Reply Brief available for Alsabri v. Obama

Petitioner's opening brief demonstrated that the district court's ruling was rife with error. In response, the govemment makes little attempt to dispute these points. Instead, Respondents argue that these errors should be ignored. Respondents essentially ask this Court to view each error in isolation -ignoring each error's influence on the district court's other findings and ignoring the cumulative effect of these mistakes. However, it is evident from the court's decision that these errors played an important role in the court's assessment of Alsabri's conduct in Yemen, as well as his reasons for traveling to Afghanistan and his alleged conduct after he arrived there. Thus, for example, the court's mistaken belief that Petitioner did not dispute that he was listed on a "training roster" certainly influenced the court's finding that Alsabri obtained military training. Respondents' opposition also does little to justify the district court's failure to address evidence favorable to Petitioner. The district court's obligation to view the evidence "as a whole" certainly encompassed a requirement to consider exculpatory evidence, as well as interrogation reports that were inconsistent with the reports relied upon by the court. The record does not support the district court's finding that Alsabri is properly subject to detention under the AUMF. The uncontested evidence presented in this case demonstrates that guesthouse presence and military training in Afghanistan does not establish that a detainee was part of al-Qaida or the Taliban. In addition, Alsabri cannot properly be detained simply by virtue of his short visit, months before the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, to the area where Taliban forces were position against the Northern Alliance. The district court's finding to the contrary was infected by factual error and based on nothing more than speculation.