FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials

Pages:   || 2 |


-- [ Page 1 ] --

No. 10-1383

In the Supreme Court of the United States










Solicitor General Counsel of Record TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General ROBERT M. LOEB H. THOMAS BYRON III Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov (202) 514-2217


Whether the courts below correctly determined that petitioner, an alien captured overseas who conceded that he was part of al-Qaida and that he participated in alQaida military training, is subject to military detention under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub.

L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224.



Page Opinions below........................................ 1 Jurisdiction........................................... 1 Statement............................................ 1 Argument............................................ 5 Conclusion.......................................... 12



Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1001 (2011)............. 4, 5, 10 Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011)............ 5, 10, 11 Al-Bihani v. Obama, 619 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010)..... 5, 11 Al Odah v. United States, 611 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1812 (2011).................. 5 Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011).................. 5 Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).............. 2 Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (2001)............ 6 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).............. 8 Hamdi v. Rums

–  –  –



The order of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-2a) is unreported. The opinion of the district court (Pet. App.

3a-25a) is unreported.


The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on February 10, 2011. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on May 11, 2011. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).

STATEMENT Petitioner is an alien detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF ), Pub. L.

No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224. He petitioned for a writ (1) 2 of habeas corpus, and the district court denied the petition. The court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1a-2a.

1. In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the AUMF, which authorizes “the President * * * to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” AUMF § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224. The President has ordered the Armed Forces to subdue both the al-Qaida terrorist network and the Taliban regime that harbored it in Afghanistan. Armed conflict with al-Qaida and the Taliban remains ongoing, and in connection with that conflict, the United States and its allies have captured many persons who are part of al-Qaida or Taliban forces (or substantial supporters thereof ) and detained a small fraction of them at Guantanamo Bay.

2. Petitioner, an alien detained at Guantanamo Bay under the AUMF, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was filed before this Court held in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), that district courts have jurisdiction to consider habeas petitions filed by Guantanamo detainees, and proceedings were stayed pending resolution of that jurisdictional issue.

After Boumediene, the government filed a factual return to the habeas petition, and petitioner filed a traverse. Pet. App. 10a-11a.

3. After holding a hearing at which petitioner testified, the district court denied the petition. Pet. App. 3aa.

The district court found that petitioner, a national of Yemen who was raised in Saudi Arabia, traveled to Afghanistan via Pakistan in 2000. During his travels, petitioner stayed in guesthouses run by or associated with al-Qaida. After arriving in Afghanistan, petitioner received military training, including weapons training, from al-Qaida at its al-Farouq training camp. In July 2001, he left al-Farouq and traveled within Afghanistan, again staying at al-Qaida guesthouses and associating with al-Qaida operatives. After the United States military operation in Afghanistan began later that year, petitioner joined a group of men traveling from Afghanistan to Iran through Pakistan. Once in Iran, petitioner was apprehended in the company of an al-Qaida operative, returned to Afghanistan, and transferred to United States custody. Pet. App. 4a-10a.

Petitioner conceded that he was part of al-Qaida for at least five months in early 2001 during his training at the al-Farouq camp. He also conceded that he continued to stay in al-Qaida guesthouses and to associate with alQaida members following his departure from al-Farouq.

On that basis, the district court concluded that the government had satisfied its burden of establishing its prima facie case supporting the lawfulness of petitioner’s detention. Pet. App. 15a-16a.

The district court determined that petitioner had failed to rebut the government’s prima facie case. Because petitioner acknowledged that he had been part of al-Qaida, the court determined that it was necessary for him to “show[] that he took affirmative actions to abandon his membership.” Pet. App. 16a-17a (citation omitted). Petitioner identified no such affirmative steps.

The court rejected petitioner’s hearing testimony that he intended to leave Afghanistan and return to Saudi Arabia, finding that “numerous material inconsistencies * * * completely undermine his credibility.” Id. at 23a.

The court concluded that “the inherent incongruity in 4 the petitioner’s account strongly suggests that he is providing ‘false exculpatory statements’ to conceal his association with al-Qaeda, and such statements ‘are evidence—often strong evidence—of guilt.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102, 1107 (D.C. Cir.

2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1001 (2011)).

The district court pointed specifically to petitioner’s “inconsistent statements regarding his motivation for traveling to Afghanistan, and his desire to engage in jihad while in Afghanistan.” Pet. App. 18a. At the hearing, petitioner testified that his travel to Afghanistan was “motivated by nothing more than his desire to change his lifestyle,” while in an earlier statement submitted to the court, he had admitted that “the purpose of his travel to Afghanistan was to train to fight jihad.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks, brackets, and emphasis omitted). The court concluded that petitioner’s “selfserving” testimony at the hearing cannot be credited when weighed against “his prior inculpatory statements.” Id. at 19a.

