From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Combatant Status Review Tribunal
Combatant Status Review Tribunal
and comment on it to the tribunal to aid in its determi-
nation but does not act as an advocate for the detainee.
If the tribunal determines that the preponderance of the
evidence is insufficient to support a continued designa-
tion as “enemy combatant” and its recommendation is
approved through the chain of command established for
that purpose, the detainee will be informed of that de-
cision upon finalization of transportation arrangements
(or earlier, if the task force commander deems it appro-
priate). The rules do not give a timetable for informing
detainees in the event that the tribunal has decided to re-
tain their enemy combatant designations.[8]
Trailer where the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were Secretary of the Navy Gordon England stated[9]:
held. The detainee’s hands and feet are shackled to a bolt in the
floor in front of the white plastic chair.[1][2] Three chairs were "As you will recall, in last June’s Supreme Court de-
reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tri- cision in "Hamdi," Justice O’Connor explicitly sug-
bunals were observed.[3] gested that a process based on existing military
regulations-- and she specifically cited Army reg-
CSRT)
The Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT were a ulation 190-8-- might be sufficient to meet due
set of tribunals for confirming whether detainees held by process standards. You’ll also perhaps know that
the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp that Army regulation is what the U.S. uses to imple-
had been correctly designated as "enemy combatants". ment Article 5 of the Geneva Convention that deals
The CSRTs were established July 7, 2004 by order of U.S. with prisoners of war. So [if] our CSRT process in-
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz[4] after U.S. corporates that guidance from Article 5, Army reg-
Supreme Court rulings in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld[5] and Rasul ulation 190-8..."
v. Bush s:Combatant Status Review Tribunal (fact sheet
of October 17, 2006) and were coordinated through the Thus, the tribunals themselves are modeled after the
Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of procedures—AR 190-8 Tribunals—the military uses to
Enemy Combatants. make determinations in compliance with the Article 5 of
These non-public hearings were conducted as "a for- the Third Geneva Convention (that states "Should any
mal review of all the information related to a detainee doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
to determine whether each person meets the criteria to belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the
be designated as an enemy combatant."[6] The first CSRT enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in
hearings began in July 2004. Redacted transcripts of hear- Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the
ings for "high value detainees" were posted to the present Convention until such time as their status has
Department of Defense (DoD) website.[7] As of October been determined by a competent tribunal.")[10] This is
30, 2007, fourteen CSRT transcripts were available on the most likely because, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality
DoD website. of the Supreme Court suggested the Department of De-
fense empanel tribunals similar to the AR 190 to make
Existing U.S. and the Combat factual status determinations. The mandate of the CSRTs
and the AR 190-8 Tribunals differed in that AR 190-8 Tri-
Status Review Tribunals bunals were authorized to determine that captives were
civilians, who should be released, and "lawful combat-
The CSRTs are not bound by the rules of evidence that
ants", who the Geneva Conventions protect from prose-
would apply in court, and the government’s evidence is
cution..[11]
presumed to be “genuine and accurate.” The government
is required to present all of its relevant evidence, includ-
ing evidence that tends to negate the detainee’s designa-
tion, to the tribunal. Unclassified summaries of relevant
evidence may be provided to the detainee. The detainee’s
personal representative may view classified information
1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Combatant Status Review Tribunal
Conduct of Combatant Status Review Role of the CSRT Recorder
Tribunals The CSRT Recorder had several tasks. First, he or she was
charged with keeping a record of the CSRT process by
recording the CSRT process. Second, the Recorder swore
in all the CSRT participants by administering an oath.
Third, the Recorder was also charged with presenting
classified and unclassified material during the CSRTs.
Fourth, the Recorder was often asked to explain or clar-
rify facts or information during the CSRT. In Guleed Has-
san Ahmed’s CSRT transcript one finds the following ex-
change:
PRESIDENT:[The]Tribunal has completed its review of
the unclassified evidence provided. We do have one ques-
tion for the Recorder. Is Somalia, Ethiopia, and/or Kenya
a coalition partner?
