Al Odah v. USA

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided February 13, 2009·No. Civil Action No. 2002-0828·Published

Opinion

|\|0.239 P. 1 THE

men wm

cou am cu craven mn-

UN!TED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TBE DISTRICI' OF COLUMBIA

FAWZI ICHAI.JD ABDUI..LAH FAHAH AL ODAH, lt al.

Petltionm's, v. Civil. Action No. 02-828

UNITED STATBS. ct aI.. Respondentl.

\J\.J\JS.I\_/é\/\./\/\J\_/\JLI

ORDER (Feb¢\=ll'y 12. 2009)

T}:m Coutt hzldaclosed-¢esaion S'co!mI-Iea.rin¢inthz above-cnptionzdea.seon Februaxy 11, 2009. Forthereasons stated onthoreoo:d, i'tiz,d:is 12th day o£February, 2009, hereby annum mn on umw 12, zoos, r¢namm mn me » un arm irm- !mw¢=ia¢nun¢dmm¢zrm»uonf¢»r¢¢m¢norc¢mpx¢uo¢¢zuus¢armm Rsnnnsor.\dequlte substitutes (whethu identi£.edo."highprlority"orotherspoci.§cully idcnti.ded items) thnthave notbeen deoluliiedbythe Govunment; his further ORDEREDthaxonorbeforcFebm'u.ny 18,2009,Rolpcndenbshl1llubmitan Opposiiion w Petiticnm' Motion for Prodnmion of Complete Deo`lossi£ed Faetual Rzturnl or Adequate$ubstituteltlzntoontainsalegal an¢lyaissuppou'tin¢tlnc(iovemnmmx’¢ deci:ionnotto

P»dwm m¢ynn¢n¢pw¢n¢rv¢w inmuyzs,zoos;nnnmun onnmnnzhnreuuonmmxupmdm¢vmconmuwwnem¢rmaom'

REQA:§'EE@

oounsolmn.ymeetwitlzths atthel-'BlorDeparunentofDefonlowhom deoid.ingwhotherornotwd.eclnsxifythzitomx ofinfonnnn`onidoori£edin?otitionma’ Motlonln aned’orttorosolvetho p¢rtios' remaim'n¢diaputcs. On_or before Fnbrun'y 27, 2009, whnther or notmohamoeringhaaoocuned,'chepazdeoa!nlliileo..loint$tanul?.sponliztingthoimns. {dmti£ed inl’etidonetl’ Motion for Production of Complete Declasli§ed Facmll Returns or Adcquno Sub¢tlunzsthztrunainindisputo,mdpropouafmthcrbrie§nglchedule,if nooosnry;itisi`urthor

ORDERED thzt"axculpatoryovidence”isde£n¢duallmuonably ¢vailableevidznoe inth»®vunmmt’spouudonmmy¢vidmw‘dmmndlwma!zddlymdumimthowidmce thattheGovocnmanti.ntondltotolyoninitloaae»in-chie£ in.cludinganyevidenooorinformatlon thatundercuuthzreliabiliw md/occrodibility ofthz Govexnmenr‘sevidoncc (i.¢., suchns ¢videnoetbatoa.\tsdoubt onupeakor'credibility, ovidooce th.aiundecm.inesthe xelicbilityofn wiwu¢'aidendicadonofonzmmore?eddonm,orwid:nndmindioaws¢nnommtk unmliable'becauseitiotb:productofabuu,tortm'o, ormentllorplq'li¢al inoapnoity)iifi! further

ORDEREDthatRespondenta shalldisclouw Pe&tionm’ counul, pmsuantto sections I.D.I, I.E.I,mdI.E.Zoftbo Cuehhnngementmder,uamondod,alllvmemonts,inwhntevor farm (i:noludin¢ audio orvidzo), whethormnnulxtive or oot,thxthsve not pzoviouslyboon as»wwd.md¢vyv¢aaon¢r¢»nh¢¢¢namid¢nus¢au_

atingtochemrementsanribmodwthominthcFlotualRenmns.‘

kupondmmmnmdimwulmqnpmrymsommmrmmmrgovioulybem di»oloaodoonoerningtheseindividuals. Ifnosuchdocumenfsel¢ilt.llelpond¢ntsshallso reprelmttotho€ounmd?etitionm'oo\ouel,inwriting;itisfcxnher ORDEREDthatR:¢pondents sh¢lldisclo¢eto?e\itiomm’ oounsel,pxxrsuantw$ection' L£lofd:z€aummgmnemmdor,u¢mmdod,whethudaemmuof?eddonmordm demimuwhoueidmdiedm&opncedingpnag‘aphappmonahnof&mnvnmodamimcs whoieinnerviewn/inboxrogulionxwexoeithzrvideotopcdormdiotaped. Ifthcnam:ofmyof th»ubdividuahappeusmthMlin,Resp¢mdemshaHdthndildouth»vidaoupesm mdionpelw?eddonm‘eouuohmifmchwpummnvadabl¢.h$?°nd¢nv¢hmgplain whyth¢ymunavaila.ble. Ifnonz oftb»forogoing individuals :ppea:ontha:lint, Rosponduns shallloreprosenttotheCourtandPctitionors’counsel,inwziting;itisfurthot ORDEREDthl!ReIpoQdm!s lhalldhclosetol’edtionetl’ ¢:o\msel, pursuantto Seotions I.D.l m¢ILE.Z ofthoCaseManagernmtwdec,unmmded,thophotogmph collectionsor individudpwwpaph»nfumoedinthe?utudkmumtbnwmuqedbyinmnognonwhave detaineezi¢lmti.fy Fctitlonsra. I.fthopho\o¢raph¢olloctionsorindividual photographs m- unavailable,k:¢pondenuahausorepmesonrtothe€ommd?etidonm’counsel.inwridng,and nhallincludeanexplanntionutowhythcyazeunavailnhle;itisfmther l ClRbEREbthnRzspondenrsnha.lldisclosetoPeiitionarn‘ co\msol. pmtumto Soction¢

I.D.l mdI.B'.Z oftho CuoMmagmem Ozd:r, as amondod, thetelephone book ¢llegedlyfound

'Thetmn“?aon;dketum”referswkupondmu'facmdnmaxivemdthemohmmt: suppottingthzhctualonrative.

