Another Habeas Opinion and Another Brief

Judge Reggie Walton's redacted opinion affirming the detention of Guantanamo detainee Toffiq Nasser Awad Al-Bihani has been declassified. I will have comments once I've read and digested it. The conclusion reads:

As counsel for the petitioner candidly acknowledged at the merits hearing, "the most effective way to lie is to mix truth and falsehood." Hr'g Tr. at 214:16-18; see also Williamson, 512 U.S. at 599-600 (observing that "[o]ne of the most effective ways to lie is to mix falsehood with truth, especially truth that seems particularly persuasive because of its self-inculpatory nature"). The Court agrees and finds that the petitioner did just that--his inculpatory admissions regarding his desire to prepare for jihad, that he received training at the al-Farouq training camp, and that he continued to associate himself with al-Qaeda operatives while going to and from various al-Qaeda-affiliated guesthouses--are credible, while his attempt to place "an innocuous gloss over these ... facts," Al Odah, 611 FJd at 15, by stating that he had no intention of engaging in jihad upon arriving in Afghanistan. and that he intended to travel back to Saudi Arabia or Yemen upon leaving al-Farouq, fails to have the ring of truth. Accordingly, from the testimony presented by the petitioner at the merits hearing, his declaration, and the stipulations agreed to in the Joint Pre-Trial Statement, the Court concludes that the government has provided more than enough evidence to satisfy its burden of establishing the lawfulness of the petitioner's detention under the AUMF. And, because the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of producing evidence sufficient to rebut the government's prima facie showing, the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied.

Meanwhile, the government has filed its appellate brief in the D.C. Circuit case of Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman. The case appeals this opinion from earlier this year by Judge Henry Kennedy. The government states the questions presented as follows:

1. Whether the district court erred when it held that the government's detention authority extends only to individuals who were part ofthe command structure of al-Qaida. 2.Whether the district court erred in concluding that petitioner was not part of al-Qaida where the district court found that "Uthman (1) studied at a school at which other men were recruited to fight for Al Qaeda; (2) received money for his trip to Afghanistan from an individual who supported jihad; (3) traveled to Afghanistan along a route also taken by Al Qaeda recruits; (4) was seen at two Al Qaeda guesthouses in Afghanistan; and (5) was with Al Qaeda members in the vicinity of Tora Bora after the battle that occurred there." 3. Whether the district court erred by failing to give weight to the fact that petitioner put forward a wholly implausible cover story. 4. Whether the district court erred when it failed to consider the evidence as a whole. 5. Whether the district court should be ordered to consider certain additional evidence if the case is remanded.