Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Army Officer's affidavit to U.S. Supreme Court about CSRTs

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like

    Army Officer's affidavit to U.S. Supreme Court about CSRTs

    I guess people like Flushing will consider Lt. Col. Abraham a libtard sissy? Why let facts get in the way of decisions, actually admitting being wrong and trying to fix it is something this Administration refuses to accept.

    [QUOTE]Army officer says Gitmo panels flawed By BEN FOX, Associated Press Writer
    2 hours, 17 minutes ago

    An Army officer who played a key role in the "enemy combatant" hearings at Guantanamo Bay says tribunal members relied on vague and incomplete intelligence while being pressured to rule against detainees, often without any specific evidence.

    His affidavit, submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and released Friday, is the first criticism by a member of the military panels that determine whether detainees will continue to be held.

    [B]Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran of military intelligence who is an Army reserve officer and a California lawyer, said military prosecutors were provided with only "generic" material that didn't hold up to the most basic legal challenges.[/B]

    [B]Despite repeated requests, intelligence agencies arbitrarily refused to provide specific information that could have helped either side in the tribunals, according to Abraham, who said he served as a main liaison between the Combat Status Review Tribunals and the intelligence agencies.[/B]

    [B]"What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence," Abraham said in the affidavit submitted on behalf of a Kuwaiti detainee, Fawzi al-Odah, who is challenging his classification as an "enemy combatant."[/B]

    Abraham's affidavit "proves what we all suspected, which is that the CSRTs were a complete sham," said a lawyer for al-Odah, David Cynamon.

    A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler, defended the process of determining which detainees should be held, saying the "procedures afford greater protection for wartime status determinations than any nation has ever before provided."

    "Lt. Col. Abraham provides his opinion and perspective on the CSRT process. We disagree with his characterizations," Peppler said. "Lt. Col. Abraham was not in a position to have a complete view of the CSRT process."

    Abraham said he first raised his concerns when he was on active duty with the Defense Department agency in charge of the tribunal process from September 2004 to March 2005 and felt the issues were not adequately addressed. He said he decided his only recourse was to submit the affidavit.

    "I pointed out nothing less than facts, facts that can and should be fixed," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from his office in Newport Beach, Calif.

    The 46-year-old lawyer, who remains in the reserves, said he believe he had a responsibility to point out that officers "did not have the proper tools" to determine whether a detainee was in fact an enemy combatant.

    "I take very seriously my responsibility, my duties as a citizen," he said.

    Cynamon said he fears the officer's military future could be in jeopardy. "For him to do this was a courageous thing but it's probably an assurance of career suicide," he said.

    Abraham said he had no intention of leaving the service. "I have no reason to doubt that the actions I have taken or will take uphold the finest traditions of the military," he said.

    The military held Combatant Status Review Tribunals for 558 detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in 2004 and 2005, with handcuffed detainees appearing before panels made up of three officers. Detainees had a military "personal representative" instead of a defense attorney, and all but 38 were determined to be "enemy combatants."

    [B]Abraham was asked to serve on one of the panels, and he said its members felt strong pressure to find against the detainee, saying there was "intensive scrutiny" when they declared a prisoner not to be an enemy combatant. When his panel decided the detainee wasn't an "enemy combatant," they were ordered to reconvene to hear more evidence, he said.

    Ultimately, his panel held its ground, and he was never asked to participate in another tribunal, he said.[/B]

    Matthew J. MacLean, another al-Odah lawyer, said Abraham is the first member of the CSRT panels who has been identified, let alone been willing to criticize the tribunals in the public record. His affidavit was submitted to a Washington, D.C., appellate court on al-Odah's behalf as well as to the Supreme Court.

    "It wouldn't be quite right to say this is the most important piece of evidence that has come out of the CSRT process, because this is the only piece of evidence ever to come out of the CSRT process," MacLean said. "It's our only view into the CSRT."

    In April, the Supreme Court declined to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees may go to federal court to challenge their indefinite confinement. Lawyers for the detainees have asked the justices to reconsider. The Bush administration opposes the request.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo in Washington contributed to this r[/QUOTE]eport
    [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_tribunals;_ylt=Aiiy4L26z32kE7l12zwQ1YfMWM0F[/url]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    this guy sounds like a libtard and probably a hypocrite

    what this thread needs is CBNY and FLushingJet to show up and assign insults to everyone involved.

    i can't wait for my insult. I'm hoping to be called a clown and an America hater. that would really make my day.

