UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
ABDAL RAZAK ALI (ISN 685), )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 09-745 (RCL)
)
BARACK OBAMA, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
--------------)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner is a detainee at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
("Guantanamo") who is challenging the legality of his detention by seeking a writ of habeas
corpus. Presently before the Court is petitioner's Motion [902] for Expedited Judgment. 1 Upon
consideration of the motion, the opposition and reply thereto, the applicable law, and the entire
record herein, the motion shall be denied for the reasons set forth below.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is an~itizen named Said Bin Brahim Bin Umran Bakhouche. 2
(Factual Return and Narrative [hereinafter Return] , I.) He was captured on March 28, 2002 at a
guesthouse in Faisalabad, Pakistan. (Id." 1,30.)
1 Petitioner originally filed his Motion [902] for Expedited Judgment on January 16,
2009. Petitioner renewed the motion without modification on May 28,2009 (See Order [1190]),
and again on August 28, 2009 via phone with the Court. Respondents renewed their opposition
without modification on September 9, 2009.
2 In his motion, petitioner objects to many of the underlying documents relied upon in the
factual return and its supplement because they are unreliable. (Mot. at 9-13.) For the purposes of
this motion, however, the Court must accept all factual allegations as true. Nevertheless, the
veracity of the underlying documents may still be contested in the future.
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
15,21.) a facilitator for AI-Qaida forces, controlled
the guesthouse [hereinafter Zubaydah house] and was also captured there. (Id. ~ 30;
Supplemental Narrative [hereinafter Supplement] ~ I.)
31.)
_ w a s not a member of AI-Qaida. (Supplement ~ 1.) However, he associated
with Usama bin Laden and actively supported AI-Qaida. (Id.) Indeed, he met with bin Laden on
several occasions. (Id.) He facilitated the travel of recruits to the Khaldan terrorist training camp
in Afghanistan from 1994 until its closure in 2000. 3 (Id. ~~ 3, 4.) After the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 , _ w e n t to Khost, Afghanistan to prepare for the expected offensive
against bin Laden. (ld. ~ 5.) Then, when the Taliban retreated from Kandahar, he focused his
efforts on helping fighters escape to Pakistan. (Id. ~ 6). By late March 2002_was in
Faisalabad moving from safehouse to safehouse and making preparations to continue fighting.
(Id. ~ 8.)
The Zubaydah house was one of the safehouses that was making preparations to continue
to fight. Specifically, residents of the house were attempting to make chemical weapons,
Decl., "Guesthouses," p. 8 (Sept. 19,2008).)
3 The Khaldan camp was independent from AI-Qaida, bU~"coordinated and
cooperated with bin Laden in the conduct of training and trainee movements between the
camps." (Supplement ~ 4.)
2
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
They were also learning computer skills and English while preparing for "martyrdom
operations." (Supplement ~ 8.) In addition, the Zubaydah house had a close relationship with the
Issa house, another Faisalabad safehouse making preparations to continue to fight. (See
Supplement ~~ 9-13.) According t who resided at the Zubaydah
house and was captured with petitioner, petitioner was aware of these activities taking place at
the Zubaydah house. (Id. ~ 14.)
In addition to residing at the Zubaydah house,
who
also identified petitioner
(ld. ~ 27.)
(ld.) None of the individuals who identified petitioner, however, stated that
petitioner was a member of AI-Qaida
Petitioner has also provided three inconsistent accounts of his activities after September
11,2001. In the first two accounts, petitioner traveled to Pakistan with a Libyan,
(ld. ~ 15.) The purpose of their trip was to learn how to read and write, and to study Islam. (ld.)
In the first account, petitioner thought he arrived at a house in Pakistan in October 2001, but later
learned that he was actually in Kabul, Afghanistan. (ld. ~ 16.) He gave his passport and money
to who then left petitioner in Kabul. (ld.) Three weeks later, petitioner arrived at
the Zubaydah house in Faisalabad. (ld. ~ 17.)
3
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
In the second account,
(Id.)