A on Petitioner Al_Kaodarl'l pereon, provided the telephone book is in the custody ofth.e Unlted

Sntes Government. Ifthe Unitecl states Govmnnent does not have possession of t.’ne telephone book.ke`lpondentslh.olllorepteeenttothe€omtlnd?etitloners' ootmsel,inwriting;itls wm . ORDEREDthatRecpon¢ientsshaIIdisoIoeetoPetitloner:' oounsel,pcu'sumcw sections 1.1).1,1.2.1,¢»¢11.£.2 ¢rm¢cu¢mmqm¢n:o¢d¢,um¢na¢a,zh¢r¢¢ulu of=np¢lypq,h andvoicemeuvenswnductedonPeddonerAlRebiahthnuemferoneedintheFmumRetmn, to theextenttheresults ofthose tests ueexeulpntory (whleh ineludelanyineonolusive End.inge`). lt`the United states Gove:nment doesnotbavethezesults ofpolygra.phor voice stresstests ocmductedonPetitionerAlRebiAh, Recpond:ntsnhnllsorepreaenttothe€ou:tend?etitioners’ eoun»a,mwnun¢; immune ORDEREDthAPeEGonmshMIpmvideRupondmHWithMiduxdiS'ingInfNmuion

After reeeivingthis informm'on, Relpomdent: shall disclose the reponto Pethioners’ eounsel, provided it is exeulpn:ory as n.l.legedby Pe'dtlonets' 'wlmsel, pursuant to sections I.D.l and I.E.Z oftheCeaeMme¢ementOrder,asmen:Ied. lfthereportcannotbeloontedorisnot exeulpatoty,Re¢pondents shall eo repmentto the Courtmd?etitionen' oounsel, inwrlting; itis further ORDERED that Respondents shall disclose to Pet:ltionen‘ eo\ml¢l, pursuant to sections I.D.l end I.E.Z of the Cue Mnnagen:ent Order, o amended, the letter allegedly mentioning P¢aeowmxmdai~»mm¢rhnwudtm»mdinrh¢wmrogniomor_ _mar¢r¢rm¢¢lmm¢r=wmn n¢uuu.pmwd¢amnm»p¢ndmmwnawmy

eneneumee;e£neeeeeneeneezem¢memmmyfuw¢emmbeiene¢eemenu nem'ep. rfneepeedeeoaeeeeieceea:eeexyeemueueee-memeeueeeeemmg meleuer,neepeeaeeeeeheueeeepeeeeezwmeceuneesremieee¢e' ee»meel.ieweiun¢;ieie further ORDERED tha.tRespondents shall disclose to Petitlone:rs' co\ms¢l. pursuant to Section 132er¢hecuemseegemeezomee.eemeeaemheinfeemeseeneepeeaeeuamemweeiyee wmyf»w=m=dvw=d==sorwvh=-=ine=on=mi=¢v$=_ Whlchisrefereneedinthe¥l.ctual R.ettlrus,provldedthatkespondentsintendto lrguethata relationship withthst orgsnizationtends to support Petitione:s' detentions as enemy eombstsnts. I£Respondents do not intensive relyonPetitioners’ relationship with thatorganizationto support Petitioners' detentions, R.espondents shall so repsesentto the Cou.'rt and Petitioners' oounsel, in welae¢;i¢seamvee cannon wet Reepeeaem even a'ieeleee re Peuueeen' eeueee1, per-um ce seeueee

I.D.l sndI.E..Z ofths Csae Managemen: Ox'der, ss smended, aeopyofthe original document refereeeedincvereermnecmeeubeie¢feuedienepeeee¢aeeerpehd'UmrAbau-Meim eJ-sheeif, am le ensued _ p.eepeeaeeee even nee aieeleee new longsl-Sha:ifwuineustodystthetimethisletterwssobtainedfx~omhim, sswellaswhenthe doeumentwuobvinedi'omhlm,pmvidsdthstsuohinfozmadonisndeetedinone ormose documents already in the possession of the United States Govemmt. Ifsuch information is not encompassed within one os' more documents already in the possession of the United Ststes Gevemmen¢, Reepeeaeeu sheneerepeeeeezzechecemeedrenaeeeee' eeuneel, inweieeg, n isfl\tther

ORDERED that Rslpondents shall disclose to Petitionet¢’ ¢ouneel. purlua.nt to Sec’dons I.D.l, I.E.l, md I.E.Z ofthe Case Menngement Ordet, ll lmended, tho surrounding Petitioner Al Rabinh'¢ statements mode during his interrogations on june 19, 2003. ma hay 17, zoos, which mo include newman of_ma _ m conn mo n»\a-m-¢b¢y.n¢¢ mahoney »qum for dependent am Rnbilh’s inten'ogntors; it is further

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

Al Odah v. USA, (D.D.C. 2009).

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

Related

Northwest Hay Association v. Chase
239 P. 1 (Washington Supreme Court, 1925)