Huzaifa Parhat not an enemy combatant

[Peter F]

A Guatanamo baby-killer worst-of-the-worst terrorist appealed the Combat Status Review Tribunal ruling that classified him as an enemy combatant. Claiming the evidence presented to the Tribunal did not support the Tribunals decision.

An actual court with actual judges actually agreed and actually ordered the government to release the murderous scum or conduct a new CSRT presenting the best evidence available as to why the murderous scum should be considered an enemy combatant.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

the principal evidence against Parhat regarding the second and third elements of DOD’s definition of enemy combatant consists of four government intelligence documents. The documents make assertions -- often in haec verba -- about activities undertaken by ETIM, and about that organization’s relationship to al Qaida and the Taliban. The documents repeatedly describe those activities and relationships as having “reportedly” occurred, as being “said to” or “reported to” have happened, and as things that “may” be true or are“suspected of” having taken place. But in virtually every instance, the documents do not say who “reported” or “said” or “suspected” those things.

Nor do they provide any of the underlying reporting upon which the documents’ bottom-line assertions are founded, nor any assessment of the reliability of that reporting. Because of those omissions, the Tribunal could not and this court cannot assess the reliability of the assertions

in the documents. And because of this deficiency, those bare assertions cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant.

First, the government suggests that several of the assertions in the intelligence documents are reliable because they are made

in at least three different documents. We are not persuaded. Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has

“said it thrice” does not make an allegation true. See LEWIS CARROLL, THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK 3 (1876) (“I have said

it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”). In fact, we have no basis for concluding that there are independent sources for

the documents’ thrice-made assertions. To the contrary, as noted in Part III, many of those assertions are made in identical

language, suggesting that later documents may merely be citing earlier ones, and hence that all may ultimately derive from a

single source....

Other assertions in the documents may ultimately rely on interview reports (not provided to the Tribunal) of Uighur detainees, who may have

had no first-hand knowledge and whose speculations may have been transformed into certainties in the course of being repeated

by report writers.

and my personal favorite quote:

Second, the government insists that the statements made in the documents are reliable because the State and Defense

Departments would not have put them in intelligence documents were that not the case.

This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true, thus rendering superfluous both the role of the Tribunal and the role that Congress assigned to this court.

and

In this opinion, we neither prescribe nor proscribe possible ways in which the government may demonstrate the reliability

of its evidence. We merely reject the government’s contention that it can prevail by submitting documents that read as if they

were indictments or civil complaints, and that simply assert as facts the elements required to prove that a detainee falls within

the definition of enemy combatant. To do otherwise would require the courts to rubber-stamp the government’s charges, in

contravention of our understanding that Congress intended the court “to engage in meaningful review of the record.”

Whats the score now?

EDITED by MODERATOR:

The title of this thread has been edited to be more descriptive of the topic.

The old title used to be: Boing...Boing...Boing.., of Kangaroo's and the Rule of Law

Edit by PeterF:

I have no problem with moderator's changing thread titles, however I would like to point out that the Court did not determine that the terrorist was not[/] an enemy combatant but only that the CSRT failed to seriously consider the evidence presented; the veracity of that evidence and evidence in Parhat's favour was not presented. Parhat could very well be an 'enemy combatant' but considering the evidence presented the court could not support that determination. Thus ordering a proper 'do-over' CSRT or release the man.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Peter F
edited topic title

[BC_chick]

People first need to see others as a human beings before they would consider them worthy of human rights.

Didn't you know, it's perfectly reasonable to grab men from cultures where their wife/kids/elderly parents are relying on that man to survive.... as long as their detainment may one day save some westerner's life.... preferably a white one.

As they say, all men are created equal... just some are more equal than others.

[BC_chick]

PS, Charles, I don't think Peter was so much sharing the news of this certain political prisoner being found innocent as he was trying to make a statement about the legitimacy of military tribunals.

Can't you tweak a title without completely changing the initial assertion of the thread's author?

[Argus]

PS, Charles, I don't think Peter was so much sharing the news of this certain political prisoner being found innocent as he was trying to make a statement about the legitimacy of military tribunals.

Can't you tweak a title without completely changing the initial assertion of the thread's author?

