TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

GTMO Hearings Severely Flawed, Army Intelligence Officer Says

It's been a banner week for Guantanamo Bay. First the Bush administration nixes reports that it plans to close the facility. Then the Defense Department announces a new detainee is on his way there. If that wasn't enough, according to a declaration filed in D.C. Circuit Court by a U.S. Army Reserve intelligence officer, the hearings that determine whether a detainee is properly classified as an "enemy combatant" are riddled with flaws.

Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham was assigned to the Defense Department's Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants (OARDEC) for six months in 2004 and 2005. In that capacity, Abraham worked closely with the administrative process known as a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) -- the one-time, non-legal hearing for Guantanamo detainees that establishes whether or not a detainee should be considered an enemy combatant fit for prolonged detention. Specifically, Abraham's role was to coordinate with intelligence agencies in and outside of the Defense Department to "gather or validate information" suitable to the CSRTs. And there, Abraham found that the CSRT process is skewed toward keeping detainees at Guantanamo.

In his declaration, obtained by TPMmuckraker, Abraham charges that the officers tasked with gathering information on a detainee -- known as a Recorder or a Case Writer -- typically have "little training or experience" in intelligence. The fact files they compile are most often "outdated, often 'generic,' (and) rarely specifically relating to the individual subjects of the CSRT," and frequently reliant on a Pentagon database that lacked information from across the intelligence community. "This limitation," Abraham writes, "was frequently not understood by individuals with access to or who relied upon the system as a source of information."

Throughout the process, Abraham discovered that officers attempting to comply with CSRT rules to present exculpatory information were frequently obstructed. When he attempted to gather information on a detainee from an intelligence agency aside from a package prepared from him, he was told that no additional information would be forthcoming. An attorney for one intelligence agency refused to certify that no exculpatory information was being withheld. On other occasions, intelligence agencies would overload the intelligence-illiterate Recorders and Case Writers with files, leaving them with "no context for determining whether the information was relevant or probative."

During one CSRT, Abraham found the evidence suggesting one detainee was an enemy combatant "lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence."

Statements allegedly made by percipient witnesses lacked detail. Reports presented generalized statements in indirect and passive forms without stating the source of the information or providing a basis for establishing the reliability or the credibility of the source. Statements of the interrogators presented to the panel offered inferences from which we were expected to draw conclusions favoring a finding of "enemy combatant" from the Recorder...

When Abraham's team ultimately recommended that the detainee was improperly classified, the then-head of OARDEC, Rear Admiral James McGarrah, ordered the CSRT reopened, "to allow the Recorder to present further argument as to why the detainee should be classified as an enemy combatant." And what do you think happened to Abraham after that?

I was not assigned to another CSRT panel.

While only a few detainees at Guantanamo Bay are ever charged with any crime, all detainees go through the CSRT process. McGarrah, now retired, testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005 that the process emphasizes "fairness to the detainee, as well as our clear desire not to detain persons any longer than necessary."


18 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

And "We the people..." should be surprised, at this late date, at this biased, sloppy process exactly why ?

It is what "We the people..." should ALWAYS expect from Bush Handlers, Inc.

ALWAYS

(Code = loss which is what the Bush Cabal has given us)

user-pic

Abraham is obviously not good Bushie.

user-pic

"Why are those men being beaten?" asked Alice in horror.
"Because they have been found guilty of being enemy combattants," answered the Mad Hatter.
"How were they found guilty?" asked Alice. "Was there a trial?"
"No need," replied the Mad Hatter, "No need"?
"And why is that," asked Alice?
"Because they are enemy combattants," answered the Mad Hatter. "And enemy combattants have no rights."
"But then how were they found to be enemy combattants?" asked Alice.
"Too many questions," replied the Queen. "Off with her head."

user-pic

The WH and DOD have effectively stonewalled on GITMO and other issues surrounding detainees. At the heart of this is potential conflict with existing law that the WH and DOD have tried to circumvent. This is all too familiar territory. And it isn't particularly about breaking a law as much as it is disregard for the law entirely. Choosing to uphold or ignore laws as it suits the administration is the common thread. Just as long as the outcome they would like is the one that prevails, all is well. How that happens, they really don't care. This parallels the signing statements where the WH has declared (improperly) a right to pick and choose, at their discretion, the laws they will or won't uphold. The bottom line is the reasons for doing so are never clear, legally murky and highly suspect.

