Difference between revisions of "Guantanamo Bay detention camp/Prisoners' appeals in Washington courts"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(t) |
m (reference tidy) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''[[Guantanamo]] detainees''' have been allowed to initiate '''appeals in Washington DC Courts''' since the passage of the [[Detainee Treatment Act of 2005]] (DTA) closed off the right of Guantanamo captives to submit new petitions of [[habeas corpus]]. | '''[[Guantanamo]] detainees''' have been allowed to initiate '''appeals in Washington DC Courts''' since the passage of the [[Detainee Treatment Act of 2005]] (DTA) closed off the right of Guantanamo captives to submit new petitions of [[habeas corpus]]. | ||
| − | It substituted a right to a limited appeal to Federal Courts of appeal in Washington DC.<ref name=WashingtonPost20071222> | + | It substituted a right to a limited appeal to Federal Courts of appeal in Washington DC.<ref name=WashingtonPost20071222>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101392.html</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
The Act allowed detainees to challenge whether their [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]]s had correctly followed the rules laid out by the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]]. | The Act allowed detainees to challenge whether their [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]]s had correctly followed the rules laid out by the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]]. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 14: | ||
On June 12, 2008, in [[Boumediene v. Bush]], the United States Supreme Court ruled the [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]]s provided the detainees with insufficient protection, and re-opened the detainees' access to file habeas corpus. | On June 12, 2008, in [[Boumediene v. Bush]], the United States Supreme Court ruled the [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]]s provided the detainees with insufficient protection, and re-opened the detainees' access to file habeas corpus. | ||
| − | On June 23, 2008, a three judge panel reviewed the evidence used to justify Parhat's designation as an "enemy combatant" and ruled that he had never been an enemy combatant after all.<ref name=Wapo20080623> | + | On June 23, 2008, a three judge panel reviewed the evidence used to justify Parhat's designation as an "enemy combatant" and ruled that he had never been an enemy combatant after all.<ref name=Wapo20080623>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062300844.html</ref><ref name=McClatchyParhat20080623>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41907.html</ref><ref name=Iht20080623>http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Guantanamo-Chinese-Muslim.php</ref><ref name=ParhatRuling20080630>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/snark-injection-for-guantanamo-trial/?hp</ref><ref name=NewYorkTimesLede20080630>http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200806/06-1397-1124487.pdf</ref><ref name=NewYorkTimesGlaberson20080630>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/washington/01gitmo.html?hp</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref><ref name=McClatchyParhat20080623> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref><ref name=Iht20080623> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref><ref name=ParhatRuling20080630> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Bush Presidency response== | ==Bush Presidency response== | ||
| − | On July 21, 2008 [[United States Attorney General]] [[Michael Mukasey]] called on the Congress to pass legislation controlling how judges would review the detainees' habeas petitions.<ref name=Reuters20080721> | + | On July 21, 2008 [[United States Attorney General]] [[Michael Mukasey]] called on the Congress to pass legislation controlling how judges would review the detainees' habeas petitions.<ref name=Reuters20080721>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2140857120080721</ref><ref name=NYTimes20080722>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/washington/22justice.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1216667611-VUzbXoMuUhzCHuHUYeD0GQ</ref><ref name=LATimes20080721>http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/guantanamo-muka.html</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref><ref name=NYTimes20080722> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Mukasey was seeking to have the legislation control what evidence should be made public, and to proscribe releasing any of the detainees within the USA. | Mukasey was seeking to have the legislation control what evidence should be made public, and to proscribe releasing any of the detainees within the USA. | ||
==January 2009 ruling== | ==January 2009 ruling== | ||
| − | On January 9, 2008, [[Douglas H. Ginsburg]], writing for the panel, ruled that the court would not hear any additional DTA appeals.<ref name=AP2009-01-09> | + | On January 9, 2008, [[Douglas H. Ginsburg]], writing for the panel, ruled that the court would not hear any additional DTA appeals.<ref name=AP2009-01-09>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUxng-zkl2uhqdCATFQyY9_8QV3QD95JRBH00</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref> | ||
:{| class="wikitable" border="1" | :{| class="wikitable" border="1" | ||
| | | | ||
