The Case of Shawali Khan, an Afghan in Guantánamo, Sold to US Forces 10 Years Ago


As published on the “Close Guantánamo” website. Please join us — just an email address required.

Here at “Close Guantánamo,” we have been watching with interest the ongoing negotiations regarding five of the 17 remaining Afghan prisoners at Guantánamo. In December, it was revealed that, for the previous ten months, the US government and the Taliban had been conducting secret negotiations, and that the US was considering releasing the five men from Guantánamo, all of whom were allegedly significant Taliban prisoners.

It was not until January that it became clear that the men were to be exchanged for a US prisoner, Bowe Bergdahl, a 25-year-old US Army sergeant from Hailey, Idaho, who was taken prisoner on June 30, 2009 in Afghanistan, and that the negotiations would involve the five Taliban prisoners being released in Qatar, where they would be held under a form of house arrest, and, at the prisoners’ request, would be reunited with their families.

These releases are now on hold, as the Taliban suspended negotiations with the US last week, following the killing of 16 civilians, including nine children, by Staff Sgt. Robert Bales.

However, what has been lost in all the discussions about the five men are the stories of the 12 other Afghan prisoners in Guantánamo, who have no one significant to negotiate for them. With perhaps just one exception — an alleged “high-value detainee” named Muhammad Rahim, who arrived at Guantánamo in 2008 — these men are such insignificant prisoners that, if they had been held at Bagram, instead of being flown to Guantánamo, they would now be free men.

As it is, however, they have been facing a rigged habeas corpus process, subverted by right-wing judges who have ordered the lower courts to accept anything presented by the government as reliable evidence, thereby gutting habeas corpus of any meaning. In a few cases, they have also been put forward for trials by military commission, even though their supposed “war crimes” consisted of nothing more than allegedly being involved in minor aspects of insurgent activities in their homeland.

In the weeks to come, we will be covering some of these stories, and we are delighted to be starting with the story of Shawali Khan, as told by one of his attorneys, Len Goodman.

The Case of Shawali Khan
By Len Goodman

Shawali Khan is one of the 171 men being indefinitely detained at Guantánamo Bay. He has been there now for more than nine years. He has never been charged with a crime. Moreover, the evidence against Khan is so weak that if this case were in the US court system, this evidence would be insufficient to even support an arrest warrant. Yet, because Khan is alleged to be al-Qaeda, the US Courts have found that the government may detain him indefinitely.

Khan is an uneducated Afghan man in his late forties who grew up on a pomegranate farm outside of Kandahar. About a year before 9/11, after a drought destroyed their crops, Khan moved with his father and brother to Kandahar City where he found work as a shopkeeper. In November of 2002, Khan was captured by Afghan warlords and sold to the Americans. At this time, the Americans were paying bounties of about $10,000 to Afghans who turned in al-Qaeda fighters. No actual evidence or corroboration was required.

Khan was subsequently sent to Gitmo based on the word of a single informant that he was an al-Qaeda fighter. The fact that Kandahar in 2002 was considered “Taliban Central” and had no known al-Qaeda presence was overlooked or ignored by American intelligence officials who were eager to fill empty cages at Gitmo.

Khan was finally granted a habeas corpus hearing in the spring of 2010, his eighth year of captivity. The government called no witnesses but merely introduced “intelligence reports” which indicated that an unidentified Afghan informant had told an unidentified American intelligence officer that Khan was an al-Qaeda-linked insurgent.

The federal appellate courts have ruled in the Gitmo cases that the government’s evidence must be presumed accurate. To try and refute this evidence, my co-counsel and I demanded the informant’s file to determine how much cash he was paid and what kind of track record and reputation he had for truth telling. Government counsel declared that the file was “not reasonably available.” We then asked for the name of the informant so that we could conduct our own investigation. But the government refused to declassify the informant’s name, thus prohibiting us from speaking it to our Afghan investigator, who was then in Kandahar interviewing Khan’s family and neighbors, or even to our client.

Despite these restrictions, we were able to raise enough doubts about the veracity of the informant to cause the Judge to insist on some corroboration from the government. Government counsel then advised the court that at the time of capture, Khan possessed a highly incriminating hand-written note. We demanded to see the note, given that Khan was functionally illiterate at the time of capture. The government said that the note was not preserved. But it did have an “intelligence report” which said that Khan had the note. So we asked to see the report to see if it was, as we suspected, based on information supplied from the informant. The government declared that the report had been classified above the level of our security clearance. We then proposed that our colleague, Joseph Margulies, who has the highest level security clearance, would sign on as co-counsel for Khan for the limited purpose of reviewing the secret report. The government then announced that it would provide a “summary” of the secret report which would be classified down to the security level of counsel. The court accepted this summary as corroboration of the informant and denied Khan’s habeas petition.

Because the government’s summary of its super-secret report describing the missing hand-written note remains classified, I can’t write about what it says. However, in April 2011, WikiLeaks released over the internet the official Department of Defense file on Khan, which the government quickly classified. While I can’t describe the contents of any classified material, I can report that Khan’s official file reveals that the government’s summary of its secret report is false. In September, we filed a motion demanding Khan’s release based on the fact that the government’s “corroboration” evidence was a fraud. This petition is currently sitting on the Judge’s desk. Presumably the Judge is struggling to reconcile the law which says the government’s evidence must be believed with the clear proof that government’s lawyers are lying about their evidence.

