The Washington Independent » habeas corpus

Obama wants FDIC Board leadership position to go to Federal Reserve heavyweight

admin — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:29:56 +0000

The White House announced Friday that it will nominate Thomas M. Hoenig, a native of Fort Madison, to the position of vice-chairman of the board of directors for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Tom Hoenig

Hoenig, the son of a local plumber and a graduate of St. Benedict’s College (now Benedictine College) in Kansas and Iowa State University, began serving on Oct. 1, 1991 as a chief executive of the Tenth District Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City, Kan. He had begun serving as an economist in the banking supervision area for the Kansas City Fed in 1973. This past March he announced his plan to retire from the board on Oct. 1, as required under the Federal Reserve Board’s rules for presidents.

He is a trustee of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and serves on the boards of Midwest Research Institute and Union Station.

Hoenig was called by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul in July to provide testimony before the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee, which Paul leads. The hearing, “Impact of Monetary Policy on the Economy: A Regional Fed Perspective on Inflation, Unemployment and QE3,” was called to provide oversight of liquidity operations undertaken by the Federal Reserve and also to explore price stability and employment.

As a member of the banking supervision area during the banking and farm crisis of the 1980s, Hoenig relied on his past experiences while explaining the role of the Federal Reserve and his support of cuts to the federal funds rate as well as other liquidity actions taken in response to the crisis.

“However, though I would support a generally accommodative monetary policy today, I have raised questions regarding the advisability of keeping the emergency monetary policy in place for 32 months with the promise of keeping it there for an extended period,” Hoenig told the subcommittee.

“I have several concerns with zero rates. First, a guarantee of zero rates affects the allocation of resources. It is generally accepted that no good, service or transaction trades efficiently at the price of zero. Credit is no exception. Rather, a zero-rate policy increases the risk of misallocating real resources, creating a new set of imbalances of possibly a new set of bubbles.”

During the farm and banking crisis, he was involved in the closing of more than 300 regional and community banks.

“Farms were lost, communities were devastated, and thousands of jobs were lost in the energy and real estate sectors,” he noted. “I am confident that the highly accommodative monetary policy of the decade of the ’70s contributed to this crisis.”

In addition to his objections to immediate zero rates, Hoenig believes unemployment is soaring at this time at least in part because interest rates were held artificially low during the early 2000s.

“In 2003, unemployment at 6.5 percent was thought to be too high,” he said. “The federal funds rate was continuously lowered to a level of 1 percent in an effort to avoid deflation and to lower unemployment. The policy worked in the short term.

“The full effect, however, was that the U.S. experienced a credit boom with consumers increasing their debt from 80 percent of disposable income to 125 percent. Banks increased their leverage ratios — assets to equity capital — from 15-to-1 to 30-to-1. This very active credit environment persisted over time and contributed to the bubble in the housing market. In just five years, the housing bubble collapsed and asset values have fallen dramatically. The debt levels, however, remain, impeding our ability to recover from this recession. I would argue that the result of our short-run focus in 2003 was to contribute to 10 percent unemployment five years later.”

Monetary policy, he argued before the subcommittee, cannot solve every problem.

“I believe we put the economy at greater risk by attempting to do so,” he added.

A few weeks prior to his testimony, Hoenig was a guest lecturer at Purdue University, his remarks titled “Sowing the Seeds: Monetary Policy and the Ag Economy.” Video of that discussion is embedded below.

The FDIC is an independent agency, created by Congress, tasked with maintaining stability and public confidence in the nation’s financial system. It does so by insuring deposits, providing oversight of financial institutions and managing receiverships. Since the FDIC began insuring deposits in 1934, no depositor has lost any money as a result of a bank failure.

The agency is governed by a five-person board. Members of the body are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. No more than three members may share the same political affiliation. The board is currently comprised of three members due to retirements.

Hoenig is currently a resident of Kansas City.

