Brief Filed in Al Warafi v. Obama

Today the government made available the public version of its brief in Warafi v. Obama. Readers may recall that this case is the petitioner's appeal from Chief Judge Royce Lamberth’s March opinion denying Al Warafi's habeas petition. We posted Al Warafi's public brief a month ago. A quick, side-by-side comparison of the questions presented in the briefs demonstrates, perhaps more than the other cases that have come before the D.C. Circuit this fall, just how differently the parties view the issues before the court: Al Warafi's lawyers described the questions presented as follows:

1. Whether the district court committed reversible error in concluding that petitioner-appellate “was more likely than not a part of the Taliban,” in view of undisputed evidence that during the relevant period he was a full-time worker at medical clinics run by a Saudi doctor, which were not shown to be run by or affiliated with the Taliban. 2. Whether the district court erred as a matter of law when it concluded that the Government is authorized to detain indefinitely doctors and other medical workers if they were part of the Taliban.

The government, by contrast, describes the questions rather differently:

1) Whether the district court correctly held, based on Al Warafi's multiple statements that he traveled to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, received training at a Taliban paramilitary camp and at the front line in Northern Afghanistan, was assigned to a fighting unit at the front line, and retreated and surrendered with Taliban fighters after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, that Al Warafi was lawfully detained as part of Taliban forces. 2) Whether it was clearly erroneous for the district court to find that Al Warafi worked as a medic for Taliban forces only on an as-needed basis, rather than exclusively, and whether that finding, among other reasons, defeats Al Warafi's argument that he was a permanent medic entitled to be repatriated under provisions of the First Geneva Convention.