Abdah v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided June 10, 2010·No. Civil Action No. 2004-1254·Published

Opinion

UNCLASSIFIEOIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE FILED WITH THE c~g~~;.ITY OFFICER DATE: ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAHMOAD ABDAH, et al.,

Petitioners,

v. Civil Action No. 04-1254 (HHK)

BARACK H. OBAMA, et ai,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mohamed Mohamed Hassan Odaini (ISN 681), a Yemeni citizen, was seized by Pakistani

authorities on March 28, 2002 and has been held by the United States at the naval base detention

facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since June 2002. Odaini has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus contending that he is unlawfully detained. Respondents in this case, President

Barack H. Obama and other high-level officials in the United States Government, argue that

Odaini is lawfully detained and therefore should remain in U.S. custody. The parties filed cross-

motions for judgment on the record and appeared before the Court for a hearing on the merits of

Odaini's petition on May 10 and 11,2010. Upon consideration of the motions and the evidence

presented at the merits hearing, the Court concludes that respondents have failed to demonstrate

that the detention of Odaini is lawful. Therefore, Odaini's petition shall be granted.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Scope of the Government's Detention Authority

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF"), Pub. L. No. 101-40, 115 Stat.

224 (2001 ), authorizes the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those

nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the

UNCLASSIFIEOIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

SECRET

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." Pub. L. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. at 224. The U.S. Supreme

Court has held that the District Court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction over petitions

for writs of habeas corpus brought by detainees held at Guantanamo Bay pursuant to the AUMF.

See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, - , 128 S. Ct. 2229, 2274 (2008); Rasul v. Bush. 542

U.S. 466, 483-84 (2004). The Supreme Court has provided "scant guidance," however, as to

whom respondents may lawfully detain under the statute. AI-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866,

870 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (noting that the Supreme Court has "consciously le[ft] the contours of the

substantive and procedural law of detention open for lower courts to shape in a common law

fashion" (citing Hamdi v. Rums/eld, 542 U.S. 507, 522 n.l (2004) (plurality opinion of

O'Connor, J.); Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2276».

In the absence of controlling law governing the question of by what standard to evaluate

the lawfulness of the detention of the individuals held at Guantanamo Bay, the Court shall rely

on the reasoning of other Judges of this Court who have thoroughly and thoughtfully addressed

this issue. Accordingly, consistent with Judge Bates's ruling in Hamlily v. Obama, 616 F. Supp.

2d 63 (D.D.C. 2009), the government may detain "those who are 'part of the 'Taliban or al

Qaida forces.'" Id. at 69-70. 1 As Judge Walton ruled in Gherebi v. Obama, 609 F. Supp. 2d 43

(D.D.C. 2009), such membership requires that the person in question "have some sort of

'structured' role in the 'hierarchy' of the enemy force." Jd. at 68.

"It is not in dispute that Al Qaeda is the organization responsible for September 11," AI-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 873, and is therefore among the entities to which the AUMF refers.

2 SECRET

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

B. Burden of Proof

As stated in the Amended Case Management Order that governs this case, "[t]he

government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner's

detention is lawful." In re Guantanamo Bay Litig., Misc. No. 08-442, CMO § II.A (Nov. 6,

2008). Accordingly, Odaini need not prove that he is unlawfully detained; rather, respondents

must produce "evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved," that Odaini

was part of Al Qaeda, "is more probable than not." United States v. Mathis, 216 F.3d 18,28

(D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Montague, 40 F.3d 1251, 1255 & n.2 (D.C. Cir.

1994»; see also AI-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 878 (rejecting Guantanamo Bay detainee's argument that

application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in his habeas case was

unconstitutional). If respondents do not meet this burden, the Court must grant Odaini's petition

and order his release.

c. EVidentiary Issues

The Court notes at the outset two issues regarding the evidence in this case.

First, as explained in an order entered in this case on August 26,2009 [#606], the Court

has permitted the admission of hearsay evidence but considers at this merits stage the accuracy,

reliability, and credibility of all of the evidence presented to support the parties' arguments. This

approach is consistent with a directive from the D.C. Circuit. See Al Bihani, 590 F.3d at 879

("[llhe question a habeas court must ask when presented with hearsay is not whether it is

admissible-it is always admissible-but what probative weight to ascribe to whatever indicia of

reliability it exhibits."), The Court's assessment of the weight properly accorded to particular

pieces of evidence appears throughout this memorandum opinion.

3 SEGRin

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

SECKEl

Second, the nature of the evidence before the Court is atypical of evidence usually

presented in federal actions. Respondents have offered a variety of types of documents produced

and used by government intelligence agencies that are not the direct statements of the individuals

whose personal knowledge they reflect. The evidence in this case includes Form 40s ("FM40s"),

Intelligence Information Reports ("IIRs"), Summary Interrogation Reports ("SIRs"),

Memorandum for Records ("MFRs"), Field Documents ("FD-302s"

FM40s are records of investigation activities, here witness interviews,

conducted by the Criminal Investigation Task Force, a federal law enforcement agency. IIRs are

Department of Defense documents for recording human intelligence. 2 SIRs

An SIR differs from

an IIR, which might contain the same substantive information, because an S I R _

MFRs are similar to SIRs.

FD-302s are forms completed by FBI agents summarizing interviews.

Joint Exhibit

("JE") 32 at 7 (declaration of a Defense Intelligence Agency employee describing, inter alia,

types of intelligence reports). Neither party called any live witnesses.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Evidence Before the Court Overwhelmingly Supports Odaini's Contention that He is Unlawfully Detained.

The Court begins by summarizing the evidence in the record directly related to Odaini's

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Abdah v. Bush, (D.D.C. 2010).

Abdah v. Bush (Abdah v. Bush) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rasul v. Bush
542 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
542 U.S. 507 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Mathis, Eddie J.
216 F.3d 18 (D.C. Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Vernon A. Montague
40 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)
Hamlily v. Obama
616 F. Supp. 2d 63 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Gherebi v. Obama
609 F. Supp. 2d 43 (District of Columbia, 2009)