DOKHAN et al v. BUSH et al

Memorandum in opposition to re

D.D.C.July 9, 2008

See Dokhan v. Bush, No. 08-CV-0987 (JDB) (dkt. no. 2, dated Jun. 17, 2008);1 Mohammon v. Bush (Petitioners Ghaffar & Noori), No. 05-CV-2386 (RBW) (dkt. no. 451, filed Jun. 23, 2008); Mohammed v. Bush, No. 05-CV-1347 (GK) (dkt. no. 31, filed Jun. 30, 2008); Mohammon v. Bush (Petitioner Naji), No. 05-CV-2386 (RBW) (dkt. no. 473, filed Jul. 3, 2008). Because these motions involve the same legal issues, respondents are providing this2 consolidated response. The advance notice of transfer issue raised in these motions, and likely to be raised in numerous other forthcoming motions, should be resolved in a coordinated fashion for the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) IN RE: ) Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH) ) GUANTANAMO BAY ) Civil Action Nos. DETAINEE LITIGATION ) 05-CV-1347(GK), ) 05-CV-2386 (RBW), ) 08-CV-0987 (JDB) ____________________________________) RESPONDENTS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REQUIRING ADVANCE NOTICE OF TRANSFER OR RELEASE FROM GUANTANAMO BAY Respondents hereby oppose the motions of petitioners in these cases for a preliminary injunction requiring respondents to provide the Court and petitioners’ counsel with advance notice before any transfer or release of the petitioner-detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (“Guantanamo”). For the reasons that follow, the motions should be denied. Not only is1 2 jurisdiction to provide the requested relief lacking, the recent unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Munaf v. Geren, ___ U.S. ___ 128 S. Ct. 2207 (June 12, 2008), demonstrates that this Court cannot grant the requested injunction in these habeas corpus actions without impermissibly intruding on the powers constitutionally entrusted to the Executive Branch and involving itself in foreign policy determinations not appropriate for the judiciary. Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 1 of 33 Respondents reserve the right challenge the standing of next-friend petitioners in these3 cases to serve as next friends, as appropriate. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990). For example, with respect to purported next friend Sami Al Hajj in Dokhan v. Bush, No. 08-CV- 0987 (JDB), although “[t]he burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court,” neither the petition in the case nor its exhibit demonstrates the necessary “significant relationship,” between Sami Al Hajj and the detainee for whom he purports to act as “next friend.” Id. at 164; Dokhan Petition (dkt. no. 1). Petitioners in these cases (ISNs 281, 311, 317, 584, and 744) were previously4 determined by Combatant Status Review Tribunals (“CSRTs”) to be enemy combatants. See Second Decl. of Karen L. Hecker ¶¶ 2–3 (attached as Exhibit 3). - 2 - BACKGROUND These habeas corpus petitions were on behalf of individuals currently detained as enemy3 combatants at Guantanamo. Petitioners suppose that, at some point in the future, respondents4 might transfer petitioners to their home countries or another country where they might be mistreated. Thus, although the very purpose of this proceeding is necessarily to achieve the detainees’ release from detention at Guantanamo, petitioners have moved for an order that would require advance notice of any transfer, which might then be used to delay or prevent entirely such a release from United States’ custody. Aside from the speculative nature of petitioner’s belief as to what might happen to them in connection with a transfer, the factual premises of their motions are incorrect. As described in the declarations attached hereto as Exhibits 1 & 2, attested to by Ambassador Clint Williamson and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Sandra Hodgkinson, where appropriate, the United States transfers Guantanamo detainees to the control of other countries, typically a detainee’s country of citizenship. For any transfer, a key concern of the United States is whether the foreign government will treat the detainee humanely and in a manner consistent with its international obligations. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 2-4; Hodgkinson Decl. ¶¶ 3-7. It is the Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 2 of 33 In appropriate cases of transfers of Guantanamo detainees, the dialogue between the5 United States and a receiving government will include efforts to ascertain or establish what measures the receiving government intends to take, pursuant to its own domestic laws and independent determinations, that will ensure that the detainee will not pose a continuing threat to the United States and its allies. Hodgkinson Decl. ¶ 5. In all cases where a transfer is consummated, however, the detainee is transferred entirely to the custody and control of the other government; once transferred, the individual is no longer in the custody or control of the United States. Id. Any future detention of that individual is by the foreign government pursuant to its own laws and not on behalf of the United States. Id. - 3 - policy of the United States not to repatriate or transfer a detainee to a country where the United States believes it is more likely than not that the individual will be tortured. Id. ¶ 6; Williamson Decl. ¶ 4. If a transfer is deemed appropriate, a process is undertaken, typically involving the Department of State, in which appropriate assurances regarding the detainee’s treatment are sought from the country to whom the transfer of the detainee is proposed. Hodgkinson Decl. ¶ 6; Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. Once the Department of Defense initially approves a transfer and requests the assistance of the Department of State, the Department of State initiates transfer discussions with the foreign government concerned. Id. Such discussions include an effort to seek assurances that the United States Government considers necessary and appropriate with regard to the country in question. In every transfer case in which continued detention or other security measures by the transferee government are foreseen, such assurances include assurances of humane treatment and treatment in accordance with the international obligations of the foreign government accepting transfer. Id. Among other things, the Department of State considers5 whether the nation in question is a party to relevant treaties such as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), and ensures Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 3 of 33 The particulars of whatever discussions there might be between the Executive Branch6 and foreign countries in any specific case of a proposed transfer of a Guantanamo detainee are closely held within appropriate Executive Branch channels. The United States’ ability to seek and obtain assurances from a foreign government depends on its ability to treat its dealings with the foreign government with discretion. Williamson Decl. ¶ 9. Obviously, diplomatic sensitivities surround the Department of State’s communications with foreign governments concerning allegations relating to torture. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 9-11; see Hodgkinson Decl. ¶ 8. The United States Government typically does not unilaterally make public any specific assurances or other precautionary measures obtained, because such disclosure would have a chilling effect on and cause damage to this country’s ability to conduct foreign relations. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 9-11. - 4 - that assurances are tailored accordingly if the nation concerned is not a party or other circumstances warrant. Id.6 The determination whether it is more likely than not an individual would be tortured by a receiving foreign government, including, where applicable, evaluation of foreign government assurances, involves senior level officials and takes into account a number of considerations, including whether the nation concerned is a party to certain treaties; the expressed commitments of officials of the foreign government accepting transfer; the particular circumstances of the transfer, the country and the individual concerned; and any concerns regarding torture that may arise. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 6-8; Hodgkinson Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. Recommendations by the Department of State are developed through a process involving the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (which drafts the Department of State’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices) and the relevant Department of State regional bureau, country desk, or U.S. Embassy. Williamson Decl. ¶ 7. When evaluating the adequacy of assurances, Department of State officials consider the identity, position, or other information concerning the official relaying the assurances; political or legal developments in the foreign country concerned that provide context for the assurances; and the foreign government’s incentives and capacity to fulfill its assurances Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 4 of 33 - 5 - to the United States. Williamson Decl. ¶ 8. In an appropriate case, the Department of State may consider various monitoring mechanisms for verifying that assurances are being honored. Id. If a case were to arise in which the assurances obtained from the receiving government were not sufficient when balanced against treatment concerns, the United States would not transfer a detainee to the control of that government unless the concerns were satisfactorily resolved. Hodgkinson Decl. ¶ 7; Williamson Decl. ¶ 8. Indeed, circumstances have arisen in the past where the Defense Department decided not to transfer detainees to their country of origin because of mistreatment concerns. Hodgkinson Decl. ¶ 7; Williamson Decl. ¶ 8. In sum, the Executive Branch employs an elaborate inter-agency process for evaluating the propriety of transfers of Guantanamo detainees and implementing the United States’ policy not to repatriate or transfer a detainee to a country where the United States believes it is more likely than not that the individual will be tortured. That process involves senior level officials and includes consideration of the detainee’s particular circumstances, an informed and well-rounded analysis of the current situation on the ground in the prospective transferee country, the input of various Department of State offices with relevant knowledge, personal interactions and negotiations with senior officials of the prospective transferee government, and consideration of assurances provided by the prospective transferee country, as well as their sufficiency and any mechanisms for verifying them. Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 5 of 33 - 6 - ARGUMENT I. NOTWITHSTANDING BOUMEDIENE, SECTION 7 OF THE MCA DEPRIVES THIS COURT OF JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER ANY CHALLENGE OTHER THAN TO THE CORE HABEAS INQUIRY OVER THE LAWFULNESS OF DETENTION. Petitioners are not entitled to their requested relief because the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (“MCA”), Pub. L. No. 109-366, § 7(a), 120 Stat . 2600 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)), legitimately withdraws court jurisdiction to provide relief concerning any transfer of a detainee from Guantanamo notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (June 12, 2008). Thus, the Court should deny petitioners’ motion without even considering the traditional balancing test for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief. Through § 7 of the MCA, Congress expressly withdrew from this Court’s jurisdiction two independent and enumerated types of actions that individuals detained by the United States as enemy combatants could bring. Specifically, Congress carved out of this Court’s jurisdiction claims concerning statutory habeas corpus generally: No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1). Congress separately withdrew federal court jurisdiction concerning any other aspects of the detention outside of the core habeas function, such that: [N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant . . . . Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 6 of 33 - 7 - 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2) (emphasis added). Under the recent decision in Boumediene, it is clear that the Supreme Court did not invalidate the MCA except to the extent that it precluded courts from exercising core habeas functions, i.e., challenging the legality of the detention itself. Petitioners’ claims here indisputably fall outside the Boumediene holding because they do not concern the core habeas function. They do not challenge the legality of petitioners’ detention, but rather raise an ancillary issue related to the potential transfer of petitioners out of United States’ custody. Jurisdiction, therefore, is lacking, and petitioners’ motions must be denied. A. Boumediene Did Not Invalidate The MCA Except To The Extent That It Precluded Courts From Exercising Core Habeas Functions. In Boumediene, the Supreme Court held that Guantanamo Bay detainees have a constitutional right to seek habeas corpus protected by the Suspension Clause, and that, as applied to detainees who are being held on the basis of an enemy combatant determination by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (“CSRT”) and whose habeas challenge goes to the legality of their detention, section 7 operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. This holding is limited in two important respects. First, Boumediene holds that the first part of § 7 of the MCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1), is unconstitutional in some circumstances, but only insofar as it denies habeas review to detainees who have available to them only the CSRT process and their who raise a core habeas challenge, i.e., to challenge the legality of their detention. See Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2269 (“The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause for detention and the Executive’s power to detain.”) (emphasis added). Put another way, to the extent a petitioner seeks habeas relief concerning collateral or ancillary issues not directly Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 7 of 33 - 8 - connected to the legality of detention, Boumediene’s holding does not invalidate the jurisdiction limiting provision of § 2241(e)(1). The result in Boumediene thus can be read not as a facial invalidation of § 2241(e)(1), but an invalidation of § 2241(e)(1) only as applied to the particular factual situation presented, as it was never established that “no set of circumstances exists under which [§ 7] would be valid.” See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). Indeed, it is indisputable that the challenge presented by the Boumediene petitioners was not the right to raise a habeas challenge to some ancillary issue, such as the petitioners here seek to do, but rather to challenge to the legality to the fact of their detention at all. See Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320, 328-29 (2006) (“[T]he ‘normal rule’ is that ‘partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course,’ such that a ‘statute may . . . be declared invalid to the extent that it reaches too far, but otherwise left intact.’”). Indeed, with regard to how much of § 2241(e)(1) remains operative following Boumediene, a reviewing court has an obligation to preserve as much of a statute as is legally permissible. Thus, “a court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary,” and “whenever an act of Congress contains unobjectionable provisions separable from those found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of [the] court to so declare, and to maintain the act in so far as it is valid.” Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 460 (1992) (quoting Regan v. Time, 468 U.S. 641, 652 (1984) (plurality opinion). Thus, because Acts of Congress are valid to the extent they operate constitutionally, the Court’s holding must be applied with an eye to “limit[ing] the solution to the problem.” Ayotte, 546 U.S. at 328-39. At bottom, because the problem alleged in Boumediene as to § 2241(e)(1) concerned only a core habeas challenge to the legality of detention made by a petitioner with access only to the CSRT process, and not to an Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 8 of 33 - 9 - ancillary issue not dealing with the legality of detention and related to a possible future transfer out of United States’ custody, § 2241(e)(1) remains operative here and removes jurisdiction with regard to the instant challenge. Second, Boumediene’s holding does not invalidate the second part of § 7. Indeed, the Court expressly noted that it was not deciding whether Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to bring non-core habeas claims, such as conditions of confinement claims – one type of claim barred by § 2241(e)(2). See Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2274 (“[W]e need not discuss the reach of the writ with respect to claims of unlawful conditions of treatment or confinement.”). But even after Boumediene, Congress’ withdrawal of federal court jurisdiction over “any other action . . . relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement” remains operative to deprive this Court of jurisdiction over petitioners’ claims here, which are ancillary to the core habeas issue. The Supreme Court’s rationale for invalidating § 2241(e)(1), as applied, has no application to § 2241(e)(2). The Boumediene majority discusses the detainees’ constitutional right to bring only core habeas actions – challenging the lawfulness of detention – as opposed to the broader class of “any other action . . . relating to any aspect of the detention.” See, e.g., Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2262 (“Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention.”) (emphasis added). Unlike § 2241(e)(1), however, § 2241(e)(2) does not impair the Guantanamo detainees’ ability to pursue a writ of habeas corpus. Rather, it expressly limits other types of actions that Guantanamo detainees might bring. Indeed, the Court explicitly distinguished between habeas actions governed by § 2241(e)(1), and other, non-habeas actions governed by § 2241(e)(2), by recognizing that “[t]he Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 9 of 33 - 10 - structure of the two paragraphs [i.e. (e)(1) and (e)(2)] implies that habeas actions are a type of action ‘relating to an aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement;’” that is, habeas actions are merely one type of action within the broader set of actions “relating to an aspect of . . . detention.” See id. at 2243. Because § 2241(e)(2) addresses “other action[s]” and not any constitutional habeas right the detainees may hold, the Suspension Clause provides no basis for invalidating it. Additional evidence that Boumediene did not reach § 2241(e)(2) comes from the Court’s discussion of what is constitutionally required in habeas proceedings. That discussion does not suggest that Guantanamo detainees have a right to challenge “other action[s]” related to “aspects” of their detention. Instead, the Court’s discussion is phrased in terms limiting a detainee’s habeas action narrowly to a challenge of his status or custody. See, e.g., Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2266 (“We do consider it uncontroversial, however, that the privilege of habeas corpus entitles the prisoner to a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that he is being held pursuant to ‘the erroneous application or interpretation’ of relevant law.”); id. at 2269 (“The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause for detention and the Executive’s power to detain.”); id. at 2273 (detainee must have opportunity to present “reasonably available evidence demonstrating there is no basis for his continued detention”). None of the language suggests that a petitioner’s constitutional habeas rights include a right to challenge any other aspect related to their detention beyond its legality. Thus, the Court’s holding that the Suspension Clause requires invalidation of § 7 of the MCA as Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 10 of 33 Although the Court’s opinion refers generally to § 7, without identifying a particular7 subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e), see, e.g., Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2274 (“MCA § 7 thus effects an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.”); id. at 2274 (“The only law we identify as unconstitutional is MCA §7, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(e) (Supp. 2007)”), that is an insufficient basis for construing the Court’s opinion to invalidate all of § 7. This is particularly so because the Court’s rationale for invalidating § 2241(e)(1) has no application to § 2241(e)(2). In fact, at one point in its opinion, the Court seems to acknowledge that its reference generally to § 7 is simply short-hand for referring to § 2241(e)(1). See id. at 2265 (stating that § 7 is the source of the relevant “jurisdiction-stripping language,” but citing specifically to subsection § 2241(e)(1)). Moreover, the fact that the constitutionality of § 2241(e)(2) was never challenged in8 Boumediene further supports the argument that the Court’s holding does not invalidate that provision. See Belbacha v. Bush, 520 F.3d 452, 455 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“In [the court of appeals’ decision in] Boumediene we held that § 7(a)(1) [28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1)] of the MCA does not violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution”). It would be odd to interpret the Court’s decision in Boumediene as not only having reached the constitutionality of § 2241(e)(2), sua sponte and for the first time on appeal, but also to have determined that the provision is unconstitutional without any explanation as to why. - 11 - applied to aliens detained at Guantanamo should be read to apply only to the first part of § 7, i.e., § 2241(e)(1), and only as discussed above.7 A contrary conclusion would require this Court to conclude that while the Supreme Court expressly held that § 2241(e)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Guantanamo detainees who have only had the benefit of CSRT procedures, it determined sub silentio the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2). But if the Court had intended to pass on § 2241(e)(2)’s constitutionality, the only rationale that might have supported that conclusion would have been if the Court had determined that conditions of confinement claims are encompassed in the detainees’ constitutional right to habeas, so that elimination of jurisdiction over those claims jeopardized their constitutional habeas right. But, as noted above, the Court expressly stated that it was not deciding that issue. See Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2274. 8 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 11 of 33 The text and history of § 7 of the MCA demonstrate that Congress surely intended9 § 2241(e)(2) to survive, even if the elimination of habeas jurisdiction in § 2241(e)(1) could not. In enacting the MCA, Congress sought to eliminate jurisdiction over ancillary issues, precisely to prevent the Executive Branch from having to divert significant resources during the duration of an armed conflict to respond to those claims. See, e.g., 152 Cong Rec. S10403 (daily ed. Sept. 28, 2006) (Sen. Cornyn) (“[O]nce . . . section 7 is effective, Congress will finally accomplish what it sought to do through the [Detainee Treatment Act (“DTA”)] last year. It will finally get the lawyers out of Guantanamo Bay. It will substitute the blizzard of litigation instigated by Rasul v. Bush with a narrow DC Circuit-only review of the [CSRT] hearings.”); 152 id. at S10367 (Sen. Graham) (citing one petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction regarding conditions of confinement as an examples of a claim that should be barred); see also 151 id. at 12656–57 (daily ed. Nov. 10, 2005) (Sen. Graham) (noting that DTA was intended to limit detainees’ right to “challenge their status”); 151 id. at S12659-60 (Sen. Kyl) (stating that DTA would grant detainees “substantial rights to contest their status but not the right to clog up Federal courts” with medical malpractice claims and complaints about food). - 12 - While the continuing vitality of § 2242(e)(2) is therefore clear, if any doubt remained as noted above, the Court must consider its duty to preserve as much of a statute as is constitutional. See Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 684 (1971) (“‘The unconstitutionality of a part of an act does not necessarily defeat . . . the validity of its remaining provisions. Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power . . . the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.’”)). Indeed, because § 2241(e)(2) is severable, there is no obstacle to continuing to apply that provision, despite the Boumediene Court’s holding that § 2241(e)(1) cannot validly withdraw the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as applied to detainees at Guantanamo who have only the benefit of CSRT procedures. See Ayotte, 546 U.S. at 330 (“After finding an application or portion of a statute unconstitutional, we must next ask: Would the legislature have preferred what is left of its statute to no statute at all?”). Section 2241(e)(2) is thus severable and should remain in force. Alaska9 Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 685 (1987) (“[T]he unconstitutional provision must be severed unless the statute created in its absence is legislation that Congress would not have Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 12 of 33 - 13 - enacted”); News America Pub., Inc. v. F.C.C., 844 F.2d 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (presumption is in favor of severability). Accordingly, pursuant to § 7 of the MCA, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear or consider the petitioners’ challenges to aspects of their detention short of the lawfulness of their detention, including claims related to potential transfer of petitioner. B. The Right to Seek a Writ of Habeas Corpus Recognized in Boumediene Does Not Encompass a Right to Ancillary Relief Concerning Transfer. Section 2241(e)(1) still validly removes jurisdiction of issues ancillary to and beyond the core habeas function of challenging legality of detention and § 2241(e)(2) remains fully operative. Consequently, there is no federal court jurisdiction over “any other action” concerning “any aspect” of petitioners’ detention, transfer, treatment or confinement, including petitioners’ claim for advance notice of any transfer, except insofar as such claims may be constitutionally protected under Boumediene’s interpretation of the Suspension Clause. Therefore, under § 2241(e)(1) as applied to petitioners’ claim for relief and under § 2241(e)(2), petitioners cannot state cognizable habeas claims unless their constitutional right to habeas corpus encompasses those claims. The elimination of jurisdiction over petitioners’ claims regarding notice of transfer, however, could not constitute a Suspension Clause violation because they do not go to the core of habeas – legality of detention – addressed by the Supreme Court in Boumediene. A habeas action has historically been understood as a vehicle for challenging one thing only – the fact of detention or its duration. Nothing else. That is, the Great Writ concerns only relief that, if granted, will result in the petitioner’s release from confinement, not with other ancillary issues. Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 13 of 33 - 14 - Petitioners’ claims here, seeking advance notice of transfer out of United States’ custody, do not seek release from confinement and are not part of core habeas. Indeed, as explained in detail infra § II.A., the Supreme Court determined unanimously in the Munaf case, decided the same day as Boumediene, that the type of relief sought by the petitioner in that case – shelter from release from United States’ custody to the custody of another sovereign the petitioner found objectionable – was not appropriately awardable in habeas. See Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2226-28. Likewise here, petitioners’ requests for relief aimed at challenging any future transfer of petitioners out of United States’ custody are neither appropriate nor core habeas relief. Jurisdiction is therefore lacking to consider petitioners’ requests. * * * Accordingly, it is beyond the power of this Court to grant petitioners’ requested injunction, and the Court need not even consider the traditional balancing test in denying petitioners’ motions. As explained below, however, that balancing test simply reinforces the conclusion that petitioners’ motion must be denied. II. PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED INJUNCTION UNDER THE TRADITIONAL BALANCING TEST FOR SUCH RELIEF. As the Supreme Court very recently reaffirmed, “a preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy,’” that “is never awarded as of right.” Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2219 (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2948 at 129 (2d ed. 1995), and citing Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 440 (1944)). Such an injunction should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997); Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 14 of 33 - 15 - 251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To prevail in a request for a preliminary injunction, a movant “must ‘demonstrate 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, 2) that [he] would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, 3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and 4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction.’” Katz v. Georgetown Univ., 246 F.3d 685, 687-88 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). Especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous statements in Munaf, petitioners here cannot make these necessary showings, even if the Court otherwise had jurisdiction to issue such relief (which it does not). A. Petitioners Fail to Show Likelihood of Success with Respect to an Injunction Concerning Transfer. A primary hurdle petitioners must overcome to obtain relief in this case related to any transfer is that they must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed in preventing a transfer from Guantanamo. As recently explained by a unanimous Supreme Court, the likelihood of success showing is essential. Merely because a matter presents “serious, substantial, [or] difficult” questions that give rise to “fair ground for litigation” is insufficient to support preliminary injunctive relief. See Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2219. Here, at bottom, each petitioner seeks to second-guess, in connection with his potential future transfer, the Executive Branch determination that he is not likely to be tortured in the country to which he would be transferred. That is the sole purpose in seeking advance notice of any such transfer. Yet, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected such a role for the judiciary in Munaf, concluding that “it is for the political branches, not the judiciary to assess practices in Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 15 of 33 - 16 - foreign countries and to determine national policy in light of those assessments.” Id. at 2225. Thus, even in the face of allegations presenting “serious concern” of potential torture, such “concern is to be addressed by the political branches, not the judiciary.” Id. Where, as here, the United States Government has a policy of not transferring an individual to another country when the United States believes that it is more likely than not that the individual will be tortured, there is simply no role for judicial supervision of such transfers and, thus, no authority to require notice of such transfers. Further, whatever the merits of petitioners’ substantive claims that they are wrongfully detained, it is not the likelihood of success on those claims that matters for purposes of the instant motion for preliminary injunction. Rather, as two Judges of this Court (who previously reached opposite outcomes on the bottom line of whether to require advance notice of transfer) have agreed, the likelihood of success analysis must focus on the legal basis for petitioner to obtain an order preventing termination of detention by the United States in the manner described in the declarations submitted herewith. See Al-Anazi v. Bush, 370 F. Supp. 2d 188, 194 (D.D.C. 2005) (Bates, J.) (“[T]he presence of a sound basis to challenge the legality of one’s detention does not at all imply that there exists a sound basis to challenge the legality of one’s transfer. Put differently, the ‘merits,’ if you will, to be assessed for purposes of the present claim for preliminary injunctive relief, is petitioners’ challenge to their transfer from Guantanamo, not to their detention at Guantanamo) (emphasis in original); Abdah v. Bush, No. 04-CV-1254 (HHK), 2005 WL 711814, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2005) (“if there are no circumstances under which Petitioners could obtain a court order preventing a contemplated transfer, a preliminary injunction should not be granted”) (second emphasis added). As explained below, petitioners Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 16 of 33 - 17 - cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success with respect to relief related to any transfer. No legal basis exists for such relief whether under the MCA or under the Court’s habeas jurisdiction in the wake of Boumediene (including as explained supra § I), or otherwise. 1. The Right to Seek a Writ of Habeas Corpus Recognized in Boumediene Does Not Encompass a Right to Relief Related to Transfer. Even if the Supreme Court had invalidated § 7 of the MCA in its entirety and all of its applications (which it did not), the petitioners would not be entitled to their requested relief related to transfer. Relief setting conditions on a detainee’s transfer out of United States’ custody cannot be properly awarded in the context of these habeas cases; such relief would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. An injunction such as petitioners seek, conditioning any transfer of a detainee out of Guantanamo on advance notice of such transfer so that petitioners can attempt to delay or prevent the transfer, would undermine the President’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to capture individuals in armed conflict, detain them as enemy combatants, and, upon determining that they are no longer enemy combatants or that it is otherwise appropriate, to release them. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004) (plurality opinion) (“The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by ‘universal agreement and practice,’ are ‘important incident[s] of war.’”) (quoting Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 28 (1942)); Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (recognizing that President has “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States,” and authorizing him “to use all Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 17 of 33 - 18 - necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the September 11 attacks). In addition, separation of powers considerations are implicated in the requested relief in light of the United States’ policy not to repatriate or transfer a detainee to a country when the United States believes that it is more likely than not that the individual will be tortured. See supra at 2-5; see also Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2226 (noting the Solicitor General’s statement “that it is the policy of the United States not to transfer an individual in circumstances where torture is likely to result”). In implementing this policy the United States routinely engages in sensitive negotiations with other nations when deciding whether to transfer an enemy combatant detainee. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 9-12. In this context, the requested advance notice requirement itself, as well as the prospect of judicial review implicit in that requirement, causes a separation-of-powers harm by undermining the ability of the Executive Branch to speak with one voice in its dealings with foreign nations. See id. ¶ 12; Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 381 (2000) (expressing disapproval of acts that “compromise the very capacity of the President to speak for the nation with one voice in dealing with other governments”). The requested injunction would not only potentially hamper the Executive in timely execution of the foreign policy decision to make a transfer, but it unquestionably envisions the possibility that such a decision could not be implemented without judicial acquiescence or approval. Although petitioners purport to merely seek notice of an impending transfer, it is undisputed that the sole reason they seek such notice is to enable them, after the Executive has decided to transfer the detainee, to seek an order blocking that transfer. The only reason they give for wanting to block such a transfer is their belief that it may be “to a place where [the Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 18 of 33 - 19 - detainee] is likely to be tortured.” Dokhan, No. 08-0987 (JDB), Motion at 13; accord Mohammed, No. 05-1347 (GK), Motion at 2-4; Mohammon (Naji), No. 05-2386 (RBW), Motion at 3-4; Mohammon (Ghaffar & Noori), No. 05-2386 (RBW) Motion at 10. But, as noted above, it is uncontested that the United States has a policy not to repatriate or transfer a detainee to a country when the United States believes that it is more likely than not that the individual will be tortured. Thus, for this Court to grant ultimate relief from transfer, it must necessarily conclude that the Executive may potentially err in its determination regarding the likelihood of torture by a receiving government. A unanimous Supreme Court recently held in Munaf, however, that it is inappropriate to use injunctive relief in the habeas context as a means to second-guess such an Executive determination. Munaf (decided the same day as Boumediene) involved a habeas petition in this Court brought by a United States citizen to prevent his transfer from the custody of United States forces part of the Multinational Force-Iraq (“MNF-I”) to Iraqi custody. After concluding that habeas jurisdiction existed in the case, the Court nonetheless determined that there was no authority constraining petitioner’s release from MNF-I custody. The Court emphasized that “[h]abeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful detention. . . . The typical remedy is, of course, release.” Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2221 (citing Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion)); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (“[T]he traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”) (cited in Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2221). Accordingly, the Court determined that the type of relief sought by the petitioner in that case – shelter from release from United States’ custody to the custody of another sovereign the petitioner found objectionable – was not appropriate. See Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2228 (“Habeas corpus does not Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 19 of 33 Not only is this type of judicial inquiry inappropriate under our constitutionally10 separated powers, but, as a practical matter, such an inquiry, to the extent it involved disclosure of diplomatic dialogue with a receiving country, could chill important sources of information and interfere with the ability of the United States to interact effectively with foreign governments. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 9-12; Hodgkinson Decl. ¶ 8. In particular, the foreign government in question, as well as other governments, would likely be reluctant to communicate frankly with the United States in the future concerning torture and mistreatment concerns. Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 9-11. This chilling effect would jeopardize the ability of the Executive to deal effectively with other nations in this area. Id. ¶¶ 9-12; Hodgkinson Decl. ¶ 8. - 20 - require the United States to shelter such fugitives from the criminal justice system of the sovereign with authority to prosecute them.”). Further, in response to the complaint of the petitioner in that case that his transfer might result in mistreatment at the hands of the Iraqi government, the Court, after noting the United States’ policy not transfer an individual to another country when the United States believes that it is more likely than not that the individual will be tortured, concluded: The Judiciary is not suited to second-guess such determinations – determinations that would require federal courts to pass judgment on foreign justice systems and undermine the Government's ability to speak with one voice in this area. See The Federalist No. 42, p. 279 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“If we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations”). In contrast, the political branches are well situated to consider sensitive foreign policy issues, such as whether there is a serious prospect of torture at the hands of an ally, and what to do about it if there is. Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2226; accord id. at 2225 (“Even with respect to claims that detainees would be denied constitutional rights if transferred, we have recognized that it is for the political branches, not the judiciary, to assess practices in foreign countries and to determine national policy in light of those assessments.”). Accordingly, the Court concluded that the injunction in10 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 20 of 33 The Supreme Court’s conclusion in Munaf is fully consistent with the District of11 Columbia Circuit’s longstanding prohibition against judicial interference with the Executive’s foreign policy decisions. See, e.g., Joo v. Japan, 413 F.3d 45, 52-53 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (adjudication that “‘would undo’” Executive’s judgment in foreign policy “would be imprudent to a degree beyond our power”); Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190, 197 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“pass[ing] judgment on the policy-based decision of the executive” in foreign policy “is not the stuff of adjudication”); People’s Mojahedin Org. v. Dep’t of State, 182 F.3d 17, 23 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is beyond the judicial function for a court to review foreign policy decisions of the Executive Branch.”) (citing Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948)); see also Holmes v. Laird, 459 F.2d 1211, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (“In situations such as this, ‘[t]he controlling considerations are the interacting interests of the United States and of foreign countries, and in assessing them [the courts] must move with the circumspection appropriate when [a court] is adjudicating issues inevitably entangled in the conduct of our international relations.’”) (quoting Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 383 (1959)). Similarly, the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Munaf is consistent with the Rule of Non- Inquiry developed in the extradition context, under which courts have eschewed inquiry into “‘the fairness of a requesting nation’s justice system’” and “‘the procedures or treatment which await a surrendered fugitive in the requesting country.’” United States v. Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103, 110 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting Arnbjornsdottir-Mendler v. United States, 721 F.2d 679, 683 (9th Cir. 1983)); accord Ahmad v. Wigen, 910 F.2d 1063, 1067 (2d Cir. 1990) (“The interests of international comity are ill-served by requiring a foreign nation . . . to satisfy a United States district judge concerning the fairness of its laws and the manner in which they are enforced. . . . It is the function of the Secretary of State to determine whether extradition should be denied on humanitarian grounds.”); Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d 1098, 1107 (5th Cir. 1980) (refusing to bar extradition based on allegations that appellant “may be tortured or killed if surrendered to Mexico,” because “the degree of risk to [Escobedo’s] life from extradition is an issue that properly falls within the exclusive purview of the executive branch”) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Al-Anazi, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 194 (holding that this “well- established line of cases in the extradition context” “counsel[s] even further against judicial interference”). - 21 - that case, which interfered with the ability of the forces detaining petitioner to release him to another sovereign, was improper. 11 Petitioners essentially assert that they are likely to prevail on the merits with respect to the requested relief because this Court has jurisdiction. See Dokhan, No. 08-0987 (JDB), Motion at 12; accord Mohammed, No. 05-1347 (GK), Motion at 5-6; Mohammon (Naji), No. 05-2386 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 21 of 33 One of the previous decisions on a similar motion in another Guantanamo detainee case12 criticized this proposition as “overly simplistic,” because “[p]etitioner ultimately seeks total freedom from all custody, not just United States custody.” Al-Marri v. Bush, No. 04-CV-2035 (GK), 2005 WL 774843, at *3 n.8 (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2005). Whatever petitioners may ultimately seek, however, a court of the United States clearly does not have jurisdiction to award a foreign national the relief of “freedom from all custody” worldwide, in the sense of immunity from detention in his home or a third country pursuant to its own domestic laws and independent determinations. Indeed, the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in Munaf. 128 S. Ct. at 2223 (“[H]abeas is not a means of compelling the United States to harbor fugitives from the criminal justice system of a sovereign . . . .”). The courts of the United States would have no authority to interfere with any decision a foreign sovereign nation may make to detain, investigate, or prosecute its own nationals being returned to it. Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2211, 2220 (barring interference with foreign sovereign’s exclusive jurisdiction to “‘punish offenses against its laws committed within its borders”) (quoting Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524, 529 (1957)). - 22 - (RBW), Motion at 5; Mohammon (Ghaffar & Noori), No. 05-2386 (RBW) Motion at 10. This is almost precisely the contention rejected in Munaf, however. Indeed, jurisdiction is distinct from the merits, and, therefore, that this Court may have habeas jurisdiction says nothing whatsoever about petitioners’ likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. The key point here is that the existence of habeas jurisdiction, by itself, is clearly not an appropriate legal rationale for an order forbidding, except on conditions, the transfer or repatriation of an individual detained at Guantanamo, because relinquishment from United States custody (which occurs in every such transfer or repatriation) represents the full extent of relief that petitioners could obtain from a habeas petition. See Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2221; see also Al-Anazi, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 198 (“Every habeas petition, including this one, is ultimately about obtaining release from detention . . . and where, as here, the United States will relinquish custody of the detainee to the home government there is nothing more the Court could provide to petitioners.”) (citation omitted). 12 Indeed, it has been noted that, “[w]ere the Court to preserve its jurisdiction over the habeas petitions, and ultimately determine that the United States may no longer detain the petitioners, Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 22 of 33 Some petitioners also briefly mention Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions13 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) as purported legal bases for an order requiring advance notice of a transfer. See Mohammed, No. 05-1347 (GK), Motion at 5-6; Mohammon (Naji), No. 05-2386 (RBW), Motion at 5-6. Those treaties, however, do not give rise to privately enforceable rights and cannot serve as a legal basis for petitioners’ requested relief. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734-35 (2004) (ICCPR does not “itself create obligations enforceable in the federal courts”); MCA § 5(a) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (note)) (no person may invoke the Geneva Conventions as “a source of rights” in any civil court proceeding to which “the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party”). See also Medellin v. Texas, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 1357 & n.3 (2008) (noting presumption that treaties do not provide private parties with judicially enforceable rights). - 23 - the parties and the Court would find themselves in precisely the same position in which they find themselves now – with the respondents taking steps to transfer those individuals out of United States control, and the petitioners compelled to come forward with some legal or evidentiary basis to prevent transfer to an ‘undesirable’ country.” Al-Anazi, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 196. Accordingly, this Court cannot grant the requested injunction without transgressing constitutional separation of powers, including by laying the groundwork to engage in an inquiry that the Supreme Court has clearly held belongs to the political branches and not the judiciary. For this reason, it is beyond the power of this Court to grant the requested injunction, and petitioners have no likelihood of success on their claim for such relief. 2. The Other Legal Bases Offered by Petitioners to Support Injunctive Relief Does No Support Such Relief. Petitioners’ primary source of legal authority for their alleged ability to challenge the location to which they may be transferred is the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), which prohibits the return of an13 individual to country that may torture them. The CAT is implemented in the United States by the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARR Act”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 23 of 33 The petitions invoke the Due Process Clause, but the Supreme Court has made clear14 that this Clause does not provide a free-ranging protection from allegedly unlawful transfer whenever the government seizes someone, even when, as is not the case here, the person seized is a citizen of the United States. See Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2222. - 24 - § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note), and one detainee, Mr. Dokhan, has invoked that statute. See Dokhan v. Bush, No. 08-0987 (JDB), Motion at 7-10; id. at 12 (asserting as the sole legal basis for challenging transfer “FARRA and the basic international legal norms embodied in the Convention Against Torture”). This basis for relief must be rejected for two reasons. First, no FARR Act claim can be considered at this stage because the petitions do not invoke that statute. See Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2226. Second, even if the petitions had14 raised claims under the FARR Act, that statute does not provide jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims. The FARR Act expressly provides that “nothing in this section shall be construed as providing any court jurisdiction to consider or review claims raised under the Convention [Against Torture] or this section, or any other determination made with respect to the application of the policy set forth in subsection (a) [prohibiting the return of persons when there are substantial grounds for believing they will be tortured], except as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1252).” See FARR Act § 2242(d). This case does not involve a final order of removal under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, however, and neither the FARR Act nor the regulations thereunder (8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-1208.18) create jurisdiction to review any CAT claims in the circumstances presented here. See Mironescu v. Costner, 480 F.3d 664, 672 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. dismissed, 128 S. Ct. 976 (2008); Al-Anazi, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 194; see also Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 24 of 33 - 25 - Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2226 n.6 (dictum); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4) (CAT claims are not cognizable in a habeas petition). * * * Thus, there is no basis in law for an injunction requiring that petitioners’ counsel and this Court be given advance notice of any upcoming transfer or release. Neither the Court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction nor any other legal authority supports the notion of ordering custody that the United States wishes to relinquish to nevertheless be artificially and indeterminately prolonged purely to preserve a live case for the Court. And, apart from the absence of affirmative legal authority, separation of powers considerations and foreign relations sensitivities preclude a judicial inquiry in which this Court would substitute its judgment regarding the appropriateness of transfer in general (and the likelihood of torture in particular) for that of the appropriate Executive Branch officials. B. Petitioners’ Request for Relief Must Be Denied Because Petitioners Fail to Show Irreparable Injury. Petitioners’ request for relief must also fail because petitioners cannot demonstrate the irreparable injury necessary to obtain such relief. Petitioners here allege two types of harm to the detainee: (1) the possibility of torture by authorities in the country to which they may be transferred and (2) the “circumvent[ion of the detainee’s] . . . right to adjudicate the legality of his detention and his status as an ‘enemy combatant.’” Dokhan, No. 08-0987 (JDB), Motion at 11; accord Mohammed, No. 05-1347 (GK), Motion at 5-6; Mohammon (Naji), No. 05-2386 (RBW), Motion at 5; Mohammon (Ghaffar & Noori), No. 05-2386 (RBW) Motion at 10. Neither alleged potential harm justifies granting the requested injunction. Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 25 of 33 - 26 - 1. Irreparable Harm Cannot Be Shown in Light of Undisputed Government Policies and Practices. In order to satisfy the irreparable harm prong of the preliminary injunction test, a petitioner must demonstrate irreparable injury that is “‘certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical.’” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). “Injunctive relief will not be granted against something merely feared as liable to occur at some indefinite time; the party seeking injunctive relief must show that the injury complained of is of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original). This “high standard,” id., is plainly not met by petitioners’ speculation that they may suffer harm in various countries they believe they may be transferred to by the United States. As the Supreme Court has recently made clear, generalized allegations of the potential for mistreatment, in the face of United States’ policy not to transfer an individual where the Government believes it is more likely than not the individual would be tortured, are wholly insufficient. See Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2226 (“Petitioners here allege only the possibility of mistreatment in a prison facility [of the transferee government].”) (emphasis added). Indeed, the Court noted approvingly in Munaf that the United States, despite having concerns regarding “some sectors of the Iraqi government,” had concluded that the specific department of the Iraqi government to which transfer would be made and the specific facilities in which petitioner would be held by that department were not likely to result in the petitioner being tortured. Id. Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 26 of 33 - 27 - The Supreme Court’s discussion in Munaf is relevant not only to show that petitioners’ general claims with respect to torture are insufficient, but also to show that such claims cannot overcome the Executive Branch’s representations regarding the steps its takes to ensure against torture by any transferee governments. Here, as in Munaf, the record clearly demonstrates that it is United States’ policy not to repatriate or transfer a detainee to a country when the United States believes that it is more likely than not that the individual will be tortured. See supra at 2- 5; see Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2226 (noting the Solicitor General’s statement “that it is the policy of the United States not to transfer and individual in circumstances where torture is likely to result”). This policy is implemented by expert Executive agencies through a process that contains several levels of precautions and safeguards. To conclude that an injunction is nevertheless necessary would require the Court to assume, without evidence, that the United States’ policy and practice regarding transfers is meaningless and that the detainee may likely be tortured in the foreign country to which he is ultimately sent; any such conclusion would necessarily require a finding that the United States may potentially err in its determination regarding the likelihood of torture by a receiving government. But, as noted above, it is inappropriate for the judiciary to “second-guess such determinations.” Id.; accord id. at 2225 (“Even with respect to claims that detainees would be denied constitutional rights if transferred, we have recognized that it is for the political branches, not the judiciary, to assess practices in foreign countries and to determine national policy in light of those assessments.”). In the face of the undisputed governmental policy regarding transfers, petitioners’ general claims of potential mistreatment in connection with a future transfer do not meet the “high standard” of irreparable harm necessary to obtain an injunction. Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 27 of 33 At any rate, any argument that petitioners are motivated by a desire to preserve the15 Court’s jurisdiction for its own sake is completely undermined by other statements by petitioners that they, for example, do not oppose transfer generally, but only “to a place where [the detainee] is likely to be tortured.” Dokhan, No. 08-0987 (JDB), Motion at 13; see also Mohammon (Ghaffar & Noori), No. 05-2386 (RBW) Motion at 10 (“While Petitioners, of course, do not wish to hinder any effort to free them from an indefinite imprisonment, they are concerned that they will be removed to a country where they may be tortured or persecuted.”). - 28 - 2. The Fact that a Transfer Would Moot the Petitions Does Not Constitute Irreparable Harm. Petitioners also argue that a preliminary injunction requiring advance notice is necessary in order to “‘protect’” the Court’s jurisdiction, reasoning that a transfer would “circumvent [the detainee’s] right to adjudicate the legality of his detention.” See Dokhan, No. 08-0987 (JDB), Motion at 11; accord Mohammed, No. 05-1347 (GK), Motion at 5-6; Mohammon (Naji), No. 05-2386 (RBW), Motion at 5; Mohammon (Ghaffar & Noori), No. 05-2386 (RBW) Motion at 10. Again, this argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Munaf. The Court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Munaf’s habeas corpus petition, Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2218, and it was clear that a transfer effectively would have mooted that petition. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the district court erred in entering an injunction. Id. at 2220. Given Munaf, the mere preservation of jurisdiction over a habeas petition cannot provide15 a basis for enjoining the release of a person from United States custody and transfer to another country and, thus, for requiring notice of such release. Indeed, such a preservation of jurisdiction argument in face of release from United States custody would make no sense, because “habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2221 (citations omitted); accord id. at 2223 (referring to release as “the quintessential habeas Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 28 of 33 - 29 - remedy”). Where “the last thing petitioners want is simple release” to another country, id. at 2221, (and thus they seek notice so as to be able to challenge any release), their challenge is not cognizable in habeas. Any right to challenge the legality of one’s detention through a habeas proceeding cannot reasonably extend so far as to require that detention be continued, after the Executive determines that the military rationales for enemy combatant detention no longer warrant such custody, for no reason other than to be able to test the legitimacy of detention the Executive no longer is interested in maintaining. As one Judge of this Court stated, “Every habeas petition, including this one, is ultimately about obtaining release from detention, and where, as here, the United States will relinquish custody of the detainee to the home government there is nothing more the Court could provide to petitioners.” Al-Anazi, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 198 (citation omitted). That release from United States custody will give petitioners all the relief they can seek through habeas is not altered by the fact that, upon being released from the custody of the United States, former detainees may be taken into custody and detained in the receiving country based on that country’s independent interests and determinations. As respondents’ declarations make clear, when the Department of Defense transfers Guantanamo detainees to the control of other governments, the detainees are no longer subject to the custody or control of the United States, and any subsequent confinement in the receiving country is based on the receiving government’s independent decision, based on its domestic laws, that the individual should be detained. Hodgkinson Decl. ¶ 5. Indeed, even if the United States transfers a detainee to his home government with the understanding that, from the United States’ perspective, he can be released, the home government may well subsequently take any law enforcement or investigatory action Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 29 of 33 - 30 - against the former detainee that it may deem appropriate under its laws. This is as it should be, given the “exclusive and absolute” jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 U.S. (Cranch) 116, 136 (1812). Habeas is not a means through which detainees may “requir[e] the United States to shelter them from [a] sovereign government seeking to have them answer for alleged crimes committed within that sovereign’s borders.” Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2221; see id. at 2228. For this reason, “‘[h]abeas corpus has been held not to be a valid means of inquiry into the treatment the relator is anticipated to receive in the requesting state.’” Id. at 2225 (quoting M. Bassiouni, INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION: UNITED STATES LAW AND PRACTICE 921 (2007)); see supra § II.A. The Court, therefore, should reject petitioners’ suggestion that the possibility of future detention another country based on that country’s independent interests and determinations constitutes potential irreparable injury warranting an injunction in this habeas corpus action. C. The Requested Injunction Would Substantially Injure Other Interested Parties by Trampling on the Separation of Powers and Harming the Foreign Policy Interests of the United States. An injunction requiring advance notice of a transfer from Guantanamo foreshadows judicial review of and intervention in decisions regarding the release and transfer of detainees. As explained supra, such judicial intervention not only curbs the political branches’ discretionary authority in determining when to release individuals who have been detained as enemy combatants, but also impairs the Government’s ability to speak with one voice on behalf of the Nation in discussing release or transfers with foreign nations. As Munaf held, “[t]he Judiciary is not suited to second-guess such determinations – determinations that would require federal courts to pass judgment on foreign judicial systems and undermine the Government’s ability to speak Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 30 of 33 - 31 - with one voice in this area.” 128 S. Ct. at 2226; see also Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 381 (2000) (expressing disapproval of acts that “compromise the very capacity of the President to speak for the nation with one voice in dealing with other governments”). Even if such judicial review did not ultimately result in an injunction against release or transfer, inquiry into the United States’ dialogue with foreign nations and into the terms of a release or transfer, and any assurances that may have been obtained, would cause serious harm. See Williamson Decl. ¶¶ 9-11. Further, such an advance notice requirement would make the results of diplomatic dialogue between the Executive Branch and a foreign government regarding transfers inherently contingent upon the effective acquiescence of the Judiciary. Such a requirement at best would delay, and at worst could prevent, the transfer of aliens held by the Executive in connection with ongoing armed conflict. These harms weigh heavily against entry of a preliminary injunction. D. An Injunction Would Disserve the Public Interest. The public interest favors allowing the Executive Branch, which is constitutionally vested with the authority both to conduct military functions, such as detention of enemy combatants during hostilities, and to engage in foreign relations, to act without undue intrusion within its constitutional sphere of responsibility. As a general matter, the public interest requires that courts be “‘reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.’” Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2218 (quoting Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530 (1988)). As one Judge of this Court has held: [T]here is a strong public interest against the judiciary needlessly intruding upon the foreign policy and war powers of the Executive on a deficient factual record. Where the conduct of the Executive conforms to law, there is simply no benefit – and quite a bit of detriment – to the public interest from the Court nonetheless assuming for itself the role of a guardian ad litem for the disposition of these Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 31 of 33 - 32 - detainees. See People’s Mojahedin Org., 182 F.3d at 23 (“[I]t is beyond the judicial function for a court to review foreign policy decisions of the Executive Branch.”). Al-Anazi, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 199. See also Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2225 (“Even with respect to claims that detainees would be denied constitutional rights if transferred, we have recognized that it is for the political branches, not the judiciary, to assess practices in foreign countries and to determine national policy in light of those assessments.”). Here, as well, the public interest disfavors an injunction interfering with the transfer of detainees by making such transfers subject to conditions. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, respondents respectfully request that petitioners’ motion for preliminary injunction be denied. Dated: July 9, 2008 Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General JOHN C. O’QUINN Deputy Assistant Attorney General [signature block continued on next page] Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 32 of 33 - 33 - /s/ Terry M. Henry JOSEPH H. HUNT (D.C. Bar No. 431134) VINCENT M. GARVEY (D.C. Bar No. 127191) JUDRY L. SUBAR TERRY M. HENRY ANDREW I. WARDEN PAUL E. AHERN Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-4107 Attorneys for Respondents Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 33 of 33 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-2 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 1 of 5 DECLARATION OF SANDRA L. HODGKINSON I, Sandra L. Hodgkinson, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare and say as follows: 1. I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs in the Department of Defense (“DoD”). My office is organized under the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The Office of Detainee Affairs, which I supervise, is responsible for providing policy advice to the Under Secretary of Defense on matters regarding detainees in DoD control. I have served in this position since July 9, 2007. The statements in paragraphs 5 through 8 of this Declaration provide a general overview of the process of transferring detainees in DoD control at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (“GTMO”), to the control of a foreign government. These statements are not intended to be an exhaustive description of all of the steps that might be undertaken in particular cases, but rather they reflect United States policy and practices with respect to transfers of detainees from GTMO. I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge and upon information made available to me in the performance of my official duties. 2. One of DoD’s current missions is to use all necessary and appropriate force to defeat the al Qaeda terrorist network and its supporters. In the course of that campaign – which remains ongoing – the United States and its allies have captured thousands of individuals overseas, virtually all of whom are foreign nationals. Through a screening and evaluation process, DoD determines whether the individuals should be detained during the conflict as enemy combatants. As of July 2, 2008, approximately 265 foreign nationals are being held by DoD at GTMO. Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-2 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 2 of 5 3. It is lawful and appropriate for DoD to detain enemy combatants as long as hostilities are ongoing. Nonetheless, DoD has no interest in detaining enemy combatants longer than necessary. Accordingly, DoD conducts regular reviews of GTMO detainees who have been determined to be enemy combatants but have not been referred to military commission or previously cleared for transfer or release to determine whether continued detention is warranted based on factors such as whether the detainee continues to pose a threat to the United States and its allies. Where continued detention is deemed no longer necessary, a detainee may be transferred to the control of another government for release. Furthermore, the United States also transfers GTMO detainees, under appropriate circumstances, to the control of other governments when those governments are willing to accept responsibility for ensuring, consistent with their laws, that the detainees will not continue to pose a threat to the United States and its allies. Once transferred, detainees may be subject to detention, investigation, and/or prosecution if appropriate under the receiving country’s laws. Such governments can include the government of a detainee’s home country, or a country other than the detainee’s home country, including a country that may have a law enforcement, prosecution, or other interest in the detainee. 4. Since 2002, approximately 500 detainees have departed Guantanamo for other countries including Albania, Algeria, Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and Yemen. 5. When the DoD transfers GTMO detainees to the control of other governments, the DoD does so after dialogue with the receiving government. Such dialogue may be initiated by the receiving government or may be initiated by the United States. Unless a transfer is to be a transfer for release, a purpose of the dialogue is to ascertain or establish what measures the receiving government intends to take pursuant to its own domestic laws and independent Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-2 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 3 of 5 determinations that will ensure that the detainee will not pose a continuing threat to the United States and its allies. In all cases of transfer, the detainee is transferred entirely to the custody and control of the other government, and once transferred, is no longer in the custody and control of the United States; the individual is detained, if at all, by the foreign government pursuant to its own laws and not on behalf of the United States. When detainees are transferred to the custody or control of their home governments, it is frequently the case that the home government takes the detainee into its custody, at least for an initial period. In some cases, the home government has subsequently released the detainee, sometimes after a period of questioning or investigation, while in other cases, the detainees have remained in confinement or subject to other restrictions in their home countries for various reasons based on the determinations and laws of the home government. Of the GTMO detainees who have been transferred by the DoD to the control of their home countries, most have subsequently been released from detention. 