How to Get Out of Being Held Indefinitely Without Charge

Spencer Ackerman — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:37:19 +0000

So the Obama administration’s Guantanamo task force has decided that about 50 people ought to be held indefinitely without charge. What’s the remedy to for that? Basically, there’s habeas corpus, the procedure by which a detainee requests that a court determine the validity of the government’s claim to hold him (in this case) because of his status as a belligerent in the conflict with al-Qaeda. Notice that’s not the same thing as asking a court to decide whether the government in the first place has the power to detain someone indefinitely without charge. According to lawyers for Guantanamo detainees and prominent civil liberties advocates, any lawyer who asks a court to decide that broader question will immediately be told, “Your client has the right to a habeas hearing. File a habeas petition and then come talk.” So here’s what the procedure is for the 50 or so detainees in this indefinite-detention-without-charge category.

First a detainee has to win a habeas case. (Check their track record here.) Easy, right? If the government decides not to contest the decision, then the detainee — who, recall, the Obama administration is saying is too dangerous to responsibly release — walks. (More on that in a second.) We haven’t been faced with this situation yet. But if the administration appeals, then the detainee has to win. And on up to the Supreme Court, if the government really wants to contest the issue. Joseph Margulies, a professor of law at Northwestern University who’s focused extensively on Guantanamo, estimates that this process could take at least 18 months to exhaust itself at the earliest. Possibly years. (And even then, it wouldn’t be certain that the Supreme Court would use a habeas appeal as an opportunity to decide the first-order question: whether the Obama administration has the constitutional power to hold a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban in indefinite detention without charge.)

The real inflection point will come “when the government loses” a habeas case, said Margulies. “Are they going to let [a detainee] go?” If the administration concedes the loss, then there’s no crisis. But if it decides it can’t let someone go, and runs out of appeals, then the administration’s most likely option is to get a get a preventive detention bill from Congress, a civil liberties Rubicon. The Obama administration briefly considered that option this summer and balked. But if the administration loses a habeas case; seeks to detain someone indefinitely even so; and doesn’t have explicit preventive detention powers from Congress, then it most likely is just simply breaking the law.

“I heard about this listening to an NPR story this morning,” said Sabin Willett, a lawyer for the Uighurs at Guantanamo Bay, describing his big-picture reaction to the Guantanamo task force’s conclusions. “The intro to that story described them as ‘the terror suspects at Guantanamo.’” Willett pointed out that his clients have been cleared by Defense Department tribunals and exonerated by the courts. They are not terrorists, and no one believes they’re terrorists. “This proves the power of the press — those two words ‘terror suspects.’ How do I fight that?”

From there, Willett continued, it’s natural to start wondering if those “terror suspects” really are too dangerous to release. “I keep saying, give me a name. Who’s too dangerous? Give me a reason. Then start asking what other regimes had people they considered ‘too dangerous to release.’ You’re going to find yourself on a list of countries you’re not too proud to be on.”

A postscript: Dear lawyers. I am not one of you. This is my best attempt to understand what you guys do. I am happy to correct errors here, but please read this post in that spirit.

The Constitution Project vs. Obama’s Indefinite Detention Decision

Spencer Ackerman — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:38:16 +0000

In reaction to the Obama administration’s Guantanamo Bay task force recommending that about 50 detainees at Guantanamo be indefinitely detained without trial, the Constitution Project, a prominent civil-libertarian advocacy group, released the following statement:

“Even if the Obama administration continues to work to close Guantánamo, by pursuing a policy of indefinite detention without charge, the damaging policies that embody the prison will continue, as will the negative effects to American values, the rule of law, and our nation’s reputation abroad,” said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project. “The constitutional way to fulfill the president’s commitment to closing Guantánamo is to prosecute suspected terrorists in federal court, and to oppose the use of military commissions and indefinite detention without charge. There is widespread bipartisan support for closing Guantánamo in a way that returns our nation to its constitutional principles, as embodied in Beyond Guantánamo: A Bipartisan Declaration.”

After talking to some knowledgeable individuals, I think I need to revise and extend this post. I may have incorrectly suggested that the SCOTUS ruling Boumediene established a right for detainees to receive a trial, which I didn’t mean to suggest, because it doesn’t: it establishes that detainees can contest their detention by the government, a narrower class. If they lose their habeas hearings, as some have, then they’re out of luck, trial-wise. As of right now, the Supreme Court has not directly and decisively ruled on the question of whether the government has the power to detain people in the war against al-Qaeda indefinitely and without charge. (Not that I’m a lawyer … ) The point I was trying to make in the earlier post was that the vector of court rulings since 2004 has been to erode the government’s power to use the so-called “war on terror” as an all-purpose rationale for all manner of detentions.

Surprise! John Yoo Believes in Broad Executive Powers

Daphne Eviatar — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:42:29 +0000

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo has been spewing his grandiose views on presidential power ever since leaving the Bush administration. So although his latest book, “Crisis And Command,” is an unusually ambitious 446-page historical survey of executive power from George Washington to George W. Bush, his thesis will hardly surprise anyone who’s followed his recent career.

Max Boot writes in his blurb for the book that it’s “not the work of some wild-eyed zealot,” but the book is clearly another of Yoo’s attempts to defend his more extreme legal theories, including those that have been roundly criticized by prominent Republicans who served in the Bush administration. Many of those theories — such as the executive’s right to authorize torture and to detain terror suspects indefinitely — are responsible for some of the worst conundrums that President Obama finds himself in today.

Whether cast as Hamiltonian or Machiavellian, Yoo’s point is that “great” presidents have always interpreted their powers broadly in times of crisis, and pesky critics at the time always denounced them for breaking the law. To illustrate this, Yoo rolls out the usual examples — Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt interning the Japanese during World War II.

Although careful not to call George W. Bush a “great” or even “above-average” president, Yoo argues that Bush’s decisions to suspend habeas corpus, use “coercive interrogation methods” (Yoo never uses the word torture) and indefinitely detain without charge “al Qaeda terrorists” (actually, terror suspects) were all simply par for the course — the actions any decent president would take under the circumstances. In Yoo’s view, this is not presidential lawbreaking, even if the president’s actions do violate existing laws. Rather, Yoo argues, the Constitution accommodates such lawbreaking — what Yoo calls “the need to respond to extraordinary events through the President’s executive power” — which apparently is limitless.

This is how, at the Office of Legal Counsel, Yoo managed to advise the president that he could ignore the legal bans on torture and even the Bill of Rights on U.S. soil. It’s too soon to know if that was wrong, Yoo says, since we’re still confronting the terrorist threat. “Only when we have the benefit of distance will we know whether Bush’s aggressive use of executive authority was too much, too little, or just right,” he writes, so complaints about torture and warrantless wiretapping are little more than Monday-morning quarterbacking.

It’s worth remembering that Yoo, now a law professor at University of California – Berkeley, is the subject of a still-unreleased ethics investigation as well as a pending lawsuit, both of which address charges that he not only misconstrued the law but was actively involved in breaking it. His aggressive defense of limitless executive authority sounds even shadier when read in that light.

But Yoo is at his most disingenuous when he criticizes President Obama. In his afterword, Yoo writes that under Obama’s executive orders, the CIA now must conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual — which “amounts to requiring — on penalty of prosecution — that CIA interrogators be polite.”

In fact, the Army Field Manual allows for prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and inducing fear and humiliation of prisoners, as the Center for Constitutional Rights and others have noted. These can be used in combination, and can cause, as former Bush appointees and a congressional investigation have found, long-lasting psychological and physical harm.

Nonetheless, doing away with “the Bush system” means “we will get little timely information from captured al Qaeda terrorists,” Yoo asserts, especially if Obama allows them trials in federal court.

Yoo’s book was released too soon for his own good. Within just the last two weeks we’ve learned that an al-Qaeda terror suspect who tries to blow up a plane can be captured, arrested, charged in federal court and promptly provide information about others planning similar attacks on U.S. targets.

If Yoo’s views weren’t already thoroughly discredited, that last section of his book does the job — which just goes to show that Professor Yoo really should have stayed in academia. Yoo may have good stories to tell about the theories of executive power at work under Madison, Truman and Roosevelt, but when he applies theory to practice he fails miserably. Unfortunately, that’s not just a problem for his publisher. The entire nation is suffering for it now.

Will Prisoners’ Move to Thompson Expand Their Legal Rights?

Daphne Eviatar — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:47:31 +0000

Among the objections from Congressional Republicans to transferring Guantanamo detainees from Cuba to Illinois is the fear that the prisoners will suddenly have many more rights by virtue of being on U.S. soil.

But is that true?

Actually, it’s not clear, Scott Silliman, a professor at Duke University Law School and director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and National Security, tells Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor. After all, “we’ve never done this before,” says Silliman.

It’s not even clear what “this” is.

Is the administration going to move all of the men to military custody, or will some be moved to federal civilian custody for trial in a civilian court? The government hasn’t yet said. And will some people be held in military custody indefinitely without trial? The administration hasn’t said that yet, either. So to some extent, the speculation is premature.

What Richey does make clear in his story, however, is that there are some rights that the government will be hard-pressed to argue don’t apply to prisoners on U.S. soil, even if they may not have applied to them at Guantanamo Bay. Those include the Fifth-Amendment right to due process of law, for example, which the government argues doesn’t apply in Cuba. As I’ve explained before, however, what rights the detainees have at the prison in Cuba has never really been decided.

Some defense lawyers even worry, as Richey reports, that their clients will get worse treatment in a beyond-Supermax facility in Illinois than they do at Guantanamo, where the international focus on previous mistreatment has forced improvements.

The fears of Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans notwithstanding, exactly what rights any military detainee in Illinois is going to get will depend a whole lot on the status the government gives them when they’re transferred. And for now, the Obama administration hasn’t yet told us what that will be.

View the details of all Guantanamo detainees’ habeas corpus cases at TWI’s Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard.

Introducing TWI’s Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard

Daphne Eviatar — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:14:01 +0000

Since the Supreme Court ruled last year that detainees at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo have the right to habeas corpus — that is, the right to challenge their detention in court — hundreds of detainees have taken advantage, filing petitions in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Today, The Washington Independent unveils a new feature that will track the outcomes of habeas corpus cases filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees who have challenged their indefinite detentions in the federal court system.

The Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard is broken up into two sections: cases won by detainees — further divided between detainees who have been released and those still in custody — and cases won by the U.S. government. Using information compiled by Pro Publica and David Remes, legal director of Appeal for Justice, the accompanying charts feature background information on all 41 detainees whose cases have been decided to date, including the allegations against each detainee, the court’s reasoning in each decision, and the status of any appeals. As more cases are resolved, we’ll keep updating the chart.

Of the 41 cases heard so far, detainees have won 32 of them. That means that in 32 out of 41 cases, the government was unable to present enough evidence, including classified evidence, to convince a federal court judge that it’s more likely than not that the detainee was a member or substantial supporter of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. (Habeas cases are civil proceedings, where there is no need to establish guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as in criminal trials.)

Of the 32 cases the government has lost, it has appealed only two. Eight detainees who have lost their cases have appealed so far.

Meanwhile, many of the prisoners who have won their petitions for habeas corpus are still imprisoned at Gitmo. Although the court in each case ordered the government to arrange for the detainee’s expeditious release, in some cases the government can’t or won’t send the prisoner back to where he came from. In some cases, that’s either because the detainee legitimately fears persecution at home, as in the case of the Uighurs. In others, it’s because, as with the prisoners from Yemen, the U.S. government doesn’t trust the detainee’s home government to keep him from joining up with local terror groups upon his return.

As a result, of the 32 detainees who have won an order of release in a U.S. federal court, 11 remain in prison.

For a full breakdown of all the cases, see the Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard here.

Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard — Government Wins

TWI — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:09:00 +0000

Detainees	U.S. Government
32	11

Below is a list of the Guantanamo habeas corpus cases in which the U.S. government won. Information compiled by Pro Publica and David Remes, legal director of Appeal for Justice.

Moath Hamza Ahmed Al Alwi

Nationality:Yemeni
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities in late 2001 and transferred to US custody.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Al Alwi stayed at guesthouses and received military training at camps closely associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, that he supported Taliban fighters (including after the U.S. forces arrived in October 2001), and that he served as a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden.
Status:Judge denied release Dec. 30, 2008. Al Alwi is appealing the decision and remains at Guantanamo.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The judge said that “more than ample evidence” proves Al Alwi stayed at Qaeda and Taliban guesthouses and trained with and supported the Taliban. This was enough to justify his indefinite detention, even without persuasive evidence that Al Alwi had taken up arms himself against the U.S. or its allies. Since this conduct alone justified his detention, the judge said, there was no need for the court to address the allegations that Al Alwi had been a bin Laden bodyguard and trained with al-Qaeda.
Court Documents:

Ghaleb Nassar Al Bihani

Nationality:Born in Saudi Arabia, citizen of Yemem
Circumstances of Capture:Surrendered to the Northern Alliance near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in or after late November 2001; transferred to US custody in June 2002.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that sometime after May 2001 Al Bihani received military training at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and joined a Taliban military unit that fought against the Northern Alliance, retreating with that unit in late November 2001, after the U.S. and allies began bombing.
Status:Judge denied release January 2009. Al Bihani appealed the decision, but the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in favor of the government on Jan. 6.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The judge said proof that Al Bihani had served as a cook for the Taliban by itself justified his imprisonment. He said that “faithfully serving in an al-Qaeda affiliated fighting unit that is directly supporting the Taliban by helping to prepare the meals of its entire fighting force is more than sufficient ‘support’” to qualify for indefinite detention.
Court Documents:

Musa’ab al-Madhwani

Nationality:Yemeni
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that al-Madhwani went to Pakistan to join al-Qaeda and trained and traveled with al-Qaeda members. It also claims he was involved in a firefight with Pakistani authorities.
Status:Judge denied release Dec. 14, 2009. Al-Madhwani remains at Guantanamo.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The judge said there was no evidence that al-Madhwani’s testimony was tainted by abusive interrogation techniques, and that the government sufficiently proved its allegations.

Suleiman Awadh Bin Agil al-Nahdi

Fawzi Al-Odah

Nationality:Kuwaiti
Circumstances of Capture:Captured by Pakistani border guards in November 2001.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Odah admitted firing an AK-47 at a training camp in Afghanistan and carrying an AK-47 through the Tora Bora mountains for ten to 11 days during the U.S. air campaign there.
Status:Judge denied release Aug. 24, 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The judge found that Odah had attended a Taliban training camp, and that “more likely than not,” he “became a part of the forces of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”
Court Documents:

Trial Court Decision

Adham Mohammed Ali Awad

Nationality:Yemeni
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in Afghanistan in November 2001.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Awad was identified by a senior al-Qaeda leader as having participated in fighting against the U.S.
Status:Judge denied release Aug. 12, 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Although the judge found the case against Awad “gossamer thin,” he ruled it was “more likely than not” that Awad was, “for some period of time, ‘part of’ Al Qaida.”
Court Documents:

Sufyian Barhoumi

Nationality:Algerian
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in Pakistan in March 2002.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Barhoumi traveled to Afghanistan in 1999 to attend weapons training in several camps, then trained others, and engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
Status:Judge denied release Sept. 3 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The judge’s opinion has not yet been declassified.
Court Documents:

Belkacem Bensayah

Nationality:Algerian
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of U.S. military.
Summary of Allegations:Government alleged that Bensayah planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 and to fight U.S. and allied forces, and that he was al-Qaeda’s primary facilitator and financier in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Status:Judge denied release Nov. 20, 2008. Bensayah has asked the court to reopen the case, alleging there is government evidence of his innocence that the judge didn’t see. Government has opposed his request. Bensayah remains at Guantanamo.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Although Bensayah’s five countrymen were found to be unlawfully detained, the judge said the government had produced “additional evidence that sufficiently corroborates its allegations from [an] unnamed source that Bensayah is an al-Qaida [sic] facilitator.
Court Documents:

Hedi Hammamy

Nationality:Tunisian
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested in April 2002 in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities and transferred to U.S. custody.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Hammamy fought with the Taliban or al-Qaeda against the U.S., belonged to an Italian terrorist cell supporting Islamic terrorist groups, attended a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and belonged to a Pakistan-based organization too secret for the government to describe.
Status:Judge denied release April 4, 2009. Hammamy is appealing the decision and remains at Guantanamo.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The judge said that evidence that Hammamy had fought the U.S. and belonged to the Italian terrorist cell justified his detention. The judge didn’t address the other allegations.

