“predicted] the Boumediene decision long before it came down” and made his detention decisions on the basis of that prediction. Id. at 99. In these appeals, however, the Appellants claim that their argument is no longer naked speculation but is supported by evidence that the President chose to detain them at Bagram in order to evade habeas review. First, relying on two conclusory declarations from former Executive Branch officials, they contend that the United States originally chose Guantanamo and Bagram as detention sites in part to avoid judicial review. Second, relying primarily on news reports, they allege that transfers from Bagram to Guantanamo declined while transfers to Bagram from Guantanamo increased after Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 124 S.Ct. 2686, 159 L.Ed.2d 548 (2004) (<HOLDING>), demonstrating that the Government detains
holding that statutory habeas jurisdiction extended to guantanamo holding that federal courts have statutory habeas jurisdiction over petitions filed by guantanamo detainees holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts