Deghayes v. Bush, Civil Action No. 2004-2215

Background

Shaker Aamer, a Saudi national and UK resident, has been detained at Guantanamo since 2002; a CSRT previously found him an "enemy combatant."
Aamer filed habeas in 2004; DOD earlier cleared him for release but he remained detained; discovery in the habeas case is ongoing.
Aamer submitted a medical report from Dr. Emily Keram diagnosing serious physical and psychiatric conditions (including PTSD) and arguing he cannot recover at Guantanamo and should be repatriated to the UK.
Government medical declaration (Cmdr. Hoag) disputes the psychiatric diagnosis, notes Aamer has refused treatment, and asserts he has not shown inability to recover despite treatment.
Aamer’s motion seeks immediate release under Army Regulation 190-8, which incorporates aspects of the Third Geneva Convention including medical repatriation rules (Article 110); Aamer did not seek review by a Mixed Medical Commission under the Regulation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Army Reg. 190-8/Geneva to habeas claims	Aamer: Reg.190-8 applies to Guantanamo detainees and imports Geneva protections requiring repatriation for grave chronic illness	Gov: MCA bars invoking Geneva Conventions directly; only domestic law governs; AR190-8 may not entitle Aamer to repatriation	Court: AR190-8 may be invoked only to the extent it creates a domestic entitlement; Geneva not an independent habeas source (citing precedent)
Whether Aamer is entitled to repatriation without following AR190-8 procedures	Aamer: He is an "other detainee" whose CSRT status is inadequate; his illnesses make him ineligible to remain	Gov: Aamer never applied for repatriation or Mixed Medical Commission; refusal of treatment undermines claim he cannot recover with treatment	Court: Denied — Aamer failed to "explicitly establish" entitlement under AR190-8; he did not invoke required regulatory process (Mixed Medical Commission)
Effect of CSRT "enemy combatant" finding on AR190-8 status	Aamer: CSRTs are not "competent tribunals" under AR190-8; thus his status remains unadjudicated and he should be treated as other detainee	Gov: CSRT finding establishes status and precludes AR190-8 repatriation claim	Court: CSRT designation does not automatically preclude AR190-8 analysis, but Aamer still must show entitlement under the Regulation; he did not do so
Whether court may order release based on its own assessment of threat/medical evidence	Aamer: Court should order release because he cannot recover while detained	Gov: Courts may not order release based on the court’s independent threat assessment; detention authority is for Executive; humanitarian release is inappropriate absent entitlement	Court: Courts have habeas authority to review, but here relief denied because regulatory entitlement not shown; court will not substitute its judgment for Mixed Medical Commission

Key Cases Cited

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (federal habeas jurisdiction applies to Guantanamo detainees and courts must conduct meaningful review)
Al Warafi v. Obama, 716 F.3d 627 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Army Reg. 190-8 is domestic law incorporating aspects of Geneva; detainee may invoke AR190-8 only to the extent it establishes entitlement to release)
Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (courts have jurisdiction to review conditions of confinement claims by Guantanamo detainees)
Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (scope of detention under AUMF is governed by domestic caselaw/statutes)
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) (habeas jurisdiction for Guantanamo detainees)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (judicial role as check on executive detention authority)