6. Once a DoD transfer of a GTMO detainee is proposed, the views of interested United States Government agencies are considered. For such a transfer, it is the policy of the United States, consistent with the approach taken by the United States in implementing the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, not to repatriate or transfer individuals to other countries where it believes it is more likely than not that they will be tortured. Therefore, if a transfer is deemed appropriate, a process is undertaken, involving the Department of State, in which appropriate assurances regarding the detainee’s treatment are sought from the country to whom the transfer of the detainee is proposed. The Declaration of Clint Williamson dated July 7, 2008, accurately and completely describes that process to the best of my knowledge and belief. Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-2 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 4 of 5 No. 3363 P 2_/",,, ,.CoI,;)~ 7. The ultimate decision to transfer a detainee to the control of another government is made with the involvement ofsenior United State.!! Government officials. The Secretary of Defense or his designee ultimately approves transfers, Dooisions on transfers m-e made on a case-by-case basis, taking Into account the partiCUlar circumstances ofthe transfer, the country, and the detainee concemed, as well as any assurances received from the receiving government If a case were to arise in which the assurances obtained from the receiving government were not sufficient when balanced against treatment concerns, the United States would not transfer a detainee to the control of that government unless the collcems were satisfactorily resolved. Circumstances have arisen in the past where the Department ofDefense elected not to U'BDsfer detainees to their country oforigin because of torture concerns. 8. The Executive Branch is best situated to make deoisions teglU"ding transfers of detainees, as noted in the Deollll9.tion ofClint Williamson. Requiring the United Steles to disclose information unilaterally about proposed transfers and negotiations outside of eppropriate executive branch agencies could adversely affect the relationship of the United States with otlier countries and impede 0111" country's ablllty to obtain vital cooperation from concerned governments with respect to mi1i1llIY, Jaw enforcement, and Intelligence efforts, including with respect to our joint efforts in the war on terrorism. Judicial review. including tho possible ._ .•.._ _. .. , , - -... .. ~ overturning ofdecisions to transfer and delays in transfers occasioned by review and possible appeals, could lead to similar harm. I declare under penalty ofpeIjury that the .regoing is true and correct. Executed on July 1.2008. L. Hodgkinson ----~~--~------- .,. .........., -- Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-2 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT 2 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 1 of 10 DECLARATION OF CLINT WILLIAMSON I, Clint Williamson, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare and say as follows: 1. I am the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues and have supervised the operation of the Department of State Office of War Crimes Issues (S/WCI) since July 10,2006. In that capacity I advise the Secretary of State directly and formulate U.S. policy responses to serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in areas of conflict throughout the world. As the President's envoy, I travel worldwide and engage foreign government leaders and international organizations to build bilateral and international support for U.S. policies related to accountability for atrocities committed in armed conflicts and other violations of international humanitarian law. Following September 11,2001, SIWCI was assigned the additional role of maintaining a diplomatic dialogue with foreign governments whose nationals have been captured in connection with the armed conflict with the Taliban and a1 Qaeda and who are detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The following statements provide a general overview of the Department of State role in carrying out United States policy with respect to the transfer to foreign governments of detainees held by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay and the process that is followed to ensure that any international obligations and United States policies are properly implemented. These statements are not intended to be an exhaustive description of all of the steps that might be undertaken in any particular case, but do reflect United States policy and practices with respect to transfers from Guantanamo. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge and upon information made available to me in the performance of my official duties. 2. The United States has no interest in detaining enemy combatants longer than necessary. While acting in accordance with the President's stated objective of moving toward Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 2 of 10 2 the day when we can eventually close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. Government's paramount goal is to ensure, to the maximum extent reasonably possible, that transferring a detainee out of U.S. Government control prior to the cessation of hostilities will not increase the risk of further attacks on the United States or its allies. The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, is generally responsible for approving the transfer of detainees from Department of Defense control at Guantanamo Bay to other governments either for release or for possible detention, investigation, prosecution or other control measures, as appropriate. On an ongoing basis, the Department of Defense reviews the continued detention of each individual it holds at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. Since 2002, approximately 500 detainees have departed Guantanamo for other countries including Albania, Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and Yemen. 3. The Department of Defense consults with appropriate United States Government agencies, including the Department of State, before determining whether to transfer particular individuals. Detainees have been transferred for release when it was determined that they do not meet the criteria of enemy combatants or no longer pose a continuing threat to the U.S. security interests. Detainees have been transferred to the control of their governments of nationality for possible detention, investigation, prosecution or control, as appropriate, when those governments were willing to accept responsibility for ensuring, consistent with their laws, that the detainees will not continue to pose a threat to the United States and its allies. A detainee may be considered for transfer to a country other than his country of nationality, such as in Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 3 of 10 3 circumstances where that country requests transfer of the detainee for purposes of criminal prosecution or in situations where humane treatment concerns prevent the transfer of the detainee to his country of nationality. 4. Of particular concern to the Department of State in making recommendations on transfers is the question of whether the foreign government concerned will treat the detainee humanely, in a manner consistent with its international obligations, and will not persecute the individual on the basis of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion. The Department is particularly mindhl of the longstanding policy of the United States not to transfer a person to a country if it determines that it is more likely than not that the person will be tortured or, in appropriate cases, that the person has a well-founded fear of persecution and would not be disqualified from persecution protection on criminal- or security-related grounds. This policy is consistent with the approach taken by the United States in implementing the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Department of State works closely with the Department of Defense and relevant agencies to advise on the likelihood of persecution or torture in a given country and the adequacy and credibility of assurances obtained from a particular foreign government prior to any transfer. 5. The Department of State generally has responsibility to communicate on transfer- related matters as between the United States and foreign governments. The Department of State receives requests from foreign governments for the transfer of detainees and forwards such requests to the Department of Defense for coordination with appropriate Departments and agencies of the United States Government. The Department of State also communicates Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 4 of 10 4 requests fiom the United States to foreign governments to accept the transfer of their nationals. In cases where approved detainees cannot be transferred to their counties of nationality because of humane treatment concerns, the Department of State communicates with foreign governments to explore third-country resettlement possibilities. More than 60 countries have been approached to date with respect to various detainees who fall within this category, and the only country where the U.S. Government has had success in resettling detainees with no prior legal ties to that country is Albania. 6. Once the Department of Defense has approved a transfer from Guantanamo Bay and requests the assistance of the Department of State, my office would facilitate transfer discussions with the foreign government concerned or, where repatriation is not an available option because of humane treatment concerns or for other reasons, with third countries where resettlement might be appropriate. The primary purpose of these discussions is to learn what measures the receiving government is likely to take to ensure that the detainee will not pose a continuing threat to the United States or its allies and to obtain appropriate transfer assurances. My office seeks assurances that the United States Government considers necessary and appropriate for the country in question. Among the assurances sought in every transfer case in which continued detention or other security measures by the government concerned are foreseen is the assurance of humane treatment and treatment in accordance with the international obligations of the foreign government accepting transfer. The Department of State considers whether the State in question is party to the relevant treaties, such as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and ensures that assurances are tailored accordingly if the State concerned is not a party or other circumstances warrant. Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 5 of 10 5 7. Decisions with respect to Guantanamo detainees are made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the particular circumstances of the transfer, the country, the individual concerned, and any concerns regarding torture or persecution that may arise. Recommendations by the Department of State are decided at senior levels through a process involving Department officials most familiar with international legal standards and obligations and the conditions in the countries concerned. Within the Department of State, my office, together with the Office of the Legal Adviser, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and the relevant regional bureau, normally evaluate foreign government assurances in light of the circumstances of the individual concerned, and, if deemed appropriate, brief the Secretary or other Department Principals before finalizing the position of the Department of State. The views of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which drafts the U.S. Government's annual Human Rights ~ e ~ o r t s , ' and of the relevant regional bureau, country desk, or U.S. Embassy are important in evaluating foreign government assurances and any individual fear of persecution or torture claims, because they are knowledgeable about matters such as human rights, prison conditions, and prisoners' access to counsel, in general and as they may apply to a particular case in the foreign country concerned, as well as particular information about the entity or individual that is offering the assurance in any particular case and relevant background about any allegations of mistreatment that may have surfaced in connection with past transfers to the country in question. ' The Human Rights Reports are the official State Department reports to Congress on human rights conditions in individual countries for a given year as mandated by law (sections 116(d) and 502(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and section 505(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended). Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 6 of 10 6 8. The essential question in evaluating foreign government assurances relating to humane treatment is whether, taking into account these assurances and the totality of other relevant factors relating to the individual and the government in question, the competent Department of State officials believe it is more likely than not that the individual will be tortured in the country to which he is being transferred. In determining whether it is "more likely than not" that an individual would be tortured, the United States takes into account the treatment the individual is likely to receive upon transfer, including, inter alia, the expressed commitments of officials from the foreign government accepting transfer. When evaluating the adequacy of any assurances, Department officials consider the identity, position, or other information concerning the official relaying the assurances, and political or legal developments in the foreign country concerned that would provide context for the assurances provided. Department officials may also consider U.S. diplomatic relations with the country concerned when evaluating assurances. For instance, Department officials may make a judgment regarding foreign government's incentives and capacities to fulfill its assurances to the United States, including the importance to the government concerned of maintaining good relations and cooperation with the United States. In an appropriate case, the Department of State may also consider seeking the foreign government's assurance of access by governmental or non-governmental entities in the country concerned to monitor the condition of an individual returned to that country, or of U.S. Government access to the individual for such purposes. In instances in which the United States transfers an individual subject to assurances, it would pursue any credible report and take appropriate action if it had reason to believe that those assurances would not be, or had not been, honored. In an instance in which specific concerns about the treatment an individual may Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 7 of 10 7 receive cannot be resolved satisfactorily, we have in the past and would in the future recommend against transfer, consistent with the United States policy. 9. The Department of State's ability to seek and obtain assurances from a foreign government depends in part on the Department's ability to treat its dealings with the foreign government with discretion. Consistent with the diplomatic sensitivities that surround the Department's communications with foreign governments concerning allegations relating to torture, the Department of State does not unilaterally make public the specific assurances or other precautionary measures obtained in order to avoid the chilling effects of making such discussions public and the possible damage to our ability to conduct foreign relations. Seeking assurances may be seen as raising questions about the requesting State's institutions or commitment to the rule of law, even in cases where the assurances are sought to highlight the issue for the country concerned and satisfy the Department that the country is aware of the concerns raised and is in a position to undertake a commitment of humane treatment of a particular individual. There also may be circumstances where it may be important to protect sources of information (such as sources within a foreign government) about a government's willingness or capability to abide by assurances concerning humane treatment or relevant international obligations. 10. If the Department were required to disclose outside appropriate Executive branch channels its communications with a foreign government relating to particular mistreatment or torture concerns, that government, as well as other governments, would likely be reluctant in the future to communicate frankly with the United States concerning such issues. I know from experience that the delicate diplomatic exchange that is often required in these contexts cannot Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 8 of 10 8 occur effectively except in a confidential setting. Later review in a public forum of the Department's dealings with a particular foreign government regarding transfer matters would seriously undermine our ability to investigate allegations of mistreatment or torture that come to our attention and to reach acceptable accommodations with other governments to address those important concerns. 1 1. The Department's recommendation concerning transfer relies heavily on the facts and analyses provided by various offices within the Department, including its Embassies. Confidentiality is often essential to ensure that the advice and analysis provided by these offices are useful and informative for the decision-maker. If those offices are expected to provide candid and useful assessments, they normally need to know that their reports will not later be publicly disclosed or brought to the attention of officials and others in the foreign States with which they deal on a regular basis. Such disclosure could chill important sources of information and could interfere with the ability of our foreign relations personnel to interact effectively with foreign State officials. 12. The Executive Branch, and in particular the Department of State, has the tools to obtain and evaluate assurances of humane treatment, to make recommendations about whether transfers can be made consistent with U.S. government policy on humane treatment, and where appropriate to follow up with receiving governments on compliance with those assurances. The Department of State has used these tools in the past to facilitate transfers in a responsible manner that comports with the policies described herein. The judicial review of the diplomatic dialogue between the U.S. Government and other governments concerning the terms of transfer, or of the ultimate decision to effect a transfer to a given country, risks undermining the ability of the U.S Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 9 of 10 9 Government to speak with one voice on Guantanamo transfer issues. This is critical as we continue to seek a reduction in the number of detainees in the Guantanamo detention facility and move toward the day when the facility can be closed altogether. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 7,2008. Clint Williamson Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-3 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT 3 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 1 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 2 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 3 of 34 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 4 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 5 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 6 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 7 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 8 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 9 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 10 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 11 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 12 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 13 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 14 of 34 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 15 of 34 EXHIBIT 2 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 16 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 Name ISN Citizenship Place of Birth Date of Birth ** 1 ((SHARIPOV)), RUKNIDDIN FAYZIDDINOVICH 76 Tajikistan Lenenabad, Tajikistan 3/15/1973 2 ((VAKHIDOV)) SOBIT (ABDUMUKIT) VALIKHONOVICH 90 Tajikistan Itsfaratz, Tajikistan 11/13/1969 3 ABAHANOV, YAKUB 526 Kazakhstan Semeya, Kazakhstan UNKNOWN 4 ABAS, MOHAMMAD 542 Pakistan Village 426, PK UNKNOWN 5 ABASIN, SAID 671 Afghanistan Khan o Khel, AF 1/1/1982 6 ABASSI, FEROZ ALI 24 United Kingdom Entebbe, Uganda 10/29/1979 7 ABBAS, YUSEF 275 China Aksu, CH 1/1/1980 8 ABD AL MUJAHID, MAHMOUD ABD AL AZIZ 31 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 8/1/1977 9 ABD AL RAHMAN ABD, ALLAL AB ALJALLIL 156 Yemen Aluday, YM 12/27/1975 10 ABD AL SATTAR, MUIEEN A DEEN JAMAL A DEEN ABD AL FUSAL 309 United Arab Emirates Dubai, UAE 6/5/1975 11 ABD AL WAHAB, ABD AL MALIK 37 Yemen Ibb, YM 1/1/1979 12 'ABD AL-RAZAQ 'ABDALLAH HAMID IBRAHIM AL-SHARIKH 67 Saudi Arabia Shaqara, SA 1/18/1984 13 ABDALLAH, MUHAMED HUSSEIN 704 Somalia Boor'o, SO 1/1/1983 14 ABDALLAH, SAYF BIN 46 Tunisia Menzil, Tunisia 6/24/1973 15 ABDEL AZIZ, ABDULLAH MUHAMMED 206 Saudi Arabia Al Medina Menawa, SA 9/8/1967 16 ABDELRAHMAN, ABDELRAZAK ALI 685 Libya Al Jilat, LY 7/17/1970 17 ABDENOUR, SAMEUR 659 Algeria Algiers, Algeria 3/28/1973 18 ABDERRAHMANE, SLIMANE HADJ 323 Denmark Roskilde, Denmark 8/5/1973 19 ABDUL HAMID, HASSAN KHALIL MOHAMOUD 711 Jordan Amman, JO 11/12/1961 20 ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDUL GHAPPAR 281 China Kucha, CH 3/15/1973 21 ABDUL SAID, HASSAN 435 Iraq Basra, Iraq 4/7/1976 22 ABDUL WAHAB AL ASMR, KHALID MAHOMOUD 589 Jordan Irbid, JO 12/16/1963 23 ABDULAHAT, EMAM 295 China Konashahar, CH 6/1/1977 24 ABDULAYEV, OMAR HAMZAYAVICH 257 Tajikistan Dushanbe, Tajikistan 10/11/1978 25 ABDULGHUPUR, HAJIAKBAR 282 China Ghulja, CH 1/1/1974 26 ABDULHEHIM, ADEL 293 China Ghulja, CH 10/10/1974 27 ABDULQADIRAKHUN, ABDULLAH 285 China Xinjian, CH 6/18/1979 28 ABDUREHIM, DAWUT 289 China Ghulja, CH 11/1/1974 29 ABU AL QUSIN, ABDUL RAUF OMAR MOHAMMED 709 Libya Tripoli, LY 1/1/1965 30 ABU BAKR, OMAR KHALIFA MOHAMMED 695 Libya Al Bayda, LY 1/1/1972 31 ABU GHANIM, MOHAMMED RAJAB SADIQ 44 Yemen Sanaa, YM 1/1/1975 32 ABU RAHMAN, ABDUL RABBANI ABD AL RAHIM 1460 Pakistan UNKNOWN 1/1/1969 33 ABULWANCE, YAMATOLAH 116 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1977 34 ACHAB KANOUNI, IMAD 164 France Casablanco, MO 3/6/1977 35 ACHEZKAI, HAJI MOHAMMED KHAN 104 Afghanistan Kabul, AF 1/1/1977 36 ADAM GUL, ATAULLAH 525 Afghanistan Khushawa, AF 1/1/1982 37 ADAM, MOHAMMED SADIQ 454 Uzbekistan Konduz, AF 1/1/1973 38 ADIL, AHMED 260 China Kashkar, CH 1/1/1973 39 AHJAM, AHMED ADNAN 326 Syria Halab, SY 5/1/1977 40 AHMAD, ABDUL 956 Afghanistan Roy E Sang, AF 1/1/1954 41 AHMAD, ABDULLAH TABARAK 56 Morocco Casablanca, MO 12/12/1955 42 AHMAD, AHMAD ABD AL RAHMAN 267 Spain Cueta, SP 9/22/1974 43 AHMAD, BASHIR 1005 Pakistan Chah Kote Wala, PK 1/1/1976 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 1 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 17 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 44 AHMAD, MAJID MAHMUD ABDU 41 Yemen Burayqah, YM 6/15/1980 45 AHMAD, NOOR 580 Afghanistan Moqur, AF 1/1/1973 46 AHMAD, OSAM ABDUL RAHAN 1018 Jordan Al-Zarqa, JO 1/1/1976 47 AHMAD, SULTAN 842 Pakistan Sargodha, PK 11/1/1984 48 AHMED ZAID SALIM ZUHAIR 669 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 1/1/1973 49 AHMED, ABDUL RAHMAN 441 Yemen Sana'a, YM 1/1/1979 50 AHMED, ABDUL RAHMAN UTHMAN 95 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 12/31/1973 51 AHMED, ALI 303 Pakistan Baluchistan, PK 1/1/1982 52 AHMED, ALI ABDULLAH 693 Yemen Ib, YM 1/1/1977 53 AHMED, FAHMI ABDULLAH 688 Yemen Debab, YM 1/1/1977 54 AHMED, FARUQ ALI 32 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 12/1/1983 55 AHMED, FAYAD YAHYA 683 Yemen Aden, YM 1/1/1977 56 AHMED, FEDA 1013 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 2/5/1977 57 AHMED, RHUHEL 110 United Kingdom Birmingham, UK 3/11/1981 58 AHMED, SAGHIR 843 Pakistan Sargodha, PK 1/1/1975 59 AHMED, SAR FARAZ 113 Pakistan Lahore, PK 1/27/1966 60 AHMED, SHABIR 1003 Afghanistan Badakhshan, AF 1/1/1971 61 AIT IDR, MUSTAFA 10004 Algeria Sidimhamed, Algeria 7/9/1970 62 AKBAR, MOHAMMED 1011 Pakistan Helmand, AF 1/1/1973 63 AKHBAR, MOHAMMAD 635 Afghanistan Ghowr Band, AF 1/1/1956 64 AKHMYAROV, RUSTAM 573 Russia Chelyabinsk, RS 10/24/1979 65 AKHTAR MOHAMMED, ROSTUM 632 Afghanistan Musa Qala, AF 1/1/1980 66 AL AASMI, ASSEM MATRUQ MOHAMMAD 49 Palestine / Saudi Arabia Khan Younis, Israel 2/18/1980 67 AL AJMI, ABDALLAH SALEH ALI 220 Kuwait Almadi, KU 8/2/1978 68 AL ALAWI, MUAZ HAMZA AHMAD 28 Yemen Bajor, YM 1/1/1977 69 AL ALI, MAHMUD SALEM HORAN MOHAMMED MUTLAK 537 Syria Doha, Syria 5/5/1974 70 AL AMIR MAHMOUD, AMIR YAKOUB MOHAMMED 720 Sudan Omdurman, SU 5/9/1971 71 AL AMRANI, AYMAN MOHAMMAD SILMAN 169 Jordan Muthalthal Ardha, JO 1/1/1978 72 AL AMRI, ABD AL RAHMAN MOAZA ZAFER 196 Saudi Arabia Arar, SA 7/26/1978 73 AL AMRI, ABDUL RAHMAN MA ATH THAFIR 199 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 4/17/1973 74 AL ANAZI, SULTAN SARI SAYEL 507 Saudi Arabia Sakaka, SA 1/1/1974 75 AL ANSARI, FARIS MUSLIM 253 Afghanistan Mukala, YM 1/1/1984 76 AL ANSI, MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH 29 Yemen Sanaa, YM 1/1/1975 77 AL ASADI, MOHAMMED AHMED ALI 198 Yemen Sana'a, YM 7/1/1979 78 AL ATABI, BIJAD THIF ALLAH 122 Saudi Arabia Saajer, SA 8/23/1971 79 AL AWDA, FOUZI KHALID ABDULLAH 232 Kuwait Kuwait City, KU 5/6/1977 80 AL AWFI, MAZIN SALIH MUSAID 154 Saudi Arabia Medina, SA 8/4/1979 81 AL AZMI, SA AD MADI SA AD 571 Kuwait Doha, KU 5/29/1979 82 AL BADDAH, ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUL AZIZ 264 Saudi Arabia Quia, SA 4/12/1982 83 AL BAKUSH, ISMAEL ALI FARAG 708 Libya Al-Khumas, LY 7/1/1968 84 AL BALUSHI, SALAH ABDUL RASUL ALI ABDUL 245 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 1/1/1980 85 AL BALUSHI, SALAH ABDUL RASUL ALI ABDUL RAHMAN 227 Bahrain Muharraq, BA 12/2/1981 86 AL BARAKAT, KHALID HASSAN HUSAYN 322 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1975 87 AL BAWARDI, KHALID SAUD ABD AL RAHMAN 68 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 1/1/1977 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 2 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 18 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 88 AL BEDANI, ABDUL KHALED AHMED SAHLEH 553 Saudi Arabia Taif, SA 1/1/1983 89 AL BIDNA, SA AD IBRAHAM SA AD 337 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 5/11/1978 90 AL BIHANI, GHALEB NASSAR 128 Yemen Tabokh, SA 1/1/1980 91 AL BIHANI, TOLFIQ NASSAR AHMED 893 Saudi Arabia Tabuk, SA 6/1/1972 92 AL BUSAYSS, ADIL SAID AL HAJ OBEID 165 Yemen Aden, YM 3/12/1973 93 AL DARBI, AHMED MUHAMMED HAZA 768 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 1/9/1975 94 AL DEHANI, MOHAMMAD FINAYTAL 229 Kuwait Kuwait City, KU 11/4/1965 95 AL DHUBY, KHALID MOHAMMED SALIH 506 Yemen Taif, SA 1/1/1981 96 AL DOSARI, JUMA MOHAMMED ABDUL LATIF 261 Bahrain Khabar, SA 8/13/1973 97 AL DUBAIKEY, BESSAM MUHAMMED SALEH 340 Saudi Arabia Qasim, SA 1/1/1978 98 AL EDAH, MOHAMMED AHMAD SAID 33 Yemen Hay al-Turbawi Ta'iz, YM 1/1/1962 99 AL FARHA, SAID ALI 341 Saudi Arabia Bahir, SA 11/5/1979 100 AL FAYFI, JABIR JUBRAN 188 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 1/1/1975 101 AL FOUZAN, FAHD MUHAMMED ABDULLAH 218 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 12/1/1983 102 AL FRIH, MAJED HAMAD 336 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1980 103 AL GHATANI, KHALID MALU SHIA 439 Saudi Arabia Al Arib, SA 1/1/1983 104 AL GHAZZAWI, ABDEL HAMID IBN ABDUSSALEM IBN MIFTAH 654 Libya Tripoli, LY 11/8/1962 105 AL HAJJ, BOUDELLA 10006 Algeria Laghouat, Algeria 4/18/1965 106 AL HAJJ, SAMI MOHY EL DIN MUHAMMED 345 Sudan Khartoum, SU 2/15/1969 107 AL HAMI, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALUD 892 Tunisia Omaron, Tunisia 3/14/1969 108 AL HAMIRI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH 249 Yemen Hudaydah, YM 1/1/1982 109 AL HANASHI, MOHAMMAD AHMED ABDULLAH SALEH 78 Yemen Al Habrub, YM 2/1/1978 110 AL HARAZI, FAHED 79 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 11/18/1978 111 AL HARBI, GHANIM ABDUL RAHMAN 516 Saudi Arabia Khobar, SA 3/13/1974 112 AL HARBI, MAJID ABDALLAH HUSAYN MUHAMMAD AL SAMLULI 158 Saudi Arabia Jedda, SA 6/28/1980 113 AL HARBI, MOHAMED ATIQ AWAYD 333 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 7/13/1973 114 AL HARBI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH 536 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 1/1/1979 115 AL HARBI, SALIM SULIMAN 57 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 11/22/1968 116 AL HARBI, TARIQE SHALLAH HASSAN 265 Saudi Arabia Medina, SA 1/1/1983 117 AL HARITH, JAMAL MALIK 490 United Kingdom Manchester, UK 11/20/1966 118 AL HASSAN, MUSTAFA IBRAHIM MUSTAFA 719 Sudan Al-Manakil, SU 1/1/1957 119 AL HATAYBI, ABDUL RAHMAN NASHI BADI 268 Saudi Arabia Dehman, SA 1/1/9180 120 AL HENALI, MENHAL 726 Syria Darna, SY 1/1/1963 121 AL HIKIMI, AHMED UMAR ABDULLAH 30 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 1/1/1972 122 AL HILAL, ABDUL AL SALAM 1463 Yemen UNKNOWN 1/30/1968 123 AL HIZANI, ABD 370 Saudi Arabia Riyahd, SA 1/1/1976 124 AL HUBAYSHI, KHALID SULAYMANJAYDH 155 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 1/1/1975 125 AL HUSAYN, ZAID MUHAMAMD SA'AD 50 Jordan Amman, JO 1/1/1974 126 AL JABRI, BANDAR AHMAD MUBARAK 182 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 4/16/1979 127 AL JAYFI, ISSAM HAMID AL BIN ALI 183 Yemen Sada, YM 9/1/1979 128 AL JOUDI, MAJEED ABDULLAH 25 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1967 129 AL JUAID, ABDUL RAHMAN OWAID MOHAMMAD 179 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 11/7/1980 130 AL JUHANI, MUHAMAD NAJI SUBHI 62 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 10/5/1967 131 AL JUTAYLI, FAHD SALIH SULAYMAN 177 Saudi Arabia Burayada, SA 5/1/1983 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 3 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 19 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 132 AL KABI, JAMIL ALI 216 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1973 133 AL KANDARI, FAIZ MOHAMMED AHMED 552 Kuwait Kuwait City, KU 6/3/1975 134 AL KARIM, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL 653 Iraq Dekar, Iraq 3/16/1976 135 AL KAZIMI, SANAD YISLAM 1453 Yemen UNKNOWN 2/17/1970 136 AL KHALAQI, ASIM THAHIT ABDULLAH 152 Yemen Riyadh, SA 1/1/1968 137 AL KHALDI, ABDUL AZIZ SAAD 112 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 9/1/1979 138 AL KHALIF, HANI SAIID MOHAMMAD 438 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 1/1/1972 139 AL KHALIFA, SHEIKH SALMAN EBRAHIM MOHAMED ALI 246 Bahrain Rifah, BA 7/24/1979 140 AL KUNDUZI, UMAR ABDULLAH 222 Afghanistan Konduz, AF 1/1/1979 141 AL KURASH, MUHAMMAD ABD AL RAHMAN 214 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 1/1/1977 142 AL MADOONEE, MUSAB OMAR ALI 839 Yemen Al-Hudida, YM 1/1/1980 143 AL MAHAYAWI, SAUD DAKHIL ALLAH MUSLIH 53 Saudi Arabia Jedda, SA 8/21/1976 144 AL MALKI, SAED KHATEM 157 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1969 145 AL MARRI, JARALLA SALEH MOHAMMED KAHLA 334 Qatar Doha, QA 8/12/1973 146 AL MARWALAH, BASHIR NASIR ALI 837 Yemen Al-Haymah, YM 12/1/1979 147 AL MATRAFI, ABDALLAH AIZA 5 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 7/12/1964 148 AL MAYTHALI, HA IL AZIZ AHMED 840 Yemen Zemar, YM 1/1/1977 149 AL MISHAD, SHARIF FATI ALI 190 Egypt Shabin El Kom, EG 12/14/1976 150 AL MORGHI, KHALID ABDALLAH ABDEL RAHMAN 339 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 4/29/1970 151 AL MOUSA, ABDUL HAKIM ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUAZIZ 565 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 5/31/1976 152 AL MUDHAFFARI, ABDEL QADIR HUSSEIN 40 Yemen Al Bayda, YM 1/1/1976 153 AL MURBATI, ISSA ALI ABDULLAH 52 Bahrain Manama, BA 1/1/1965 154 AL MURI, KHALID RASHD ALI 505 Saudi Arabia Khafji, SA 9/9/1975 155 AL MUTAYRI, KHALID ABDULLAH MISHAL THAMER 213 Kuwait Kuwait City, KU 6/18/1975 156 AL NAELY, ABBAS HABID RUMI 758 Iraq Al Amin, Iraq 11/14/1968 157 AL NAHDI, SULAIMAN AWATH SULAIMAN BIN AGEEL 511 Yemen Al Mukalla, YM 12/1/1974 158 AL NASIR, ABD AL AZIZ MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM 273 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 4/18/1980 159 AL NASIR, FAIZAL SAHA 437 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 1/1/1980 160 AL NASIR, IBRAHIM MUHAMMED IBRAHIM 271 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1982 161 AL NOAIMI, ABDULLAH 159 Bahrain Manama, BA 3/9/1982 162 AL NOOFAYAEE, ABDALAZIZ KAREEM SALIM 687 Saudi Arabia Al Shafa, SA 1/1/1976 163 AL NURR, ANWAR 226 Saudi Arabia Toraif, SA 1/2/1977 164 AL NUSAYRI, ADIL UQLA HASSAN 308 Saudi Arabia Sakakah, SA 1/1/1974 165 AL OMAIRAH, OTHMAN AHMED OTHMAN 184 Yemen Shabwa, YM 1/1/1973 166 AL OSHAN, SALEH ABDALL 248 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 7/1/1979 167 AL OTAIBI, NAWAF FAHAD 501 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 11/7/1972 168 AL QADASI, KHALID ABD JAL JABBAR MUHAMMAD JUTHMAN 163 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 1/1/1968 169 AL QADIR, MOHAMMED ABD AL 284 Algeria Taot, Algeria 5/12/1976 170 AL QAHTANI, ABDULLAH HAMID 652 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1979 171 AL QAHTANI, JABIR HASAN MUHAMED 650 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 2/10/1978 172 AL QAHTANI, JABRAN SAID WAZAR 696 Saudi Arabia Tabuk, SA 1/1/1977 173 AL QAHTANI, MUHAMMAD MANI AHMED AL SHAL LAN 63 Saudi Arabia Kharj, SA 1/1/1979 174 AL QARANI, MUHAMMED HAMID 269 Chad Medina, SA 1/1/1986 175 AL QOSI, IBRAHIM AHMED MAHMOUD 54 Sudan Khartoum, SU 7/3/1960 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 4 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 20 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 176 AL QURASHI, SABRI MOHAMMED EBRAHIM 570 Yemen Hudaydah, YM 1/1/1970 177 AL QURAYSHI, MAJID AYDHA MUHAMMAD 176 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 5/29/1972 178 AL QURBI, MOHAMMED MUBAREK SALAH 342 Saudi Arabia Khamees Musheet, SA 7/30/1978 179 AL QUWARI, MAHRAR RAFAT 519 West Bank Gaza, Palestine 2/18/1965 180 AL RABIA, FOUAD MAHOUD HASAN 551 Kuwait Kuwait City, KU 6/24/1959 181 AL RABIESH, YUSEF ABDULLAH SALEH 109 Saudi Arabia Al Khasim, SA 1/1/1981 182 AL RADAI, RIYAD ATIQ ALI ABDU AL HAJ 256 Yemen Taez, YM UNKNOWN 183 AL RAHIZI, ALI AHMAD MUHAMMAD 45 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 10/13/1979 184 AL RAMMAH, OMAR MOHAMMED ALI 1017 Yemen Al Beitha, YM 1/1/1975 185 AL RASHID, MESH ARSAD 74 Saudi Arabia Sana'a, SA 1/1/1980 186 AL RAWI, BISHER AMIN KHALIL 906 Iraq Baghdad, Iraq 12/23/1969 187 AL RIMI, ALI YAHYA MAHDI 167 Yemen Sana'a, YM 1/1/1983 188 AL RIMI, MUHAMMAD ABDALLAH MANSUR 194 Libya Al Rimi, YM 12/1/1968 189 AL RUSHAYDAN, ABDALLAH IBRAHIM 343 Saudi Arabia Khobar, SA 1/4/1967 190 AL SABRI, MASHUR ABDALLAH MUQBIL AHMED 324 Yemen Mecca, SA 1/1/1978 191 AL SALEH, ABDUL 91 Yemen Muqela, YM 1/1/1979 192 AL SAMIRI, BADER AL BAKRI 274 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1977 193 AL SANI, FAHMI SALEM SAID 554 Yemen Mikala, YM 5/17/1977 194 AL SAWAH, TARIQ MAHMOUD AHMED 535 Egypt Alexandria, EG 11/2/1957 195 AL SEHLI, IBRAHIM DAIF ALLAH NEMAN 94 Saudi Arabia Medina, SA 10/26/1965 196 AL SHAKOURI, RADWAN 499 Morocco Asafi, MO 2/12/1972 197 AL SHAMAREE, ZABAN THAAHER ZABAN 647 Saudi Arabia Arar, SA 1/1/1979 198 AL SHAMARI, ABD AL AZIZ SAYIR 217 Kuwait Al Fahahil, KU 9/23/1973 199 AL SHAMYRI, MUSTAFA ABDUL QAWI ABDUL AZIZ 434 Yemen Sana'a, YM 7/7/1978 200 AL SHARABI, ZUHAIL ABDO ANAM SAID 569 Yemen Taiz, YM 1/1/1977 201 AL SHARAKH, ABDULHADI ABDALLAH IBRAHIM 231 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 7/2/1982 202 AL SHARBI, GHASSAN ABDULLAH 682 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 12/28/1974 203 AL SHARIF, FAHD UMR ABD AL MAJID 215 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 3/18/1976 204 AL SHIHRI, YUSSEF MOHAMMED MUBARAK 114 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 9/8/1985 205 AL SHIMRI, MAJI AFAS RADHI 181 Saudi Arabia Kharj, SA 5/1/1974 206 AL SHULAN, HANI ABDUL MUSLIH 225 Yemen Ibb, YM 1/1/1979 207 AL SHUMRANI, MOHAMMAD AL RAHMAN 195 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 2/1/1975 208 AL SHURFA, OHMED AHMED MAHAMOUD 331 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 12/26/1975 209 AL SUADI, ABDUL AZIZ ABDULLAH ALI 578 Yemen Milhan, YM 6/16/1974 210 AL SULAMI, YAHYA SAMIL AL SUWAYMIL 66 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 2/3/1979 211 AL TABI, MANA SHAMAN ALLABARDI 588 Saudi Arabia Al-Qarara, SA 1/1/1976 212 AL TAIBI, RAMI BIN SAID 318 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 12/24/1980 213 AL TAMIMI, HAYDAR JABBAR HAFEZ 648 Iraq Kute, Iraq 8/24/1973 214 AL TAYABI, ABDULLAH 332 Saudi Arabia Halban, SA 1/1/1980 215 AL TAYS, ALI HUSAYN ABDULLAH 162 Yemen Sada, YM 6/1/1977 216 AL USAYMI, NAYIF FAHD MUTLIQ 436 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 1/1/1979 217 AL UTAYBI, ABDULLAH ALI 243 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1972 218 AL UTAYBI, MUHAMMAD SURUR DAKHILALLAH 96 Saudi Arabia Qaisuma, SA 9/26/1983 219 AL UWAYDHA, SULTAN AHMED DIRDEER MUSA 59 Saudi Arabia Medina, SA 12/4/1975 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 5 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 21 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 220 AL WADI, ADIL KAMIL ABDULLAH 60 Bahrain Muharak, BA 10/1/1964 221 AL WADY, HAMOUD ABDULLAH HAMOUD HASSAN 574 Yemen Sana'a, YM 9/5/1965 222 AL WAFTI, ABDULLAH ABD AL MU'IN 262 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 9/14/1966 223 AL WAHAB, MUSA ABED 58 Saudi Arabia Medina, SA 7/20/1977 224 AL WARAFI, MUKTAR YAHYA NAJEE 117 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 1/1/1974 225 AL YAFI, AL KHADR ABDALLAH MUHAMMED 34 Yemen Lawdar, YM 1/1/1970 226 AL YAZIDI, RIDAH BIN SALEH 38 Tunisia Unfidel, Tunisia 1/24/1965 227 AL ZABE, SLAH MUHAMED SALIH 572 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1972 228 AL ZAHARNI, KHALID MOHAMMED 234 Saudi Arabia Al Kharj, SA 1/1/1972 229 AL ZAHRANI, MUHAMMED MURDI ISSA 713 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 1/1/1969 230 AL ZAHRANI, SAID IBRAHIM RAMZI 204 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 1/1/1981 231 AL ZAHRANI, YASSER TALAL 93 Saudi Arabia Yenbo, SA 9/22/1984 232 AL ZAYLA, MUHAMMED YAHIA MOSIN 55 Saudi Arabia Medina, SA 7/25/1977 233 AL ZUBA, SALEH MOHAMED 503 Yemen Sana'a, YM 1/1/1955 234 ALAHDAL, ABU BAKR IBN ALI MUHHAMMAD 171 Yemen Al Hudaydah, YM 1/1/1979 235 AL-DEEN, JAMAL MUHAMMAD 16 Pakistan / Bangladesh Feni, Bangladesh 1/1/1967 236 ALEH, ALI BIN ALI 692 Yemen Adem, YM 4/15/1983 237 ALGAZZAR, ADEL FATTOUGH ALI 369 Egypt Cairo, EG 10/22/1965 238 ALHABIRI, MISHAL AWAD SAYAF 207 Saudi Arabia Minawara, SA 1/1/1980 239 ALHAMIRI, ABDULAH 48 United Arab Emirates Alan, UAE 10/25/1979 240 ALI BIN ATTASH, HASSAN MOHAMMED 1456 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 1/1/1985 241 ALI, ADNAN MOHAMMED 105 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 1/8/1978 242 ALI, SAID SAIM 140 Pakistan Karachi, PK 1/1/1977 243 ALI, WALID MOHAMMAD HAJ MOHAMMAD 81 Sudan Donkhallah, SU 6/6/1974 244 ALIKHAN, MAHNGUR 629 Afghanistan Gomal, PK 1/1/1958 245 ALIKHEL, SHA MOHAMMED 19 Pakistan Swaat, PK 1/1/1981 246 ALIKOZI, AMANULLAH 538 Afghanistan Deh Raud, AF 1/1/1975 247 ALIZA, ABDUL RAUF 108 Afghanistan Azan Village, AF 2/10/1981 248 ALIZAI, NEMATULLAH SAHIB-KHAN 628 Afghanistan Azan, AF 1/1/1958 249 ALLAH, NOOR 539 Afghanistan Uruzgan, AF 1/1/1971 250 ALLAITHY, SAMI ABDUL AZIZ SALIM 287 Egypt Shubrakass, EG 10/28/1956 251 AL-MARWA'I, Toufiq Saber Muhammad 129 Yemen Al Dumaina, YM 1/1/1976 252 AL-SHABANI, FAHD ABDALLAH IBRAHIM 80 Saudi Riyadh, SA 11/6/1982 253 AL-SHEDOKY, MISH'AL MUHAMMAD RASHID 71 Saudi Riyadh, SA 1/1/1982 254 AL-WALEELI, FAEL RODA 663 Egypt Mansura, EG 1/28/1966 255 AL-ZAMEL, 'ADEL ZAMEL 'ABD AL-MAHSEN 568 Kuwait Kuwait City, KU 8/23/1963 256 AMAN 1074 Afghanistan Malik Village Kardez, AF 1/1/1957 257 AMAR, ABU 240 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 9/10/1977 258 AMEUR, MAMMAR 939 Algeria L'aghouat, Algeria 12/1/1958 259 AMEZIANE, DJAMEL SAIID ALI 310 Algeria Al Jesera, Algeria 4/14/1967 260 AMI, SHAKIR ABDURAHIM MOHAMED 239 Saudi Arabia Medina, SA 12/12/1968 261 AMIN, AMINULLA 504 Pakistan Chaman, PK UNKNOWN 262 AMIN, OMAR RAJAB 65 Kuwait Kuwait City, KU 6/14/1967 263 AMTIRI, NASSER NAJIRI 205 Kuwait Mahwa, KU 3/17/1977 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 6 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 22 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 264 ANDARR, ABDUL AL-HAMEED MOHAMMED 668 Afghanistan Zormat, AF 1/1/1967 265 ANSAR, MOHAMMED 304 Pakistan Jalan Makhdoom, PK 1/1/1981 266 ANVAR, HASSAN 250 China Urumchi, CH 8/26/1974 267 ANWAR, MOHAMMED 524 Pakistan Pakistan 7/5/1980 268 ARBAYSH, IBRAHIMJ SULAYMAN MUHAMMAD 192 Saudi Arabia Al Brida, SA 7/7/1979 269 ASAM, ZAKIRJAN 672 Russian Saratov, RS 5/18/1974 270 ASEKZAI, AZIZULLAH 646 Afghanistan Karez, AF 1/1/1980 271 ASHRAF, MOHAMMED 100 Pakistan Kalaswala, PK 1/1/1980 272 ASLAAM, NOOR 822 Afghanistan Warna, PK 1/1/1982 273 AWAD, JALAL SALAM AWAD 564 Yemen Al Muquala, YM 1/1/1973 274 AWAD, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI 88 Yemen Aden, YM 1/1/1982 275 AWZAR, MOHAMED IBRAHIM 133 Morocco Koreebja, MO 9/28/1979 276 AYUB, HAJI MOHAMMED 279 China Toqquztash, CH 4/15/1984 277 AYUB, HASEEB 141 Pakistan Budho, PK 1/8/1974 278 AYUBI, SALAHODIN 138 Pakistan Lahore, PK 3/20/1974 279 AZANI, SAAD MASIR MUKBL AL 575 Yemen Al Reef, YM 1/1/1979 280 AZIMULLAH 1050 Afghanistan North Waziristan, PK 1/1/1982 281 AZIZ, AHMED ABDEL 757 Mauritania Atar, MR 2/24/1970 282 BAADA, TAREK ALI ABDULLAH AHMED 178 Yemen Shebwa, YM 1/1/1978 283 BADR, BADRUZZAN 559 Afghanistan Jalalabad, AF 11/10/1970 284 BAGI, ABDUL 963 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1972 285 BALKHAIR, RASHED AWAD KHALAF 186 Saudi Arabia Jurashi, SA 1/1/1978 286 BALZUHAIR, SHAWKI AWAD 838 Yemen Hadramout, YM 7/24/1981 287 BAMARI, BAKHTIAR 623 Iran Damon, IR 1/1/1981 288 BANI AMIR, SALIM MAHMOUD ADEM MOHAMMED 710 Sudan Kasala, SU 1/1/1958 289 BAQI, ABDUL 656 Afghanistan Tark Itmak, AF 1/1/1942 290 BARAK, FNU 856 Afghanistan Surgay, AF 1/1/1972 291 BARAKZAI, JON MOHAMMAD 107 Afghanistan Sarwan Qala, AF 1/1/1967 292 BARAYAN, MAJID AL 51 Saudi Arabia Jedda, SA 9/27/1972 293 BARHOUMI, SUFYIAN 694 Algeria Algiers, Algeria 7/28/1973 294 BARIDAD 966 Afghanistan Helmand, AF 1/1/1953 295 BARRE, MOHAMMED SULAYMON 567 Somalia Burco, SO 12/27/1964 296 BASARDAH, YASIM MUHAMMED 252 Yemen Shabua, YM 1/1/1976 297 BASIT, AKHDAR QASEM 276 China Ghulja, CH 11/14/1973 298 BATARFI, AYMAN SAEED ABDULLAH 627 Yemen Cairo, EG 8/14/1970 299 BATAYEV, ILKHAM TURDBYAVICH 84 Uzbekistan Abaye, Kazakhstan 11/7/1973 300 BEGG, MOAZZAN 558 United Kingdom Birmingham, UK 7/5/1968 301 BEL BACHA, AHMED BIN SALEH 290 Algeria Algiers, Algeria 11/13/1969 302 BELKACEM, BENSAYAH 10001 Algeria Wargala, Algeria 9/10/1962 303 BELMAR, RICHARD DEAN 817 United Kingdom London, UK 10/31/1979 304 BEN MOUJAN, MUHAMMAD 160 Morocco Dar Bida, MO 2/14/1981 305 BENCHELLALI, MOURAD 161 France Venissieu, FR 7/7/1981 306 BIN ATEF, MAHMMOUD OMAR MOHAMMED 202 Yemen Mecca, SA 1/1/1980 307 BIN HADIDDI, ABDUL HADDI 717 Tunisia Bir'Alash, Tunisia 3/18/1969 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 7 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 23 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 e 308 BIN HAMIDA, ADIL MABROUK 148 Tunisia Tunis, Tunisia 9/15/1970 309 BIN HAMLILI, ADIL HADI AL JAZAIRI 1452 Algeria Oram, Algeria 6/26/1975 310 BIN QUMU, ABU SUFIAN IBRAHIM AHMED HAMUDA 557 Libya Darna, LY 6/26/1959 311 BIN SALEM, MUHHAMMAD SAID 251 Yemen Hadramaut, YM 4/25/1975 312 BINYAM, MOHAMMED AHMED 1458 Ethiopia Addis Ababa, ET 7/24/1978 313 BISMAULLAH, FNU 2 960 Afghanistan Baghran, AF UNKNOWN 314 BISMILLAH 658 Afghanistan Oruzgan, AF 1/1/1952 315 BISMILLAH 2, FNU 639 Afghanistan Pirwan Siagird, AF 1/1/1968 316 BISMULLAH, HAJI 968 Afghanistan Musa Qala, AF 1/1/1979 317 BOUCETTA, FETHI 718 Algeria Mostaganem, EG 9/15/1963 318 BOUJAADIA, SAID 150 Morocco Casablanca, MO 5/5/1968 319 BOUMEDIENE, LAKHDAR 10005 Algeria Ain Soltgane Saeda, Algeria 4/27/1966 320 BUKHARY, ABDUL HAKIM 493 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 1/1/1955 321 BULLAR, MOHI 974 Afghanistan Urezgon, AF 1/1/1981 322 BWAZIR, MOHAMMED ALI ABDULLAH 440 Yemen Howra, YM 1/1/1980 323 CELIK GOGUS, YUKSEL 291 Turkey Karasu Village, Sakara City, Turk 10/10/1967 324 CHAMAN, GUL 1021 Afghanistan Osman, Hazro, Logar, AF 1/1/1963 325 DAD, KHUDAI 655 Afghanistan Tarak, AF 1/1/1957 326 DAOUD, MOHAMMAN 527 Afghanistan Emam Saheb, AF 1/1/1979 327 DEGHAYES, OMAR AMER 727 Libya Tripoli, LY 11/28/1969 328 DERGOUL, TAREK 534 Morocco Mile End, UK 12/11/1977 329 DIN, JUMA 941 Afghanistan Alinghan, AF 1/1/1973 330 DIYAB, JIHAD AHMED MUJSTAFA 722 Lebanon Jedeta, LE 7/10/1971 331 DOKHAN, MOAMMAR BADAWI 317 Syria Damascus, SY 7/27/1972 332 EDMONDADA, ABDULLAH 360 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1960 333 EHSANULLAH 350 Afghanistan Farah, AF 1/1/1973 334 EHSSANULLAH 523 Afghanistan Sarwan Qala, AF 1/1/1977 335 ELBANNA, ABDUL LATIF 905 Jordan Jericho, Turkey 5/28/1952 336 ESMATULLA, FNU 888 Afghanistan Dekundie, AF 1/1/1977 337 ESMHATULLA, QARI 591 Afghanistan Ramsha, PK 1/1/1984 338 FAR HUDDINE, BAR 896 Afghanistan Tora Oba, AF 1/1/1977 339 FARAJ, ABD AL HADIO OMAR MAHMOUD 329 Syria Hama, SY 1/1/1981 340 FARHAD, DIN MOHAMMED 699 Afghanistan Konduz, AF 1/1/1976 341 FARHI, SAIID 311 Algeria Churchelle, Algeria 3/29/1961 342 FAROUQ, MOHAMMED NAYIM 633 Afghanistan Zatoon Kahil, AF 1/1/1960 343 FAUZEE, IBRAHIM 730 Maldives Thulhaadhoo, MV 11/11/1978 344 FAZALDAD, FNU 142 Pakistan Atian, PK 1/1/1982 345 FAZL, MULLAH MOHAMMAD 7 Afghanistan Charchno, AF 1/1/1967 346 FAZROLLAH, MEHRABANB 77 Tajikistan Pyandj, Tajikistan 10/18/1962 347 FEGHOUL, ABDULLI 292 Algeria Tiaret, Algeria 10/22/1960 348 FIYATULLAH, KAY 247 Pakistan Narmasperlay, PK 1/1/1983 349 GADALLAH, HAMMAD ALI AMNO 712 Sudan Duba, SU 11/13/1969 350 GHAFAAR, ABDUL 1032 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1958 351 GHAFAR HOMAROVICH, SHIRINOV 732 Tajikistan Dushanbe, Tajikistan 1/9/1974 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 8 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 24 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 352 GHAFOOR, SHAI JAHN 363 Afghanistan Karabagh, AF 1/1/1969 353 GHAFOUR, ABDUL 954 Afghanistan Pattia Province, AF 1/1/1962 354 GHALIB, HAJI 987 Afghanistan Nangarhar, AF 1/1/1963 355 GHANI, ABDUL 934 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1972 356 GHANI, ABDUL 2 943 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1983 357 GHANI, NABU ABDUL 354 Afghanistan Shishawa, AF 1/1/1952 358 GHAZI, FAHED ABDULLAH AHMAD 26 Yemen Bayt Ghazi, YM 1/1/1982 359 GHEREBY, SALEM ABDUL SALEM 189 Libya Zletan, SA 3/1/1961 360 GHETAN, ABDUL SALAM 132 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 12/14/1984 361 GHEZALI, MEHDI MOHAMMAD 166 Sweden Stockholm, SW 7/5/1979 362 GHOFOOR, ABDULLAH 351 Afghanistan Keshai, AF 1/1/1971 363 GHUL, NATHI 636 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1980 364 GHUL, WAZIR ZALIM 677 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1977 365 GHULADKHAN 316 Afghanistan Jalalabad, AF 1/1/1980 366 GUL GHAMAN, NASSER 1037 Afghanistan Manikhel, AF 1/1/1980 367 GUL, AWAL 782 Afghanistan Sawati Ghundi 7/1/1962 368 GUL, DAWD 530 Afghanistan Zedana, AF 1/1/1980 369 GUL, KHI ALI 928 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1963 370 GUL, MOHAMMAD 457 Afghanistan Zamikhel, AF 1/1/1962 371 GUMAROV, RAVIL SHAFEYAVICH 203 Russia Gushva, RS 11/22/1962 372 HABIB, MAMDOUH IBRAHIM AHMED 661 Australia Alexandria, EG 6/3/1955 373 HADI, SALEM AHMED 131 Yemen Hadramaut, YM 1/15/1976 374 HADJARAB, NABIL 238 Algeria Aentaya, Algeria 7/21/1979 375 HAFEZ, KHALIL RAHMAN 301 Pakistan Punjab, PK 1/20/1984 376 HAFIZ, ABDUL 1030 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1961 377 HAFIZULLAH, FNU 965 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1974 378 HAIDEL, MOHAMMED AHMED SAID 498 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 1/1/1978 379 HAKIM, ABDEL GHALIB AHMAD 686 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 1/1/1979 380 HAMDAN, SALIM AHMED SALIM 149 Yemen Hadramout, YM 1/1/1970 381 HAMDOUN, ZAHAR OMAR HAMIS BIN 576 Yemen Ash Shihr, YM 11/13/1979 382 HAMDULLAH, FNU 456 Afghanistan Kushki Nakod, AF 1/1/1974 383 HAMIDULLAH 1119 Afghanistan Kabul, AF 1/1/1963 384 HAMIDULLAH, ALI SHER 455 Uzbekistan Tashkent, UZ 11/19/1974 385 HAMIDULLAH, FNU 642 Afghanistan Konduz, AF 1/1/1980 386 HAMIDUVA, SHAKHRUKH 22 Uzbekistan Kokan, UZ 12/13/1983 387 HAMLILY, MUSTAFA AHMED 705 Algeria Bashare, Algeria 2/20/1959 388 HAMMDIDULLAH, FNU 953 Afghanistan Sarpolad, AF 1/1/1973 389 HANAN, ABDUL 531 Afghanistan Ghazni, AF 1/1/1958 390 HASAN, MIRWAIS 998 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1980 391 HASHEM, MUBARAK HUSSAIN BIN ABUL 151 Bangladesh Baria, BG 1/1/1978 392 HASHIM, MOHAMMED 850 Afghanistan Qandahar, AF 1/1/1976 393 HASSAN, ADEL 940 Sudan Port Sudan, SU 1/1/1958 394 HASSAN, EMAD ABDALLA 680 Yemen Aden, YM 6/26/1979 395 HASSAN, MUHAMMAD HUSSEIN ALI 123 Morocco Selwan, MO 12/16/1966 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 9 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 25 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 396 HASSEN, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED 681 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 4/20/1983 397 HATIM, SAID MUHAMMED SALIH 255 Yemen Ibb, YM 1/1/1976 398 HAWSAWI, AMRAN BAQUR MOHAMMED 368 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 1/1/1975 399 HEKMAT, ABDULLAH 670 Afghanistan Akhcha, AF 1/1/1972 400 HEZBULLAH, FNU 666 Afghanistan Miran Shah, PK 1/1/1981 401 HICKS, DAVID 2 Australia Adelaide, AU 10/8/1971 402 HINTIF, FADIL HUSAYN SALIH 259 Yemen Al Youf, YM 1/1/1969 403 HKIML, ADEL BIN AHMED BIN IBRAHIM 168 Tunisia Bin Aroes, Tunisia 3/27/1965 404 HOMARO, MOYUBALLAH 729 Tajikistan Alisurkhan, Tajikistan 10/6/1980 405 HOUARI, ABDUL RAHAM 70 Algeria Algiers, Algeria 1/18/1980 406 HUDIN, SALAH 21 Pakistan / Afghanistan Jalalabad, AF 1/8/1982 407 HUKUMRA 1157 Afghanistan Chenna Village, AF 1/1/1974 408 HUMUD DAKHIL HUMUD SA'ID AL-((JAD'AN 230 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 5/22/1973 409 HUSSEIN, ABDUL QADIR YOUSEF 715 West Bank Jenin, WE 3/27/1953 410 HUSSEINI, ABDALLAH 703 Algeria Algiers, Algeria 4/3/1958 411 HUWARI, SOUFIAN ABAR 1016 Algeria Ouran, Algeria 4/29/1970 412 IBRAHIM, NAYIF ABDALLAH IBRAHIM 258 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 1/1/1982 413 IDRIS, IBRAHIM OTHMAN IBRAHIM 36 Sudan / Yemen Hathramuut, YM 1/1/1961 414 IJAZ, MOHAMMED 302 Pakistan Blonoval, PK UNKNOWN 415 IKASSRIN, LAACIN 72 Morocco Targist, MO 10/2/1972 416 IL BHAWITH, ZAID BINSALLAH MOHAMMED 272 Saudi Arabia Qasim, SA 1/1/1982 417 ILYAS, MOHAMMAD 144 Pakistan Taman, PK 1/8/1942 418 INSANULLAH, FNU 637 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1980 419 IQBAL, ASIF 87 United Kingdom West Bromwich, UK 4/24/1981 420 IQBAL, FAIK 210 Pakistan Karachi, PK 10/27/1982 421 IQBAL, ZAFAR 14 Pakistan Sambal, PK 3/1/1983 422 IRFAN, MOHAMMED 1006 Pakistan Punjab, PK 1/1/1979 423 IRFAN, MOHAMMED 101 Pakistan Bahalwapur, PK 12/12/1982 424 IRGASHIVE, ABDUL KARIM 641 Tajikistan Dushanbe, Tajikistan 5/7/1965 425 ISHAQ, MOHAMMED 20 Pakistan Panjgoor, PK 1/1/1983 426 ISHMURAT, TIMUR RAVILICH 674 Russia Azenakai, RS 6/5/1975 427 ISMAIL, ALI HAMZA AHMED SULAYMAN 39 Yemen Hudaydah, YM 1/1/1969 428 ISMAIL, MOHAMMED 930 Afghanistan Dourbeni Village, AF 1/1/1984 429 ISMAIL, SADEQ MUHAMMAD SA ID 69 Yemen Jabal Haimain, YM 1/1/1982 430 ISMAIL, YASIN QASEM MUHAMMAD 522 Yemen Ibb, YM 1/1/1979 431 JAHDARI, ZIAD SAID FARG 286 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 1/1/1979 432 JAID AL KHATHAMI, SALEH ALI 191 Saudi Arabia Dharan, SA 1/1/1981 433 JALIL, HAJI 1117 Afghanistan Bayanzai, Gereshk District,AF 1/1/1970 434 JAMALUDINOVICH, ABU BAKIR 452 Uzbekistan Chartakh, UZ 2/1/1974 435 JAN, JUMMA 1095 Tajikistan Kurgantapa, Tajikistan 1/1/1978 436 JAN, SAID AMIR 945 Afghanistan Koozbia, AF 1/1/1980 437 JAN, SAIDA 1035 Afghanistan Konar, AF UNKNOWN 438 JANKO, ABD AL RAHIM ABDUL RASSAK 489 Syria Al Qamashil, SY 6/24/1978 439 JARABH, SAEED AHMED MOHAMMED ABDULLAH SAREM 235 Yemen Jeddah, SA 1/1/1976 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 10 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 26 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 440 JAWAD, MOHAMED 900 Afghanistan Miran Shah, PK 1/1/1985 441 KABEL, MOHAMED 645 Afghanistan Parvan Province, AF 1/1/1963 442 KABIR, USAMA HASSAN AHMED ABU 651 Jordan Al Rusayfa, JO 5/16/1970 443 KADIR, KHANDAN 831 Afghanistan Safra-andarikhail, AF 1/1/1969 444 KAFKAS, ABDULLAH D. 82 Russia Prohladsk, RU 1/23/1984 445 KAHM, ABDUL RAHMAN ABDULLAH MOHAMED JUMA 118 Afghanistan Fara, AF 1/1/1969 446 KAKAR, MOHAMMED RAZ-MOHAMMED 364 Afghanistan Khod, AF 1/1/1977 447 KAMEL, ABDULLAH KAMEL ABUDALLAH 228 Kuwait Hawalli, KU 9/17/1973 448 KAMIN, MOHAMMED 1045 Afghanistan UNKNOWN 1/1/1978 449 KANDAHARI, KAKO 986 Afghanistan Ghulayie, AF 1/1/1970 450 KARIM, ABDUL 520 Afghanistan Sangin, AF 1/1/1982 451 KARIM, BOSTAN 975 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1970 452 KARNAZ, MURAT 61 Turkey Bremen, Germany 3/19/1982 453 KASIMBEKOV, KAMALLUDIN 675 Uzbekistan Tashkent, UZ 11/9/1977 454 KERIMBAKIEV, ABDULRAHIM 521 Kazakhstan Semei, Kazakhstan 1/4/1983 455 KHADR, ABDUL 990 Canada UNKNOWN 1/1/1981 456 KHADR, OMAR AHMED 766 Canada Toronto, CA 9/19/1986 457 KHAIL, HAFIZULLAH SHABAZ 1001 Afghanistan Paktia, AF 1/1/1946 458 KHAIRKHWA, KHIRULLAH SAID WALI 579 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1967 459 KHALID, RIDOUANE 173 France Villenoble, FR 8/16/1967 460 KHALIK, SAIDULLAH 280 China Ghulja, CH 7/27/1977 461 KHAMSAN, KARAM KHAMIS SAYD 586 Yemen Al Mahra, YM 1/1/1969 462 KHAN, ABDULLAH 950 Afghanistan Ghawchak, AF 1/1/1956 463 KHAN, ABDULLAH MOHAMMAD 556 Uzbekistan Faryab, AF 1/1/1972 464 KHAN, ALIF 673 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1968 465 KHAN, ANWAR 948 Afghanistan Konar, AF 1/1/1967 466 KHAN, BACHA 529 Pakistan Bajawor, PK 1/1/1972 467 KHAN, EJAZ AHMAD 135 Pakistan Mardan, PK 2/10/1975 468 KHAN, EZAT 314 Afghanistan Sei, AF 1/1/1966 469 KHAN, HAJI NASRAT 1009 Afghanistan Kabul, AF 1/1/1935 470 KHAN, HAMOOD ULLAH 145 Pakistan Hyberabad, PK 3/15/1971 471 KHAN, HAZRAT SANGIN 366 Afghanistan Lowal, AF 1/1/1977 472 KHAN, ISA 23 Pakistan Bannu, PK 4/1/1975 473 KHAN, JANAN TAUS 124 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 9/15/1981 474 KHAN, JUMA 443 Afghanistan Kona Charbolak, AF 1/1/1972 475 KHAN, KAKAI 1075 Afghanistan Gardez, AF 1/1/1971 476 KHAN, MOHABET 909 Afghanistan Alipoor, PK 1/1/1972 477 KHAN, MOHAMMAD KASHEF 146 Pakistan Karachi, PK 1/12/1979 478 KHAN, MOHAMMED 910 Afghanistan Shah Toria, AF 1/1/1982 479 KHAN, MUHAMMED IJAZ 17 Pakistan Kafilgarh, PK 8/10/1976 480 KHAN, OSMAN 818 Afghanistan Bermel, AF 1/1/1952 481 KHAN, SHARDAR 914 Afghanistan Gardez, AF 1/1/1982 482 KHAN, SHAWALI 899 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1963 483 KHAN, SWAR 933 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1970 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 11 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 27 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 484 KHAN, TARIQ 97 Pakistan Village 426, PK 1/1/1978 485 KHAN, TILA MOHAMMED 830 Pakistan Wazierstan, PK 1/1/1980 486 KHANTUMANI, ABD AL NASIR MOHAMMED ABD AL QADIR 307 Syria Halab, SY 1/1/1960 487 KHANTUMANI, MUHAMMAD ABD AL NASIR MUHAMMAD 312 Syria Halab, SY 1/7/1982 488 KHIRULLAH AKAH 518 Afghanistan Afghanistan UNKNOWN 489 KHNENAH, MUHAMMED ALI HUSSEIN 254 Yemen Ktaph, YM UNKNOWN 490 KHOWLAN, ABDUL RAHMAN MOHAMMED HUSSEIN 513 Saudi Arabia Taif, SA 1/1/1972 491 KHUSRUF, MOHAMMED NASIR YAHYA 509 Yemen Taiz, YM 2/1/1950 492 KIYEMBA, JAMAL ABDULLAH 701 Uganda Bunamwaya, UG 4/22/1979 493 KUCHI, HAJI NIAM 931 Afghanistan Logar, AF 1/1/1940 494 KURD, MOHAMED ANWAR 676 Iran Zahedan, IR 3/4/1979 495 LAGHA, LUFTI BIN SWEI 660 Tunisia Tunis, Tunisia 11/29/1968 496 LAHASSIMI, NAJIB MOHAMMAD 75 Morocco Sattat, MO 9/28/1978 497 LAHMAR, SABIR MAHFOUZ 10002 Algeria Constantin, Algeria 5/22/1969 498 LAYAR, SABIT 365 Afghanistan Sawali Khot, AF 1/1/1981 499 LNU, AMANULLAH 970 Afghanistan UNKNOWN 1/1/1963 500 LNU, NASIBULLAH 1019 Afghanistan Jalazai, AF 1/1/1967 501 LNU, SADEE EIDEOV 665 Tajikistan Kamsamulabad Reyhan, Tajikista 1/1/1953 502 LNU, SHARIFULLAH 944 Afghanistan Jalalabad, AF 1/1/1980 503 MADNI, HAFEZ QARI MOHAMED SAAD IQBAL 743 Pakistan Pakistan 10/17/1977 504 MAGRUPOV, ABDULLAH TOHTASINOVICH 528 Kazakhstan Semeya, Kazakhstan 5/14/1983 505 MAHDI, FAWAZ NAMAN HAMOUD ABDULLAH 678 Yemen The Shaira, YM 1/1/1980 506 MAHJOUB, MUHAMMED AL GHAZALI BABAKER 700 Sudan Um Durman, SU 12/14/1973 507 MAHMUD, ARKIN 103 China Ghulja, CH 7/1/1964 508 MAHNUT, BAHTIYAR 277 China Ghulja, CH 1/18/1976 509 MAKRAM, MURTADHA AL SAID 187 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 3/28/1976 510 MALANG, NASSIR 355 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1972 511 MAMUT, ABDUL HELIL 278 China Kashkar, CH 1/1/1977 512 MANZU, HAFICE LEQEAT 139 Pakistan Kanaval District, PK 1/12/1977 513 MAR'I, JAMAL MUHAMMAD 'ALAWI 577 Yemen Dhamar, YM UNKNOWN 514 MART, MAHMUD NURI 543 Turkey Agri, Turkey 9/27/1971 515 MASUD, SHARAF AHMAD MUHAMMAD 170 Yemen Sana'a, SA 1/1/1978 516 MATIN, ABDUL 1002 Afghanistan Jowzjan, AF 1/1/1965 517 MAZHARUDIN, FNU 731 Tajikistan Pajpai, PK 12/1/1979 518 MEHMOOD, MAJID 624 Pakistan Bahawal District, PK 3/3/1979 519 MELMA, SABAR LAL 801 Afghanistan Darya-e-Pech, AF 1/1/1962 520 MINGAZOV, RAVIL 702 Russia Bolsheretski, RS 12/5/1967 521 MIRMUHAMMAD, SHARGHULAB 313 Afghanistan Brayiam, AF 1/1/1972 522 MIZOUZ, MOHAMMED 294 Morocco Casablanca, MO 12/31/1973 523 MOHAMED, AHMED 328 China Artush, CH 5/1/1978 524 MOHAMED, FAHED NASSER 13 Saudi Arabia Abaha, SA 2/25/1982 525 MOHAMMAD, AKHTAR 2 969 Afghanistan UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 526 MOHAMMAD, AKHTIAR 1036 Afghanistan Kundarkheil, AF 1/1/1953 527 MOHAMMAD, MOHAMMAD LAMEEN SIDI 706 Mauritania Zandeer, Niger 9/10/1981 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 12 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 28 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 528 MOHAMMAD, TARIK 136 Pakistan Kohat, PK 2/25/1972 529 MOHAMMADULLAH 347 Afghanistan Manu, AF 1/1/1974 530 MOHAMMED, AKHTAR 845 Afghanistan Barogai, AF 1/1/1970 531 MOHAMMED, ALI 2 634 Pakistan Rahamibad, PK 1/1/1952 532 MOHAMMED, ALI MUHAMMED NASIR 172 Saudi Arabia Jedda, SA 12/1/1982 533 MOHAMMED, ALIF 972 Afghanistan Helmand, AF 1/1/1946 534 MOHAMMED, HAJI FAIZ 657 Afghanistan Rasham Village, AF UNKNOWN 535 MOHAMMED, HAJI WALI 560 Afghanistan Baghlan, AF 2/15/1966 536 MOHAMMED, HUSSEIN SALEM 1015 Yemen Aden, YM 1/1/1977 537 MOHAMMED, KAHLID SAAD 335 Saudi Arabia Al Tabia, SA 7/13/1973 538 MOHAMMED, MIRZA 644 Afghanistan Gorband, AF 1/1/1964 539 MOHAMMED, NAG 102 China Khulga, CH 5/4/1975 540 MOHAMMED, RASOOL SHAHWALI ZAIR MOHAMMED 835 Afghanistan Lowara, AF 1/1/1978 541 MOHAMMED, SAID 1056 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1977 542 MOHAMMED, SALMAN SAAD AL KHADI 121 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 1/14/1982 543 MOHAMMED, SULTAN 517 Afghanistan Qal eh, AF 1/1/1976 544 MOHAMMED, TAJ 902 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1981 545 MOHAMMED, WALI 547 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1964 546 MOHHAMED, HANIF 305 Pakistan Adda Shenal, PK 1/1/1982 547 MOHHAMED, SOHAB MAHUD 563 Iraq Piboss, Iraq 8/17/1981 548 MOQBEL, SAMIR NAJI AL HASAN 43 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 12/1/1977 549 MOQBILL, MUHSIN MUHAMMAD MUSHEEN 193 Yemen Ta'iz, YM UNKNOWN 550 MOUHAMMAD, MAASOUM ABDAH 330 Syria Al Qameshle, SY 1/1/1972 551 MOWLA, ABDUL 442 Pakistan Malakan District, PK 1/1/1969 552 MUBANGA, MARTIN JOHN 10007 United Kingdom Luasaka, ZA 9/24/1972 553 MUHAMMAD, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH ALI 224 Yemen Sinai, YM 1/1/1982 554 MUHAMMAED, NOOR UTHMAN 707 Sudan Kasala, SU UNKNOWN 555 MUHAMMED, ABDUL MAJID 555 Iran Zahedan, IR 1/1/1979 556 MUHAMMED, HAJI 649 France Medina, SA 1/1/1962 557 MUHAMMED, PETA 908 Afghanistan Gardez, AF 1/1/1985 558 MUHIBULLAH, FNU 546 Afghanistan Shah Wali Koot, AF 1/1/1982 559 MUJAHID 1100 Afghanistan Paktia, AF 1/1/1971 560 MUSLIMDOST, ABDUL RAHIM 561 Afghanistan Nangarhar, AF 1/1/1960 561 MUST, YARASS ALI 315 Afghanistan UNKNOWN 1/1/1972 562 MUSTAFA, KHALED BEN 236 France Lyons, FR 1/9/1972 563 NABIED, YUSEF 83 Tajikistan Isfara, Tajikistan 8/5/1963 564 NAFEESI, ABDUL SATAR 11 Pakistan Miachinu, PK 1/8/1971 565 NAJI, AZIZ ABDUL 744 Algeria Batna, Algeria 5/4/1975 566 NASEER, MUNIR BIN 85 Pakistan Karachi, PK 2/27/1978 567 NASERULLAH, FNU 967 Afghanistan Helmand, AF 1/1/1980 568 NASHIR, SA ID SALIH SA ID 841 Yemen Habilain, YM 1/1/1974 569 NASIM, MOHAMMAD 453 Afghanistan Shahidan, AF 1/1/1973 570 NASIM, MOHAMMED 2 849 Afghanistan Megan, AF 1/1/1980 571 NASIM, MOHAMMED 3 958 Afghanistan Pai Warzai, AF 1/1/1962 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 13 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 29 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 572 NASIR, ABDUL 874 Afghanistan Kabul, AF 1/1/1981 573 NASIR, ABDUL LATIF 244 Morocco Casablanca, MO 3/4/1965 574 NASIR, ALLAH 951 Afghanistan Zalahka, AF 1/1/1947 575 NASRAT YAR, HIZTULLAH 977 Afghanistan Surubee, AF 1/1/1970 576 NASRULLAH, FNU 886 Afghanistan Oruzgan, AF 1/1/1979 577 NASSERI, RIYAD BIL MOHAMMMED TAHIR 510 Tunisia Gafsa, Tunisia 7/8/1966 578 NASSIR, JAMIL AHMED SAID 728 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 1/1/1970 579 NECHLE, MOHAMMED 10003 Algeria Laghouat, Algeria 4/2/1968 580 NOMAN, MOHAMMED 541 Pakistan Pakistan 1/1/1977 581 NOOR, HABIB 1041 Afghanistan Mangal Village, AF 1/1/1968 582 NOORALLAH, HAJI 494 Afghanistan Andkhoy, AF 1/1/1971 583 NOORANI, ABDUL RAHMAN 582 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1973 584 NOORI, ADEL 584 China Xing Xiang, CH 11/12/1979 585 NOORI, MULLAH NORULLAH 6 Afghanistan Shajoie, AF 1/1/1967 586 NUR, YUSIF KHALIL ABDALLAH 73 Saudi Arabia Mecca, SA 3/16/1982 587 OBAIDULLAH 762 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1980 588 ODIJEV, RUSLAN ANATOLIVICH 211 Russia Prolandnom, RU 12/5/1973 589 OMAR, ABDULLAH BIN 721 Tunisia Massoulta, Tunisia 6/28/1956 590 OMAR, MOHAMMED 540 Pakistan Larkana, PK 1/1/1986 591 OMARI, MOHAMMAD NABI 832 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1968 592 OURGY, ABDUL BIN MOHAMMED BIN ABESS 502 Tunisia Tunis, Tunisia 7/25/1965 593 PARACHA, SAIFULLAH 1094 Pakistan Mongwal, PK 8/17/1947 594 PARHAT, HOZAIFA 320 China Ghulja, CH 2/11/1971 595 PEERZAI, QARI HASAN ULLA 562 Afghanistan Baghran, AF 1/1/1977 596 QA ID, RASHID ABD AL MUSLIH QA ID AL 344 Saudi Arabia Sakahka, SA 12/20/1959 597 QADER IDRIS, IDRIS AHMED ABDU 35 Yemen Rada, YM 1/1/1979 598 QADER, Ahmed Abdul 690 Yemen Sana'a, YM 1/1/1983 599 QAHTANI, SAID MUHAMMAD HUSYAN 200 Saudi Arabia Khamees Mushail, SA 1/1/1978 600 QASIM, ABU BAKR 283 China Ghulja, CH 5/13/1969 601 QASIM, KHALED 242 Yemen Themeir, YM 1/21/1977 602 QATTAA, MANSOOR MUHAMMED ALI 566 Saudi Arabia Ta'if, SA 1/1/1982 603 QUASAM, MOHAMMED 955 Afghanistan Bamian, AF 1/1/1977 604 QUDUS, ABDUL 929 Afghanistan Nadali, AF 1/1/1988 605 QYATI, ABDUL RAHMAN UMIR AL 461 Yemen Jeddah, SA 1/1/1976 606 RABBANI, MOHAMMED AHMAD GHULAM 1461 Pakistan al Medinah, SA 1/1/1970 607 RABEII, SALMAN YAHYA HASSAN MOHAMMED 508 Yemen Jedda, SA 6/30/1979 608 RAFIQ, MOHAMMED 495 Pakistan Kabal, PK 1/1/1980 609 RAHEEM, AL RACHID HASAN AHMAD ABDUL 714 Sudan Al-Ubayyid, SU 7/29/1965 610 RAHIM, ABDUL 6 897 Afghanistan Sharshar, AF 1/1/1975 611 RAHIM, MOHAMED 1104 Afghanistan Ghazni, AF UNKNOWN 612 RAHMAD, NISAR 630 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1980 613 RAHMAN, ABDUL 12 549 Yemen Hadramaut, YM 1/1/1976 614 RAHMAN, ABDUL 4 357 Afghanistan Haji Baras, AF 1/1/1976 615 RAHMAN, FIZAULLA 496 Afghanistan Sancharak, AF 1/1/1978 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 14 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 30 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 616 RAHMAN, HABIB 907 Afghanistan Mansaira, PK 1/1/1982 617 RAHMAN, MAHBUB 1052 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1985 618 RAHMAN, MOHAMMED ABDUL 2 894 Tunisia Tunis, T S 1/1/1965 619 RAHMAN, MURTAZAH ABDUL 361 Afghanistan Nadali, AF 1/1/1976 620 RAHMAN, SHED ABDUR 581 Afghanistan Pishin, PK 1/1/1965 621 RAHMATULLAH, FNU 964 Afghanistan Helmand, AF 1/1/1981 622 RASHIDI, AHMED 590 Morocco Tanjier, MO 3/16/1966 623 RASOOL, HABIB 120 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1955 624 RASOUL, ABDULLAH GULAM 8 Afghanistan Hilmand, AF 1/1/1973 625 RASUL, SHAFIQ 86 United Kingdom Dudley, England 1/1/1973 626 RAZ, MOHAMMED 106 Afghanistan UNKNOWN 1/1/1969 627 RAZA, ABID 299 Pakistan Digary Sindh, PK 2/10/1981 628 RAZA, MOHAMMED ARSHAD 147 Pakistan Bahawal Nagar, PK 1/1/1980 629 RAZAK, ABDUL 1043 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1958 630 RAZAK, ABDUL 219 China Atush, CH UNKNOWN 631 RAZAQ, ABDUL 356 Afghanistan Tashkent, UZ 1/1/1971 632 RAZIQ, ABDUL 99 Pakistan Kot Marakand, PK 4/22/1972 633 RAZZAK, ABDUL 942 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1939 634 RAZZAQ, ABDUL 923 Afghanistan Kadahal, AF 1/1/1964 635 RUHANI, GHOLAM 3 Afghanistan Ghazni, AF 1/1/1975 636 SA ID ALI JABIR AL KHATHIM AL SHIHRI 372 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 9/12/1973 637 SADIK, MAHMUD 512 Afghanistan UNKNOWN 1/1/1952 638 SADIQ, MOHAMMED 349 Afghanistan UNKNOWN 1/1/1913 639 SADIQI, ABDUL HALIM 1007 Pakistan Pakistan 1/1/1968 640 SADKHAN, JAWAD JABBER 433 Iraq Diwaniya, Iraq 6/1/1967 641 SAEED, HAFIZ IHSAN 98 Pakistan Lahore, PK 12/23/1978 642 SAFOLLAH, GHASER ZABAN 134 Pakistan Madanchak, PK 1/1/1979 643 SAID KUMAN, AHMED YASLAM 321 Yemen Hathramout, YM 1/15/1981 644 SAID, HASSAN MUJAMMA RABAI 175 Algeria Oum el Bouaghi, Algeria 2/5/1976 645 SAID, SALAM ABDULLAH 126 Saudi Arabia Tabokh, SA 2/13/1981 646 SALAAM, ABDUL 826 Afghanistan Birmal, AF 1/1/1975 647 SALAM, MOHAMMED AHMED 689 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 10/1/1980 648 SALEEM, ALLAH MUHAMMED 716 Egypt Al-Bajoor, EG 1/13/1967 649 SALEH GANMI, ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD 266 Saudi Arabia Rabug, SA 1/1/1974 650 SALEH NASER, ABDUL RAHMAN MOHAMED 115 Yemen Ma'rib, YM 1/1/1980 651 SALEH, AYOUB MURSHID ALI 836 Yemen Usabee, YM 4/29/1978 652 SALEHOVE, MAROOF SALEEMOVICH 208 Tajikistan Dushanbe, Tajikistan 3/3/1978 653 SALEM AL ZARNUKI, MOHAMMED ALI 691 Yemen Husayneyah, YM UNKNOWN 654 SALIH, ABDUL AL RAZZAQ MUHAMMAD 233 Yemen Al Gidd Al Hajjah, YM 1/1/1973 655 SALIH, ALI MOHSEN 221 Yemen Guban, YM 10/26/1980 656 SAMAD, ABDUL 911 Afghanistan Zormat, AF 1/1/1982 657 SANGARYAR, RAHMATULLAH 890 Afghanistan Oruzgan, AF 1/1/1968 658 SANGHIR, MOHAMMAD 143 Pakistan Kohestan, AF 1/1/1952 659 SARAJUDDIN, ABIB 458 Afghanistan Zamikhel, AF 1/1/1942 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 15 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 31 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 660 SARGIDENE, MOHAMMED 358 Afghanistan Archasan, AF 1/1/1977 661 SARWAR, KARI MOHAMMED 667 Afghanistan Ashakay Village, AF 1/1/1978 662 SASSI, NIZAR 325 France Lyons, FR 8/1/1979 663 SATTAR, ABDUL 10 Pakistan Bumb, PK 11/12/1981 664 SAYAB, MUTIJ SADIZ AHMAD 288 Algeria UNKNOWN 7/1/1976 665 SAYED, ABDUL HADI MUHAMED RASUL 352 Afghanistan Helmand, AF 1/1/1973 666 SAYED, MOHAMMED 18 Pakistan Abbotabad, PK 1/1/1973 667 SEBAI, MOHAMMED JAYED 319 Saudi Arabia Riyadh, SA 4/1/1983 668 SEBAII, ABDEL HADI MOHAMMED BADAN AL SEBAII 64 Saudi Arabia El Kharg, SA 8/23/1971 669 SEN, IBRAHIM SHAFIR 297 Turkey Van, Turkey 10/10/1980 670 SEN, MESUT 296 Belgium Brussels, BE 2/20/1980 671 SHAABAN, ALI HUSEIN 327 Syria Utaiba, SY 3/6/1982 672 SHAH, ALI 1154 Afghanistan Gardez, AF 1/1/1959 673 SHAH, NAHIR 1010 Afghanistan Kaplsa, AF 1/1/1973 674 SHAH, QALANDAR 812 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1973 675 SHAH, SAID MOHAMMED ALIM 92 Afghanistan Helmand, AF 1/1/1978 676 SHAH, SOLAIMAN DUR MOHAMMED 119 Afghanistan Panjwaee, AF 1/1/1977 677 SHAH, ZAKIM 898 Afghanistan Tora Oba, AF 1/1/1983 678 SHAHEEN NAQEEBYLLAH, SHAHWALI, ZAIR MOHAMMED 834 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 6/1/1976 679 SHAHIR, WALID MOHAMMED 1014 Yemen Al Tawahi, YM 1/1/1979 680 SHAHZADA, HAJI 952 Afghanistan Belanday, AF 1/1/1959 681 SHAKARAN, IBRAHIM BIN 587 Morocco Casablanca, MO 8/4/1979 682 SHALABI, ABDUL RAHMAN 42 Saudi Arabia Medina, SA 12/4/1975 683 SHARBAT 1051 Afghanistan Khairo Village 1/1/1973 684 SHARIF, MOHAMMED 532 Afghanistan Kalina, AF 1/1/1976 685 SHARIPOV, ALMASM RABILAVICH 209 Russia Avzion, RU 4/23/1971 686 SHARQAWI, ABDU ALI AL HAJI 1457 Yemen Taiz, SA 5/26/1974 687 SHAYBAN, SAID BEZAN ASHEK 346 Saudi Arabia Ta'iz, SA 1/1/1981 688 SHILI, IBRAHIM RUSHDAN BRAYK AL- 127 Saudi Medina, SA 1/1/1981 689 SHOKURI, YUNIS ABDURRAHMAN 197 Morocco Asafi, MO 4/5/1968 690 SLAHI, MOHAMEDOU OULD 760 Mauritania Rosso, MR 12/21/1970 691 SLITI, HISHAM BIN ALI BIN AMOR 174 Tunisia Hamam Lif, Tunisia 2/12/1966 692 SOHAIL, MOHAMMED MUSTAFA 1008 Afghanistan Jalalabad, AF 1/1/1981 693 SOULEIMANI LAALMAI, MOHAMAD 237 Morocco Casablanca, MO 1/19/1976 694 SUBII, NASIR MAZIYAD ABDALLAH AL QURAYSHI AL 497 Saudi Arabia Kasim, SA 9/16/1970 695 SULAYMAN, ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUL ABU GHITYH 223 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 1/1/1979 696 SULEIMAN, FAYIZ AHMAD YAHIA 153 Yemen Jeddah, SA 1/1/1974 697 SULEYMAN, AHMED HASSAN JAMIL 662 Jordan Aman, JO 6/4/1961 698 SULTAN, ASHRAF SALIM ABD AL SALAM 263 Libya Jedda, SA 7/5/1971 699 SULTAN, FAHA 130 Saudi Arabia Jeddah, SA 1/1/1972 700 SULTAN, ZAHID 300 Pakistan Abdabot, PK 2/10/1981 701 TAHAMUTTAN, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH 684 West Bank Burka, WE 12/1/1979 702 TAHAR, MOHMMAD AHMAD ALI 679 Yemen Ib, YM 1/1/1980 703 TAHIR, MOHAMMED 643 Afghanistan Mirkhan Khail, AF 1/1/1975 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 16 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 32 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 704 TARIQ, MOHAMMED 137 Pakistan Alladand Dehry, PK 3/10/1973 705 TAYEEA, ALI ABDUL MOTALIB AWAYD HASSAN AL 111 Iraq Baghdad, Iraq UNKNOWN 706 THANI, ABDALLAH FARIS AL UNAZI 514 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 1/31/1980 707 TORJAN, SHAIBJAN 362 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1977 708 TOURSON, AHMAD 201 China Xinjiang, CH 1/26/1971 709 TSIRADZHO, POOLAD T 89 Azerbaijan Baku, AJ 5/6/1975 710 TUKHI, AMINULLAH BARYALAI 1012 Afghanistan Heart, AF 1/1/1972 711 TURKASH, EMDASH ABDULLAH 500 Turkmenistan Ghazni, AF 1/1/1941 712 TURKI MASH AWI ZAYID AL ASIRI 185 Saudi Arabia Taboq, SA 3/8/1975 713 TURKISTANI, SADIK AHMAD 491 Saudi Arabia Taif, SA UNKNOWN 714 UL HAQ, ISRAR 515 Pakistan Topi, PK 1/1/1980 715 UL SHAH, ZIA 15 Pakistan Karachi, PK 5/1/1976 716 ULLAH, AMIN 848 Afghanistan Chogha, AF 1/1/1956 717 ULLAH, ASAD 47 Pakistan Swahbi, PK 1/1/1981 718 ULLAH, ASAD 912 Afghanistan Paktia, AF 1/1/1988 719 ULLAH, FAIZ 919 Afghanistan Bamian, AF 1/1/1956 720 ULLAH, NAQIB 913 Afghanistan Zargary Camp, PK 1/1/1988 721 ULLAH, NOOR HABIB 626 Afghanistan Jalalabad, AF 1/1/1980 722 ULLAH, SHAMS 783 Afghanistan Gulnoom Khan, AF 1/1/1986 723 UMAR, IBRAHIM UMAR ALI AL- 585 Saudi Al Qaseem, SA 1/1/1983 724 URAYMAN, SAJIN 545 Pakistan Gujaranwala, PK 1/1/1984 725 USMAN, SHABIDZADA 12 Pakistan Malal, PK 3/5/1982 726 UTHMAN, UTHMAN ABDUL RAHIM MOHAMMED 27 Yemen Aden, YM 1/1/1979 727 UWAYDAH, RASHID AWAD RASHID AL 664 Saudi Arabia Sakaka, SA 1/1/1976 728 UYAR, SALIH 298 Turkey Kojaeli, Turkey 4/14/1981 729 VAHITOV, AIAT NASIMOVICH 492 Russia Naberyozhnyj, RS 3/27/1977 730 WAHAB, ABDUL 961 Afghanistan Afghanistan 1/1/1968 731 WAHEED, ABDUL 353 Afghanistan Musa Qala, AF 1/1/1972 732 WAKIL, HAJI SAHIB ROHULLAH 798 Afghanistan Jalalabad, AF 1/1/1962 733 WALI, BADSHAH 638 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1977 734 WALI, JIHAN 444 Pakistan Diir, PK 1/1/1967 735 WALIJAN, NEYAZ 640 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1962 736 WASIM 338 Saudi Arabia Al Jauf, SA 11/18/1963 737 WASIQ, ABDUL HAQ 4 Afghanistan Ghazni, AF 1/1/1971 738 WAZIR, ABDULLAH 976 Afghanistan Sheikh Amir, AF 1/1/1979 739 WAZIR, HAJI MOHAMMED 996 Afghanistan Lashkargh City, AF 1/1/1943 740 WAZIR, PADSHA 631 Afghanistan Kundai, AF 1/1/1972 741 YACOUB, MOHAMMED 1004 Afghanistan Khwazak, AF 1/1/1976 742 YADEL, BRAHIM 371 France Aubervilliers, FR 3/17/1971 743 YAKUBI 1165 Afghanistan Gardiz, AF 2/15/1966 744 YAQUB, MOHAMMED YUSIF 367 Afghanistan Nimbrooz, AF UNKNOWN 745 YAR, KUSHKY 971 Afghanistan Lejay Village, AF 1/1/1963 746 YASSER, HIMDY 9 Saudi Arabia / USA Baton Rouge, Louisiana 11/17/1979 747 YOUSEF, MOHAMMED HAJI 820 Afghanistan Bermal, AF 1/1/1967 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 17 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 33 of 34 List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 748 ZAEEF, ABDUL SALAM 306 Afghanistan Kandahar, AF 1/1/1967 749 ZAHIR, ABDUL 753 Afghanistan Hasarak, AF 1/1/1972 750 ZAHIR, MOHOMMOD 1103 Afghanistan Ghazni, AF 1/1/1953 751 ZAHOR, ABDUL 949 Afghanistan Charikar, AF 1/1/1964 752 ZAHRANI, FAWAZ ABD AL-AZIZ AL- 125 Saudi Medina, SA 1/1/1978 753 ZAID, WALID SAID BIN SAID 550 Yemen Ta'iz, YM 2/2/1978 754 ZAMAN, GUL 459 Afghanistan Khowst, AF 1/1/1971 755 ZAMAN, KHAN 460 Afghanistan Zani Khel, AF 1/1/1962 756 ZEMMORI, MOSA ZI 270 Belgium Wilryk, Belgium 8/3/1978 757 ZIDAN, IBRAHIM MACHD ACHMED 761 Libya Sorman, LY 11/5/1976 758 ZUMARIKOURT, AZIZ KHAN ALI KHAN 348 Afghanistan Mushkail, AF 1/1/1962 759 ZUMIRI, HASSAN 533 Algeria Algiers, AL 9/8/1967 ** Birth dates that state "1/1/XX" indicate unknown month and day of birth. 5/15/2006 18 Case 1:08-cv-00987-UNA Document 10-4 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 34 of 34