Summary

Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah v. USA…

The Court agrees that the President has the authority to detain individuals who are "part of' the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated enemy forces, but rejects the Government's definition insofar as it asserts the authority to detain individuals who only "substantially supported" enemy forces or who have "directly supported hostilities" in aid of enemy forces. While evidence of such support is undoubtedly probative of whether an individual is part of an enemy force, it may not by itself provide the grounds for detention.
Source: Wikisource

Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah v. USA…

Al Rabiah's confessions all follow the same pattern: Interrogators first explain to Al Rabiah the "evidence" they have in their possession (and that, at the time, they likely believed to be true) . Al Rabiah then requests time to pray (or to think more about the evidence) before making a "full" confession.
Source: Wikisource

Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah v. USA…

Finally, after a period of time, Al Rabiah provides a full confession to the evidence through elaborate and incredible explanations that the interrogators themselves do not believe. This pattern began with his confession that he met with Usama bin Laden, continued with his confession that he undertook a leadership role in Tora Bora, and repeated itself multiple other times with respect to "evidence" that the Government has not even attempted to rely on as reliable or credible. The Court shall describe these confessions in turn.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature