You're viewing Docket Item 1 from the case HATIM et al v. BUSH et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 1 of 18




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA





PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS

No. _______________

-------------------------------------------------------------------- X

SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM,



Detainee, Camp Delta,
Guantánamo Bay Naval Station,
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba;


ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL-SALAHI,

as Next Friend of SAEED MOHAMMED
SALEH HATIM;


MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH
KHUSSROF,

Detainee, Camp Delta,
Guantánamo Bay Naval Station,
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba;


FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH
KHUSSROF,

as Next Friend of MOHAMMED NASSERT
YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF,




v.





GEORGE W. BUSH,

Petitioners,

President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500;










DONALD RUMSFELD,









Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1000;


ARMY BRIG. GEN. JAY HOOD,



Commander, Joint Task Force – GTMO
JTF-GTMO
APO AE 09360; and











:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:















Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 2 of 18






Respondents.


:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ARMY COL. BRICE GYURISKO,
Commander, Joint Detention

Operations Group – JTF-GTMO,

JTF-GTMO

APO AE 09360,




All Respondents are sued in their
official capacities.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- X










Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 3 of 18




PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

1.

Petitioners Saeed Mohammed Saleh Hatim and Mohammed Nasser Yahia Abdullah

Khussrof (“Petitioners”) seek a Writ of Habeas Corpus. They are citizens of Yemen

being held, virtually incommunicado and without access to counsel, in Respondents’

unlawful custody in Camp Delta, Guantánamo Bay Naval Station, Guantánamo Bay,

Cuba (“Guantánamo Bay” or “Guantánamo”).

2.

Petitioner Hatim acts on his own behalf and through his Next Friend and brother, Ali

Mohammed Saleh Al-Salahi, and Petitioner Khussrof acts on his own behalf and through

his Next Friend and sister, Fatima Nasser Yahia Abdullah Khussrof, (“Next Friends”),

who are also citizens of Yemen. See Authorization of Ali Mohammed Saleh Al-Salahi

(Ex. A); Authorization of Fatima Nasser Yahia Abdullah Khussrof (Ex. B).

I. JURISDICTION

3.

Petitioners bring this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2242. This Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1651, 2201 and 2202; 5 U.S.C. § 702; the

Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the American Declaration on the Rights and

Duties of Man; and customary international law. Insofar as they seek declaratory relief,

Petitioners also rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

4.

This Court has authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to grant the Writ of Habeas Corpus and,

under 28 U.S.C. § 2242, to entertain the Petition filed by Ali Mohammed Saleh Al-Salahi

and Fatima Nasser Yahia Abdullah Khussrof as Next Friends to Petitioners.

5.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, this Court is empowered to declare the rights and other

legal relations of the parties herein and, under 28 U.S.C. § 2202, to effectuate and enforce

declaratory relief by all necessary and proper means, as this case involves an actual

controversy within the Court’s jurisdiction.





2




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 4 of 18




II. VENUE

6.

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia because

at least one Respondent resides in the district, a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, at least one Respondent may be found in

the district, and all Respondents are either officers or employees of the United States or

an agency thereof acting in their official capacities. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b); 1391(e).

III. THE PARTIES

A. Petitioners and Their Next Friends

7.

8.

Petitioners Hatim and Khussrof are presently incarcerated and held in Respondents’

unlawful custody at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Because Petitioners have been denied access to legal counsel and to the courts of the

United States, their relatives act as Next Friends for them in this proceeding.

B. Respondents

9.

Respondent George W. Bush is the President of the United States and Commander in

Chief of the United States military. It is pursuant to the November 13, 2001 Military

Order promulgated by Respondent Bush, see ¶¶ 22-28 infra, or alternatively under his

authority as Commander in Chief and under the laws and usages of war, that Petitioner is

being detained. Accordingly, Respondent Bush is ultimately responsible for Petitioner’s

unlawful detention.

10.