(Id.) He then arrived at the Zubaydah house, where he stayed for
about sixteen days before he was captured. (Id. ~ 19.)
In his most recent account, petitioner admitted that (Id.
(Id.)
(Id.) Petitioner
(Id. ~~ 24-25.)
Last, petitioner has received military training.
(Id. at 8 nA), and Id. ~
26).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
This Court is operating under the Case Management Order ("CMO") issued by Judge
Hogan of this Court in the consolidated Guantanamo habeas cases, Misc. No. 08-442, on
November 6, 2008, as amended on December 16,2008, and as amended on December 19, 2008
[797] by Judge Walton of this Court, and the Supplemental Case Management Order [1011]
4
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
("SCMO") issued by Judge Walton of this Court in Gherbi v. Bush, Civ. No. 04-1164 on
February 19,2009, as amended on March 27,2009 [1101].4
Pursuant to the Amended SCMO:
[a] petitioner may file a motion for expedited judgment on the record only if the
petitioner believes in good faith that the allegations set forth in the narrative of the
factual return for that petitioner, if assumed to be true, do not suffice to justify the
detention of the petitioner pursuant to any authority conferred to the President by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. 107-40 (2001).
Amended SCMO [1101] at 7. Accordingly, a motion for expedited judgment on the record
operates so that all allegations in the factual return are assumed to be true, and the Court gives
respondents "the benefit of all reasonable inferences derived from the facts alleged." Tooley v.
Napolitano, 556 F.3d 836, 839 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
This Court adopted the detention standard articulated by Judge Bates in Hamlily v.
Obama, 616 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2009), in a Memorandum Opinion [1187] on May 21,2009.
The relevant portion of the standard provides:
[U]nder the AUMF ... [t]he President has authority to detain persons who are or
were part of the Taliban or AI Qaeda forces or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any
person who has committed (i.e., directly participated in) a belligerent act in aid of
such enemy armed forces.
Id at 77-78.~ Accordingly, for the purposes of this motion, this Court. must determine whether,
4This petition was originally before Judge Walton of this Court, and he amended Judge
Hogan's CMO and issued a SCMO before the petition was transferred to the undersigned
member of this Court on April 21, 2009 [1153]. Accordingly, Judge Walton's Amended CMO is
binding on this Court.
~ In adopting this standard, the Court resolved petitioner's issues with the definition of
"enemy combatant." (Mot. at 13-17.) In addition, the Hamlily standard is consistent with
international law and the principles of co-belligerency. See Curtis A. BradeIy & Jack L.
Goldsmith, Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2047,
5
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
accepting all respondents' factual allegations as true and giving respondents the benefit of all
reasonable inferences derived from the facts alleged, the factual return suffices to show that
petitioner is part of the enemy armed forces, and therefore may be detained under the
Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF").
III. ANALYSIS
A. Petitioner Was Functionally Part Of The Enemy Forces
Accepting all allegations as true and giving respondents the benefit of all reasonable
inferences derived from the facts alleged, the Court finds that the factual return suffices to show
that petitioner is part of the enemy armed forces, and thus may be detained pursuant to the
AUMF.
It is undisputed that petitioner was not a member of Al-Qaida or the Taliban. (See Return
~~ 27-29.) However, one need not be a member of Al-Qaida or the Taliban in order to be
detained. As stated in Hamlily, "[t]he key inquiry ... is not necessarily whether one self-
identifies as a member of the organization ... , but whether the individual/unctions or
participates within or under the command structure ofthe organization-i.e, whether he receives
and executes orders or directions." 616 F. Supp. 2d at 75 (emphasis added). In applying the
Hamlily inquiry, the factual allegations, accepted as true and viewed as a whole, demonstrate that
petitioner is functionally part of enemy forces, and therefore may be detained under the AUMF.
First, petitioner has received military training on at least two occasions.
(Return at 8 n.4)
2112-13 (2005) (stating that international law recognizes that an enemy in an armed conflict
includes the enemy's associates and arguing that associates or agents of Al-Qaida are therefore
recognized enemies under international law.)
