Al Odah v. Bush

Civil Action No. 02-cv-0299 is a habeas corpus petition submitted on behalf of several Guantanamo captives.

Petitions incorporated in 02-cv-0299

On July 26, 2004 US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly incorporated several other habeas petitions with 02-cv-0299: Al Odah v. United States, 02cv828 (CKK); Mamdouh v. Bush, 02cv1130 (CKK); Kurnaz v. Bush, 04cv1135 (ESH); Khadr v. Bush, 04cv1136 (JDB); Begg v. Bush, 04cv1137 (RMC); Bechellali v. Bush, 04cv1142 (RJL); El-Banna v. Bush, 04cv1144 (RWR); Gherebi v. Bush, 04cv1164 (RBW); Boumediene v. Bush, 04cv1166 (RJL); Anam v. Bush, 04cv1194 (HHK).^[1]

Captives whose petitions were incorporated in 02-cv-0299 and were still present in Guantanamo in 2008

isn	name	notes
2	David Hicks	The "Australian Taliban". Nineteen pages of unclassified documents from his Combatant Status Review Tribunal have been published.[2]
38	Ridah Bin Saleh Al Yazidi	179 captives who had habeas petitions files on their behalf had a dossier of unclassified documents from their Combatant Status Review Tribunals published.[3] But Al Yazidi's documents were withheld. The Bush administration has not offered an explanation as to why his documents were withheld. On July 7, 2008 Brent N. Rushforth filed a "PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER"' on behalf of Ridah Bin Saleh Al Yazidi.[4] Ridah Bin Saleh Al Yazidi v. George W. Bush used to be part of Civil Action No. 02-CV-0299, but is now listed as Civil Action No. 07-cv-2337.[4]

Military Commissions Act

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 mandated that Guantanamo captives were no longer entitled to access the US civil justice system, so all outstanding habeas corpus petitions were stayed.^[5]

Boumediene v. Bush

On June 12, 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right of Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. It ruled that all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated.

The judges considering the captives' habeas petitions were to determine if the evidence supporting the allegations that the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification as "enemy combatant". If so, the determination implied that the person should continue to be detained.^[6]

Eligible to seek relief

On 3 July 2008 US District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan listed this habeas petition on a list where former captives were eligible to seek relief.^[7]

References

1. Colleen Kollar Kotelly (2004-07-26). "Shafiq Rasul et al. v. George W. Bush et al." (PDF). United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2007. Retrieved 2008-09-28. mirror
2. "David Hicks v. United States" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. 2004-10-04. pp. pages 1–19. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-26.
3. OARDEC (2008-08-08). "Index for CSRT Records Publicly Files in Guantanamo Detainee Cases" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-29.
4. Brent N. Rushforth (2008-07-07). "Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation: Doc 12" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. Retrieved 2008-09-26. mirror
5. Peter D. Keisler, Douglas N. Letter (2006-10-16). "NOTICE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-30. mirror
6. Farah Stockman (2008-10-24). "Lawyers debate 'enemy combatant'". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 27 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-24. mirror
7. Thomas Hogan (2009-07-03). "Petitioners seeking habeas corpus relief in relation to prior detentions at Guantanamo Bay". United States Department of Justice. Retrieved 2008-11-12. mirror