Respondent Donald Rumsfeld is the Secretary of the United States Department of

Defense. Pursuant to either the November 13, 2001 Military Order or the President’s

authority as Commander in Chief and under the laws and usages of war, Respondent

Rumsfeld has been charged with maintaining the custody and control of Petitioners.

11.

Respondent Army Brig. Gen. Jay Hood is the Commander of Joint Task Force–GTMO,

the task force running the detention operation at Guantánamo. He has supervisory

responsibility for Petitioners.





3




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 5 of 18




12.

Respondent Col. Brice Gyurisko is the Commander of the Joint Detention Operations

Group and the Joint Task Force–GTMO detention camps, including the United States

facility where Petitioners are presently held. He is the immediate custodian responsible

for Petitioners’ detention.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Petitioner Hatim

13.

Petitioner Hatim is a citizen of Yemen. He is approximately 29 years old and is from the

village of Ibb. Previously, he studied Shar’ia law at the university in Ibb and lived with

his family.

B. Petitioner Khussrof

14.

Petitioner Khussrof is also a citizen of Yemen. He is approximately 50 years old.

Previously, he lived in Sana’a and was the primary source of financial support for his

extended family.

C. Petitioners’ Arrest

15.

Respondents have produced no information concerning the circumstances of the seizure

of Petitioners. The limited information available indicates that Petitioners Hatim and

Khussrof were seized from Afghanistan sometime in 2001 by unknown individuals or

entities. Both men were eventually transferred to detention at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

D. Petitioners’ Detention

16.

Petitioners seek to enforce their rights to a judicial determination of whether they are

being legally confined at Guantánamo and whether there is a factual basis for

Respondents’ determination that they are “enemy combatants.”

17.

Petitioners are not and never have been enemy aliens, lawful or unlawful belligerents,

terrorists, or combatants of any kind. They are not and never have been “enemy

combatants.” They are not “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or





4




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 6 of 18




coalition partners in Afghanistan and who engaged in an armed conflict against the

United States there.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 2639 (2004).

18.

Aside from an unsupported assertion that all detainees at Guantánamo Bay are enemy

combatants, Respondents have advanced no justification for the detention of Petitioners.

Respondents have failed even to publicly acknowledge that they are detaining Petitioners

at Guantánamo Bay.

19.

Respondents have produced no evidence linking Petitioners to al Qaeda or any other

organization or persons involved in either the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or

any other terrorist attack on the United States or its citizens. They are not members of

any organization that planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks against

the United States on September 11, 2001, or any other terrorist attack on the United

States or its citizens.

E. The Joint Resolution

20.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States, at the direction of

Respondent Bush, began a massive military campaign against the Taliban government,

then in power in Afghanistan. On September 18, 2001, a Joint Resolution of Congress

authorized the President to use force against the “nations, organizations, or persons” that

“planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or

[that] harbored such organizations or persons.” Joint Resolution 23, Authorization for

Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (Jan. 18, 2001).

21.

Neither the Respondents nor any other agents of the United States government have

produced any information to support any link between Petitioners and organizations or

persons involved in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or any other terrorist

attack attributed by the United States to Al Qaeda or any other international terrorist

group. The limited information available indicates that Petitioners were in Afghanistan

for reasons unrelated to the activities of Al Qaeda or any other terror organization.





5




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 7 of 18




F. The Detention Order

22.

On November 13, 2001, Respondent Bush issued a Military Order authorizing indefinite

detention without due process of law. The Order authorizes Respondent Rumsfeld to

detain anyone Respondent Bush has “reason to believe”:



i.
ii.

iii.



is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;
has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of
international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have
caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or
adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security,
foreign policy, or economy; or
has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in
subparagraphs (i) and (ii).

Military Order of November 13, 2001.

23.

Respondent Bush must make this determination in writing. The Order was neither

authorized nor directed by Congress, and it is beyond the scope of the Joint Resolution of

September 18, 2001.

