Latest in Guantanamo: Litigation
Judge Mehta’s 2021 decision granting Guantanamo Bay detainee Asadullah Haroon Gul’s writ of habeas corpus defines what the government must show to prove that a member of a former “associated force” should also be considered a part of al-Qaeda.
The latest episode of the National Security Law Podcast
The whole D.C. Circuit is set to rehear a case that could decisively determine whether foreign aliens held at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional due process rights.
On Dec. 5, counsel for Guantanamo detainee Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Al-Alwi is a Yemeni citizen who was captured in Pakistan in 2001 and has been detained at Guantanamo Bay since 2002.
The government has filed a brief in opposition before the Supreme Court regarding Saifullah Paracha's petition for a writ of certiorari over whether certain statutory restrictions regarding the release or transfer of Guantanamo detainees constitute bills of attainder. Paracha, a Pakistani national who has been detained at Guantanamo Bay since 2004, initially filed his petition on Sept. 26, 2017 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Don't look now but the long dormant world of Guantanamo habeas litigation is getting at least a little bit less sleepy.
Last November, a detainee named Guled Hassan Duran, an alum of the CIA's RDI program, filed a new habeas petition.
Anyone following the Guantánamo military commissions would do well to read Bob Loeb and Helen Klein's trenchant take on last Friday's D.C. Circuit decision in In re Khadr, in which the Court of Appeals declined to issue a writ of mandamus even while agreeing that there may be a serious question "whether the civilians who serve as judges on the U.S.
Don't look now, but something's happening in the Guantanamo litigation.
This morning, a three-judge D.C.
As I explained on Sunday, one way to understand the diffference between the majority and dissenting opinions in last Friday's D.C. Circuit decision in al Bahlul v. United States is as reflecting two different methodological approaches to the question of whether Congress can empower non-Article III military commissions to try "domestic" offenses like inchoate conspiracy.