“ Although relying on the APA's waiver for agencies, the detainees do not identify which “agency” of the United States they have in mind. They have sued the President in each case, but the President is not an “agency” under the APA and the waiver of sovereign immunity thus does not apply to him. ”

“ While intended to show that a Combatant Status Review Tribunal is not an “agency” for the purposes of § 2112 (b) , it indicates the opposite. In Title 28, “‘agency’ includes any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States . . . unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense.” 28 Yet neither of the panel’s two opinions even mentions Rule 16 (a) or § 2112 (a) . ”

“ The district court ruled, in an alternative holding, that because of the military function exclusion, the APA does not waive sovereign immunity. Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55, 64 n.10 (D.D.C. 2002) . I believe this is correct.
Each of the detainees, according to their pleadings, was taken into custody by American armed forces “in the field in time of war.” I believe they remain in custody “in the field in time of war.” ”

“ In context it is clear as a bell that the “evidence” in the regulation and in the Act means the evidence before the Tribunal, not some pile of information the Recorder decided not to present. The panel thus erred in saying that to determine whether there was enough evidence to support the Tribunal’s decision, the court had to look through information the Tribunal never saw. ↑ 5The government predicts that for each detainee, the record envisioned by the panel will consist of “hundreds of thousands [] of documents.” ”