You're viewing Docket Item 5 from the case AL SHUBATI et al v. BUSH et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA



Petitioners,

ABDURRAHMAN ABDULLAH
ALI MAHMOUD AL SHUBATI, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

President of the United States,
et al.,

GEORGE W. BUSH,

Respondents.

v.

Civil Action No. 07-CV-

RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO

PROVIDE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER AND THE COURT WITH THIRTY DAYS’

ADVANCE NOTICE OF INTENDED REMOVAL OF PETITIONER FROM

GUANTANAMO BAY

Petitioner Abdurrahman Abdullah Ali Mahmoud Al Shubati, a detainee at Guantanamo

Bay, Cuba, seeks an order compelling respondents to provide thirty days’ notice to the Court and

to petitioner’s counsel before transporting or removing petitioner from Guantanamo Bay for the

purpose of repatriating him to Yemen or transferring him to a third country.

Petitioner’s motion should be denied because the Court of Appeals for this Circuit has

held that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief. Specifically, the Court of Appeals on

February 20, 2007, held in Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. granted,

127 S. Ct. 3078 (U.S. June 29, 2007) (No. 06-1195), that the Military Commissions Act of 2006

(“MCA”) has deprived this Court of jurisdiction over cases such as this one. Therefore, for the

reasons explained below, respondents hereby oppose petitioner’s motion for an order requiring

respondents to provide 30 days’ notice of any transfer or removal of petitioner from Guantanamo

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 2 of 19

Bay.



The United States has compelling interests in not serving indefinitely as the world’s jailer

in circumstances where other countries are ready and willing to take responsibility for

transferees in accordance with their own laws, and in being able to repatriate or transfer

detainees when continued detention by the United States is no longer a military necessity or

appropriate. Further, the United States has adopted policies and procedures to guard against the

transfer of Guantanamo detainees where transfer would raise unacceptable concerns regarding a

detainee’s treatment by the receiving country. Petitioner’s supposition that he may be mistreated

if he is transferred is speculative, and cannot form the basis for injunctive relief.

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision to review Boumediene (the outcome of which

review is obviously unknown at this time), that decision constitutes binding law in this Circuit.

Petitioner’s request for an injunction ignores, and asks the Court to disregard, the law of the

Circuit reflected in Boumediene that the Court lacks jurisdiction over cases such as petitioner’s.

Even beyond this jurisdictional bar, petitioner otherwise fails to make the showing required to

justify the grant of the extraordinary injunctive relief he seeks, controlling the timing of the

repatriation or transfer of an alien enemy combatant during an ongoing, global armed conflict

where such an injunction would interfere with the Executive’s conduct of war-making and

foreign policy. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion should be denied.

BACKGROUND

The habeas corpus petition in this case was filed on December 18, 2007, on behalf of

petitioner Ridah Bin Saleh Al Yazidi through petitioner’s next friend, Abdullah Ali Mahmoud Al

Shubati, petitioner’s father. Petitioner was previously determined by a Combatant Status Review

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 3 of 19

Tribunal (“CSRT”) to be an enemy combatant. See Second Decl. of Karen L. Hecker ¶¶ 2–3

(attached as Exhibit 1). Petitioner supposes that, at some point in the future, respondents might

transfer him to his home country of Yemen or another country in which he might be mistreated.

Thus, although the very purpose of this proceeding is presumably to achieve his release from

detention at Guantanamo Bay, petitioner has moved for an order requiring that he be given

advance notice of any transfer.

Aside from the speculative nature of petitioner’s belief as to what might happen to him in

connection with a transfer, the factual premises of his motion are incorrect. As described in the

declarations attached hereto as Exhibits 2 & 3, attested to by Clint Williamson and Joseph

Benkert, for any transfer, a key concern is whether the foreign government will treat the detainee

humanely and in a manner consistent with its international obligations. Williamson Decl. ¶ 4;

Benkert Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. It is the policy of the United States not to repatriate or transfer a detainee

to a country where the United States believes it is more likely than not that the individual will be

tortured. Id. If a transfer is deemed appropriate, a process is undertaken, typically involving the

Department of State, in which appropriate assurances regarding the detainee’s treatment are

sought from the country to whom the transfer of the detainee is proposed. Benkert Decl. ¶ 6;

Williamson Decl. ¶ 5-6. Once DoD initially approves a transfer and requests the assistance of

the Department of State, the Department of State initiates transfer discussions with the foreign

government concerned. Id. Such discussions include an effort to seek assurances (in every

transfer case in which continued detention by the government concerned is foreseen) that the

United States Government considers necessary and appropriate with regard to the country in

question. These include assurances of humane treatment and treatment in accordance with the

-3-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 4 of 19

international obligations of the foreign government accepting transfer. Id. Among other things,

the Department of State considers whether the nation in question is a party to relevant treaties

such as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment, and ensures that assurances are tailored accordingly if the nation concerned is not a

party or other circumstances warrant.1 Id.

The determination whether it is more likely than not an individual would be tortured by a

receiving foreign government, including, where applicable, evaluation of foreign government

assurances, involves senior level officials and takes into account a number of considerations,

including whether the nation concerned is a party to certain treaties; the expressed commitments

of officials of the foreign government accepting transfer; the particular circumstances of the

transfer, the country, and the individual concerned; and any concerns regarding torture that may

arise. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 6-8; Benkert Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. Recommendations by the Department of

State are developed through a process involving the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and

Labor (which drafts the Department of State’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights

Practices) and the relevant Department of State regional bureau, country desk, or U.S. Embassy.

Williamson Decl. ¶ 7. When evaluating the adequacy of assurances, Department of State

1 The particulars of whatever discussions there might be between the Executive Branch and
foreign countries in any specific case – including this one – are closely held within appropriate
Executive Branch channels. The United States’ ability to seek and obtain assurances from a
foreign government depends on its ability to treat its dealings with the foreign government with
discretion. Williamson Decl. ¶ 9; Benkert Decl. ¶ 8. Obviously, diplomatic sensitivities
surround the Department of State’s communications with foreign governments concerning
allegations relating to torture. Williamson Decl. ¶ 9; Benkert Decl. ¶ 8. The United States
Government typically does not unilaterally make public any specific assurances or other
precautionary measures obtained, because such disclosure would have a chilling effect on and
cause damage to this country’s ability to conduct foreign relations. Williamson Decl. ¶ 9.