RECORDER: Somalia is not; Ethiopia is; and Kenya is, a
coalition partner of the United States.[14]
Role of the Detainee at CSRTs
Detainees had the option of attending their CSRTs, but
attendance was not mandated. Some detainees protested
the CSRTs by not attending, opting instead to send per-
sonal, written statements to be read before the CSRT in
their absence. The reading of a detainee’s written state-
ment was the task of The Personal Representative, and
this occurred, in one case, with Guleed Hassan Ahmed
who did not attend his CSRT and instead sent a state-
ment.[14]
CSRT notice being read to a Guantanamo captive
When detainees did attend, if required, a translator
was typically present to assist the detainee and tribunal
The exact location of the current CSRT hearings is un-
members.[15][16] They are given a copy of the unclassified
known, but prior CSRT hearings were held in trailers in
summary of information, and aided by a "Personal Rep-
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Images of the trailers, with the
resentative".[15]
white, plastic chairs the detainees sat in shackled to the
floor and the large, black leather chair behind a micro-
phone where the President sat can be found on the DoD
Presence of Observers at CSRTs
website.[12] The question of the presence of outside, neutral ob-
A dramatization of the conduct of CSRTs, based on servers at the CSRTs is debated.
CSRT transcripts, is presented in the film The Response.[13]
Murat Kurnaz, an example
Presiding officers Murat Kurnaz was a young Turk who was born in, and
The identity of the presiding officers at CSRTs hearings had grown up, in Germany. When captured he was close
is classified. In the CSRT transcripts released on the DoD to being granted German citizenship. He was taken off a
website, that information has been removed from the tourist bus and detained while on a trip to Pakistan. The
transcripts. The ranks of those present, however, and tribunal’s determination was that there was enough evi-
their service branch remain in the documents. For ex- dence of Kurnaz had ties to terrorism that he should be
ample, at Guleed Hassan Ahmed’s CSRT in April 2007, held as an enemy combatant.
the CSRT President was a Lieutenant Colonel from the Through a bureaucratic slip-up Kurnaz’s file was de-
U.S. Air Force. Other services present include the U.S. classifed. During the brief window when it was declas-
Marine Corps and the U.S. Army; the only other rank sified the Washington Post was able to review all the
mentioned in the transcript was Gunnery Sergeant.[14] evidence against him and publish a summary.[17] Joyce
In other CSRTs, the ranks, services, and persons present Hens Green, a District of Columbia federal court judge,
varied. At certain CSRTs, a non-military language analyst had been able to review both the classified and unclas-
was present. sified evidence. Green found that Kurnaz’s file contained
something like 100 pages of documents and reports ex-
2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Combatant Status Review Tribunal
plaining that German and American investigators could my combatant""[21] Determining whether a captive should
find no evidence whatsoever that Kurnaz had any ties to be classified as a prisoner of war is the purpose of a "com-
terrorism. Shortly before his tribunal an unsigned memo petent tribunal."
had been added to his file concluding he was an al Qaeda On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United
member. Green’s comment on the memo was that it: States ruled that the Geneva Conventions should be ap-
plied, but only Article 3, which does not require a compe-
"fails to provide significant details to support its tent tribunal.[22]
conclusory allegations, does not reveal the sources
for its information and is contradicted by other ev-
idence in the record." Results
The CSRTs are presently on-going, but specific hearings
Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington-based expert in military have resulted in a variety of outcomes. Many detainees
law, said: are still being detained, others have been released to re-
turn to their homeland, and still others have been clas-
"It suggests the procedure is a sham, If a case like sified and cleared for release but remain at Guantanamo
that can get through, what it means is that the Bay and in U.S. custody because their home countries
merest scintilla of evidence against someone would cannot assure their safety.[23]
carry the day for the government, even if there’s a According the to prior Secretary of the Navy Gordon
mountain of evidence on the other side." England, The basis of detaining captured enemy combatants is
not to punish but, rather, to prevent them from continuing to
Critics fight against the United States and its coalition partners in the
ongoing global war on terrorism. Detention of captured enemy
It has been suggested these CSR Tribunals are inherently
combatants is both allowed and accepted under international
flawed. The principal arguments of why they are inad-
law of armed conflict. [9]
equate to warrant acceptance as "competent tribunal,"
are: [18][19]
• The CSRT conducted rudimentary proceedings 2007 Combatant Status Review
• The CSRT afforded detainees few basic protections
• Many detainees lacked counsel
Tribunals for 14 "high-value
• The CSRT also informed detainees only of general detainees"
charges against them, while the details on which the
CSRT premised enemy combatant status decisions In a surprise move President George W. Bush announced
were classified. the transfer of 14 "high-value detainees" from clandes-
• Detainees had no right to present witnesses or to tine CIA custody to military custody in Guantanamo in
cross-examine government witnesses. the fall of 2006.[24] Prior to the transfer legal critics had
Some specific cases that call attention to what critics as- repeatedly stated that the men in covert CIA custody
sert is a flawed nature of the CSRT procedure: Mustafa could never be tried because they had been subjected
Ait Idir, Moazzam Begg, Murat Kurnaz, Feroz Abbasi, and to abusive interrogation techniques, which would invali-
Martin Mubanga. [17] A comment on the matter by legal date any evidence that flowed from their interrogations.
experts states: Nevertheless, Bush said the transfer would allow the
The fact that no status determination had taken men, most of whom were considered to be members of
place according to the Third Geneva Convention the inner circle of al Qaeda’s senior leadership, to be tried
was sufficient reason for a judge from the District at Guantanamo Bay using the CSRT procedures.
Court of Columbia dealing with a habeas petition,
to stay proceedings before a military commission. U.S. Judicial Branch Appeals
Judge Robertson in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld held that
Originally the Bush Presidency asserted that the captives
the Third Geneva Convention, which he considered
had no right to appeal.[25] Captives who had "next
self-executing, had not been complied with since a
friends" willing to initiate the habeas corpus process filed
Combatant Status Review Tribunal could not be
appeals before the United States Judicial Branch. Rasul v.
considered a ’competent tribunal’ pursuant to
Bush was the first appeal to make its way to the Supreme
article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.[20]
Court of the United States. The creation of the Combatant
James Crisfield, the legal advisor to the Tribunals, offered Status Review Tribunals was a side effect of Rasul v. Bush.
his legal opinion, that CSRT "do not have the discretion to Through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the
determine that a detainee should be classified as a prisoner of Military Commissions Act of 2006 the United States
war -- only whether the detainee satisfies the definition of "ene-
3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Combatant Status Review Tribunal
Congress moved to first limit, and then completely cur- writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recog-
tail the captive’s ability to file habeas corpus appeals. [25] nizes a rule of law established hundreds of years
The Supreme Court ruled on the outstanding habeas ago and essential to American jurisprudence since
corpus appeals in Al Odah v. United States andBoumediene v. our nation’s founding. This six-year-long night-
Bush, discussed below. mare is a lesson in how fragile our constitutional
The Military Commission Act does provide a process protections truly are in the hands of an overzealous
where captives can appeal the Combatant Status Review executive."
Tribunal had properly followed OARDEC’s own rules
when it confirmed their enemy combatant status.[25] If
and when captives are able to file these appeals they
See also
would be heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the • Administrative Review Board
D.C. Circuit. • Guantanamo military commissions
Emma Schwartz, in the US News and World Report, on • Fourth Geneva Convention
August 30, 2007, reported that her sources told her: "...Up • Ex parte Quirin
to one fourth of the department’s own civil appellate staff has • Extraordinary rendition by the United States
recently opted out of handling the government’s cases against • Charles Swift
detainee appeals."[25] • Irregulars
Several amalgamated cases have been initiated in the • Mohammed el Gharani
DC Circuit Court.[26] There is controversy over whether • No longer enemy combatant
the Appeal Court will have access to all the evidence • Third Geneva Convention
against the captives. As of May 2008 none of the cases has • Unlawful combatant
actually come to the point where the judges would con- • War on terror
sider the merits of the case.
