Muktar Yahya Najee al Warafi was held at Guantanamo from 2002 to January 13, 2016.[2][3]
Official status reviews
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.[4]
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:[8]
Muktar Yahya Najee Al Warafi was listed as one of the captives who "The military alleges ... are associated with the Taliban."[8]
Muktar Yahya Najee Al Warafi was listed as one of the captives who was a foreign fighter.[8]
Muktar Yahya Najee Al Warafi was listed as one of "36 [captives who] openly admit either membership or significant association with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or some other group the government considers militarily hostile to the United States."[8]
In 2015, Warafi's lawyers challenged his detention following a statement by PresidentBarack Obama, that US involvement in hostilities in Afghanistan were over.[9] They argued that the detention of individuals in Guantanamo was only valid while hostilities were ongoing.[10] On July 30, 2015, US District Court JudgeRoyce Lamberth ruled that, without regard to the Obama's comment, hostilities were still ongoing in Afghanistan, so Warafi's detention remained legal.[11][12]
A court cannot look to political speeches alone to determine factual and legal realities merely because doing so would be easier than looking at all the relevant evidence. The government may not always mean what it says or say what it means.
One of Warafi's lawyers, Brian Foster, called Lamberth's opinion "rubber stamp for endless detention".[11]
Formerly secret Joint Task Force Guantanamo assessment
^ abCharlie Savage (2016-01-14). "Guantánamo Population Drops to 93 after 10 Prisoners Go to Oman". New York Times. Retrieved 2016-01-14. Oman, which shares a border with Yemen, also took in 10 lower-level detainees in 2015. Its acceptance of 20 men over the past 13 months has significantly aided the Obama administration's goal of repatriating or resettling all the men who have been recommended for transfer, most of whom have been languishing with that status since at least 2009 when a six-agency task force unanimously approved letting them go.
^ 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.
^
Marty Lederman (2015-05-27). "Understanding the "end of war" dispute in the al Warafi habeas case". Just Security. Retrieved 2016-09-27. As I have previously explained, al Warafi argues that because he is detained as a member of the Taliban's armed forces, and because the United States and the Taliban are no longer in an armed conflict with one another, the government's domestic law authority to detain al Warafi has expired.
^ ab"US judge rejects Guantánamo detainee's unlawful imprisonment challenge". The Guardian. 2015-07-30. A court cannot look to political speeches alone to determine factual and legal realities merely because doing so would be easier than looking at all the relevant evidence," Lamberth wrote. "The government may not always mean what it says or say what it means.
^"Obama's War Continues at Guantanamo". Bloomberg News. 2015-08-03. Retrieved 2016-09-27. It may come as a surprise to Barack Obama that the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces does not necessarily get to decide when a war is over.