Len Goodman can be contacted here, and his website is herePlease also see this article that Len wrote recently for the magazine In These Times.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook, Twitter, Digg and YouTube). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in June 2011, “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” a 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011, and details about the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and available on DVD here — or here for the US). Also see my definitive Guantánamo habeas list and the chronological list of all my articles, and please also consider joining the new “Close Guantánamo campaign,” and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

10 Responses

  1. Andy Worthington says...

    Please do join us at “Close Guantanamo” — just an email address required:

  2. Andy Worthington says...

    Iman El-Maghribi wrote:

    done Andy

  3. Andy Worthington says...

    Thanks, Iman. That’s great. Always happy to have more people signing up.

  4. Andy Worthington says...

    AniTa Hdz wrote:


  5. Andy Worthington says...

    Star Dust wrote:

    I posted this on and trying to put on as well

  6. Andy Worthington says...

    Thanks, Anita. And Star, thanks also for the Digg! I feel like I’m missing some sort of “Prisoner of the Day” or “Prisoner of the Week” option here, when getting these stories out. Anyway, Mr. Shawali Khan, today is your day.

  7. Andy Worthington says...

    Gharghasht Gharghakht wrote:

    Thanks Andy Worthington… Obama is more dangerous than Bush…

  8. Andy Worthington says...

    Yes, in many ways you’re right, Gharghasht. Bush knew that what his administration was doing was exceptional, but justified it becasue Cheney and the lawyers told him it was OK to do. Under pressure, however, he began to back down in his second term. Obama, however, has normalized much of it, has stepped up drone attacks and extrajudicial executions as an alternative to capture and detention, has refused to hold anyone accountable for anything, and has treated a monstrous aberration — Guantanamo — as though it was actually some sort of law enforcement affair. It’s pretty disgraceful.

  9. Mark Erickson says...

    You know I’m sympathetic, but Goodman’s short piece has several errors – based on the appeal decision (can you post a link to the district decision?)

    First, Khan was accused of being a part of HIG, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s group. Yes, there are many absurdities about HIG being an associated force, and whether HIG was even present in Kandahar in 2002, much less than Khan being proved a part of HIG, but its just incorrect to say he’s accused of being a part of al Qaeda.

    Second, the appeal said there were three informants. Khan asserted all three were based on one sub-informant, but the appeal didn’t mention any evidence of it that Khan offered. BTW, the appeal said it doesn’t matter if it was one sub-informant. Even worse: “Since Parhat, we have repeatedly held that ‘the fact that the district court generally relied on items of evidence that contained hearsay is of no consequence[;] [t]o show error in the court’s reliance on hearsay evidence, the habeas petitioner must establish not that it is hearsay, but that it is unreliable hearsay.’ ” Uff-da!

    Third, “The federal appellate courts have ruled in the Gitmo cases that the government’s evidence must be presumed accurate.” Not exactly – the government’s recording of what it was told should be presumed accurate, based on Latif (it pains me to link to it, but the money quote is easily found at Lawfare) More importantly, Latif was issued in November 2011, after Khan’s appeal was issued. So this issue doesn’t concern Khan, especially because the recording Army intelligence guys filed declarations about their reports (I know, 8 years later). It’s too bad that the first sentence is misleading, because the rest of the paragraph is good stuff.

    The hand written note wasn’t addressed in the appeal. Other evidence it did mention was jihad-type materials in Arabic taken from Khan’s house.

    The government’s case stinks to high heaven. But that is an excellent reason to be accurate in telling Khan’s story.

  10. Andy Worthington says...

    Thanks, Mark. The lamentable District Court ruling is here:
    I take your point, and I have to say that there are few people paying as much attention as you. Perhaps you could email your points to Len, and see what his response is.

Leave a Reply



Back to the top

Back to home page

Andy Worthington

Investigative journalist, author, campaigner, commentator and public speaker. Recognized as an authority on Guantánamo and the “war on terror.” Co-founder, Close Guantánamo and We Stand With Shaker. Also, photo-journalist (The State of London), and singer and songwriter (The Four Fathers).
Email Andy Worthington

CD: Love and War

The Four Fathers on Bandcamp

The Guantánamo Files book cover

The Guantánamo Files

The Battle of the Beanfield book cover

The Battle of the Beanfield

Stonehenge: Celebration & Subversion book cover

Stonehenge: Celebration & Subversion

Outside The Law DVD cover

Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo


Posts & Comments

World Wide Web Consortium



Powered by WordPress

Designed by Josh King-Farlow

Please support Andy Worthington, independent journalist:


In Touch

Follow me on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Subscribe to me on YouTubeSubscribe to me on YouTube

The State of London

The State of London. 16 photos of London

Andy's Flickr photos



Tag Cloud

Afghans in Guantanamo Al-Qaeda Andy Worthington British prisoners Center for Constitutional Rights CIA torture prisons Close Guantanamo Donald Trump Four Fathers Guantanamo Housing crisis Hunger strikes London Military Commission NHS NHS privatisation Periodic Review Boards Photos President Obama Reprieve Shaker Aamer The Four Fathers Torture UK austerity UK protest US courts Video We Stand With Shaker WikiLeaks Yemenis in Guantanamo