user-pic

Golly, I wonder if the recently planned and then cancelled meeting about Guantanamo had anything to do with White House knowledge that this bombshell (which I think it is) was about to hit. The army officer giving the affidavit is courageous, and he is, unfortunately, going to suffer the same career fate as General Taguba.

user-pic

we have to keep in mind the fundamental principle that guided the use of guantanamo in the first place...

from vanity fair, march 2007...

user-pic

we have to keep in mind the fundamental principle that guided the use of guantanamo in the first place...

from vanity fair, march 2007...

user-pic

we have to keep in mind the fundamental principle that guided the use of guantanamo in the first place...

from vanity fair, march 2007...

user-pic

This illustrates the real problem when the Democrats said "impeachment is off the table". Since the only remedy for law breaking by a President is impeachment, taking impeachment off the table is permission by Congress for the President to act as a dictator. And, he does.

user-pic

This illustrates the real problem when the Democrats said "impeachment is off the table". Since the only remedy for law breaking by a President is impeachment, taking impeachment off the table is permission by Congress for the President to act as a dictator. And, he does.

Posted by: Hoppy
Date: June 23, 2007 12:33 AM

Who would most gain from impeachment? Pelosi. Does that tell you something about why she would take it off the table?

And is thee some reason for you to assume others therefore can't put it on the table? (In fact, others have.)

Last but not least: ask yourself how one impeaches when there are not yet sufficient votes to even debate it because of Republican foot-dragging?

user-pic

. “Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first – verdict afterwards.”
“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.
“I won’t!” said Alice.
“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

-Lewis Carroll

user-pic

My Fiancee, John R. Mitchell and I have posted some completely outrageous comment in the past few years and want to apologize to this forum.
I’ve been under the umbrella of an illness most people do not talk about. The doctors currently have me under closer supervision and back on a regular schedule of routine medication.

John Mitchell and I have been on a roller coaster ride of medication, professional help and conspiracy theories for years. So needless to say we both have illnesses we will, for obvious reason, not post here today.

Again If you would like more information please write or email me at:

John Mitchell
C/O
Robin Boerner
Po Box 771765
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Email: Johnmitchell@makethearmyhonest.com
Cell: 907-360-0224

user-pic

If this type of human rights violation was occurring in any other country in the world (England and Isreal exempted, of course) we would have a hidden budget with millions of dollars going directly to the CIA, who would be working hard to either assassinate their leaders, or overthrow their governments, and President Bush would be leading the charge...

user-pic

The Administration is kind of like Hurricane Katrina...in human form. It's kind of like they expect their emotions to rule the day, no matter what the facts and despite objective criteria. "Rule of Law"? More like "Rule of Joke".

When will anyone, ANYONE, be held accountable for the great damage that has been done to our system of government, faith in fair justice and equal treatment under the law?!

user-pic

"Since the only remedy for law breaking by a President is impeachment, taking impeachment off the table is permission by Congress for the President to act as a dictator."

Indeed.

The president (plus 34 senators)
IS a dictator when it comes to crimes of commission abroad and ommision at home.

(Come to think, probably crimes of commission at home as well...)

Which is to say that impeachment" (read, "indictment"is off the table pending the likelihood of conviction in the senate.

Not to mention, that any impeachment proceedings must be (and will) joint including Cheney.

The good news:at need, the house impeaches in the morning, the senate convicts in the afternoon.

user-pic

"Since the only remedy for law breaking by a President is impeachment, taking impeachment off the table is permission by Congress for the President to act as a dictator."

Indeed.

The president (plus 34 senators)
IS a dictator when it comes to crimes of commission abroad and ommision at home.

(Come to think, probably crimes of commission at home as well...)

Which is to say that impeachment" (read, "indictment"is off the table pending the likelihood of conviction in the senate.

Not to mention, that any impeachment proceedings must be (and will) joint including Cheney.

The good news:at need, the house impeaches in the morning, the senate convicts in the afternoon.

user-pic

Pelosi may have taken impeachment off the table because she would be in line to be President but this would never have stopped Newt Gingrich. What is important is that we get these people out of the WH, not that she retains her reputation.

That said, she may well be right: the most important thing is that the Democrats and any allies from other parties who believe in free elections obtain enough control of the next Congress and/or the White House to fix our electoral systems so that stealing elections is not as easy as it appears to have been. Optical scans with random audits are called for.

If impeachment were brought before the majority of the people understand why it is necessary, the Rethuglicans could regain complette control and we could lose our Democracy.

So why haven't I seen any polls recently asking people if Bush should be impeached and why or why not?

user-pic

working yet?

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address