| − | :''"Had the Congress known its attempts to eliminate the habeas jurisdiction of the district courts would come to naught, it would not have turned around and created an additional and largely duplicative process by which a detainee could challenge his detention in the court of appeals." | + | :''"Had the Congress known its attempts to eliminate the habeas jurisdiction of the district courts would come to naught, it would not have turned around and created an additional and largely duplicative process by which a detainee could challenge his detention in the court of appeals." |
|} | |} | ||
| Line 139: | Line 37: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[ISN 252|252]] || [[Yasin Mohammed Basardah]] {{sic}} || || | | [[ISN 252|252]] || [[Yasin Mohammed Basardah]] {{sic}} || || | ||
| − | * On November 5, 2008 the panel suspended his appeal on jurisdictional grounds.<ref name=TheJurist2008-11-06> | + | * On November 5, 2008 the panel suspended his appeal on jurisdictional grounds.<ref name=TheJurist2008-11-06>http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/11/dc-circuit-suspends-status-review-for.php</ref><ref name=DCSuspension2008-11-04>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/basardh-ruling-ca-11-4-08.pdf</ref><ref name=Scotusblog2008-11-04>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/circuit-court-dta-process-is-probably-dead/</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref><ref name=DCSuspension2008-11-04> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref><ref name=Scotusblog2008-11-04> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[ISN275|275]] || [[Wadih el-Hage|Abdul Sabour]] {{sic}} || || | | [[ISN275|275]] || [[Wadih el-Hage|Abdul Sabour]] {{sic}} || || | ||
| Line 195: | Line 63: | ||
:{| | :{| | ||
| | | | ||
| − | :On May 16, 2007, Saib filed a Petition for Release and Other Relief Under Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (“DTA Petition”).<ref name=Justia-08-442> | + | :On May 16, 2007, Saib filed a Petition for Release and Other Relief Under Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (“DTA Petition”).<ref name=Justia-08-442>http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-dcdce/case_no-1:2008mc00442/case_id-131990/</ref><ref name=Cv08-0442Doc102>http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/102/0.pdf</ref> In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene, Respondents filed a motion to hold the DTA Petition in abeyance, or in the alternative, to dismiss the DTA Petition, pending the conclusion of his Habeas Petition. Saib has filed a response stating that he does not oppose the abeyance of the DTA Petition, but does oppose dismissal of the DTA Petition. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref><ref name=Cv08-0442Doc102> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref> In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene, Respondents filed a motion to hold the DTA Petition in abeyance, or in the alternative, to dismiss the DTA Petition, pending the conclusion of his Habeas Petition. Saib has filed a response stating that he does not oppose the abeyance of the DTA Petition, but does oppose dismissal of the DTA Petition. | ||
|} | |} | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 230: | Line 78: | ||
:{| | :{| | ||
| | | | ||
| − | :Jawad also has a Petition under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (“DTA”) pending in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Case No. 07-1149.<ref name="Justia-08-442"/><ref name=Cv08-0442Doc149> | + | :Jawad also has a Petition under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (“DTA”) pending in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Case No. 07-1149.<ref name="Justia-08-442"/><ref name=Cv08-0442Doc149>http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/149/0.pdf</ref> On June 21, 2007, Jawad filed a classified Motion for Production and Protective Order requesting two specific categories of exculpatory evidence known to be in the Government’s possession and now sought in this habeas corpus action. This motion has been fully briefed in the Court of Appeals since July 9, 2007, and the Government continues to refuse to produce clearly exculpatory evidence. The Government asked that Jawad’s DTA action be stayed. Jawad opposed this request, noting that the Supreme Court has held that “both the DTA and the CSRT process remain intact.” Boumediene v. Bush, 533 U.S. ___, slip op. at 66 (June 12, 2008). |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref> On June 21, 2007, Jawad filed a classified Motion for Production and Protective Order requesting two specific categories of exculpatory evidence known to be in the Government’s possession and now sought in this habeas corpus action. This motion has been fully briefed in the Court of Appeals since July 9, 2007, and the Government continues to refuse to produce clearly exculpatory evidence. The Government asked that Jawad’s DTA action be stayed. Jawad opposed this request, noting that the Supreme Court has held that “both the DTA and the CSRT process remain intact.” Boumediene v. Bush, 533 U.S. ___, slip op. at 66 (June 12, 2008). | ||
|} | |} | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 246: | Line 84: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[ISN 684|684]] || [[Mohammed Abdullah Taha Mattan]] || || | | [[ISN 684|684]] || [[Mohammed Abdullah Taha Mattan]] || || | ||
| − | *On July 18, 2008, [[Sozi P. Tulante]] filed a Status Report that states a [[DTA appeal]] was initiated on his behalf.<ref name=Cv08-0442Doc95> | + | *On July 18, 2008, [[Sozi P. Tulante]] filed a Status Report that states a [[DTA appeal]] was initiated on his behalf.<ref name=Cv08-0442Doc95>http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/95/0.pdf</ref> |