-4-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 5 of 19

officials consider the identity, position, or other information concerning the official relaying the

assurances; political or legal developments in the foreign country concerned that provide context

for the assurances; and the foreign government’s incentives and capacity to fulfill its assurances

to the United States. Williamson Decl. ¶ 8. In an appropriate case, the Department of State may

consider various monitoring mechanisms for verifying that assurances are being honored. Id. If

a case were to arise in which the assurances obtained from the receiving government were not

sufficient when balanced against treatment concerns, the United States would not transfer a

detainee to the control of that government unless the concerns were satisfactorily resolved.

Benkert Decl. ¶ 7; Williamson Decl. ¶ 8. Indeed, circumstances have arisen in the past where

DoD decided not to transfer detainees to their country of origin because of mistreatment

concerns. Id.

In sum, the Executive Branch employs an elaborate inter-agency process for evaluating

the propriety of transfers of Guantanamo detainees and implementing the United States’ policy

not to repatriate or transfer a detainee to a country where the United States believes it is more

likely than not that the individual will be tortured. That process involves senior level officials

and includes consideration of the detainee’s particular circumstances, an informed and

well-rounded analysis of the current situation on the ground in the prospective transferee

country, the input of various Department of State offices with relevant knowledge, personal

interactions and negotiations with senior officials of the prospective transferee government, and

consideration of assurances provided by the prospective transferee country, as well as their

sufficiency and any mechanisms for verifying them. See Williamson Decl. ¶ 7 & passim.

-5-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 6 of 19

ARGUMENT

I.

PETITIONER’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE COURT
LACKS JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE MOTION.

Petitioner’s motion for an injunction conditioning his repatriation or transfer on prior

notice should be denied because this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. On

October 17, 2006, the MCA was enacted. The MCA amended the habeas statute, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, adding a subsection (e) to provide that “[n]o court, justice, or judge shall have

jurisdiction” to consider either (1) habeas petitions filed by aliens detained by the United States

determined to be enemy combatants or awaiting such a status determination, or (2) any other

action “relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of

confinement” of an alien who is or was so detained, except for the exclusive review mechanism

in the Court of Appeals created under the DTA for addressing the validity of the detention of

such an alien.2 See MCA § 7(a) (emphasis added). This new amendment to § 2241 took effect

on the date of enactment and applies specifically “to all cases, without exception, pending on or

after the date of the enactment of this Act which relates to any aspect of the detention, transfer,

treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since

September 11, 2001.”3 Id. § 7(b).

2 See DTA § 1005(e)(2)-(3) (as amended by MCA §§ 9-10). Section 1005(e)(2) of the DTA,
as amended, states that the D.C. Circuit “shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the
validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that an alien is properly
detained as an enemy combatant,” and it further specifies the scope and intensiveness of that
review.

3 Petitioner attempts to circumvent the fact that they filed this case after enactment of the
DTA by arguing he was included as a petitioner in John Does 1-570 v. Bush, Case No. 05-CV-
313 (CKK), a case filed prior to enactment of the DTA purportedly seeking habeas relief on
behalf of hundreds of unnamed Guantanamo detainees. See Petition at 2. This argument fails

-6-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 7 of 19

On February 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals held in Boumediene that the MCA plainly

applies to all cases filed by aliens detained as enemy combatants, including pending habeas

petitions such as this one, and withdraws all District Court jurisdiction over such cases,

including both habeas and non-habeas claims. See 476 F.3d 981, 986-88 & n.1; id. at 994

(“Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases.”). The Court of Appeals also held that the

withdrawal of habeas jurisdiction over pending cases did not violate the Suspension Clause

because the alien detainees held at Guantanamo have no constitutional rights and because the

constitutional right to seek habeas review does not extend to aliens held at Guantanamo. Id. at

988-94. Consequently, the Court of Appeals (1) ordered that the district courts’ decisions on

appeal be vacated and (2) dismissed the cases on appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 994.4

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Boumediene on June 29, 2007, see Boumediene

v. Bush, 127 S. Ct. 3078 (June 29, 2007), and heard argument on December 5, 2007. However,

for several reasons. First, on October 31, 2006, Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted respondents’
motion to dismiss the Doe case. See Memorandum Opinion and Order (dkt. nos. 30, 31). Judge
Kollar-Kotelly dismissed the Doe case with prejudice in its entirety, concluding that counsel who
initiated the litigation did not have standing to bring suit on behalf of unspecified “John Doe”
detainees. See id. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also denied the Does petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration on July 11, 2007. See Order (dkt. no. 42). Consequently, petitioner cannot look
to the Doe case for purposes of attempting to circumvent the DTA’s effective date provision.
Second, even aside from the DTA, the MCA unambiguously provides that the Court currently
lacks jurisdiction over this case. See Boumediene, 476 F.3d at 987 (“Section 7(b) could not be
clearer. It states that “the amendment made by subsection (a)”- which repeals habeas jurisdiction
- applies to ‘all cases, without exception’ relating to any aspect of detention. It is almost as if the
proponents of these words were slamming their fists on the table shouting “When we say ‘all,’
we mean all-without exception!”).

4 Petitioner cites Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) in support of an exercise of habeas
corpus jurisdiction by this Court. This case does not support petitioner’s position. The Supreme
Court’s interpretation of the federal habeas statute in Rasul was superseded by the enactment of
the DTA and MCA, which withdrew habeas corpus jurisdiction over cases brought by aliens
held as enemy combatants and created an exclusive review mechanism in the Court of Appeals.

-7-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 8 of 19

at least while Boumediene remains pending before the Supreme Court, the law of this Circuit5

remains settled: under the MCA, federal district courts do not have jurisdiction over cases

brought by aliens at Guantanamo Bay detained as enemy combatants, and such aliens do not

have constitutional rights.6 Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s case. This

Court is not free to ignore the binding precedent in Boumediene merely because the Supreme

Court has granted review. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)

5 See Maxwell v. Snow, 409 F.3d 354, 358 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“this Court is bound to follow
circuit precedent until it is overruled either by an en banc court or the Supreme Court”); Ayuda,
Inc. v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 153, 154 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Henderson, J., concurring) (“Once [an]
opinion [is] released it [becomes] the law of this circuit.”); Vo Van Chau v. U.S. Dep’t of State,
891 F. Supp. 650, 654 (D.D.C. 1995) (holding that the district court was bound by the principle
of stare decisis to abide by a Court of Appeals decision even though the Court of Appeals had
not yet issued its mandate and even though the mandate was stayed during the pendency of a
petition for rehearing). The law of the circuit doctrine renders the decision of a panel of circuit
judges binding on all other panels within that circuit, LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389, 1395
(D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc), and also on district courts within that circuit. And, “[t]he
requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter ... is ‘inflexible and without
exception.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).

6 Even prior to enactment of the MCA, the DTA invested the Court of Appeals with the same
“exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status
Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.” See DTA
§ 1005(e)(2)-(3). This investment of exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals, independent
of the MCA, deprived the district court of jurisdiction in cases challenging the detention of
enemy combatants. See, e.g., Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 207-09 (1994)
(“exclusive” jurisdiction under federal Mine Act precludes assertion of district court
jurisdiction); Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (Ҥ 2241 is ordinarily
reserved for instances in which no other judicial remedy is available”); Telecomms. Research &
Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 75, 78-79 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (request for relief in district court
that might affect Court of Appeals’ future, exclusive jurisdiction is subject to the exclusive
review of the Court of Appeals); cf. id. at 77 (“By lodging review of agency action in the Court
of Appeals, Congress manifested an intent that the appellate court exercise sole jurisdiction over
the class of claims covered by the statutory grant of review power.”). In any event, with the
enactment of the MCA, as the D.C. Circuit made clear in Boumediene, district court jurisdiction
has been unambiguously withdrawn.

-8-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 9 of 19

(“‘Without jurisdiction [a] court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to

declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of

announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.’” (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.)

506, 514 (1868)).7 Consequently, this Court has no choice but to deny petitioner’s motion for

injunctive relief relating to a transfer.

Indeed, on the strength of the MCA and the Boumediene decision, the D.C. Circuit

refused to interfere with a transfer of a Guantanamo detainee in the context of an appeal from

Judge Urbina’s denial of a motion seeking to enjoin the transfer, explicitly noting that dismissal

was required “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Zalita v. Bush, No. 07-5129 (Apr. 25,

2007) (copy attached as Exhibit 4).8 In another case, this one decided after the Supreme Court’s

grant of certiorari in Boumediene, the D.C. Circuit denied an emergency motion for an order

seeking 30 days’ advance notice of any intended removal of a Detainee Treatment Act (DTA)

petitioner detained at Guantanamo, concluding that under the MCA, the Court of Appeals lacked

jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Hamlily v. Gates, No. 07-1127 (D.C. Cir. July 16,

7 The D.C. Circuit’s June 7, 2007, order in Al Ginco v. Bush, No. 06-5191, also did not
change the law of the Circuit. The Al Ginco order merely noted that the district court “may
consider in the first instance respondents’ motion to dismiss and petitioners’ motions to stay and
hold in abeyance,” without saying what result the district court should reach with respect to
either of the motions. The D.C. Circuit in Al Ginco presumably expected the district court to
resolve the motions in a manner consistent with the law of the Circuit as established in
Boumediene, which held that district courts lack jurisdiction over actions challenging the
detention of aliens held as enemy combatants.

8 A copy of Judge Urbina’s order denying an injunction in Zalita is attached hereto as Exhibit
5. A motion seeking the same relief was subsequently denied by the Supreme Court in the Zalita
case, Zalita v. Bush, 06A1005 (Sup.Ct. May 1, 2007) (copy attached as Exhibit 6), although with
no discussion of the basis for the denial. Currently pending in the Zalita case are a petition for
certiorari in the Supreme Court and yet another motion for an injunction against transfer in the
District Court.

-9-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 10 of 19

2007) (copy attached as Exhibit 7).9 Even more recently, in Belbacha v. Bush, No. 07-5258

(D.C. Cir. Aug. 2, 2007) the Court of Appeals denied an emergency motion to stay any transfer

of the petitioner to Algeria;10 the court’s order cited Boumediene as well as the court’s statement

in Maxwell v. Snow, 409 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2005), that it “is bound to follow circuit precedent

until it is overruled by an en banc court or the Supreme Court.” (copy attached as Exhibit 8). On

August 10, 2007, the Supreme Court denied a motion for an emergency stay in that case.

Belbacha v. Bush, No. 07A98 (U.S. Aug. 10, 2007) (attached as Exhibit 9).

Contrary to petitioner’s argument, see Petitioner’s Motion at , the All Writs Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1651, does not provide a basis for this Court to issue interlocutory relief in a case where

the Court lacks jurisdiction. The Act provides that federal courts “may issue all writs necessary

or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions,” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), but the Act

“confines the authority to the issuance of process ‘in aid of’ the issuing court’s jurisdiction” and

“does not enlarge that jurisdiction.” Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1999); see also

In re Tennant, 359 F.3d 523, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting id.). Thus, because the MCA

deprives the Court of jurisdiction as explained in Boumediene, the All Writs Act provides no

basis for issuing writs in aid of any exercise of jurisdiction by the District Court. Judge

Kessler’s order in Alhami to the contrary cited by the petitioner, Alhami v. Bush, 05-359 (GK)

(D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2007), appeal filed (D.C. Cir. Dec. 3, 2007), is, with respect, incorrect.

That the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant even interlocutory injunctive relief was

9 See also D.C. Cir. Rule 32.1(b)(1)(B) (“All unpublished orders or judgments of this court,
including explanatory memoranda (but not including sealed dispositions), entered on or after
January 1, 2002, may be cited as precedent.”).

10 The Court of Appeals heard argument on the appeal in that case on December 6, 2007.

-10-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 11 of 19

confirmed by Judge Kollar-Kotelly of this Court in another Guantanamo detainee habeas case.

In Hicks v. Bush, No. 02-CV-0299 (CKK), petitioner asked the Court to preliminarily enjoin

petitioner’s trial by military commission, claiming irreparable harm if tried by a commission

that, petitioner argued, had no legitimate jurisdiction over him. In denying the motion for

preliminary injunction, Judge Kollar-Kotelly explained,

In Boumediene, the D.C. Circuit clearly held that Congress intended to deprive
the federal district courts of jurisdiction over ‘all cases, without exception,
pending on or after the date of the enactment of [the MCA] which relate to any
aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial or conditions of detention of an
alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001,’ and that Congress
did so constitutionally . . . . As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review
Petitioner’s habeas petition.

Hicks v. Bush, No. 02-CV-0299 (CKK), 2007 WL 902303 at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2007).

Importantly, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied the motion without engaging in the traditional,

four-part test used to determine the propriety of such relief because “Boumediene holds that this

Court lacks jurisdiction to even consider Petitioner’s claims, such that this Court is precluded

from even engaging in a balancing of the factors that would be considered on a motion for a

preliminary injunction.” 2007 WL 902303 at *6.

Likewise here, the Court has no authority to grant petitioner’s motion, and it should be

denied on jurisdictional grounds alone.11

11 To be sure, other judges of this Court, including Judge Kollar-Kotelly, have granted relief
along the lines of what petitioner here requests, see, e.g., Ghanem v. Bush, 05-CV-1638 (CKK)
(D.D.C. July 10, 2007) (dkt. no. 53); Alhami v. Bush, 05-359 (GK) (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2007), appeal
filed (D.C. Cir. Dec. 3, 2007), but respondents maintain that orders granting such relief are
inconsistent with Boumediene.

-11-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 12 of 19

II.

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING ADVANCE NOTICE
OF TRANSFER WOULD HAVE TO BE DENIED IN ANY EVENT BECAUSE
PETITIONER FAILS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

Even if the Court were to move beyond the jurisdictional bar to consider further

petitioner’s motion for an order requiring advance notice of transfer, petitioner’s motion should

be denied. It is well-established that a request for preliminary injunctive relief “is an

extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear

showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972

(1997); Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To prevail in a request for a

preliminary injunction, a movant “must ‘demonstrate 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits, 2) that [he] would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, 3) that an

injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and 4) that the public interest

would be furthered by the injunction.’” See Katz v. Georgetown Univ., 246 F.3d 685, 687-88

(D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 746

(D.C. Cir. 1995)). The irreparable harm that must be shown to justify a preliminary injunction

“must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical.” Wisconsin Gas Co. v.

FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Petitioner’s motion fails to make the showing

required to justify the grant of injunctive relief.

Petitioner Has No Likelihood of Success On the Merits. Petitioner has no likelihood of

success on the merits because, as discussed above, the law of the Circuit is that § 7 of the MCA

clearly deprives this Court of jurisdiction. See supra I. The Court of Appeals in Boumediene

has held that aliens detained at Guantanamo do not have rights under the U.S. Constitution. See

476 F.3d at 988-94. To the extent petitioner might want to base his request for relief on the

-12-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 13 of 19

Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and Degrading Treatment

and Punishment (“CAT”), or the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

(“Refugee Convention”), he could not do so. Neither the CAT nor the Refugee Convention

gives rise to judicially enforceable rights. See, e.g., Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533,

544 (6th Cir. 2003) (Refugee Convention); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4) (CAT claims are not

cognizable in a habeas petition); see also Al-Anazi v. Bush, 370 F. Supp. 2d 188, 194 (D.D.C.

2005) (Bates, J.) (rejecting petitioner’s argument that the Foreign Affairs Reform and

Restructuring Act of 1998, which implemented CAT in certain immigration-specific contexts,

could serve as a legal basis for prohibiting or limiting transfer of wartime detainees to other

countries). And section 5(a) of the MCA, which provides that “no person may invoke the

Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or

proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer . . . is a party as a source of

rights” in any civil court proceeding, precludes petitioner’s reliance on those Conventions as

providing a basis for court relief in this matter. See Boumediene, 476 F.3d at 988 n.5 (sections

5(a) and 7 of the MCA preclude habeas jurisdiction over Geneva Conventions claims).12

12 Petitioner also misrepresents the holding of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct 2749 (2006),
claiming that “the Supreme Court has already ruled that detainees have stated actionable claims
under the Due Process Clause and the Geneva Conventions.” See Petitioner’s Motion at 6. The
Supreme Court did not even cite or rely upon the Due Process Clause in Hamdan and, moreover,
the law of this Circuit is that aliens detained at Guantanamo do not have constitutional rights.
See Boumediene, 476 F.3d at 988-94. Further, with respect to the Geneva Conventions, the
Hamdan Court held that the military commissions at issue there violated common Article 3 of
the Geneva Conventions, which the Court held were incorporated through the reference to the
“laws of war” in Article 21 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See 126 S. Ct. at 2794.
That holding, however, has no bearing on the argument asserted by petitioner in this case and, as
explained above, section 5(a) of MCA expressly precludes petitioner’s reliance on the Geneva
Conventions as a basis for relief in this matter.

-13-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 14 of 19

Further, even if some valid legal basis existed for petitioner’s request for an injunction,

the separation of powers would bar such relief. “[I]t is beyond the judicial function for a court to

review foreign policy decisions of the Executive Branch.” People’s Mojahedin Org. v. Dep’t of

State, 182 F.3d 17, 23 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman

Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948)); see also Holmes v. Laird, 459 F.2d 1211, 1215 (D.C.

