Hussein v. Obama
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125434
D.D.C.2011Background
- Ahmed Hussein (ISN 690) is detained at Guantanamo Bay and filed a habeas petition challenging detention as not statutorily authorized by the AUMF.
- Government contends Hussein was detainable under the AUMF due to travel to Afghanistan and association with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or related forces.
- The merits hearing occurred May 25–Sept. 1, 2010; the court considered evidence, filings, and exhibits from both sides.
- Hussein’s alleged activities include travel from Yemen to Pakistan, Kabul, Quetta, Faisalabad and Lahore, with significant stays at Jama’at al-Tablighi mosques and interactions with Taliban guards.
- Evidence relied upon includes circumstantial items such as stays at Jama’at mosques, possession of a Kalashnikov rifle from Taliban guards, and post-September 11 conduct.
- Court applies a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to determine whether Hussein was ‘part of’ al-Qaeda or the Taliban under the AUMF and denies the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hussein was part of al-Qaeda or Taliban forces under the AUMF | Hussein was not part of those forces; his activities were humanitarian and noncombatant. | Evidence shows Hussein engaged with Taliban/al-Qaeda structures and supported their cause. | Yes, detention justified under AUMF; government evidence sufficient. |
| What is the appropriate evidentiary standard for detention under the AUMF | A less-than-preponderance standard may be sufficient according to certain circuits. | Preponderance of the evidence is required and constitutional here. | Preponderance of the evidence applies and is satisfied. |
| Whether the government adequately weighed the circumstantial evidence linking Hussein to terrorist organizations | Circumstantial items are inconclusive when considered alone. | Together, the circumstantial evidence is damning and probative. | The evidence collectively supports detention. |
| Whether the court should credit Hussein's exculpatory explanations for his actions | Hussein's explanations negate allegations of affiliation. | Explanations are implausible or false exculpatory statements. | Explanations rejected; credibility determined against Hussein. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (habeas rights for Guantanamo detainees; no jurisdiction-stripping validity)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2004) (preponderance-like burden shifting for enemy-combatant status)
- Almerfedi v. Obama, 654 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Jama’at al-Tablighi ties and circumstantial evidence can establish detentions)
- Sulayman v. Obama, 729 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2010) (presence near battle lines and weapon training as probative detention factors)
- Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (preponderance standard constitutional in Guantanamo habeas)
- Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (preponderance standard and detainee categorization considerations)
- Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (credibility of admissions and evidence weighing in detention decisions)
- Odah v. United States, 611 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (detention authority under AUMF when government shows enemy-combatant status)
- Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (evidence standards for determining enemy-combatant status)
- Greenwich Collieries v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 990 F.2d 730 (3d Cir. 1993) (preponderance standard and burden on movants)