| − | + | * By August 18, 2008, both unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal.<ref name=UyghurJointStatusReport-2008-08-18>http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/detention/gitmo/uighurs_aug2008_status_report.pdf</ref> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref> | ||
| − | * By August 18, 2008, both unclassified and classified returns prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal.<ref name=UyghurJointStatusReport-2008-08-18> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[ISN 841|841]] || [[Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah]] {{sic}} || || | | [[ISN 841|841]] || [[Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah]] {{sic}} || || | ||
| − | * On 18 July 2008 Charles H. Carpenter (American lawyer) filed a Status Report where he wrote that Abdullah had a [[DTA appeal]] filed on his behalf.<ref name=Cv08-0442Doc99> | + | * On 18 July 2008 Charles H. Carpenter (American lawyer) filed a Status Report where he wrote that Abdullah had a [[DTA appeal]] filed on his behalf.<ref name=Cv08-0442Doc99>http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/99/0.pdf</ref><ref name=Cv08-0442Doc173>http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref><ref name=Cv08-0442Doc173> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[ISN 968|968]] || Bismullah || [[Bismullah v. Gates]] || | | [[ISN 968|968]] || Bismullah || [[Bismullah v. Gates]] || | ||
| − | *Bismullah's case has been the subject of multiple filings as to the scope that detainees' attorneys should be given to the material behind the summarized allegation.<ref name=WashingtonPost20070912> | + | *Bismullah's case has been the subject of multiple filings as to the scope that detainees' attorneys should be given to the material behind the summarized allegation.<ref name=WashingtonPost20070912>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102678.html</ref><ref name=Scotusblog20070510>http://web.archive.org/web/20071005022354/http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-and-analysis/new-developments-on-detainees/ </ref><ref name=ScottusBlogBismullah20070901>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/government-to-seek-bismullah-rehearing/</ref><ref name=ScottusBlogBismullah20070907>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-filings/us-mounts-sweeping-challenge-to-circuit-court/</ref><ref name=ScottusBlogBismullah20071003>http://web.archive.org/web/20080104010635/http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/government-duty-in-detainee-cases-narrowed/</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|- | |- | ||
| 975 || [[Karim Bostan]] {{sic}} || || | | 975 || [[Karim Bostan]] {{sic}} || || | ||
| − | * On July 18, 2008 when [[Michael Caruso (attorney)|Michael Caruso]] re-initiated Bostan's habeas petition he stated that he had an outstanding DTA appeal.<ref name=Cv08-0442Doc132> | + | * On July 18, 2008 when [[Michael Caruso (attorney)|Michael Caruso]] re-initiated Bostan's habeas petition he stated that he had an outstanding DTA appeal.<ref name=Cv08-0442Doc132>http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | </ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[ISN 10020|10020]] || [[Majid Khan (Guantanamo captive 10020)|Majid Khan]] || || | | [[ISN 10020|10020]] || [[Majid Khan (Guantanamo captive 10020)|Majid Khan]] || || | ||
:{| | :{| | ||
| | | | ||
| − | :The government’s position that Khan may not use in his habeas case presumptively classified information obtained in connection with his DTA case stands in direct contrast to the position taken by the government in other Guantánamo detainee habeas cases.<ref name=Cv08-0442Doc238> | + | :The government’s position that Khan may not use in his habeas case presumptively classified information obtained in connection with his DTA case stands in direct contrast to the position taken by the government in other Guantánamo detainee habeas cases.<ref name=Cv08-0442Doc238>http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/238/0.pdf</ref> See, e.g., Resp’ts’ Resp. to Uighur Pet’rs’ Motion to Use CSRTs Provided in DTA Action in this Case at 1-2, In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH) (D.D.C. filed Aug. 1, 2008) (dkt. no. 228) (“Subject to adherence to the standard protective orders entered in each of the habeas cases, respondents agree that these petitioners may use the classified CSRT records already filed in their DTA action here in their habeas cases, as long as that is done in a manner consistent with the protective orders.”). |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|} | |} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 376: | Line 105: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 01:19, 7 August 2021
| Date | 2005 - Present |
|---|---|
| Type | legal |
| Interest of | Guantanamo Bay detention camp/Periodic Review Board |
| Description | Appeals in Washington courts of Guantanamo prisoners |
Guantanamo detainees have been allowed to initiate appeals in Washington DC Courts since the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) closed off the right of Guantanamo captives to submit new petitions of habeas corpus. It substituted a right to a limited appeal to Federal Courts of appeal in Washington DC.[1] The Act allowed detainees to challenge whether their Combatant Status Review Tribunals had correctly followed the rules laid out by the Department of Defense.
After the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) closed down the pending habeas corpus cases, attorneys for the detainees initiated both a challenge to the constitutionality of the MCA's stripping of the right to habeas corpus; and they started initiating the appeals in the DC Federal Courts of appeal allowed by the DTA.
Contents
June 2008 rulings
On June 12, 2008, in Boumediene v. Bush, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Combatant Status Review Tribunals provided the detainees with insufficient protection, and re-opened the detainees' access to file habeas corpus.
On June 23, 2008, a three judge panel reviewed the evidence used to justify Parhat's designation as an "enemy combatant" and ruled that he had never been an enemy combatant after all.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
Bush Presidency response
On July 21, 2008 United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey called on the Congress to pass legislation controlling how judges would review the detainees' habeas petitions.[8][9][10] Mukasey was seeking to have the legislation control what evidence should be made public, and to proscribe releasing any of the detainees within the USA.
January 2009 ruling
On January 9, 2008, Douglas H. Ginsburg, writing for the panel, ruled that the court would not hear any additional DTA appeals.[11]
- "Had the Congress known its attempts to eliminate the habeas jurisdiction of the district courts would come to naught, it would not have turned around and created an additional and largely duplicative process by which a detainee could challenge his detention in the court of appeals."
Detainees who filed appeals in Federal Court
| isn | names | case | notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 103 | Arkin Mahmud | By August 18, 2008, an unclassified return prepared in response to a 2007 DTA appeal.[12] | ||
| 252 | Yasin Mohammed Basardah [sic] | |||
| 275 | Abdul Sabour [sic] |
| ||
| 277 | Bahtiyar Mahnut |
| ||
| 278 | Abdul Nasser [sic] |
| ||
| 280 | Khalid Ali |
| ||
| 281 | Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman |
| ||
| 282 | Sabir Osman [sic] |
| ||
| 285 | Jalal Jalaldin [sic] |
| ||
| 288 | Motai Saib [sic] |
| ||
| 295 | Abdul Semet [sic] |
| ||
| 320 | Hozaifa Parhat | Parhat v. Gates |
| |
| 328 | Hammad Memet [sic] |
| ||
| 433 | Jawad Jabbar Sadkhan Al-Sahlani | Case No. 07-1149 |
| |
| 584 | Adel Noori | no factual returns, other than one through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Associated Press.[12] | ||
| 684 | Mohammed Abdullah Taha Mattan |
| ||
| 841 | Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah [sic] |
| ||
| 968 | Bismullah | Bismullah v. Gates | ||
| 975 | Karim Bostan [sic] |
| ||
| 10020 | Majid Khan |
|
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.
References
- ↑ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101392.html
- ↑ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062300844.html
- ↑ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41907.html
- ↑ http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Guantanamo-Chinese-Muslim.php
- ↑ http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/snark-injection-for-guantanamo-trial/?hp
- ↑ http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200806/06-1397-1124487.pdf
- ↑ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/washington/01gitmo.html?hp
- ↑ http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2140857120080721
- ↑ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/washington/22justice.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1216667611-VUzbXoMuUhzCHuHUYeD0GQ
- ↑ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/guantanamo-muka.html
- ↑ http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUxng-zkl2uhqdCATFQyY9_8QV3QD95JRBH00
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/detention/gitmo/uighurs_aug2008_status_report.pdf
- ↑ http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/11/dc-circuit-suspends-status-review-for.php
- ↑ http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/basardh-ruling-ca-11-4-08.pdf
- ↑ http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/circuit-court-dta-process-is-probably-dead/
- ↑ a b http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-dcdce/case_no-1:2008mc00442/case_id-131990/
- ↑ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/102/0.pdf
- ↑ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/149/0.pdf
- ↑ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/95/0.pdf
- ↑ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/99/0.pdf
- ↑ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990
- ↑ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102678.html
- ↑ http://web.archive.org/web/20071005022354/http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-and-analysis/new-developments-on-detainees/
- ↑ http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/government-to-seek-bismullah-rehearing/
- ↑ http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-filings/us-mounts-sweeping-challenge-to-circuit-court/
- ↑ http://web.archive.org/web/20080104010635/http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/government-duty-in-detainee-cases-narrowed/
- ↑ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442
- ↑ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/238/0.pdf