Cir. 1972) (“In situations such as this, ‘[t]he controlling considerations are the interacting

interests of the United States and of foreign countries, and in assessing them [the courts] must

move with the circumspection appropriate when [a court] is adjudicating issues inevitably

entangled in the conduct of our international relations.’”) (quoting Romero v. Int’l Terminal

Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 383 (1959)).13 If the Court were to entertain petitioner’s claim to a

right to have conditions placed on repatriation or removal from Guantanamo, it would insert

itself into the most sensitive of diplomatic matters. Judicial review of a transfer or repatriation

decision would involve scrutiny or second-guessing of United States officials’ judgments and

assessments on the likelihood of torture in a foreign country, including judgments regarding the

state of diplomatic relations with a foreign government, the reliability of information concerning

and representations from a foreign government, the adequacy of assurances provided and a

foreign government’s capability to fulfill them. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 8-12. Second-guessing in

13 In Holmes, U.S. citizen-servicemembers sued to prevent the United States government from
surrendering them to West German authorities to serve sentences for convictions by West
German courts on criminal charges relating to their conduct while stationed in West Germany.
Even in this situation involving U.S. citizens, the district court and D.C. Circuit rejected the
plaintiffs’ invitation to examine the fairness of their treatment by the West German courts and
declined to enjoin the transfer, the latter court holding that “the contemplated surrender of
appellants to the Federal Republic of Germany is a matter beyond the purview of this court.”
459 F.2d at 1225.

-14-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 15 of 19

such matters by the courts or others could chill important sources of information and interfere

with or undermine our ability to interact effectively with foreign governments, including our

ability to obtain the cooperation of other nations in the war on terrorism. See Williamson Decl.

¶¶ 8-12; Benkert Decl. ¶ 8.14

Accordingly, there is no basis in law for an injunction barring the repatriation or transfer

of an alien enemy combatant, such as petitioner, during wartime. Thus, petitioner has no

likelihood of success to support his request for an injunction imposing a condition on transfer,

and his motion must be denied.

Petitioner has not Demonstrated Irreparable Injury. Petitioner also has not carried his

burden to show irreparable injury that is “certain and great . . . actual and not theoretical,”

Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985), by merely speculating that,

contrary to the policies and processes attested to in the sworn declarations of high-level

Executive Branch officials, the United States may repatriate or transfer petitioner under

circumstances where he might be tortured. Those declarations, after all, make clear that it is the

policy of the United States not to repatriate or transfer a detainee to a country when the United

States believes, based on a number of factors and considerations, it is more likely than not that

the individual will be tortured there. Williamson and Benkert Decls., passim. To implement this

14 It is certainly beyond argument that the courts of the United States would have no authority
to interfere with any decision of a foreign sovereign nation regarding detention or prosecution of
its own national being returned to it pursuant to its own laws. See Worldwide Minerals, Ltd. v.
Republic of Kazakhstan, 296 F.3d 1154, 1164-65 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“The act of state doctrine
precludes the courts of this country from inquiring into the validity of the public acts of a
recognized foreign sovereign power committed within its own territory.”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Cf., e.g., United States v. Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103, 110–11 (1st Cir.
1997) (expressing concern about inquiring into fairness of foreign nation’s judicial system under
“rule of non-inquiry”).

-15-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 16 of 19

policy, the Executive Branch employs an elaborate inter-agency process for evaluating the

propriety of transfers of Guantanamo detainees that involves senior level officials and includes

consideration of the detainee’s particular circumstances, an informed and well-rounded analysis

of the current situation on the ground in the prospective transferee country, the input of various

Department of State offices with relevant knowledge, personal interactions and negotiations with

senior officials of the prospective transferee government, and consideration of assurances

provided by the prospective transferee country, as well as their sufficiency and any mechanisms

for verifying them. Id. Further, a transfer will not take place where concerns about the treatment

of a detainee after transfer cannot be satisfactorily resolved. Id. To conclude that an injunction

placing conditions on an intended transfer of petitioner is nevertheless necessary would require

the Court to conclude that the United States’ policies and practices are somehow a sham or

pretext. There is no valid basis for such an assumption. Cf. Almurbati v. Bush, 366 F. Supp. 2d

72, 78 (D.D.C. 2005) (Walton, J.) (holding that respondents’ sworn declarations “directly refute

the petitioners’ allegations of their potential torture, mistreatment and indefinite detention to

which the United States will in some way be complicit”).

Petitioner also mistakenly posits that he will suffer “legal harm” if he is transferred to

another country because such a transfer would “circumvents his right to adjudicate the legality of

his detention in this Court.” See Petitioner’s Motion at 4. Petitioner is, in essence, suggesting

that the Court should paradoxically order the detention of petitioner – detention that, by

hypothesis, the detaining authority would otherwise end – to be prolonged for however long his

particular case might last, solely to enable the Court to rule on its legality. It turns the

idea of habeas corpus – the object of which is release from United States custody – on its head to

-16-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 17 of 19

argue that, purely to preserve the Court’s ability to issue a ruling, the custody attacked should be

indefinitely maintained.

Accordingly, petitioner has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm justifying an

injunction conditioning a repatriation or transfer of the petitioner on prior notice.

The Balance of Harms Warrants Denial of the Injunction. While petitioner argues that

respondents would not be harmed by an injunction restricting repatriation or transfer of the

petitioner, see Petitioner’s Motion at 5, in fact consideration of the equities and the harm that

would flow from such an injunction warrant that petitioner’s motion be denied.