24.

The Military Order vests the President with complete discretion to identify the

individuals that fall within its scope. It establishes no standards governing the use of his

discretion. Once a person has been detained, the Order contains no provision for the

person to be notified of the charges he may face. Instead, the Order authorizes detainees

to be held without charges. It contains no provision for detainees to be notified of their

rights under domestic and international law, and provides neither the right to counsel nor

the right to consular access. It provides no right to appear before a neutral tribunal to

review the legality of a detainee’s continued detention and no provision for appeal to an

Article III or any other court. In fact, the Order expressly bars any form of judicial

review. The Order authorizes indefinite and unreviewable detention, based on nothing

more than the President’s written determination that an individual is subject to its terms.

25.

The Military Order authorizes the use of military commissions to try noncitizens accused

of terrorism and other war crimes. It establishes no guarantee that charges will be





6




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 8 of 18




26.
27.

promptly brought, that these charges will be made known to the accused and his counsel,

or that a speedy trial providing adequate legal process will be afforded to determine guilt

on such charges or their legal validity under domestic or international law. It permits

prolonged pre-commission detention

in solitary confinement, risking

long-term

psychological injury.

Petitioners are not properly subject to the Military Order.

The Military Order was promulgated in the United States and in this judicial district; the

decisions to detain and designate Petitioners Hatim and Khussrof were made by

Respondents in the United States and in this judicial district; the decision to detain

Petitioners at Guantánamo was made in the United States and in this judicial district; and

the decisions to continue detaining Petitioners were, and are, being made by Respondents

in the United States and in this judicial district.

28.

In the related case of Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002), Respondents

contended that the petitioners in that case were being detained, not pursuant to the

President’s Military Order, but under the President’s authority as Commander in Chief

and under the laws and usages of war. However, Petitioners in the instant matter were

not arrested or detained by the United States in the course of the armed conflict.

G. Guantánamo Bay Naval Station

29.

On or about January 11, 2002, the United States military began transporting prisoners

captured in Afghanistan to Camp X-Ray, at the United States Naval Base, in Guantánamo

Bay, Cuba. In April 2002, all prisoners were transferred to Camp Delta, a more

permanent prison facility in Guantánamo. Currently, prisoners are housed in Camp Delta

and Camp Five, an additional maximum-security interrogation and detention center.

30.

Detainees incarcerated at Guantánamo are entitled to test the legality of their detention in

the federal courts. Rasul v. Bush, 124 S. Ct. 2686, 2698 (2004).





7




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 9 of 18




31.

On a precise date unknown to counsel for Petitioners, but known to Respondents, the

United States transferred Petitioners to Guantánamo Bay Naval Station, where upon

information and belief, they currently reside in the custody and control of Respondents.

H. Conditions of Detention at Guantánamo

32.

Upon information and belief, the United States has held detainees at Guantánamo Bay

Naval Station virtually incommunicado under conditions that violate their constitutional

and international rights to dignity and freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman and

degrading treatment or punishment.

33. Many of these violations – including isolation for up to thirty days, twenty-eight hour

interrogations, extreme and prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory

assaults, removal of clothing, hooding, and the use of dogs to create anxiety and terror –

were interrogation techniques approved for use at Guantánamo by the most senior

Department of Defense lawyer.

34.

On information and belief, Petitioners have been or will be interrogated repeatedly by

agents of the United States Departments of Defense and Justice, and the Central

Intelligence Agency, although they have not been charged with an offense or notified of

any pending or contemplated charges. They have not appeared before a lawful military

or civilian tribunal and have not been provided counsel or the means to contact and

obtain counsel.

35.

Petitioners have not been informed of their rights under the United States Constitution,

the regulations of the United States Military, the Geneva Convention, the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Declaration on the Rights and

Duties of Man, or customary international law. Respondents have taken the position that

Petitioners should not be told of these rights. As a result, Petitioners are completely

unable either to protect or to vindicate their rights under domestic and international law.





8




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 10 of 18




36.

The ICRC has charged the U.S. military with intentional use during interrogations of

psychological and physical coercion on prisoners at Guantánamo that is “tantamount to

torture.” See Neil A. Lewis, Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo, N.Y.

Times, Nov. 30, 2004, at A1. According to ICRC, doctors and other medical workers at

Guantánamo have participated in planning for interrogations. Id.

37.

In memoranda spanning a two-year period, the FBI described “highly aggressive

interrogation techniques” used at Guantánamo including 24-plus hour interrogations

involving temperature extremes, dogs, prolonged isolation, and loud music. Carol D.

Lenning, Further Detainee Abuse Alleged; Guantánamo Prison Cited in FBI Memos,

Wash. Post, Dec. 26, 2004, at A1. A military investigation confirmed that these and

other aggressive techniques were approved for use and were used at Guantánamo.

Investigators Urged Reprimand of Guantánamo Ex-Commander, A.P., July 12, 2005.

The report also confirmed that female interrogators have engaged in sexual taunting,

including smearing fake menstrual blood on a detainee’s face, to try to break Muslim

detainees. Id.

38.

Newspapers have widely reported allegations of religious abuses, including confiscation

of prayer items, disrespect of the Koran, and taking away the detainees’ trousers with the

knowledge that this would prevent them from praying. Carol Rosenberg, Guantanamo

Bay: Captives Allege Religious Abuse, Miami Herald, Mar. 6, 2005, at A1.

39.

The unlawful and unconstitutional interrogation techniques used by Respondents at

Guantánamo include not only physical, psychological, and religious abuse but also other

impermissible conduct contrary to due process requirements, including, upon information

and belief, having agents of the Government present themselves as lawyers for the

detainees during meetings with the detainees, for the purpose of extracting information

from the detainees. See Neil A. Lewis, U.S. Eroding Inmates’ Trust at Cuba Base,

Lawyers Say, N.Y. Times, Mar. 8, 2005, at A18.





9




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 11 of 18




40.

Respondents, acting individually or through their agents, have stated that whatever

limitations apply to coercive interrogation techniques used by U.S. military officials

under the auspices of the Department of Defense do not apply to interrogations conducted

by agents of the CIA or other entities under President Bush.

41.

Counsel for Respondents maintain that the United States may hold the detainees at

Guantánamo under their current conditions indefinitely. In re Guantánamo Detainee

Cases, Nos. 02-CV-0299 (CKK), et al., (D.D.C.), Tr. of Dec. 1, 2004 Oral Argument on

Mot. to Dismiss at 22–24, statements of Principle Deputy Associate Att’y Gen. Brian

Boyle. Moreover, the Government has acknowledged plans to begin constructing a

permanent facility at Guantánamo. Investigators Urged Reprimand of Guantánamo Ex-

Commander, A.P., July 12, 2005.

42.

According to the Department of Defense, even detainees who are adjudged innocent of

all charges by a military commission may nevertheless be kept in detention at

Guantánamo Bay indefinitely. See Department of Defense Press Background Briefing of

July 3, 2003, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030703-

0323.html.

I. Combatant Status Review Tribunal

43.

On July 7, 2004, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz signed an Order directing

the Secretary of the Navy to establish a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (“CSRT”) to

be convened at Guantánamo Bay. See Memorandum for the Secretary of the Navy, July

7, 2004 (“Memorandum”). The ostensible purpose of the CSRT is to determine on a

case-by-case basis whether a detainee is “properly detained as an enemy combatant,” id.

at ¶ g.12, notwithstanding Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz’s assertion that each detainee has

already “been determined to be an enemy combatant through multiple levels of review by

officers of the Department of Defense,” id. at ¶ a.

44.

The procedures ordered by Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz for the CSRT are plainly

deficient, failing to provide due process protection for the detainees as a whole and for





10




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 12 of 18

Petitioners in particular. For instance, notice of the factual basis for a detainee’s

designation as an “enemy combatant” is provided to the detainee only if the factual basis

is unclassified, Memorandum at ¶ g.1, and detainees’ counsel may not be present at the

CSRT hearings. Instead, the detainees are offered the assistance of “Personal

Representatives,” id. at ¶ c – a non-lawyer military officer whose conversations with

individual detainees are not privileged and will, on information and belief, be monitored

by the United States military. These factors alone are sufficient to establish a violation of

due process. See In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443, 472 (D.D.C.

2005). Moreover, the panels are not bound by the rules of evidence applicable in a court

of law, Memorandum at ¶ 9, and “enemy combatant” status is determined only under a

preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, with a rebuttable presumption in favor of the

government’s evidence, id. at ¶ g.12. The procedures also violate due process to the

extent that they rely upon statements obtained under torture or otherwise involuntarily as

evidence, and because they employ a vague and overbroad definition of “enemy

combatant.” See In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 472, 474.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unlawful Detention)

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–44 by reference.

Petitioners are not, and never have been, enemy aliens, lawful or unlawful belligerents, or

combatants of any kind. Petitioners are not, and never have been, “enemy combatants.”

They were not “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition

partners in Afghanistan and who were engaged in an armed conflict against the United

States there.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 2639 (2004). Petitioners have

committed no violation of domestic, foreign, or international law. There is no basis

whatsoever in law for Petitioners’ detentions.

11







45.
46.








47.
48.

49.
50.

51.
52.



Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 13 of 18

(Due Process – Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution)

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–46 by reference.

By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated

and continue to violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Respondent Bush has ordered the prolonged, indefinite and arbitrary detention of

individuals without Due Process of Law. Respondents Rumsfeld, Hood and Gyurisko are

likewise acting in violation of the Fifth Amendment since they act at the President’s

direction. On its face, the Executive Order violates the Fifth Amendment.



(Due Process – Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution)

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–48 by reference.

By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated

and continue to violate the rights of Petitioners to be free from arbitrary, prolonged and

indefinite detention, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to

the United States Constitution. The Executive Order, as applied to Petitioners, violates

the Fifth Amendment.



FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Due Process – International Law)

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–50 by reference.

By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated

and continue to violate customary international law, the Third and Fourth Geneva

Conventions, Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, and Articles XXVIII, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration on the Rights

and Duties of Man. On its face, the Executive Order violates international law.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Due Process – International Law)

53.

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–52 by reference.





12




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 14 of 18




54.

By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated

and continue to violate the rights of Petitioners to be free from arbitrary, prolonged and

indefinite detention, in violation of customary international law, the Third and Fourth

Geneva Conventions, Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, and Articles XXVIII, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration on

the Rights and Duties of Man. Respondent Bush has ordered the prolonged, indefinite

and arbitrary detention of Petitioners, without legal process, in violation of binding

obligations of the United States under international law. Respondents Rumsfeld, Hood

and Gyurisko are likewise acting in violation of international law, since they act at the

President’s direction. The Executive Order, as applied to Petitioners, violates these and

other binding obligations of the United States under international law.



SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Due Process – Failure to Comply with United States

Military Regulations and International Humanitarian Law)

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–54 by reference.

By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated

and continue to violate the rights accorded to persons seized by the United States Military

in times of armed conflict, as established by, inter alia, the regulations of the United

States Military, Articles 4 and 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, the Fourth Geneva

Convention and customary international law.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(War Powers Clause)

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–56 by reference.

By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have exceeded

the constitutional authority of the Executive and have violated and continue to violate the

War Powers Clause by ordering the prolonged and indefinite detention of Petitioners

without congressional authorization.

13




55.
56.



57.
58.







Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 15 of 18




59.
60.



61.
62.



63.
64.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Suspension of the Writ)

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–58 by reference.

