Jihad Ahmed Mustafa Dhiab

His wife, Yusra al-Hussein, was apprehended and held in extrajudicial detention in Syria in July 2008.[6] Amnesty International reports she was released on July 22, 2009.[7]

Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held in a 3x5 meter trailer where the captive sat with his hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor.[9][10]

Following the Supreme Court's ruling the Department of Defense set up the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants.[8][11]

A Summary of Evidence memo was prepared for his Combatant Status Review Tribunal on 2004-09-25.[12] The memo listed nine allegations:

The Summary of Evidence memos prepared for his 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 Administrative Review Board hearings have been published.[13][14][15][16] Among the allegations he faced were:

• that he had hosted Abu Musab Al Zarqawi to stay in his house;
• that he was an expert forger;
• that he was a member of Asbat Al Ansar;
• that he had wanted to attend the Khalden training camp, but attended the Khandahar airport camp instead;
• some senior al Qaida members resented his assumption that he could attend an al Qaida camp without being vetted;
• some senior al Qaida members were suspicious of him because of his ties to takfiris;

Dhiab had a writ of habeas corpus petition filed on his behalf.[17] 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.[18] 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. The judges considering the captives' habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification of "enemy combatant".[19]

On April 25, 2011, whistleblower organization WikiLeaks published formerly secret assessments drafted by Joint Task Force Guantanamo analysts.[20][21] His Joint Task Force Guantanamo assessment was drafted on April 21, 2008.[22]

In 2009 the U.S. government cleared Dhiab for release.[23] He was ultimately released in December 2014.[23] During the interim years, Dhiab protested his continued detention by going on hunger strike, in response to which the government subjected Dhiab to forced cell extractions and force-feeding techniques.[23]

In 2013, Dhiab, represented by Alka Pradhan and the human rights organization Reprieve, sought an injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to stop the government from force-feeding him.[23] In October 2014, District Judge Gladys Kessler determined that she had no jurisdiction over confinement conditions at Guantanamo.[24] After the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that theory, Dhiab again sought an injunction to stop the force feedings.[23] In November 2014, District Judge Kessler again denied Dhiab relief.[25]

However, in the course of discovery, the government disclosed that it had recorded itself force-feeding Dhiab and classified the videotapes as "SECRET".[23] Sixteen news organizations intervened seeking access to the tapes of Dhiab being force-fed.[23] In October 2014, District Judge Kessler ordered the tapes unsealed.[26]

The D.C. Circuit, in an unsigned opinion joined by Chief Circuit Judge Merrick Garland, determined it did not yet have jurisdiction over the interlocutory order but encouraged the district court to consider additional declarations made by the government.[27] In December 2015, District Judge Kessler again ordered the tapes to be redacted and unsealed.[28]

In March 2017, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the tapes remain secret, with the panel unanimously voting to reverse but with each of the three judges providing different reasons in separate opinions.[29] Senior Judge A. Raymond Randolph argued that the press has no right to access classified court filings made by prisoners petitioning for habeas corpus and that the lower court clearly erred by not deferring to declarations by Rear Admirals Kyle Cozad and Richard W. Butler asserting a national security threat.[23] Judge Judith W. Rogers argued that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the public a qualified right to access prisoners' court filings but agreed that the government had identified a national security interest justifying secrecy.[23] Senior Judge Stephen F. Williams also agreed that national security justified secrecy but questioned if the government could logically keep all Guantanamo filings secret.[23]