Awad v. Obama

646 F. Supp. 2d 20, 2009 WL 2568212
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedAugust 12, 2009
DocketCivil Action 05-CV-2379
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 646 F. Supp. 2d 20 (Awad v. Obama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Awad v. Obama, 646 F. Supp. 2d 20, 2009 WL 2568212 (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

JAMES ROBERSTON, District Judge.

Adham Mohammed Al Awad, a citizen of [b(1)’b(6) redacted] alleges that he is illegally detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release. The parties have cross-moved for judgment on the record. The government’s motion will be granted.

I. Background

Awad has been in U.S. custody since his capture in Afghanistan on [b(2) redacted]. He filed his petition four years ago, but that petition and hundreds like it were put on hold until various legal issues, including the jurisdiction of this Court, were resolved. After .the Supreme Court held that detainees like Awad have a right to *22 bring habeas petitions and that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear them, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), and after Judge Hogan issued his omnibus Case Management Order that has guided the Guantanamo habeas cases’ procedures, this case moved on to the merits.

The government filed a factual return asserting the grounds on which Awad is detained — the claim is that he is an al Qaida fighter' — and the evidence supporting that claim. Awad then made several requests for discovery. I denied some of those requests outright and denied others without prejudice to their later renewal with the kind of specificity required of motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). Awad submitted his traverse without renewing his discovery requests. Both sides then moved for judgment on the record and a hearing on those cross-motions was held on July 31, 2008.

The government’s core narrative is that Awad volunteered or was recruited for Jihad soon after September 11, 2001 and traveled from his home in [b(1)’ b<6) redacted] to Afghanistan; that he trained at the Al Qaida “Tarnak Farms” camp outside Kandahar; that Awad and a group of other Al Qaida fighters were injured in a U.S. air strike at or near the airport in Kandahar and went to Mirwais Hospital for treatment; that these men then barricaded themselves in a section of the hospital; that U.S. and associated forces laid siege to the hospital; that Awad’s comrades gave him up because they could not care for his severely injured [bC1) redacted] and that, after Awad’s capture, his al Qaida comrades fought to the death.

The government offers five groups of evidence in support of their narrative: (1) Intelligence reports of Awad’s statements to interrogators; (2) statements of a former Guantanamo detainee named [b(1)’ b(6) redacted] who was inside Mirwais Hospital during the siege and who gave a list of names and descriptions of the Al Qaida fighters, including a man with an [b(1) redacted] who went by the name [b(1)’ b(6) redacted] [b(1)’ b(6) redacted] — a kunya allegedly associated with Awad 1 ; (3) [b(1)’b(6) redacted]; (4) a list found at Tarnak Farms bearing the name [b(1)> b(6) redacted] and several of the names that also appear [redacted] on [b(1)i b(6) redacted] list of names; and (5) newspaper articles published in American newspapers about the siege at Mirwais Hospital.

Petitioner’s story is that he traveled to Afghanistan in mid-September 2001 in order to visit another Muslim country for a few months, intending to return home after his visit; that in early November 2001 he was injured and knocked unconscious during an air raid while walking through a market in Kandahar; that he woke up in Mirwais Hospital after part of his [b(1) redacted]; that he was heavily medicated, floated in and out of consciousness, slept constantly, and could barely sit up; and that he remained in this condition until his capture.

Awad’s case relies mostly on weaknesses and holes in the government’s evidence, but, in support of his narrative, he submits an unsigned affidavit, a declaration from his counsel, and different intelligence reports of different statements made to interrogators.

*23 II. Legal Standards

The President is authorized 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 of Military Force, Pub. L. 107-04,115 Stat. 224 (2001).

A.Substantial Support

The government’s position is that:

[t]he President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.

Respondent’s Revised Memorandum Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority Relative to Detainees Held at Guantanamo Bay at p. 3 (emphasis added).

In a thoughtful decision that has been followed by many if not most of the judges of this court, Hamlily v. Obama, 616 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.D.C.2009), Judge Bates wrote that the “key inquiry” when analyzing the “part of ... al Qaeda” test is “whether the individual functions or participates within or under the command structure of the organization — ie. whether he receives and executes orders or directions.” Hamlily, 616 F.Supp.2d at 75 (internal citations omitted). I have adopted Judge Bates’ approach.

B. Hearsay, Authenticity, Chain of Custody

The government’s case relies on “raw” intelligence data, multiple levels of hearsay, and documents whose authenticity cannot be proven (and whose provenance is not known and perhaps not knowable). Awad argues that such evidence should excluded because the government has not made individualized showings that “the hearsay evidence is reliable and that the provision of nonhearsay evidence would unduly burden the movant or interfere with the government’s efforts to protect national security.” CMO 11(A). The government responds generally (not with individualized showings) that its intelligence documents are reliable because they were created during the intelligence gathering process and explains generally why the presentation of non-hearsay evidence would be a burden. The government urges that documents and reports generated for intelligence purposes should be accorded a presumption of reliability and credibility.

The suggestion of a presumption of reliability and credibility goes too far because it would seem to place the burden of rebuttal on the petitioner.

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

Related

Hedges v. Obama
724 F.3d 170 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Kadi v. Geithner
42 F. Supp. 3d 1 (District of Columbia, 2012)
Al Odah v. USA
District of Columbia, 2010
Al Kandari v. United States
744 F. Supp. 2d 11 (District of Columbia, 2010)
Khalifh v. Bush
District of Columbia, 2010
Barhoumi v. Obama
609 F.3d 416 (D.C. Circuit, 2010)
Adham Awad v. Barack Obama
608 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit, 2010)
Salahi v. Obama
710 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 2010)
Salahi v. Bush
District of Columbia, 2010
Al-Adahi v. Obama
698 F. Supp. 2d 48 (District of Columbia, 2010)
Al-Adahi v. Bush
District of Columbia, 2010
Anam v. Bush
District of Columbia, 2010
Hatim v. Bush
District of Columbia, 2010
Hatim v. Obama
677 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Al Rabiah v. United States
658 F. Supp. 2d 11 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Anam v. Obama
653 F. Supp. 2d 62 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Al Odah v. United States
648 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
646 F. Supp. 2d 20, 2009 WL 2568212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/awad-v-obama-dcd-2009.