Khalifh v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided June 14, 2010·No. Civil Action No. 2005-1189·Published

Opinion

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

FILELJ v';. ,'" rt1~

COURT,,~ECURp'YOFFICER

CSO:VJ-..m ..,.­

DATE: ~!\J

UN~TED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OMAR MOHAMMED KHALIFH

Petitioner, , Civil Action No. 05-CV-1189 v.

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Omar Mohammed Khalifh (ISN 695), a Libyan national, 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. Petitioner has filed a traverse and an amended traverse, and the government has moved for jUdgment on the record. For the reasons that

follow{ the government's motion will be granted{ and the

1

petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

Background

Khalifh lost his right leg below the knee in 1998 or 1999 and received a prosthetic limb in mid-2001 from the International Committee for the Red Cross Kabul Orthopaedic Centre. J.E. 13. He was captured by Pakistani forces in

I Petitioner's counsel Cary Silverman and Edmund Burke have represented their client zealously and well, providing indepsensible service not only to their client, but also to the court. pro bono publico. in the highest tradition of the bar. Mr. Burke, in particular, traveled all the way from his home in Hawaii to GTMO and back many times. My thanks to both of them.

1

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

----------------------------------- -'

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Jalalabad, Pakistan, in March 2002 and subsequently transferred to u.s. custody. He filed this petition in 2005, but his case, like all other habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo Bay, was put on hold until the Supreme Court decided that Guantanamo detainees have a right to habeas proceedings and that this court has jurisdiction to hear them. Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008). With Judge Hogan's omnibus Case Management Order as a guide, I held a merits hearing on April 19 and 20, 2010. Although he was given the option to do so, Khalifh did not testify or listen to the proceedings remotely. I announced my decision from the bench following the hearing, and now issue this opinion to make a full record of my reasoning.

I. Legal Standards

The government's authority to detain Khalifh, if any, derives from the Authorization for use of Military Force ("AUMFU), Pub. L. 107-04, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). The court of appeals has held that the President's authority pursuant to the AUMF at least includes, but is not necessarily limited to, detention of "those who are part of forces associated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban or those who purposefully and materially support such forces in hostilities against U.S. Coalition partners. u AI-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The government

2

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

contends that Khalifh was a part of al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces, justifying his detention. The government had the burden of proving the lawfulness of the detention by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., Misc. No. 08-442, CMO § II (A); Awad, 646 F. Supp. 2d at 23-24; see also Al-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 878 (upholding the constitutionality of the preponderance standard) . A. "'Part of"

The test now applied by most jUdges of this court for determining who is or was ~part of" al-Qaida was first articulated by Judge Bates: "whether the individual functions or participates within or under the command structure of the organization - i.e., whether he receives and executes orders or directions." Hamlily v. Obama, 616 F. Supp. 2d 63, 75 (D.D.C. 2009); see also Awad v. Obama, 646 F. Supp. 2d 20, 23 (D.D.C. 2009) (appeal pending). A detainee may fit within or under al-Qaida's ~command

structure" even if he never actually fights for al-Qaida. AI-Sihani, 590 F.3d at 872. Detention is lawful under the ~part of" prong if the detainee has received and executed al-Qaida's orders, even if he has only been a cook in an al-Qaida camp. Id.; accord Gherebi v. Obama, 609 F. Bupp. 2d 43, 69, n. 19 (D.D.C. 2009).'

3

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

----,- -----,

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

B. Temporal Issue Khalifh does not concede that he was ever a member of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces, see J.E. 13; but he argues in the alternative that even if I find that he was once a member of a detainable organization, his membership had lapsed by the time of his capture. The government must show that detention was lawful at the time of capture. See Salahi v. Obama, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS '35360, at *8-9 (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 2010) (appeal pending); Gherebi, 609 F. Supp. 2d. at 71. The government need not show an affirmative act after 9/11, but to justify detention it must show that the petitioner was a part of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or related forces at the time of his capture. See Salahi, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35360, at *9­ 10. A petitioner who may once have been part of al-Qaida or the Taliban can show that he was no longer part of such an entity at the time of capture by showing that he took affirmative actions to abandon his membership. See, e.g., Al Ginco v. ·Obama, 626 F. Supp. 2d 123, 128-30 (D.D.C. 2009); Hatim v. Obama, 2009 WL 5191429, at *10, 12 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 2009). In Salahi, I held that a petitioner could also show lapse of membership even without an affirmative act of severance, if the evidence that the membership had

4

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

lapsed is "credible and significant." Salahi, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35360, at *10-11. That proposition, however (from which an appeal is pending) rests on unusual facts: in Salahi's case there was a gap of nearly a decade between his activity in al-Qaida and his subsequent capture. Id. at *15-35. C. Hearsay Hearsay, along with other evidence normally excluded by the Federal Rules of Evidence, is admissible in these proceedings. See AI-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 879-81. All proffered evidence has been admitted and given the weight it deserves. See Awad, 646 F. Supp. 2d at 23. D. Coerced Statements Khalifh alleges that he was mistreated during detention between "late 2004" and "early 2005," see J.E. 13 addendum, so he argues that the court should disregard his statements during interrogation from that period. Specifically, Khalifh alleges that during that period he suffered painful glaucoma that was not sufficiently treated, was kept in an extremely cold' cell that caused pain in the metal

and was denied use of his pros·thetic leg. The government denies mistreating Khalifh. Proof of mistreatment can

5

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

taint a petitioner's statements, raising questions about their reliability. See,~, Mohammed v. Obama, 2009 WL 4884194, * 24-27 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2009); Al Rabiah v. United States, 2009 WL 3083077, *21 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2009) (citing U.S. v. Karake, 443 F. Supp. 2d 8, 87-88 (D.D.C. 2006)). Here, I need not resolve whether Khalifh was mistreated from late 2004 to early 2005 (which I will refer to as the "window of alleged mistreatment" or the "window period"), because, as I shall discuss, none of the statements from the window period are necessary for the government· to prove its case in toto. Where window-period statements are the sole or principal evidence supporting a particular government assertion, I find them unconvincing for reasons independent of the alleged mistreatment.

II. The Evidence

A. 1992-1996: Libya and Sudan The details of Khalifh's time in Libya and Sudan are largely undisputed. While living in Libya, his native country, Khalifh affiliated himself in 1992 at the age of 20 with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ("LIFG"). J.E. 95. He remained active with the LIFG in Libya for three years. Id. The LIFG was an organization opposed to Libyan dictator Mummar al-Qaddafi, which slowly split into a faction that supported international terrorist networks and

6

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

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

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

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

Related

Boumediene v. Bush
553 U.S. 723 (Supreme Court, 2008)
Al Ginco v. Obama
626 F. Supp. 2d 123 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Mohammed v. Obama
704 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Hatim v. Obama
677 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Awad v. Obama
646 F. Supp. 2d 20 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Hamlily v. Obama
616 F. Supp. 2d 63 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Salahi v. Obama
710 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 2010)
United States v. Karake
443 F. Supp. 2d 8 (District of Columbia, 2006)