6
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
(Id. ~ 26). His training and experience would make him
an asset to the enemy forces either as a fighter or a trainer
It is common
practice for terrorists to use aliases, which may take many forms. I I. eel.,
"Names, Aliases, Kunyas and Variants" at 4 (September 19,2008).) Aliases may be descriptive
ofa physical trait or, like a nisba, may identify the residence of the person. (ld. at 3-4.) _
which demonstrates that petitioner identified himself as an
_ (Id. at 9.) The fact that members of the enemy force knew petitioner by his alias tends
to show that he was functionally part of the enemy forces and was known in their network. "
In addition to identifying petitioner as
(Return ~ 27; Decl. at
9.) Terrorists often use multiple aliases, which may change upon one's location, "to provide a
degree of 'cover' or operational security." (Id. at 4.) Accordingly, this shows that petitioner may
have attempted to identify himself as a Libyan in order to provide cover for his true identity.
Third, several individuals have stated that they saw petitioner in Afghanistan. _
Serving as a driver is sufficient to
demonstrate that an individual is functionally part of the enemy forces. See Hamlily, 616 F.
Supp. 2d at 75 (stating that an individual who houses, feeds or transports, AI-Qaida forces may
be considered functionally part of the enemy forces.) Thus, these allegations contradict
7
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
petitioner's present position that
6 (Return ~ 25.)
(Id. , 31). The fact that petitioner was allowed to stay at the same house as
~nd other combatants demonstrates that it is plausible petitioner was part of the enemy
forces. The Zubaydah house served as a place in which forces were reconstituting to return to
battle. (Supplement ~ 8.)
(Id. ~ 14.)
Furthennore, many of the individuals captured on the raid of the Zubaydah house had fled
Afghanistan. (Id. ~ 15.) Because petitioner was seen in Afghanistan in the fall of2001, it is
plausible that he too arrived at the Zubaydah house after fleeing Afghanistan.
Moreover, the fact tha does not
disqualify petitioner from being functionally a part of the enemy force.
Guesthouses, such as the Zubaydah house, had standard operating procedures. ~ecl. at
3.) The administrator of the house would take one's "passport, identification, money, or other
travel documents." (Id.) This enabled the administrator to exercise great control over
individuals at a guesthouse, including directing individuals to go to other guesthouses. (Id.)
hich tends to show that he was
under the control of someone in the enemy force. (Return ~~ 16, 18.)
In sum, in viewing the entire record and accepting all allegations as true and giving
~titioner's initial accounts
_ ( R e t u r n ~~ 16-18.)
8
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNCLASSIFIEOIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
respondents the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the Court finds that the factual return
suffices to show that petitioner is part of the enemy armed forces, and thus may be detained
pursuant to the AUMF. Accordingly, petitioner's motion is denied.
B. Respondents Do Not Advance A "Guilt by Association" Theory
Petitioner contends that respondents advocate a "guilt by association" theory to justify
petitioner's detention. (Mot. at 7-9.) In support of his argument, petitioner cites several First
Amendment cases which are inapposite. To be sure, the First Amendment protects an
individual's freedom to associate. U.S. CONST. amend. I. That right, however, is not at issue.
The issue is whether petitioner is functionally part of the enemy forces. See Hamlily, 616 F.
Supp. 2d at 75.
To answer that question, the Court must view the evidence as a whole. One such piece of
evidence is petitioner's association with the Zubaydah guesthouse. As stated above, the
guesthouse served as a safehouse for reconstituting forces to continue to fight. (Supplement ~ 8.)
When petitioner's association is viewed with the allegations that
plausible that petitioner was functionally part of the enemy forces.
Supplement ~ 14.) Accordingly, the Court finds that petitioner's "guilt by association" argument
is inapplicable to petitioner's habeas proceeding.
9
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, petitioner's Motion for Expedited Judgment on the Record
is denied. A separate order shall issue this date.
DATE
~c.;/~
RO E C. LAMBERTH
CHIEF JUDGE
10
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE