Don't look now but we're about to see at least one new Guantanamo habeas merits hearing—tomorrow, in fact.
Latest in Guantanamo Litigation: District Court
Don't look now, but something's happening in the Guantanamo litigation.
You might remember Mohamedou Ould Salahi—Guantanamo detainee, author and memoirist, subject of a brutal interrogation, important source on Al Qaeda, and all around fascinating human puzzle.
On June 5, 2015, in connection with recent motions practice, attorneys for habeas petitioner Mukhtar Yahia Naji al Warafi filed a supplemental memorandum with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In this document, the Guantanamo detainee's lawyers call attention to President Obama's recent statements about the end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan---the idea being to shore up a pending motion to have the court order al Warafi's release.
The Guantanamo detainee, as readers likely know, argued in a February motion that the end of the United States' war in Afghanistan, as recognized by President Obama, requires his release from Guantanamo. On Wednesday, Al-Warafi filed his reply brief on that issue. It opens as follows:
The response was filed on Friday, in the habeas case of Al-Warafi v. Obama. Have a look:
Ben asks “What Would it Take to Close Guantanamo?” and he provides a thoughtful response weighted toward the political landscape. But there’s another not-so-merely-philosophical question that underlies his question: what does it mean to “close Guantanamo?”
For purposes of rapprochement with Cuba it may have to mean U.S. out of Guantanamo altogether.
Wells already flagged yesterday's D.D.C.
On Friday, Judge Gladys Kessler of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied detainee Abu Wa'el Dhiab's bid for a preliminary injunction against certain Guantanamo force-feeding procedures.
The court's memorandum opinion concludes as follows:
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the Petitioner's Application for a Preliminary Injunction must be denied because he has failed to satisfy the "deliberate indifference" standard of proof.
The First Amendment question in Judge Kessler’s opinion in support of her Order directing the videotapes of Abu Wa'el Dhiab's forced feedings to be unsealed (see Jane’s summary) is whether the public’s presumptive right of access is outweighed by the government’s well-specified “compelling interest” in keeping the classified tapes sealed. The