Notes
Supreme Court ruling [1] Guantánamo Prisoners Getting Their Day, but
On June 12, 2008 the Supreme Court ruled, in the case Hardly in Court, New York Times, November 11, 2004
Boumediene v. Bush 5-4, that Guantanamo captives were - mirror
entitled to access the US justice system.[27][28][29][30] Jus- [2] Inside the Guantánamo Bay hearings: Barbarian
tice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice" dispensed by KGB-style "military
tribunals", Financial Times, December 11, 2004
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, [3] "Annual Administrative Review Boards for Enemy
and remain in force, in extraordinary times." Combatants Held at Guantanamo Attributable to
Senior Defense Officials". United States
The Court also ruled that the Combatant Status Review Department of Defense. March 6, 2007.
Tribunals were "inadequate".[27] Ruth Bader Ginsburg, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/
Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3902. Retrieved
joined Kennedy in the majority. 2007-09-22.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in the minority report, [4] Department of Defense: Order Establishing
called the CSR Tribunals[27]: Combatant Status Review Tribunals (PDF), signed
by Paul Wolfowitz. See also News Release by
"...the most generous set of procedural protections Department of Defense Public Affairs Office.
ever afforded aliens detained by this country as en- [5] "Full text of Justice O’Connor’s opinion". Free
emy combatants." Access to Law Movement. June 28, 2004.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/
Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined
03-6696.ZO.html. Retrieved 2007-09-24.
Roberts in the dissent.[28]
[6] "Guantanamo Detainee Processes" (PDF). United
Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center
States Department of Defense. October 2, 2007.
for Constitutional Rights, the organization that initiated
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2005/
the action that triggered the Supreme Court ruling re-
d20050908process.pdf. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
sponded[30]:
[7] "Combatant Status Review Tribunals/
Administrative Review Boards Special Interest
"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to
Items". United States Department of Defense.
one of our nation’s most egregious injustices. It has
(archive 2006, 2007). http://www.defenselink.mil/
finally given the men held at Guantánamo the jus-
news/Combatant_Tribunals.html. Retrieved
tice that they have long deserved. By granting the
2007-11-11.
4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Combatant Status Review Tribunal
[8] Jennifer K. Elsea (July 20, 2005). "Detainees at [20] Terry Gill, Elies van Sliedregt. "Guantánamo Bay: A
Guantanamo Bay: Report for Congress" (PDF). Reflection On The Legal Status And Rights Of
Congressional Research Service. ’Unlawful Enemy Combatants’" (PDF). The Utrecht
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22173.pdf. Law Review. http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/
Retrieved 2007-11-10. publish/articles/000003/article.pdf. Retrieved
[9] ^ Secretary of the Navy Gordon England (March 29, 2007-11-11.
2005). "Status of All Guantanamo Detainees [21] Moazzam Begg’s dossier (.pdf) from his Combatant
Reviewed; 38 To Be Released". United States Status Review Tribunal, hosted by Associated Press
Department of State. http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/ [22] Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Supreme Court Syllabus, pg.
Archive/2005/Apr/01-23233.html. Retrieved 4., point 4.
2007-11-11. [23] "Habeas Schmabeas 2007". Chicago Public Radio.
[10] Jennifer K. Elsea (July 20, 2005). "Detainees at April 27, 2007. http://www.thislife.org/
Guantanamo Bay: Report for Congress" (PDF). Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331. Retrieved
Congressional Research Service. 2007-11-11.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22173.pdf. [24] Associated Press (December 17, 2006). "U.S.
Retrieved 2007-11-10. Military Rehearses Terror Hearings". New York
[11] "Human Rights First Analyzes DOD’s Combatant Times. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/
Status Review Tribunals". Human Rights First. AP-Guantanamo-
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/ Rehearsals.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. Retrieved
detainees/status_review_080204.htm. Retrieved December 21, 2006.
June 8, 2007. [25] ^ Emma Schwartz (August 30, 2007). "Justice
[12] "Combatant Status Review Tribunals/ Department Lawyers Refuse Detainee Cases: Some
Administrative Review Boards Special Interest lawyers in the civil appeals division object to the
Items". United States Department of Defense. government’s policies on Guantánamo Bay". US
(archive 2004, 2005). http://www.defenselink.mil/ News and World Report. http://www.usnews.com/
news/combatant_tribunalsarchive.html. Retrieved articles/news/national/2007/08/30/justice-
2007-11-11. department-lawyers-refuse-detainee-cases.html.
[13] The Response at the Internet Movie Database Retrieved 2007-08-30.
[14] ^ OARDEC (28 April 2007). "Verbatim Transcript of [26] Matt Apuzzo (April 30, 2008). "U.S. murky on
Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing for ISN judges’ role in reviewing Guantanamo Bay cases".
10023" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. San Diego Union Tribune.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/ http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/
Transcript_ISN10023.PDF. Retrieved 2007-11-10. 20080430-1139-guantanamo-detainees.html.
[15] ^ National Public Radio, A Government Lawyer’s Retrieved 2008-04-25.
Take on Gitmo, November 1, 2007 [27] ^ Mark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "High Court:
[16] OARDEC (March 12, 2007). "Verbatim Transcript of Gitmo detainees have rights in court". Associated
Open Session Combatant Status Review Tribunal Press. http://ap.google.com/article/
Hearing for ISN 10014" (PDF). United States ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918J1QO0.
Department of Defense. Retrieved 2008-06-12. "The court said not only that
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/ the detainees have rights under the Constitution,
transcript_ISN10014.pdf. Retrieved 2007-11-10. but that the system the administration has put in
[17] ^ Carol D. Leonnig (March 27, 2005). "Panel Ignored place to classify them as enemy combatants and
Evidence on Detainee". Washington Post. pp. A01. review those decisions is inadequate." mirror
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/ [28] ^ Mark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "Terror suspects
A3868-2005Mar26?language=printer. Retrieved can challenge detention: U.S. Supreme Court".
2008-01-20. mirror Globe and Mail.
[18] Carl Tobias (August 15, 2005). "Congress Should Act http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
Fast". National Law Journal. Archived from the RTGAM.20080612.wgitmo0612/BNStory/
original on 2007-10-16. http://web.archive.org/ International/home. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
web/20071016212106/http://law.richmond.edu/ [29] Mark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "High Court sides
news/view.php?item=145. Retrieved 2007-11-10. with Guantanamo detainees again". Montorey
[19] Dan Smith (July 26, 2004). "A Question of Fair Herald. http://www.montereyherald.com/
"Justice" for prisoners held at Guantanamo". New ci_9562577?nclick_check=1. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
York University. http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/ [30] ^ James Oliphant (June 12, 2008). "Court backs
syndicate/smith072604.html. Retrieved Gitmo detainees". Baltimore Sun.
2007-11-10. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/
5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Combatant Status Review Tribunal
blog/2008/06/ • List of detainees who went through complete CSRT
court_sides_with_gitmo_detaine.html. Retrieved process, April 19, 2006
2008-06-12. mirror • Benjamin Davis (July 13, 2007). "Keep Our Honor
Clean". Toledo Free Press.
External links http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=5937.
• "REP. IKE SKELTON HOLDS A HEARING ON HABEAS
• Q&A: Guantanamo Hearings, BBC, August 6, 2004 CORPUS FOR DETAINEES.". United States Congress.
• US Admits Translation Errors At Guantanamo 30 July 2007. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/
Tribunals, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, coms2/summary_0286-32500555_ITM. Retrieved
August 27, 2004 2008-04-25.
• Top 10 Signs You Might Not Get a Fair Trial at Gitmo, • The Response, official website.
NPR, September 14, 2004 • Human Rights First; Undue Process: An Examination
• US court questions detainee handling, Australian of Detention and Trials of Bagram Detainees in
Financial Review, September 9, 2005 Afghanistan in April 2009 (2009)
• Guantánamo - an icon of lawlessness, Amnesty • Human Rights First; Arbitrary Justice: Trial of
International Guantánamo and Bagram Detainees in Afghanistan
• Fabricated Justice: Guantanamo Four Years Later, (2008)
Human Rights Watch, January 24, 2006
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal&oldid=451115163"
Categories:
• Counter-terrorism policy of the United States
• George W. Bush administration controversies
• Guantanamo Bay captives legal and administrative procedures
• Guantanamo Bay detainment camp
This page was last modified on 18 September 2011 at 09:18. Text is available under the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.Contact us
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view
6