The Obama-Gitmo myth

[Luminous Animal]

42. These are new rules implemented under the Obama admin Why can't you admit that

Everyone from Scotusblog, to Lawfare, to the NY Times, to Greenwald knows this. Everyone.

The lawyer may have only mentioned the 2004 MOU in his email but he also mentions the 2008 MOU in his lawsuit and specifically requests that the conditions of Judge Hogan's 2008 MOU continue (see bolded below).

You can read the petition here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:8BlTSlGHQIgJ:www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Motion-re-Protective-Order-Esmail-July-9-2012-ALL-AS-FILED.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShqpZ6XBUUhx1Cr6sP4dPswaLAXOeWnJA6ryeNjpGJWCcnpyiwc4P7TZ-ayFkjX0hHsAv5107fpxSlh5drv0qL9Kj88sExBXtsx4W5ISv2YaEvJXPFKHCkf3ughbkFIPsCcG6jA&sig=AHIEtbTBprInuuoLjiTPQB5d6lncCdE8eQ

The undersigned represent numerous Guantánamo detainees. For nearly eight years,

their access to and communications with their clients have been governed by two protective

orders—first, by an order issued by Judge Joyce Hens Green in November 2004, and second,

by a similar order issued by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on September 11, 2008 (“Protective

Order”).

On April 8, 2010, Judge Henry H. Kennedy denied the petition for habeas corpus of

our client Yasein Khasem Mohammad Esmail (ISN 522). Abdah v. Obama, 709 F. Supp. 2d

Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1001 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 10

25 (D.D.C. 2010). On April 8, 2011, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the denial. Esmail v. Obama,

639 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Counsel last met with Esmail, under the Protective Order, on

July 21, 2011.

When counsel most recently sought to meet with Esmail, in May 2012, the

Government took the position that Esmail no longer had the right to meet with counsel, on the

asserted ground that his habeas case had been “terminated.” The Government took the

position that counsel may not visit Esmail unless counsel signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (“MOU”). The MOU would replace the system of access to counsel provided

by Judge Hogan’s Protective Order, which is subject to judicial supervision, with a system

purporting to give the Commander, Joint Task Force–Guantanamo (“JTF”), absolute,

unreviewable control over such access. Rather than accede, counsel refused to sign the MOU

and, accordingly, were not permitted to meet with Esmail.

This motion seeks a ruling that Judge Hogan’s Protective Order continues to apply to

Esmail, that the Government may not condition Esmail’s access to counsel on counsel’s

submission to the new MOU, and that the Government’s refusal to permit Esmail to have

access to counsel under Judge Hogan’s Protective Order is a violation of that Order.