Originally the BushPresidency asserted that captives apprehended in the "war on terror" were not covered by the Geneva Conventions, and could be held indefinitely, without charge, and without an open and transparent review of the justifications for their detention.[6]
In 2004 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Rasul v. Bush, that Guantanamo captives were entitled to being informed of the allegations justifying their detention, and were entitled to try to refute them.
Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants
Scholars at the Brookings Institution, led by Benjamin Wittes, listed the captives still held in Guantanamo in December 2008, according to whether their detention was justified by certain common allegations:[10]
Wali Mohammed was listed as one of the captives who "The military alleges ... fought for the Taliban."[10]
On May 29, 2018, Missy Ryan, of The Washington Post described the conditions Mohammed and other individuals formerly held in Guantanamo experienced in their UAE rehabilitation centre.[19] Just as at Guantanamo, Mohammed and the other men were allowed very little contact with their family. Rare phone calls could last no more than five minutes, and officials who were listening in would often terminate the calls early, without warning. Unlike Guantanamo the men were not allowed visits from their lawyers, and the centre's location was a secret. Mohammed's son Abdul Musawer told Ryan his father was "very hopeless".
^"Detainee Transfers Announced". US Department of Defense. 2017-01-19. Retrieved 2017-01-20. The Department of Defense announced today the transfer of three detainees: Ravil Mingazov, Haji Wali Muhammed, and Yassim Qasim Mohammed Ismail Qasim from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to the government of the United Arab Emirates.
^ ab"U.S. military reviews 'enemy combatant' use". USA Today. 2007-10-11. Archived from the original on 2007-10-23. Critics called it an overdue acknowledgment that the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals are unfairly geared toward labeling detainees the enemy, even when they pose little danger. Simply redoing the tribunals won't fix the problem, they said, because the system still allows coerced evidence and denies detainees legal representation.