Originally, the BushPresidency asserted that captives apprehended in the "war on terror" were not covered by the Geneva Conventions, and could be held indefinitely, without charge, and without an open and transparent review of the justifications for their detention.[9]
In 2004, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Rasul v. Bush, that Guantanamo captives were entitled to being informed of the allegations justifying their detention, and were entitled to try to refute them.
Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants
Scholars at the Brookings Institution, led by Benjamin Wittes, listed the captives still held in Guantanamo in December 2008, according to whether their detention was justified by certain common allegations:[13]
Mahmoud Abd Al Aziz Abd Al Mujahid was listed as one of the captives who "The military alleges ... are associated with Al Qaeda."[13]
Mahmoud Abd Al Aziz Abd Al Mujahid was listed as one of the captives who "The military alleges that the following detainees were captured under circumstances that strongly suggest belligerency."[13]
Mahmoud Abd Al Aziz Abd Al Mujahid was listed as one of the captives who "The military alleges ... served on Osama Bin Laden’s security detail."[13]
Mahmoud Abd Al Aziz Abd Al Mujahid was listed as one of the captives who was an "al Qaeda operative".[13]
Mahmoud Abd Al Aziz Abd Al Mujahid was listed as one of the captives who had "denied all the government allegations."[13]
^Carol Rosenberg (2013-06-17). "FOAI suit reveals Guantanamo's 'indefinite detainees'". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-11-21. Retrieved 2016-08-18. The Miami Herald's Carol Rosenberg, with the assistance of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at the Yale Law School, filed suit in federal court in Washington D.C., in March for the list under the Freedom of Information Act. The students, in collaboration with Washington attorney Jay Brown, represented Rosenberg in a lawsuit that specifically sought the names of the 46 surviving prisoners.
^ ab"U.S. military reviews 'enemy combatant' use". USA Today. 2007-10-11. Archived from the original on 2007-10-23. Critics called it an overdue acknowledgment that the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals are unfairly geared toward labeling detainees the enemy, even when they pose little danger. Simply redoing the tribunals won't fix the problem, they said, because the system still allows coerced evidence and denies detainees legal representation.