It was a stupid title anyway, since it talked about a "kangaroo court" yet were that the case the tribunal would not have rejected the government's statements. Is that too self-evident for you Lefties to figure out?

But carry on. I know that the only genuine case of human rights abuses in the world today is the poor, innocent souls being held by the Americans - or those evil Israelis.

I bet the families being held in the squalid concentration camps of North Korea would like to be tried in such a "kangaroo court", or held in such safe, luxurious quarters.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Argus

[Fortunata]

They'll get Khadr and then everything will be ok ... justice will have been served. Vindication is mine says the USA government.

[M.Dancer]

It was a stupid title anyway, since it talked about a "kangaroo court" yet were that the case the tribunal would not have rejected the government's statements. Is that too self-evident for you Lefties to figure out?

The fringe left hasn't been interested in accuracy of labels since before the advent of the bumper sticker

[Peter F]

It was a stupid title anyway, since it talked about a "kangaroo court" yet were that the case the tribunal would not have rejected the government's statements. Is that too self-evident for you Lefties to figure out?

the CSRT accepted the government's statements and the guy has been held in luxurious Guatanamo Bay since 2002 because of it.

You can read, right?

Edited July 3, 2008 by Peter F

[Argus]

the CSRT accepted the government's statements and the guy has been held in luxurious Guatanamo Bay since 2002 because of it.

You can read, right?

Rephrase. The tribunal recommended he be released.

[Peter F]

Rephrase. The tribunal recommended he be released.

To quote from the judgement (italics mine)

...The Tribunal acknowledged, however, that “no source document evidence was introduced to indicate . . . that

the Detainee had actually joined ETIM, or that he himself had personally committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition partners.”

The grounds for the charges that ETIM was “associated” with al Qaida and the Taliban, and that it is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, were statements in classified documents that do not state (or, in most instances, even describe) the sources or rationales for those statements.

Notwithstanding its determination that Parhat was an enemy

combatant, the Tribunal stated that “this Detainee does present

an attractive candidate for release.”

...

the CSRT did not find him to be “an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaida forces,” Nor did it find that he “committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.”

To the contrary, it expressly found that he did not engage in hostilities against the United States or the Northern Alliance (an Afghani coalition partner of the United States), and declared that there was “no source document evidence . . . that the Detainee . . . himself had personally committed any hostile acts against the United States

or its coalition partners,”

The Tribunal nonetheless determined that Parhat was an enemy combatant.

It did so on the basis of the following finding: that Parhat “is affiliated with forces associated with al

Qaida and the Taliban (i.e., ‘the East Turkistan Islamic Movement,’) that are engaged in hostilities against the United States and its coalition partners.”

So the CSRT, as you say, recommended his release, then found him to be an enemy combatant anyway, and thier recommendation was ignored.

So what use is a CSRT? Who ignore's thier recommendations? Is there any validity to thier decisions at all?

[Argus]

To quote from the judgement (italics mine)

So the CSRT, as you say, recommended his release, then found him to be an enemy combatant anyway, and thier recommendation was ignored.

So what use is a CSRT? Who ignore's thier recommendations? Is there any validity to thier decisions at all?

I'm not addressing what use they are, merely that your description of it as a "Kangaroo Court" clearly was incorrect. A kangaroo court would have accepted everything the government said without any critique at all, and then recommended the person be imprisoned for a long time as a dangerous person. That is, after all, what kangaroo courts do. They don't point out the deficiencies of the government's arguments and recommend a person be released.

[HisSelf]

A Guatanamo baby-killer..

Jeez for a monent I thought you were talking about Dick Cheney. So here's a quick quizz: who has killed more babies in Iraq? Dick Cheney or Saddam Hussein?

[M.Dancer]

Jeez for a monent I thought you were talking about Dick Cheney. So here's a quick quizz: who has killed more babies in Iraq? Dick Cheney or Saddam Hussein?

Saddam Hussien by a country mile.

[Peter F]

Jeez for a monent I thought you were talking about Dick Cheney. So here's a quick quizz: who has killed more babies in Iraq? Dick Cheney or Saddam Hussein?

None of the above