The central issue before the District Court was whether this report presented sufficient evidence not to release Latif. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the report was unreliable and therefore, held that “[t]he document contains information that … would support a conclusion that Laif’s detention is lawful, and the Court does not take its contents lightly. But the Court cannot credit that information because there is serious question as to whether … [the document] accurately reflects … the incriminating facts … [which] are not corroborated, and Latif has presented a plausible alternative story to explain his travel” (pp. 25-26).

Accordingly, “[b]ecause [the] respondents have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Latif was part of Al Qaeda or an associated force, the Court concludes that his detention is not lawful … [and] his petition must be granted” (p. 28).

The case is the first time that the standard laid out in Bensayah v. Obama et al. has been applied concerning the requirement for the government to demonstrate evidence that an enemy combatant is “part of” a terrorist organisation.

Instruments cited

United States Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001).

Related cases

Supreme Court of the United States, Rasul et al v. Bush et al., No. 03-334 (joined with no. 03-343), Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, 28 June 2004;
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Mahmoad Abdah et al. v. Bush et al., Civil Action No. 04-1254, Memorandum Opinion, 29 March 2005;
Supreme Court of the United States, Boumediene et al. v. Bush et al.,Civil Actions Nos. 06-1195 and 06-1196, 12 June 2008;
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Gherebi et al. v. Obama et al., Civil Action Nos. 04-1164 (RBW), 05-879(RBW), 05-883(RBW), 05-891(RBW), 05-999(RBW), 05-1493(RBW), 05-1667(RBW), 05-1697(RBW), 05-2104(RBW), 05-2386(RBW), 06-1675(RBW), 06-1690(RBW), 07-1710(RBW) and 08-2019(RBW), 22 April 2009;
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Hamlily et al v. Obama et al., Civil Action Nos. 05-0763 (JDB), 05-1646 (JDB), 05-2378 (JDB), 08-0987 (JDB), 08-1101 (JDB) and 08-1236 (JDB), 19 May 2009;
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Al-Bihani v. Obama et al., No. 09-5051, 5 January 2010;
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Barhoumi v. Obama et al., No. 09-5383, 11 June 2010;
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Al Odah et al. v. United States et al., No. 09-5331, 30 June 2010;
US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, Bensayah v. Obama et al., No. 08-5537, 28 June 2010;
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Latif et al. v. Obama et al., Case No. 10-5319, Appeals Judgment, 14 October 2011.