No Hearing Habeas: D.C. Circuit Restricts Meaningful Review

A return of the repressed: Symptom, fantasy and campaigns for justice for Guantánamo detainees post-2010

“…In doing so, the court, arguably, reshaped/lowered the standard of evidence the government has to produce as a justification for detention (Denniston, 2010). Prior to Al-Adahi , the detainees won 59% of the first 34 petitions, whereas they have lost 92% of cases since (Denbeaux and Hafetz, 2012). 1 In legal circles, Al-Adahi is considered a turning point, marking a change in courts’ attitude towards the detainees (Denbeaux and Hafetz, 2012).…”

“…Prior to Al-Adahi , the detainees won 59% of the first 34 petitions, whereas they have lost 92% of cases since (Denbeaux and Hafetz, 2012). 1 In legal circles, Al-Adahi is considered a turning point, marking a change in courts’ attitude towards the detainees (Denbeaux and Hafetz, 2012). The court’s decision did not only deny the habeas petition to Al-Adahi but, more importantly, it significantly lowered the standard of evidence the Government has to produce, adding ‘conditional probability’ to the evaluation of evidence.…”

“…This ruling, as Wagstaff (2014: 247) writes, questions the decision of the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush , which promised ‘a robust review of the legality of the Guantánamo detainees detention’. The Court of Appeals report revoked the meaningful review of the evidence and instead replaced a practice of careful juridical fact finding with a juridical defence of Government’s allegations, as Denbeaux and Hafetz (2012) explain.…”

“…While legal battles determining the rights of Guantánamo detainees and the political will penetrating court decisions are fascinating, my attention was caught by the relative silence of global civil society that accompanied the aforementioned Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Al-Adahi , in practice, contests the rights won by the detainees in Boumedience v. Bush , and as lawyers have argued, impairs legal scrutiny of Government’s reasons and evidence supporting individual detentions (Denbeaux and Hafetz, 2012; Denniston, 2010; Wagstaff, 2014). 2 Thus, a lack of public response to the decision in Al-Adahi comes as a surprise.…”