Abdul Ali v. Barack Obama
407 U.S. App. D.C. 222
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- In March 2002 U.S. and Pakistani forces captured Abdul Razak Ali (later admitted to be Saeed Bakhouche, an Algerian) at a four‑bedroom Faisalabad, Pakistan guesthouse used by Abu Zubaydah and senior members of his force; Ali was detained at Guantanamo from June 2002.
- The guesthouse contained "al Qaeda" documents, electrical components, and a device used to assemble remote‑detonation bombs; Ali stayed there about 18 days.
- Ali took English lessons offered at the guesthouse, admitted (in an interrogation) to traveling to Afghanistan after 9/11 to fight U.S. and Coalition forces (the District Court credited this), and lied about his identity for over two years after capture.
- Ali filed a habeas petition challenging his detention under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF); the District Court found by a preponderance that he was part of Abu Zubaydah’s force and denied the petition.
- On appeal the D.C. Circuit (Kavanaugh, J.) affirmed, applying the circuit’s precedent that presence and activity in a terrorist guesthouse and related circumstantial evidence can satisfy the preponderance standard for enemy‑combatant detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government proved by a preponderance that Ali was part of Abu Zubaydah’s force (detainable under the AUMF) | Ali: He was an innocent guest who mistakenly stayed in a public guesthouse; presence alone is insufficient ("guilt by guesthouse"). | Government: Presence with Zubaydah and senior leaders, 18‑day stay, pro‑al Qaeda materials, English training, travel to Afghanistan to fight, and post‑capture lies cumulatively prove membership. | Affirmed: Court held the cumulative circumstantial evidence met the preponderance standard; Ali was detainable under the AUMF. |
| Whether nondisclosure of impeachment evidence about two detainee witnesses required a new hearing | Ali: Government failed to disclose material that would undermine credibility of witnesses Uthman and al‑Madhwani. | Government: District Court later avoided reliance on al‑Madhwani and determined outcome independent of Uthman’s testimony. | Denied relief: Court did not rely on those detainees’ evidence and found any nondisclosure harmless. |
| Whether Government’s case management and exhibit changes deprived Ali of fair preparation | Ali: Last‑minute amendments and renumbering prejudiced counsel. | Government/District Court: Accommodations were made (rescheduling, extra time); proceeding remained timely under Boumediene. | No reversible error: Court found accommodations adequate and no unfair prejudice. |
| Whether judicial bias required reversal | Ali: District judge displayed bias. | Government: No specific evidence of improper bias; meaningful opportunity to be heard was provided. | Denied: Claim lacked merit; no evidence of improper judicial bias. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (recognizes AUMF authority to detain enemy combatants during hostilities)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (Guantanamo detainees have habeas rights; courts may consider exculpatory evidence)
- Uthman v. Obama, 637 F.3d 400 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (presence at terrorist guesthouse is highly probative of enemy‑combatant status)
- Al‑Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (courts may admit relevant exculpatory evidence; detention standards under AUMF context)
- Barhoumi v. Obama, 609 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (affirming detention of a detainee captured in the same Faisalabad guesthouse)
- Hussain v. Obama, 718 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (preponderance standard assumed; extended stays and associations support detention)
- Al‑Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (false exculpatory statements and close associations support detention)
- Alsabri v. Obama, 684 F.3d 1298 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (training and residence with known terrorists supports detention)