The district court also noted inconsistencies in petitioner’s statements about his decision to remain in Afghanistan following his departure from the al-Farouq training camp. Before the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, petitioner could have left Afghanistan either the same way he entered that country—by using public transportation—or by traveling in a car and walking, as he did later. Pet. App. 20a. Because he did not seriously pursue obvious means of leaving Afghanistan before September 11, 2001, the court found “that the petitioner had no real desire to travel to Pakistan” to return home, as he claimed in his hearing testimony. Id. at 21a.


4. The court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1a-2a.

On appeal, petitioner did not challenge the district court’s factual findings, and he agreed with the government that circuit precedent “foreclose[d] [his] arguments challenging the lawfulness of his detention under the [AUMF] or the laws of armed conflict.” Id. at 2a (citing Al-Adahi, supra, and Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011)). He therefore filed, together with the government, a motion for summary affirmance, and the court of appeals affirmed without opinion. Ibid.

ARGUMENT Petitioner asserts (Pet. 3-17) that federal law does not permit the detention of an individual who was part of al-Qaida unless he directly participated in hostilities or intended to do so. The courts below have correctly rejected that argument, and the decision of the court of appeals does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals. Further review is not warranted.

1. The court of appeals has repeatedly held that an individual may be detained under the AUMF if he was part of al-Qaida at the time of his capture, and this Court has repeatedly declined to review those decisions.

See, e.g., Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102, 1103 (D.C.

Cir. 2010) (“The government may * * * hold at Guantanamo and elsewhere those individuals who are ‘part of ’ al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces.”), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1001 (2011); accord Al Odah v.

United States, 611 F.3d 8, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1812 (2011); Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011);

Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2010), 6 cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011). Petitioner admits that he was a part of al-Qaida while attending an alQaida training camp in Afghanistan, and he “does not challenge [the district court’s] factual finding” that he remained a part of al-Qaida thereafter. Pet. 2. In light of those uncontested facts, the court of appeals correctly held that he may be detained under the AUMF.

2. Petitioner asserts (Pet. 13-17) that being part of al-Qaida is not enough to support detention under the laws of war. In his view, the AUMF permits the detention only of individuals who actually engage in hostilities, and perhaps of those who intend to do so. See Pet.

6 (contending that the relevant inquiry is whether the detainee “participated in or intended to participate in hostile acts against the United States”); Pet. 14 (“Petitioner is not detainable under the laws of armed conflict because he was not participating in hostilities.”). Petitioner did not raise that argument in the district court, even to indicate his view that it was foreclosed by circuit precedent. Nor did he seek rehearing en banc in order to give the court of appeals an opportunity to reconsider its precedent. Petitioner’s failure to preserve his claim is, by itself, a sufficient reason to deny the petition. See Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 205 (2001) (The Court does not ordinarily decide “questions neither raised nor resolved below.”).

In any event, petitioner’s argument lacks merit. The AUMF authorizes the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” AUMF § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224.

The President has determined that al-Qaida was responsible for those attacks and, consistent with that statutory authorization, has since pursued an armed conflict against al-Qaida. The AUMF therefore authorizes the detention of individuals who are part of al-Qaida. Petitioner’s suggestion that international law requires the President to treat al-Qaida as a collection of “civilians,” rather than as an enemy armed force, is misguided.

Law-of-war principles do properly inform the construction of the AUMF, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 521 (2004) (plurality opinion), and thus the understanding of what actions are “necessary and appropriate” for the President to undertake in waging war against al-Qaida. But those principles leave no doubt that individuals who are part of an enemy force when captured may be detained, whether or not they personally engaged in hostilities or subjectively intended to fight against the nation that captured them. In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), this Court explained that individuals “who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government * * * are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the * * * law of war,” even if “they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations.” Id. at 37-38; see id.

at 37 (“It is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons”); In re Territo, 156 F.2d 142, 144-145 (9th Cir. 1946) (upholding capture and detention of a private in the Italian Army who performed manual labor in an army engineering corps); cf. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), Art.

4(A)(1), Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 3320, 75 U.N.T.S.

135, 138 (contemplating detention of “[m]embers of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces,” 8 without making a distinction based on whether they have engaged in combat).

Pages:   || 2 |

Similar works:

«Password Journal Ages 6+ INSTRUCTION MANUAL Keep these instructions for future reference as they contain important information. A girl’s gotta be able to keep her secrets safe! Write and protect your innermost thoughts in your password-protected journal. Use the Invisible Ink Pen, and then watch your words magically appear by activating your Glow Light. And don’t forget to store your favorite things in a hidden compartment. With Password Journal®, YOUR voice is the only key! CONTENTS 1...»

«Topic threading for structuring a large-scale news video archive Ichiro Ide1,2, Hiroshi Mo2, Norio Katayama2, and Shin’ichi Satoh2 1 Graduate School of Information Science, Nagoya University 1 Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya-shi, Aichi 464–8601, Japan ide@is.nagoya-u.ac.jp 2 National Institute of Informatics Research Organization of Information and Systems 2–1–2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101–8430, Japan {mo,katayama,satoh}@nii.ac.jp Abstract. We are building a broadcast news...»

«Commission européenne Commissioners' weekly activities CALENDRIER du 2 mai au 15 mai 2016 Bruxelles, le 29 avril 2016 (Susceptible de modifications en cours de semaine) Déplacements et visites Lundi 2 mai President Jean-Claude Juncker delivers a speech on The Way Forward for the EU Social Market Economy, in Brussels. Mr Frans Timmermans co-hosts the EU Lobbying Transparency public debate “Have your Say!”, in Brussels. Mr Andrus Ansip receives CEOs of postal operators on e-commerce. Mr...»

«AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF COMBINATORICS Volume 58(1) (2014), Pages 157–171 A stack and a pop stack in series Rebecca Smith∗ Department of Mathematics SUNY Brockport, New York U.S.A. Vincent Vatter† Department of Mathematics University of Florida Gainesville, Florida U.S.A. vatter@ufl.edu Abstract We study sorting machines consisting of a stack and a pop stack in series, with or without a queue between them. While there are, a priori, four such machines, only two are essentially different:...»

«Instruction for use 1stQ AddOn® IOL Intraocular lens for implantation into the ciliary sulcus This IFU is available electronically on our website. Please visit: www.1stQ.eu Content: Sterile foldable one piece spherical intraocular lens (AddOn IOL) for single use consisting of highly purified hydrophilic acrylate with covalently bounded UV absorber. Some of the lenses are manufactured optionally with covalently bounded yellow chromophore as blue light filter. Description: This intraocular lens...»

«Multiple Myeloma Overview The information that follows is an overview of this type of cancer. It is based on the more detailed information in our document Multiple Myeloma. What is multiple myeloma? Cancer starts when cells in the body begin to grow out of control. Cells in nearly any part of the body can become cancer, and can spread to other areas of the body. To learn more about how cancers start and spread, see What Is Cancer? Multiple myeloma is a type of cancer formed by cancerous plasma...»

«God or Jesus? Textual Ambiguity and Textual Variants in Acts of the Apostles L. W. Hurtado Abstract The correlation of God and Jesus in Acts, in particular the use of κύριος/ὁ κύριος for both, produced a number of statements in which there can be a certain degree of ambiguity as to the referent. At these points we often find variants in the manuscripts, which reflect efforts of ancient readers to disambiguate the statements and clarify the text. They often seem to have drawn...»

«V THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART 11 WEST 53 STREET. NEW YORK 19. N. Y. TELEPHONE: CIRCLE 5 8 9 0 0 January 25, 1954 Toi City Editor Photo Editor Society Editor From: Elisabeth Shaw Acting Publicity Director A distinguished §—fci* gwaitt including ambassadors, museum directors, art c o l l e c t o r s, writers and a r t i s t s from Europe, Latin America and this country w i l l attend a preview of the exhibition ANCIENT ARTS OF T E ANDES H at the Museum of Modern Art, 11 West 53 Street, on...»

«Pragmatics 21:1.23-39 (2011) International Pragmatics Association TRANSLATING PHATIC EXPRESSIONS Jamal B.S. al-Qinai1 Abstract Any conversational exchange can be informational or phatic. Occasional exchanges are of no lesser importance than the informative content of dialogue. One needs to establish the channel of communication by setting up a social environment conducive to the exchange of ideas among the participants. Such a strategy of showing politeness is intended to avoid face-threatening...»

«MARIA JOSE HELLIN GARCIA Department of Modern Languages, Literatures, and Cultures The Citadel 171 Moultrie St, Charleston, SC 29409 mhelling@citadel.edu EDUCATION 2008 Ph.D. in Hispanic Linguistics Department of Spanish and Portuguese Studies. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2004 M.A. with a Double Major in:  Peninsular Literature Department of Modern Languages and Literatures.  Curriculum & Instruction -Department of Curriculum and Instruction. University of...»

«CSAE WPS/2004-28 Land Encroachment: India’s Disappearing Common Lands Elizabeth J Z Robinson (University of Oxford) September 2004 Abstract Opportunistic land encroachment, resulting from costly and incomplete enforcement of common land boundaries, is a problem in many less-developed countries. A multi-period model of such encroachment is presented in this paper. The model accounts explicitly for the cumulative effects of non-compliance of regulations designed to protect a finite,...»

«Copyright By Guanyu Hu The Dissertation Committee for Guanyu Hu certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Behavior of Beam Shear Connections in Steel Buildings Subject to Fire Committee: Michael D. Engelhardt, Supervisor Karl H. Frank Todd A. Helwig Loukas F. Kallivokas Ofodike A. Ezekoye Behavior of Beam Shear Connections in Steel Buildings Subject to Fire by Guanyu Hu, B.S.; M.S. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.