Hisham Sliti

Nationality:Tunisian
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in Pakistan in December 2001.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that in 2000 Sliti traveled from London to Afghanistan on a false passport as a Qaeda recruit, stayed at a Qaeda-affiliated guesthouse and mosque, received military training at a Qaeda camp, and helped start a terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda.
Status:Judge denied release Dec. 30, 2008. Sliti is appealing the decision and remains at Guantanamo.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The judge found that, other than for the allegation that Sliti had helped found a terrorist organization, the government had produced evidence sufficient to justify Sliti’s indefinite detention.
Court Documents:

Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard — Detainee Wins

TWI — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:08:53 +0000

Detainees	U.S. Government
32	9

Below is a list of the Guantanamo habeas corpus cases in which the detainee won. Information compiled by Pro Publica and David Remes, legal director of Appeal for Justice.

Click here to see the 21 detainees who have been released.

Click here to see the 11 detainees who are still in custody.

Released

Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Rahman released Oct. 8, 2008. The government appealed, and judge’s release order was blocked by D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Dawut Abdurehim

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for$5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Abdurehim released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al Janko

Nationality:Syrian
Circumstances of Capture:Captured by U.S. forces in January 2002 in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that, in early 2000, Janko spent five days at a Taliban guesthouse and trained for 18 days at a Qaeda military camp.
Status:Judge found Janko eligible for release June 22, 2009. He has since been transferred to a foreign nation, but the government will not specify which nation or reveal the date of transfer.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Judge found Janko eligible for release June 22, 2009, but the government continues to hold him at Guantanamo. Janko was eligible for release, the judge said, because by the time of his arrest in 2002 he should not have been considered to be part of the Taliban or al-Qaeda. The evidence showed that he’d been tortured by al-Qaeda and imprisoned for 18 months by the Taliban in an infamously “horrific” prison.
Court Documents:

Khalid Abdullah Mishal Al Mutairi

Nationality:Kuwaiti
Circumstances of Capture:Captured near Pakistan-Afghanistan border in November 2001
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Al Mutairi was a part of al-Qaeda or of a force associated with al-Qaeda, because, among other claims, he’d attended a training camp believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda.
Status:On July 29, 2009, judge ordered the government to “take all necessary and appropriate steps to facilitate Al Mutairi’s release forthwith.” He was transferred to Kuwait on Oct. 13, 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The judge concluded that “there is nothing in the record beyond speculation” to prove the government’s allegations. Intelligence reports were too impreciseand needed corroborating proof, she said. For instance, “one reference, in a portion of one sentence, in one interrogation report,” was not enough to prove Al Mutairi had attended a terrorist training camp, because the report didn’t clearly identify him. She rejected one self-incriminating statement from an interrogation of Al Mutairi because “he appears to have been goaded into making these statements.”
Court Documents:

Alla Bin Ali Ahmed

Nationality:Yemeni
Circumstances of Capture:Captured March 2002 at a guesthouse for Yemenis in Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Ali Ahmed had traveled and stayed with al-Qaeda and/or Taliban members in Afghanistan, and that he’d fought and trained in Afghanistan.
Status:Judge found Ali Ahmed eligible for release May 11, 2009. He was transferred to Yemen on September 26, 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge concluded that the government had failed to present reliable evidence proving its allegations, and that certain alleged conduct — such as traveling in the company of terrorists and staying at a suspect guesthouse — wouldn’t be enough to detain Ali Ahmed even if proved.
Court Documents:

Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah

Nationality:Kuwaiti
Circumstances of Capture:Captured near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in Dec. 2001.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Rabiah “provided material support to the Taliban and al Qaida,” meeting with bin Laden four times in July 2001 and delivering money to him.
Status:Judge ordered release Sept. 17, 2009. Rabiah was transferred to Kuwait on Dec. 9, 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Judge ordered release Sept. 17, 2009. The judge found that the evidence against Rabiah consisted “almost exclusively on Rabiah’s ‘confessions,’” which even Rabiah’s interrogators concluded were “not believable.”
Court Documents:

Hadj Boudella

Nationality:Algerian
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of U.S. military.
Summary of Allegations:The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists.
Status:Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Boudella was transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina Dec. 16, 2008.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said.
Court Documents:

Lakhdar Boumediene

Nationality:Algerian
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of US military.
Summary of Allegations:The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists.
Status:Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Boumediene was transferred to France May 15, 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said.
Court Documents:

Mohammed El Gharani

Nationality:Born in Saudi Arabia, citizen of Chad
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested by Pakistani authorities and turned over to the United States in early 2002.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he’d stayed at a Qaeda-affiliated guesthouse in Afghanistan, received military training at a Qaeda camp, served as a courier for al-Qaeda members, fought the U.S. and allies at the battle of Tora Bora, and belonged to a Qaeda cell based in London.
Status:Judge found El Gharani eligible for release Jan. 13, 2009. He was transferred to Chad on June 11, 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The government’s evidence was unreliable, the judge said, because it consisted chiefly of statements by two other detainees — sometimes contradicting each other — whose believability was questioned by the government itself.
Court Documents:

Anwar Hassan

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for release June 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Hassan released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Mustafa Ait Idir

Nationality:Algerian
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of US military.
Summary of Allegations:The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists.
Status:Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Ait Idir was transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina Dec. 16, 2008.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said.
Court Documents:

Jalal Jalaldin (aka Abdullah Abdulqadir)

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Parhat released Oct. 8, 2008. The government appealed, and judge’s release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Jalaldin nevertheless was transferred to Bermuda, June 11, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Mohammed Jawad

Nationality:Afghan
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested by local officials in Afghanistan in December 2002.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that on Dec. 17, 2002, Jawad tossed a grenade in Afghanistan that seriously injured two U.S. soldiers and their local interpreter.
Status:On July 30, 2009, judge ordered that “beginning on August 21″ the government “shall promptly release petitioner Jawad.” He was transferred to Afghanistan on Aug. 24, 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Technically the judge ordered Jawad released because the government said it would no longer detain him as a wartime enemy. But the government’s decision followed a scathing reprimand from the judge for continuing to detain Jawad and prosecute him in a military commission based mostly on a confession obtained by Afghan officials under death threats.
Court Documents:

Saber Lahmar

Nationality:Algerian
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of US military.
Summary of Allegations:The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists.
Status:Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Lahmar was transferred to France on Nov. 30, 2009.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said.
Court Documents:

Edham Mamet

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in Afghanistan in November 2001.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Mamet released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Abdul Nasser (aka Khaleel Mamut)

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for transfer November 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Nassar released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Nasser nevertheless was transferred to Bermuda on June 11, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Mohamed Nechla

Nationality:Algerian
Circumstances of Capture:Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of US military.
Summary of Allegations:The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists.
Status:Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Nechla was transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina Dec. 16, 2008.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said.
Court Documents:

Adel Noori

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for transfer October 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Noori released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S. — and that Parhat could not be held as an enemy combatant on “bare assertions.”
Court Documents:

Huzaifa Parhat

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Parhat released Oct. 8, 2008. The government appealed, and judge’s release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Parhat nevertheless was transferred to Bermuda, June 11, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S. – and that Parhat could not be held as an enemy combatant on “bare assertions.”
Court Documents:

Abdul Semet (aka Salahadin Abdulahat)

Ahmad Tourson

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in Afghanistan in November 2001.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for release December 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Tourson released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Still in Custody

Mohammed Al Adahi

Nationality:Yemeni
Circumstances of Capture:Captured by Pakistani authorities near the Afghanistan border in December 2001.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Adahi once helped tend to wounded Taliban soldiers during a bus trip; was present in Kabul during the U.S. air campaign there; and was in possession of the model of a watch that has been used in bombings linked to al-Qaeda.
Status:Judge ordered release Aug. 17, 2009. He remains at Guantanamo.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Judge ordered release Aug. 17, 2009. He remains at Guantanamo. The judge found “no reliable evidence” that Adahi supported, trained or fought for, or was a member of al-Qaeda, and that while Adahi acknowledged meeting Osama Bin Laden, that did not justify his detention.
Court Documents:

Khalid Ali (aka Saidullah Khalik)

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Ali released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Ali has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S. — and that Khalid could not be held as an enemy combatant on “bare assertions.”
Court Documents:

Yasin Muhammed Basardh

Nationality:Yemeni
Circumstances of Capture:Captured near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in early 2002.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Basardh trained at a Qaeda military camp and fought for the Taliban, hiding with Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001.
Status:Judge found Basardh eligible for release April 15, 2009. He remains at Guantanamo, while the government appeals the decision.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Judge found Basardh eligible for release. However, he remains at Guantanamo, while the government appeals the decision. The judge said the admitted Taliban fighter could no longer be properly detained, because news reports showed that Basardh gave U.S. authorities information about numerous other suspected terrorists. “[A]ny ties with the enemy have been severed, and any realistic risk that he could rejoin the enemy has been foreclosed,” the judge wrote.
Court Documents:

Trial Court Decision

Farhi Saeed bin Mohammed

Nationality:Algerian
Circumstances of Capture:Captured by Pakistani authorities in late 2001 while attempting to cross the border from Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that Mohammed received weapons training in Afghanistan, and that he saw Osama bin Laden at a funeral in Kabul shortly after 9/11.
Status:Judge ordered release Nov. 19, 2009. Mohammed remains at Guantanamo.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The court has not yet released a declassified version of the judge’s opinion.

Saeed Hatim

Nationality:Yemeni
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:He went to Afghanistan in 2001, where he attended the al-Farouq training camp and joined Arab soldiers near Kabul.
Status:A judge granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on Dec. 16, 2009. He remains at Guantanamo.

Arkin Mahmud

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in Afghanistan in November 2001
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Determined by government to be eligible for transfer January 2006. Federal trial judge ordered Mahmud released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Mahmud has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs? appeal of their case.
Court Documents:

Bahtiyar Mahnut

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for transfer December 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Mahnut released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Mahnut has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Hammad Memet (aka Ahmed Mohamed)

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for transfer May 2008. Federal trial judge ordered Memet released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Memet has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Court Documents:

Sabir Osman (aka Hajiakbar Abdulghupur)

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Osman released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Osman has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Abdul Razakah

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Determined by government to be eligible for transfer December 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Razakah released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Razakah has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case.
Reason for Court’s Decision:The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.”
Court Documents:

Abdul Sabour (aka Yusef Abbas)

Nationality:Chinese (Uighur)
Circumstances of Capture:Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000.
Summary of Allegations:The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies.
Status:Ordered released, remains at Gitmo.
Reason for Court’s Decision:Determined by government to be eligible for transfer November 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Sabour released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Sabour has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs? appeal of their case.
Court Documents:

Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard

TWI — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:08:41 +0000

Detainees	U.S. Government
32	11

Click on the numbers in the scoreboard above for a detailed breakdown of the cases.

Of the 32 cases the government has lost, it has appealed only two. Eight detainees who have lost their cases have appealed so far.

As a result, of the 32 detainees who have won an order of release in a U.S. federal court, 11 remain in prison.

Thanks to Hannah Dreier and Lazar Backovic for their work in compiling this scoreboard.

U.S. Government Wins Gitmo Habeas Case; Score Is 31-9 in Favor of Detainees

Daphne Eviatar — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:23:05 +0000

In a rare win for the government in a Guantanamo Bay detainee case, a federal judge ruled Monday that it can continue to hold a 28-year-old Yemeni at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Musa’ab Al-Madhwani has been imprisoned at Guantanamo since October 2002. The government claims he was a member of al-Qaeda. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan agreed that the government had shown that it’s more likely than not that Madhwani was a member of the terrorist organization at the time. However, he added, Madhwani does not appear to be dangerous now, the judge added.

“There is nothing in the record now that he poses any greater threat than those detainees who have already been released,” Judge Hogan said in court, according to the Washington Post, adding that Madhwani has been a model prisoner over the past seven years.

The government’s case was based almost entirely on Madhwani’s own statements to interrogators and military officials. The government argued that Madhwani traveled to Pakistan, joined al-Qaeda, trained at an al-Qaeda camp, traveled with al-Qaeda members, and was involved in a firefight with Pakistani authorities before his arrest.

Although Judge Hogan discounted the statements made to interrogators, saying they were “tainted by abusive interrogation techniques,” he did not believe the statements made to officials at military hearings were tainted.

Military records reveal that Madhwani admitted to receiving firearms training at an al-Qaeda camp and once seeing al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.