Armed Conflict
Courts & Litigation
Criminal Justice & the Rule of Law
Executive Branch
Foreign Relations & International Law
Terrorism & Extremism
Appellant and Appellee Briefs available for Alsabri v. Obama
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
The appellant and appellee briefs for Alsabri v. Obama, a Guantanamo habeas case in the D.C. Circuit, are now available. You can read Ben's thoughts on the District Court's decision here and Bobby's thoughts on the case here. Judge Urbina wrote the memorandum opinion, which is available here.
Alsabri's appeals brief is available here.
The statement of issues posed by Alsabri are:
1. Whether the district court committed legal error by failing to consider the evidence as a whole and ignoring important exculpatory evidence. 2. Whether the district court erred by admitting evidence objected to by Petitioner. 3. Whether factual findings by the district court determining that Alsabri was associated with alleged al-Qaida members was "part of" al-Qaida were clearly erroneous. 4. Whether the district court's decision was based on an overly broad standard of detention under the AUMF. 5. Whether the district court's discovery and procedural rulings denied Alsabri the opportunity to receive a fair hearing.Alsabri argues that the district court, despite acknowledging the standard of review for the evidence, did not follow it at critical points. Rather, Alsabri argues (on page 19), that the district court "viewed in isolation snippets from interrogation reports and other documents without viewing such documents in their entirety and without crediting inextricably related exculpatory information that contradicted the court's findings." The government, in its appellee brief, presents two questions for the court to consider:
1. Whether the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous.
2. Whether the district court correctly held that the record, when viewed as a whole, establishes that petitioner was more likely than not a ''part of" al-Qaida, the Taliban, or an associated force.
Oral argument for this case is scheduled for October 24th before Judges Ginsburg, Garland and Kavanagh. We will post an oral argument preview.
Raffaela Wakeman is a Senior Director at In-Q-Tel. She started her career at the Brookings Institution, where she spent five years conducting research on national security, election reform, and Congress. During this time she was also the Associate Editor of Lawfare. From there, Raffaela practiced law at the U.S. Department of Defense for four years, advising her clients on privacy and surveillance law, cybersecurity, and foreign liaison relationships. She departed DoD in 2019 to join the Majority Staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where she oversaw the Intelligence Community’s science and technology portfolios, cybersecurity, and surveillance activities. She left HPSCI in May 2021 to join IQT.
Raffaela received her BS and MS in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2009 and her law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 2015, where she was recognized for her commitment to public service with the Joyce Chiang Memorial Award. While at the Department of Defense, she was the inaugural recipient of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s General Counsel Award for exhibiting the highest standards of leadership, professional conduct, and integrity.
-final.png?sfvrsn=b70826ae_3)
