In an order released on Tuesday, DC District Judge Richard Leon rejected a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an Afghan detained at Guantanamo named Obaydullah (or Obaidullah).
Obaydullah was transported to Guantanamo in October 2002 after US intelligence officials concluded that his role in an al Qaeda improvised explosive device (IED) cell operating in southern Afghanistan warranted detention. Months earlier, on July 21, 2002, US forces had raided Obaidullah’s home after receiving intelligence indicating that he was storing land mines.
In his ruling, Judge Leon described what US forces found. In addition to “a stash of 23 anti-tank mines buried in an outdoor pit close” to Obaydullah’s home, the Americans “secured from his person a notebook containing certain diagrams that appeared to be wiring designs for building lethal” IEDs. In addition, Obaydullah “was storing an automobile that contained dried blood and Taliban propaganda, and that had been used by him and another to ferry to a local hospital certain bomb cell members who had been injured in an accidental explosion.”
The government also alleged that Obaydullah has “repeatedly given false and implausible explanations regarding his knowledge of, and involvement with, these explosives, this notebook, and this automobile.” Judge Leon agreed with the government, finding that Obaydullah’s various prevarications were “inconsistent and inherently ridiculous” and also “defie[d] both common sense and reality.”
Judge Leon’s ruling is the third instance in recent months in which a DC district judge has found a Guantanamo detainee’s implausible story to be evidence of guilt. [For an analysis of the other two rulings, see LWJ reports, Judge finds that Kuwaiti Gitmo detainee was no charity worker and Brother of notorious al Qaeda operative denied habeas petition.]
In previous habeas rulings, district judges have not given much weight, if any at all, to the fact that many detainees cannot provide plausible explanations for their connections to al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, after the DC Circuit Court pointed out in Mohammed Al-Adahi v. Obama “that false exculpatory statements are evidence – often strong evidence – of guilt,” DC district judges have applied more scrutiny to the stories told by detainees challenging their detention.
Obaydullah initially claimed that he was storing the antitank mines for “his business partner and friend, Karim Bostan.” Obaydullah later changed his story, Judge Leon found, claiming that the mines had been left behind “by a Soviet commander who had used Obaydullah’s compound as an operations base” more than a decade earlier. (Obaydullah also said at some point that the mines were left behind by “jihad fighters.” ) At various times, Obaydullah claimed that he buried the mines “with just his uncle, by himself, and with just his mother.” Still later, Obaydullah even questioned “whether the mines uncovered by US forces are the same mines he recalls burying.”
Judge Leon did not buy Obaydullah’s evolving account of how he came to be in possession of the 23 antitank mines, which in reality were to be used as components for IEDs. Nor did Judge Leon buy Obaydullah’s story when it came to the incriminating notebook found in his possession.
The notebook “clearly indicates that it contains wiring diagrams and notes that constitute a veritable checklist – in albeit somewhat cryptic form – of how to assemble a remote-control detonated IED,” Judge Leon found. Despite this, however, Obaydullah advanced implausible claims, including that the notebook’s contents were really the result of a bomb detection class he was forced to take by the Taliban or, alternatively, that the notebook simply gave the schematics for a “power generator.”
Karim Bostan and Obaydullah’s changing story
Judge Leon’s ruling has important implications for the case of another Guantanamo detainee, Karim Bostan. Obaydullah initially claimed that the almost two dozen antitank mines he was captured with were really Bostan’s. But then Bostan himself was shipped to Gitmo after being detained in Pakistan. It was then that Obaydullah began to rework his story, Judge Leon found, “backing away from stories involving Bostan.”
The intelligence that led to Obaydullah’s detention also identified Bostan as a member of the al Qaeda IED cell. Obaydullah and Bostan were seen in the blood-stained automobile together, driving wounded members of the IED cell to a hospital for treatment.
According to Leon, Obaydullah and Bostan were involved “in a religious organization called Jamaat al-Tabligh.” Declassified documents produced at Gitmo allege that Jamaat al-Tabligh is regularly used by al Qaeda as a front to mask nefarious activities.
