Guantanamo detainees see legal progress reversed

Guantanamo Bay detainees have lost a series of court battles over the past 18 months as appellate judges in Washington have repeatedly sided with government lawyers and against suspected militants seeking to win their freedom.

The U.S. Court of Appeals has not affirmed a single decision ordering the release of a detainee, nor has it reversed any decision that favored government lawyers. The Justice Department even won a case in June in which it had little expectation of victory.

Video

The Washington Post's Anqoinette Crosby sits down with reporter Peter Finn to discuss the impact recent government rulings will have on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, as well as whether President Obama's campaign promise of closing the detention center will materialize.

Video

In an interview with The Associated Press, President Barack Obama spoke about the situation in Libya, pulling troops out of Afghanistan and whether the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay should be closed. (April 15)

More on this Story

• Interactive: Tour Guantanamo Bay
• Guantanamo Bay detainees' family members may be allowed to visit
• Photos: Inside Guantanamo Bay
• More stories from around the world

View all Items in this Story

A 2008 Supreme Court decision allowing those held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their detention was followed by an initial round of district court rulings that ordered the release of dozens of terrorism suspects after the government’s evidence was found wanting.

But the more recent appeals court decisions, which have drawn little attention, have scuttled that trend as circuit judges have displayed more skepticism about detainees’ stories. That has meant an easing of pressure on the Obama administration to resettle or repatriate the men.

“I doubt any of my colleagues will vote to grant a petition if he or she believes that it is somewhat likely that the petitioner is an al-Qaeda adherent or an active supporter,” Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote in April.

The appeals court has not only reversed judgments against the government but has also compelled the lower courts to assess evidence in a manner that is much more sympathetic to government arguments. In one ruling, the appellate judges said the lower courts should consider that “two unreliable pieces of information may corroborate each other.”

“The D.C. Circuit is much more deferential to the government than the district courts are, on average,” said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has written extensively on detention issues. “And there is a tolerance for the idea that these judgments may end up being imperfect.”

A lower bar

These cases often turn on whether prosecutors can prove that a “preponderance of evidence” shows that a detainee was “a part of or substantially supported” al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and was in the armed forces of one of those groups when captured.

That burden of proof is significantly lower than what is required in criminal courts, where evidence must be “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But even so, prosecutors in the detainee cases often failed the “preponderance of evidence” standard, according to U.S. district court judges in Washington, where 38 detainees won their cases.

Many more cases from among the 170 detainees remaining at the Guantanamo Bay military prison are in the pipeline, but now the government is winning.

In one case, Hussain Salem Mohammed Almerfedi, a Yemeni who was arrested in Iran and turned over to Afghan authorities and then to the United States, argued that he was an economic refugee who was attempting to get to Western Europe when he was picked up by the Iranians in late 2001.

In July 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled that the evidence against Almerfedi was too weak to justify his continued detention.