Habeas Corpus Scorecard at Gitmo: 38-19

The latest Guantanamo detainee to have his habeas corpus petition reviewed in federal court was denied on Tuesday as DC District Judge Richard Leon determined there was substantial evidence to believe Obaydullah was a member of al Qaeda and was committed to the “destruction of U.S. and Allied foces.” This case is just the latest in a bombardment of habeas corpus claims brought before the federal court system in the past two years, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled detainees at Gitmo should have access to the process of review. And although this particular petition was denied, twice as many have resulted in release orders.

In June of 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in a high-profile case to allow detainees held at Guantanamo Bay the right to have their cases reviewed by the federal court system. Habeas corpus refers to petitions filed by detainees contesting the validity of their imprisonment. The final decision was close, with 5 ruling for and 4 against the suspected combatants access to review. For many the debate was about whether or not non-U.S. citizens should have protections under the U.S. Constitution when being held by the U.S. In that case, justice won out.

Since that ruling, the federal courts have had to make room for over 200 cases arising out of Guantanamo Bay. So far, of those heard, only 19 have had their detainment upheld while 38 have been ordered released. While many of these cases are under appeal by the U.S. Government, several detainees have already been released to other countries around the world.

In this most recent case, Obaydullah was accused of having a role in an al Qaeda bomb making cell. When U.S. forces raided his home in the summer of 2002, they found 23 anti-tank mines buried outside his home, documents including wiring diagrams for IED’s and an automobile believed to have been used to carry al Qaeda members to medical care after explosion-related injuries. Inconsistent stories and explanations from Obaydullah would ultimately be his undoing as Judge Leon found that many of his explanations “defied common sense and reality.”

But such seemingly blatant deception wasn’t seen, obviously, in 38 cases thus far. Included in these unjustifiable detentions was the case of a Syrian named Abdulrahim Janko who was captured by U.S. forces while being held and tortured as a prisoner of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Again, it was Judge Richard Leon of the D.C. District Court who ruled in that case, stating at the time that Jenko’s detention “defies common sense.” After seven years in the custody of U.S. military forces in Cuba, Jenko was released last year.

Another detainee, Fouad al Rabia was released last year after Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly determined the confession that held him in Guantanamo was coerced and unreliable. This “confession” was seen as the only evidence against him and his attorney, supported by the official record of his case, attributed that false confession to abuse by interrogators.

In a similar ruling, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled that although Mohammed Jawad from Afghanistan had confessed to al Qaeda involvement, his confession was unbelievable because it was obtained using torture. He was released just last month.

Whether or not you believe detainees held at Guantanamo Bay should be afforded habeas corpus review in U.S. courts, you cannot argue with the fact that many of them shouldn’t be there, particularly given these hearings have resulted in federal judges ordering the release of more than 2/3 of those heard. With hundreds of similar cases waiting in the wings, it will be interesting to see what further details we can glean about interrogation tactics and conditions at Gitmo through future rulings.

Photo Credit: takomabibelot