Judge Leon’s ruling implies that the classified intelligence he has reviewed ties Bostan to al Qaeda. Judge Leon writes that “Bostan engaged in certain conduct that, although not describable in this opinion, is consistent with the impression of their relationship [between Obaydullah and Bostan] portrayed by this unclassified evidence.” That is, the evidence likely indicates that Bostan was himself a member of Obaydullah’s IED cell.
Indeed, US military officials have alleged in memos prepared at Gitmo that Bostan “worked with a partner” – that is, Obaydullah – “to plan their attacks” against American forces.
The memos also note that Bostan’s “palms were significantly scarred” and a doctor determined “that the scars would be consistent with a blast injury that occurred when something burst or exploded while held by the hands.” These wounds are, of course, consistent with those suffered by al Qaeda’s bombmakers.
Coordinated from Pakistan
Declassified memos produced at Gitmo allege that Obaydullah and his IED cell received orders from more senior al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. An Oct. 12, 2007 memo notes that a “source” stated Obaydullah “was a coordinator for al Qaeda” and that, during the Taliban’s rule, he “helped coordinate the movement and activities of various foreign al Qaeda members.”
Obaydullah allegedly continued to shelter and move al Qaeda operatives at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan in late 2001. US forces were told that Obaydullah “used his compound to hide and subsequently relocate about 18 Arab al Qaeda members to Pakistan.”
A “source,” likely the same one cited above, also said that Obaydullah “received orders from an Arab in Pakistan to begin preparing command detonated mines to use against United States forces.” And Obaydullah “traveled fairly frequently to Pakistan to receive instructions or to carry messages between Arab al Qaeda members in Pakistan and their Afghan subordinates.”
There is every indication that Obaydullah was faithfully carrying out al Qaeda’s orders in 2002 at the time of his capture by US forces in Afghanistan. According to Judge Leon, the intelligence that implicated Obaydullah in an al Qaeda IED cell roughly eight years ago checks out today.
Thus, Judge Leon denied Obaydullah’s habeas petition.
5 Comments
Methinks Obeydullah is a typical jihad liar.
May he rot in captivity forever.
It’s good to see the law working – captured, presented to a judge, held long term.
This is much better than a) holding people because they were handed over by bounty seeking pakistani’s and not properly examining the evidence or b) letting people go because of political pressure when they are clearly enemies.
Thomas,
For those of us without a legal background, can you explain in layman’s terms the defendants strategy of petitioning the court for a writ of habeas corpus and the larger context of finding he was “properly detained?” There is a lot of fear that if given access to our justice system the gitmo detainees will make a mockery of the US justice system.
Not a lawyer but since no one is giving it a try.
The lawyers are petitioning the court for a writ of habeas corpus because they maintain that the defendants are civilians indefinitely detained without proper due process under the civilian code. To them the court has failed to establish jurisdiction, establish a clear violation of US law within established jurisdiction, and allow them full rights of a civil trial including jury.
The counter argument is that acting as an agent of a hostile government or organization is in itself both grounds for indefinite detention and incarceration. At various points in history the US has tried agent either with military tribunals or the civilian system. Of those that have gone to the civil system, most do not get jury trials although some have.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the initial detentions had insufficient process for identifying and processing the defendants as hostile agents and insufficient legal representation. The “rights community”
Neo,
Thank you for the explanation. The wheels of justice are turning ever so slowing, but turning none the less. It is amazing (to me) it has taken eight years to produce this small but significant ruling, it must carry some weight within the legal system since it is from a federal district court judge as opposed to a military tribunal. Stateless combatants probably do not realize since they wear no uniform and do not conform to the Geneva Conventions their enemy cannot tell definitively when hostilities are over so they can be released like “normal” prisoners of war. I think their only hope for release if captured is that their country of origin take them in custody for rehabilitation, or like in the case of the Uigers, a neutral country accept them.