To the extent the Executive Order of November 13, 2001 disallows any challenge to the

legality of Petitioners’ detentions by way of habeas corpus, the Order and its enforcement

constitute an unlawful Suspension of the Writ, in violation of Article I of the United

States Constitution. The actions of the Respondents in claiming the legal right to detain

Petitioners without judicial authorization or review constitute a suspension of the Writ of

Habeas Corpus in violation of Article I of the United States Constitution.

(Arbitrary and Unlawful Detention – Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act)

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–60 by reference.

By detaining Petitioners for the duration and in the manner described herein,

Respondents have arbitrarily, unlawfully and unconstitutionally detained Petitioners in

violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

(Violation of Due Process and Convention Against Torture—Rendition)

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Petitioners and their Next Friends incorporate paragraphs 1–62 by reference.

Upon information and belief, Petitioners are at risk of being rendered, expelled, or

returned without lawful procedures to a country that engages in torture. Such transfer

creates a foreseeable and direct risk that they will be subjected to torture in violation of

the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the Convention

Against Torture, and the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

65.

Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as any

other relief that the Court may deem appropriate.



PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioners and their Next Friends pray for relief as follows:





14




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 16 of 18




1.
2.

3.

Grant Ali Mohammed Saleh Al-Salahi status as Next Friend of Petitioner Hatim;

Grant Fatima Nasser Yahia Abdullah Khussrof status as Next Friend of Petitioner

Khussrof;

Order and declare the Executive Order of November 13, 2001 unlawful as a violation of

the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the War Powers Clause of Article

I of the United States Constitution; the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702;

customary international law; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and

the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man;

4.

Order and declare that Petitioners’ indefinite detention is in violation of the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution; customary international law; the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the American Declaration on the

Rights and Duties of Man; the regulations of the United States Military; the Geneva

Conventions; and international humanitarian law;

5.

Order and declare that the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, as currently constituted

and designed, is in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the American Declaration on the

Rights and Duties of Man; the regulations of the United States Military; the Geneva

Conventions; and international humanitarian law;

Order and declare that Petitioners are subject to the protections of the Geneva

Conventions and international humanitarian law;

Order and declare that the provision of the Executive Order of November 13, 2001 that

bars Petitioners from seeking relief in this Court is an unlawful Suspension of the Writ, in

violation of Article I of the United States Constitution;

Order immediate, private and unmonitored access by counsel to Petitioners;

Order immediate cessation of direct or indirect interrogation of Petitioners while the

instant litigation is pending;

15




6.

7.

8.
9.





Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 17 of 18




10.

Order immediate preservation of all evidence of torture or other abusive interrogation

techniques or treatment by any individual acting for or on behalf of the United States

military, the United States, or any agency thereof;

11.

Order Petitioners’ immediate release from unlawful custody if Respondents refuse to

comply with the terms of relief sought in paragraphs 1 through 9, supra;

12.

Order Respondents not to move Petitioners from Guantánamo Bay without providing

thirty-days’ notice to the Court and Petitioners’ counsel of any proposed transfer;

13.

To the extent Respondents contest any material factual allegations in this Petition,

schedule an evidentiary hearing at which Petitioners may adduce proof in support of their

allegations; and

14.

Grant such other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate to

protect Petitioners’ rights under the United States Constitution and international law.


Dated: Washington, D.C.


July 20, 2005













By:

Respectfully submitted,

COVINGTON & BURLING

__________________________
David H. Remes
D.C. Bar No. 370782
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
Tel: (202) 662-5212
Fax: (202) 778-5212

Marc D. Falkoff
D.C. Bar No. 491149
Robert H. Knowles, pro hac vice to be filed
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 841-1166 Fax: (646) 441-9166
Lead Counsel for Petitioners








CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Michael Ratner

16




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 18 of 18

Barbara Olshansky
Tina Monshipour Foster
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
Tel: (212) 243-3805
Of Counsel for Petitioners


17