Makhtar Al-Wrafie v. Barack Obama
405 U.S. App. D.C. 60
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Mukhtar A1 Warafi, a Guantanamo detainee, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging detention.
- District court previously held Warafi likely part of the Taliban and lawfully detained.
- On remand, the district court considered whether Warafi qualifies as Article 24 medical personnel under the Geneva Convention and Amy Regulation 190-8.
- Armlet and identity card proof required under Article 24 were central to protected status; Warafi had neither.
- Court found insufficient evidence that Warafi permanently and exclusively served as medic; continued detention affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warafi qualifies as permanent medical personnel under Article 24 | Warafi is medical personnel per Article 24 | Warafi lacks mandatory identification and status as medic | No; Warafi did not prove Article 24 status |
| Whether identification requirements are mandatory for protected status | Identification is not strictly required to prove status | Identification is mandatory for Article 24 protection | Identification requirements are mandatory to invoke Article 24 protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (interprets Common Article 3; limited protection framework)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (enemy-combatant determinations in habeas context)
- Al Warafi v. Obama, 821 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2011) (remand for Article 24 status development; district court findings)
- Al Warafi v. Obama, 409 Fed. Appx. 360 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (unpublished summary affirming district court decision on status)
- LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (law-of-the-case considerations in sequential rulings)
- Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement v. United States, 707 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (law-of-the-case applicability in same case in same court)
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., 659 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standard of review and factual-credibility determinations)