Hatim v. Gates
| Decision Date | 15 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–5048.,10–5048. |
| Citation | 632 F.3d 720 |
| Parties | Saeed Mohammed Saleh HATIM, Detainee, Camp Delta, et al., Appelleesv.Robert M. GATES, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:05–cv–01429).Sharon Swingle, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Ian Heath Gershengorn, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Robert M. Loeb, Attorney.Brian E. Foster argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were S. William Livingston, Alan A. Pemberton, and David H. Remes. Marc D. Falkoff entered an appearance.Before: HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judges.Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.PER CURIAM:
Saeed Mohammed Saleh Hatim, a Yemeni national, is a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The district court granted Hatim's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in December 2009. Hatim v. Obama, 677 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2009). After the district court entered its order, this court issued decisions inconsistent with several of the district court's legal premises. We see no useful purpose in reciting the evidence. The order granting the writ must be vacated and the case remanded. The district court candidly acknowledged as much when it issued a stay of its order pending this appeal.
The district court ruled that the military could detain only individuals who were “part of” al-Qaida or the Taliban; and that Hatim did not fit that description. That ruling is directly contrary to Al–Bihani v. Obama, which held that “those who purposefully and materially support” al-Qaida or the Taliban could also be detained. 590 F.3d 866, 872 (D.C.Cir.2010). Hatim admits the error, but says it was harmless. We cannot see how. As the district court stated in issuing the stay, Al–Bihani “calls into question” a “key determination[ ]” upon which the order rested.
The district court also ruled that in order to detain Hatim the government had to prove that he was part of the “command structure” of al-Qaida or the Taliban. Our intervening decisions in Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718, 725 (D.C.Cir.2010), and Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C.Cir.2010), held that although it is sufficient to show that an individual is in the command structure, such a showing is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatim v. Obama (In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig.)
...The D.C. Circuit vacated Judge Urbina's order on February 15, 2011 and remanded the case for further proceedings. Hatim v. Gates, 632 F.3d 720, 721 (D.C.Cir.2011) (per curiam). Hatim's case was subsequently reassigned due to Judge Urbina's retirement, and this Court entered a scheduling ord......
-
Latif v. Obama
...v. Obama, 764 F.Supp.2d 60, 66–67 & n. 8 (D.D.C.2011); Hatim v. Obama, 677 F.Supp.2d 1, 10 (D.D.C.2009), vacated on other grounds, 632 F.3d 720 (D.C.Cir.2011); Ahmed v. Obama, 613 F.Supp.2d 51, 54–55 (D.D.C.2009). But see, e.g., Al Kandari v. United States, 744 F.Supp.2d 11, 19–20 (D.D.C.20......
-
Hedges v. Obama
...78, 85 (D.D.C.2009) (Kollar–Kotelly, J.); Hatim v. Obama, 677 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.2009) (Urbina, J.), vacated sub nom. Hatim v. Gates, 632 F.3d 720 (D.C.Cir.2011); Awad v. Obama, 646 F.Supp.2d 20, 23 (D.D.C.2009) (Robertson, J.). 56.590 F.3d 866 (D.C.Cir.2010). 57.Id. at 869. 58.Id. at 87......
-
Latif v. Obama
...v. Obama, 764 F.Supp.2d 60, 66–67 & n. 8 (D.D.C.2011); Hatim v. Obama, 677 F.Supp.2d 1, 10 (D.D.C.2009), vacated on other grounds, 632 F.3d 720 (D.C.Cir.2011); Ahmed v. Obama, 613 F.Supp.2d 51, 54–55 (D.D.C.2009). But see, e.g., Al Kandari v. United States, 744 F.Supp.2d 11, 19–20 (D.D.C.20......