Petitioner’s requested injunction entails serious and unprecedented harms that compel

that it be denied. As explained supra, allowing for the second-guessing of a determination to

repatriate or transfer petitioner would involve Court intervention into sensitive diplomatic

matters and would interfere with or undermine the government’s ability to conduct foreign

affairs, interact effectively with foreign governments, and obtain the cooperation of other nations

in the war on terrorism. See Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, 12; Benkert Decl. ¶ 8. See also Crosby

v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 381 (2000) (expressing disapproval of acts that

“compromise the very capacity of the President to speak for the nation with one voice in dealing

with other governments”). Constitutional and public interests favor allowing the Executive

Branch, which is constitutionally vested with the authority both to conduct military functions

such as detention of enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities15 and to engage in foreign

relations, to act without undue intrusion within its constitutional sphere of responsibility. As one

Judge of this Court has held:

15 See Hamdi, 542 U.S. 507, 518-19 (2004) (plurality opinion).

-17-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 18 of 19

[T]here is a strong public interest against the judiciary needlessly intruding upon
the foreign policy and war powers of the Executive on a deficient factual record.
Where the conduct of the Executive conforms to law, there is simply no benefit –
and quite a bit of detriment – to the public interest from the Court nonetheless
assuming for itself the role of a guardian ad litem for the disposition of these
detainees. See People’s Mojahedin Org., 182 F.3d at 23 (“[I]t is beyond the
judicial function for a court to review foreign policy decisions of the Executive
Branch.”).

Al-Anazi, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 199.

Here, petitioner asks this Court to impose a condition on the repatriation or transfer of an

alien enemy combatant held outside the United States during wartime. Separation of powers and

other public interests warrant the rejection of petitioner’s request. See Hamdi, 542 U.S. 507, 531

(2004) (plurality opinion) (“Without doubt, our Constitution recognizes that core strategic

matters of warmaking belong in the hands of those who are best positioned and most politically

accountable for making them.”).

* * *

Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s motion for an order

requiring advance notice of a transfer of the petitioner, and, in any event, petitioner has not

satisfied the requirements for such relief.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, respondents respectfully request that petitioner’s motion for

an order requiring advance notice of a transfer of the petitioner be denied.

Dated: December 31, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General

-18-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 19 of 19



DOUGLAS N. LETTER
Terrorism Litigation Counsel

/s/ Andrew I. Warden
JOSEPH H. HUNT (D.C. Bar No. 431134)
VINCENT M. GARVEY (D.C. Bar No. 127191)
JUDRY L. SUBAR (D.C. Bar 347518)
TERRY M. HENRY
JAMES J. SCHWARTZ
JEAN LIN
ROBERT J. KATERBERG
ANDREW I. WARDEN (IN Bar 23840-49)
NICHOLAS A. OLDHAM
JAMES C. LUH
Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-4938
Fax: (202) 616-8470

Attorneys for Respondents

-19-

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 34

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 2 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 3 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 4 of 34

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 5 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 6 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 7 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 8 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 9 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 10 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 11 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 12 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 13 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 14 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 15 of 34

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 16 of 34

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 17 of 34

List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006

Name

((SHARIPOV)), RUKNIDDIN FAYZIDDINOVICH
((VAKHIDOV)) SOBIT (ABDUMUKIT) VALIKHONOVICH
ABAHANOV, YAKUB
ABAS, MOHAMMAD
ABASIN, SAID
ABASSI, FEROZ ALI
ABBAS, YUSEF
ABD AL MUJAHID, MAHMOUD ABD AL AZIZ
ABD AL RAHMAN ABD, ALLAL AB ALJALLIL
ABD AL SATTAR, MUIEEN A DEEN JAMAL A DEEN ABD AL FUSAL
ABD AL WAHAB, ABD AL MALIK
'ABD AL-RAZAQ 'ABDALLAH HAMID IBRAHIM AL-SHARIKH
ABDALLAH, MUHAMED HUSSEIN
ABDALLAH, SAYF BIN
ABDEL AZIZ, ABDULLAH MUHAMMED
ABDELRAHMAN, ABDELRAZAK ALI
ABDENOUR, SAMEUR
ABDERRAHMANE, SLIMANE HADJ
ABDUL HAMID, HASSAN KHALIL MOHAMOUD
ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDUL GHAPPAR
ABDUL SAID, HASSAN
ABDUL WAHAB AL ASMR, KHALID MAHOMOUD
ABDULAHAT, EMAM
ABDULAYEV, OMAR HAMZAYAVICH
ABDULGHUPUR, HAJIAKBAR
ABDULHEHIM, ADEL
ABDULQADIRAKHUN, ABDULLAH
ABDUREHIM, DAWUT
ABU AL QUSIN, ABDUL RAUF OMAR MOHAMMED
ABU BAKR, OMAR KHALIFA MOHAMMED
ABU GHANIM, MOHAMMED RAJAB SADIQ
ABU RAHMAN, ABDUL RABBANI ABD AL RAHIM
ABULWANCE, YAMATOLAH
ACHAB KANOUNI, IMAD
ACHEZKAI, HAJI MOHAMMED KHAN
ADAM GUL, ATAULLAH
ADAM, MOHAMMED SADIQ
ADIL, AHMED
AHJAM, AHMED ADNAN
AHMAD, ABDUL
AHMAD, ABDULLAH TABARAK
AHMAD, AHMAD ABD AL RAHMAN
AHMAD, BASHIR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

ISN
76
90
526
542
671
24
275
31
156
309
37
67
704
46
206
685
659
323
711
281
435
589
295
257
282
293
285
289
709
695
44
1460
116
164
104
525
454
260
326
956
56
267
1005

Citizenship

Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Kazakhstan
Pakistan
Afghanistan
United Kingdom
China
Yemen
Yemen
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Tunisia
Saudi Arabia
Libya
Algeria
Denmark
Jordan
China
Iraq
Jordan
China
Tajikistan
China
China
China
China
Libya
Libya
Yemen
Pakistan
Afghanistan
France
Afghanistan
Afghanistan
Uzbekistan
China
Syria
Afghanistan
Morocco
Spain
Pakistan

** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth.

Place of Birth

Date of Birth **

Lenenabad, Tajikistan
Itsfaratz, Tajikistan
Semeya, Kazakhstan
Village 426, PK
Khan o Khel, AF
Entebbe, Uganda
Aksu, CH
Ta'iz, YM
Aluday, YM
Dubai, UAE
Ibb, YM
Shaqara, SA
Boor'o, SO
Menzil, Tunisia
Al Medina Menawa, SA
Al Jilat, LY
Algiers, Algeria
Roskilde, Denmark
Amman, JO
Kucha, CH
Basra, Iraq
Irbid, JO
Konashahar, CH
Dushanbe, Tajikistan
Ghulja, CH
Ghulja, CH
Xinjian, CH
Ghulja, CH
Tripoli, LY
Al Bayda, LY
Sanaa, YM
UNKNOWN
Kandahar, AF
Casablanco, MO
Kabul, AF
Khushawa, AF
Konduz, AF
Kashkar, CH
Halab, SY
Roy E Sang, AF
Casablanca, MO
Cueta, SP
Chah Kote Wala, PK

3/15/1973
11/13/1969
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1/1/1982
10/29/1979
1/1/1980
8/1/1977
12/27/1975
6/5/1975
1/1/1979
1/18/1984
1/1/1983
6/24/1973
9/8/1967
7/17/1970
3/28/1973
8/5/1973
11/12/1961
3/15/1973
4/7/1976
12/16/1963
6/1/1977
10/11/1978
1/1/1974
10/10/1974
6/18/1979
11/1/1974
1/1/1965
1/1/1972
1/1/1975
1/1/1969
1/1/1977
3/6/1977
1/1/1977
1/1/1982
1/1/1973
1/1/1973
5/1/1977
1/1/1954
12/12/1955
9/22/1974
1/1/1976

5/15/2006

1

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 18 of 34

List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

AHMAD, MAJID MAHMUD ABDU
AHMAD, NOOR
AHMAD, OSAM ABDUL RAHAN
AHMAD, SULTAN
AHMED ZAID SALIM ZUHAIR
AHMED, ABDUL RAHMAN
AHMED, ABDUL RAHMAN UTHMAN
AHMED, ALI
AHMED, ALI ABDULLAH
AHMED, FAHMI ABDULLAH
AHMED, FARUQ ALI
AHMED, FAYAD YAHYA
AHMED, FEDA
AHMED, RHUHEL
AHMED, SAGHIR
AHMED, SAR FARAZ
AHMED, SHABIR
AIT IDR, MUSTAFA
AKBAR, MOHAMMED
AKHBAR, MOHAMMAD
AKHMYAROV, RUSTAM
AKHTAR MOHAMMED, ROSTUM
AL AASMI, ASSEM MATRUQ MOHAMMAD
AL AJMI, ABDALLAH SALEH ALI
AL ALAWI, MUAZ HAMZA AHMAD
AL ALI, MAHMUD SALEM HORAN MOHAMMED MUTLAK
AL AMIR MAHMOUD, AMIR YAKOUB MOHAMMED
AL AMRANI, AYMAN MOHAMMAD SILMAN
AL AMRI, ABD AL RAHMAN MOAZA ZAFER
AL AMRI, ABDUL RAHMAN MA ATH THAFIR
AL ANAZI, SULTAN SARI SAYEL
AL ANSARI, FARIS MUSLIM
AL ANSI, MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH
AL ASADI, MOHAMMED AHMED ALI
AL ATABI, BIJAD THIF ALLAH
AL AWDA, FOUZI KHALID ABDULLAH
AL AWFI, MAZIN SALIH MUSAID
AL AZMI, SA AD MADI SA AD
AL BADDAH, ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUL AZIZ
AL BAKUSH, ISMAEL ALI FARAG
AL BALUSHI, SALAH ABDUL RASUL ALI ABDUL
AL BALUSHI, SALAH ABDUL RASUL ALI ABDUL RAHMAN
AL BARAKAT, KHALID HASSAN HUSAYN
AL BAWARDI, KHALID SAUD ABD AL RAHMAN

41
580
1018
842
669
441
95
303
693
688
32
683
1013
110
843
113
1003
10004
1011
635
573
632
49
220
28
537
720
169
196
199
507
253
29
198
122
232
154
571
264
708
245
227
322
68

Burayqah, YM
Moqur, AF
Al-Zarqa, JO
Sargodha, PK
Jeddah, SA
Sana'a, YM
Riyadh, SA
Baluchistan, PK
Ib, YM
Debab, YM
Ta'iz, YM
Aden, YM
Kandahar, AF
Birmingham, UK
Sargodha, PK
Lahore, PK
Badakhshan, AF
Sidimhamed, Algeria
Helmand, AF
Ghowr Band, AF
Chelyabinsk, RS
Musa Qala, AF

Yemen
Afghanistan
Jordan
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Yemen
Yemen
Yemen
Yemen
Afghanistan
United Kingdom
Pakistan
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Algeria
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Russia
Afghanistan
Palestine / Saudi Arabia Khan Younis, Israel
Kuwait
Yemen
Syria
Sudan
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Yemen
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia

Almadi, KU
Bajor, YM
Doha, Syria
Omdurman, SU
Muthalthal Ardha, JO
Arar, SA
Ta'if, SA
Sakaka, SA
Mukala, YM
Sanaa, YM
Sana'a, YM
Saajer, SA
Kuwait City, KU
Medina, SA
Doha, KU
Quia, SA
Al-Khumas, LY
Jeddah, SA
Muharraq, BA
Mecca, SA
Riyadh, SA

6/15/1980
1/1/1973
1/1/1976
11/1/1984
1/1/1973
1/1/1979
12/31/1973
1/1/1982
1/1/1977
1/1/1977
12/1/1983
1/1/1977
2/5/1977
3/11/1981
1/1/1975
1/27/1966
1/1/1971
7/9/1970
1/1/1973
1/1/1956
10/24/1979
1/1/1980
2/18/1980
8/2/1978
1/1/1977
5/5/1974
5/9/1971
1/1/1978
7/26/1978
4/17/1973
1/1/1974
1/1/1984
1/1/1975
7/1/1979
8/23/1971
5/6/1977
8/4/1979
5/29/1979
4/12/1982
7/1/1968
1/1/1980
12/2/1981
1/1/1975
1/1/1977

** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth.

5/15/2006

2

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 19 of 34

List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006

AL BEDANI, ABDUL KHALED AHMED SAHLEH
AL BIDNA, SA AD IBRAHAM SA AD
AL BIHANI, GHALEB NASSAR
AL BIHANI, TOLFIQ NASSAR AHMED
AL BUSAYSS, ADIL SAID AL HAJ OBEID
AL DARBI, AHMED MUHAMMED HAZA
AL DEHANI, MOHAMMAD FINAYTAL
AL DHUBY, KHALID MOHAMMED SALIH
AL DOSARI, JUMA MOHAMMED ABDUL LATIF
AL DUBAIKEY, BESSAM MUHAMMED SALEH
AL EDAH, MOHAMMED AHMAD SAID
AL FARHA, SAID ALI

88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100 AL FAYFI, JABIR JUBRAN
101 AL FOUZAN, FAHD MUHAMMED ABDULLAH
102 AL FRIH, MAJED HAMAD
103 AL GHATANI, KHALID MALU SHIA
104 AL GHAZZAWI, ABDEL HAMID IBN ABDUSSALEM IBN MIFTAH
105 AL HAJJ, BOUDELLA
106 AL HAJJ, SAMI MOHY EL DIN MUHAMMED
107 AL HAMI, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALUD
108 AL HAMIRI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH
109 AL HANASHI, MOHAMMAD AHMED ABDULLAH SALEH
110 AL HARAZI, FAHED
111 AL HARBI, GHANIM ABDUL RAHMAN
112 AL HARBI, MAJID ABDALLAH HUSAYN MUHAMMAD AL SAMLULI
113 AL HARBI, MOHAMED ATIQ AWAYD
114 AL HARBI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH
115 AL HARBI, SALIM SULIMAN
116 AL HARBI, TARIQE SHALLAH HASSAN
117 AL HARITH, JAMAL MALIK
118 AL HASSAN, MUSTAFA IBRAHIM MUSTAFA
119 AL HATAYBI, ABDUL RAHMAN NASHI BADI
120 AL HENALI, MENHAL
121 AL HIKIMI, AHMED UMAR ABDULLAH
122 AL HILAL, ABDUL AL SALAM
123 AL HIZANI, ABD
124 AL HUBAYSHI, KHALID SULAYMANJAYDH
125 AL HUSAYN, ZAID MUHAMAMD SA'AD
126 AL JABRI, BANDAR AHMAD MUBARAK
127 AL JAYFI, ISSAM HAMID AL BIN ALI
128 AL JOUDI, MAJEED ABDULLAH
129 AL JUAID, ABDUL RAHMAN OWAID MOHAMMAD
130 AL JUHANI, MUHAMAD NAJI SUBHI
131 AL JUTAYLI, FAHD SALIH SULAYMAN

553
337
128
893
165
768
229
506
261
340
33
341
188
218
336
439
654
10006
345
892
249
78
79
516
158
333
536
57
265
490
719
268
726
30
1463
370
155
50
182
183
25
179
62
177

Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Yemen
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Libya
Algeria
Sudan
Tunisia
Yemen
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
United Kingdom
Sudan
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Yemen
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia

Taif, SA
Riyadh, SA
Tabokh, SA
Tabuk, SA
Aden, YM
Ta'if, SA
Kuwait City, KU
Taif, SA
Khabar, SA
Qasim, SA
Hay al-Turbawi Ta'iz, YM
Bahir, SA
Ta'if, SA
Riyadh, SA
Mecca, SA
Al Arib, SA
Tripoli, LY
Laghouat, Algeria
Khartoum, SU
Omaron, Tunisia
Hudaydah, YM
Al Habrub, YM
Mecca, SA
Khobar, SA
Jedda, SA
Riyadh, SA
Riyadh, SA
Mecca, SA
Medina, SA
Manchester, UK
Al-Manakil, SU
Dehman, SA
Darna, SY
Ta'iz, YM
UNKNOWN
Riyahd, SA
Jeddah, SA
Amman, JO
Mecca, SA
Sada, YM
Mecca, SA
Ta'if, SA
Jeddah, SA
Burayada, SA

1/1/1983
5/11/1978
1/1/1980
6/1/1972
3/12/1973
1/9/1975
11/4/1965
1/1/1981
8/13/1973
1/1/1978
1/1/1962
11/5/1979
1/1/1975
12/1/1983
1/1/1980
1/1/1983
11/8/1962
4/18/1965
2/15/1969
3/14/1969
1/1/1982
2/1/1978
11/18/1978
3/13/1974
6/28/1980
7/13/1973
1/1/1979
11/22/1968
1/1/1983
11/20/1966
1/1/1957
1/1/9180
1/1/1963
1/1/1972
1/30/1968
1/1/1976
1/1/1975
1/1/1974
4/16/1979
9/1/1979
1/1/1967
11/7/1980
10/5/1967
5/1/1983

** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth.

5/15/2006

3

Case 1:07-cv-02338-UNA Document 5-2 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 20 of 34

List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006

132 AL KABI, JAMIL ALI
133 AL KANDARI, FAIZ MOHAMMED AHMED
134 AL KARIM, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL
135 AL KAZIMI, SANAD YISLAM
136 AL KHALAQI, ASIM THAHIT ABDULLAH
137 AL KHALDI, ABDUL AZIZ SAAD
138 AL KHALIF, HANI SAIID MOHAMMAD
139 AL KHALIFA, SHEIKH SALMAN EBRAHIM MOHAMED ALI
140 AL KUNDUZI, UMAR ABDULLAH
141 AL KURASH, MUHAMMAD ABD AL RAHMAN
142 AL MADOONEE, MUSAB OMAR ALI
143 AL MAHAYAWI, SAUD DAKHIL ALLAH MUSLIH
144 AL MALKI, SAED KHATEM
145 AL MARRI, JARALLA SALEH MOHAMMED KAHLA
146 AL MARWALAH, BASHIR NASIR ALI
147 AL MATRAFI, ABDALLAH AIZA
148 AL MAYTHALI, HA IL AZIZ AHMED
149 AL MISHAD, SHARIF FATI ALI
150 AL