Razakah v. Bush

Razakah v. Bush(Civil Action No. 05-cv-2370)is a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of several Guantanamo captives including two Uyghur captives in Guantanamo, Abdul Razakah and Ahmad Tourson.

eizure of privileged lawyer-client documents

On June 10 2006 the Department of Defense reported that three captives died in custody.The Department of Defense stated the three men committed suicide.Camp authorities called the deaths "an act of assymetric warfare", and suspected plans had been coordinated by the captive's attorneys -- so they seized all the captives' documents, including the captives' copies of their habeas documents.cite web
url=http://www.pegc.us/archive/OK_v_Bush/govt_resp_to_GK_20060815.pdf
title=Respondents' response to Court's August 7, 2006 order
date=August 15 2006
publisher=United States Department of Defense
accessdate=2008-06-23 [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pegc.us%2Farchive%2FOK_v_Bush%2Fgovt_resp_to_GK_20060815.pdf&date=2008-08-18 mirror] ] Since the habeas documents were privileged lawyer-client communication the Department of Justice was compelled to file documents about the document seizures."Ahmad Doe" and "Abdur Razakah" were two of the captives whose privileged documents were seized.

Military Commissions Act

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 mandated that Guantanamo captives were no longer entitled to access the US civil justice system, so all outstanding habeas corpus petitions were stayed.cite news
url=http://natseclaw.typepad.com/natseclaw/files/Hamdan.28j.letter.pdf
title=NOTICE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006
publisher=United States Department of Justice
author=Peter D. Keisler, Douglas N. Letter
date=2006-10-16
accessdate=2008-09-30
quote= [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnatseclaw.typepad.com%2Fnatseclaw%2Ffiles%2FHamdan.28j.letter.pdf&date=2008-09-30 mirror] ]

Boumediene v. Bush

On June 12 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated.

Habeas re-instated

On July 9 2008 US District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan consolidated the cases of the Uyghur captives in 05-1509, 05-1602, 05-1704, 05=2370, 05-2386, 05-2398.cite web
url=http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/44/0.pdf
title=Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation: Doc 44 -- Thomas F. Hogan's Order
publisher=United States Department of Justice
author=
date=
accessdate=2008-08-20
quote= [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fdistrict-courts%2Fdistrict-of-columbia%2Fdcdce%2F1%3A2008mc00442%2F131990%2F44%2F0.pdf&date=2008-09-30 mirror] ]

On July 18 2008 George M. Clarke III filed a "UIGHUR PETITIONERS’ STATUS REPORT" on behalf of the Uyghur captives in Guantanamo, who had petitions filed in habeas cases: Civil Action No. 05-1509, Civil Action No. 05-1602, Civil Action No. 05-1704, Civil Action No. 05-2370, Civil Action No. 05-2386, Civil Action No. 05-2398.cite web
url=http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/96/0.pdf
title=Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation: Doc 96 -- UIGHUR PETITIONERS’ STATUS REPORT
publisher=United States Department of Justice
author=George M. Clarke III
date=2008-08-18
accessdate=2008-08-22
quote= [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fdistrict-courts%2Fdistrict-of-columbia%2Fdcdce%2F1%3A2008mc00442%2F131990%2F96%2F0.pdf&date=2008-08-22 mirror] ]

On July 22 2008 Clarke filed a "UIGHUR PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF FILING".cite web
url=http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/171/0.pdf
title=Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation: Doc 171 -- UIGHUR PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF FILING
publisher=United States Department of Justice
author=George M. Clarke III
date=July 22 2008
accessdate=2008-09-30
quote= [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fdistrict-courts%2Fdistrict-of-columbia%2Fdcdce%2F1%3A2008mc00442%2F131990%2F171%2F0.pdf&date=2008-09-30 mirror] ] Clarke's notice of filing notified: "...the Court and opposing counsel that counsel has delivered to the custody of the Court Security Officer, Uighur Petitioners’ Motion to Use CSRT Records Provided in DTA Action in This Case."

On August 19 2008 Gregory G. Katsas a United States Department of Justice official, filed a "Joint Status Report" with the captives' counsel.cite web
url=http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/272/0.pdf
title=Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation: Doc 272 -- Joint Status Report
publisher=United States Department of Justice
author=Gregory G. Katsas
date=2008-08-19
accessdate=2008-08-21
quote= [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fdistrict-courts%2Fdistrict-of-columbia%2Fdcdce%2F1%3A2008mc00442%2F131990%2F272%2F0.pdf&date=2008-08-21 mirror] ] The Joint motion set the dates at which the Department of Justice agreed to provide "factual returns".

Originally, in July 2008, all the other Uyghur habeas petitions were to be merged, except for Razakah v. Bush, which was to remain solely before US District Court Judge Thomas Sullivan. But by September 2008, Razakah v. Bush was also to be merged with the other Uyghur petitions.

References