  3. #3
    flushingjet
    Guest
    he looks like a real sweetheart, bathed in heavenly heroic light

    [url="http://timesunion.com/Shared/Graphics/NewsDB/AP/Guantanamo%20Tribunals%20d32d1581-f756-4d6e-90b9-1d1b3dcea7fa.jpg"]http://timesunion.com/Shared/Graphics/NewsDB/AP/Guantanamo%20Tribunals%20d32d1581-f756-4d6e-90b9-1d1b3dcea7fa.jpg[/url]

    maybe you 2 can fight over him

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can you at least learn how to post a pic.
    Ignore the article.
    Your ignorance is expected.

    [QUOTE=flushingjet]he looks like a real sweetheart, bathed in heavenly heroic light

    [url="http://timesunion.com/Shared/Graphics/NewsDB/AP/Guantanamo%20Tribunals%20d32d1581-f756-4d6e-90b9-1d1b3dcea7fa.jpg"]http://timesunion.com/Shared/Graphics/NewsDB/AP/Guantanamo%20Tribunals%20d32d1581-f756-4d6e-90b9-1d1b3dcea7fa.jpg[/url]

    maybe you 2 can fight over him[/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726]Can you at least learn how to post a pic.
    Ignore the article.
    Your ignorance is expected.[/QUOTE]


    "Lt. Col. Abraham provides his opinion and perspective on the CSRT process. We disagree with his characterizations," Peppler said. "Lt. Col. Abraham was not in a position to have a complete view of the CSRT process."


    So there's another argument in the article that states that Abraham's opinion was based on limited exposure to the process. That sounds pretty ignorant.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like
    You realize that quote is from a Pentagon spokesperson.

    [QUOTE=Neil Diamond]"Lt. Col. Abraham provides his opinion and perspective on the CSRT process. We disagree with his characterizations," Peppler said. "Lt. Col. Abraham was not in a position to have a complete view of the CSRT process."


    So there's another argument in the article that states that Abraham's opinion was based on limited exposure to the process. That sounds pretty ignorant.[/QUOTE]

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726]I guess people like Flushing will consider Lt. Col. Abraham a libtard sissy? Why let facts get in the way of decisions, actually admitting being wrong and trying to fix it is something this Administration refuses to accept.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not going to call the guy names, but I am suspicious of his intent. Interesting they didn't say what kind of law he practices in CA....I would bet money he's a defense attorney.

    Anyway, these stuck out at me:

    [b]Despite repeated requests, intelligence agencies arbitrarily refused to provide specific information that could have helped either side in the tribunals, according to Abraham, who said he served as a main liaison between the Combat Status Review Tribunals and the intelligence agencies.
    [/b]

    I'm sure military was in a mode to produce enough to keep the enemies detained, but to refrain from disclosing information that would jeopardize future intelligence or the guys in the field. It is what I would expect.

    [b]Abraham was asked to serve on one of the panels, and he said its members felt strong pressure to find against the detainee, saying there was "intensive scrutiny" when they declared a prisoner not to be an enemy combatant. When his panel decided the detainee wasn't an "enemy combatant," they were ordered to reconvene to hear more evidence, he said.
    [/b]

    Well I would certainly hope so...we are talking about people that were being retained for being aligned with terrorists/combatants. I would hope that they felt intense scrutiny before letting these guys go.

    As I said before, I'm sure the military selectively released information in a mininzed fashion to keep the prisoners detained while not threatening the continuing mission.

    To me, this guy for some reason thought that these tribunals should have been the equivalent of civilian trials and it's just not the case.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726]You realize that quote is from a Pentagon spokesperson.[/QUOTE]


    And?

    Your premise is based on the opinion of someone that for all we know has ulterior motives, or may be a pissed off reservist.

    What makes this guys opinion any more believable than that of the Pentagon?

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Lt. Col. is writing a legal brief on his opinion based on his experiences within the tribunals.

    The spokesperson is told by the gov't what to say period. Do you think the gov't is going to come out and say oh man this guy is dead on.

    Notice they just try to say he didn't experience enough, yet he was an liason and sat on a tribunal.

    [QUOTE=Greenwave81]And?

    Your premise is based on the opinion of someone that for all we know has ulterior motives, or may be a pissed off reservist.

    What makes this guys opinion any more believable than that of the Pentagon?[/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726]You realize that quote is from a Pentagon spokesperson.[/QUOTE]

    Easy, your hatred of the military is showing.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have a DD-214 do you?

    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan]Easy, your hatred of the military is showing.[/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726]I have a DD-214 do you?[/QUOTE]

    So does John Kerry....

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726]The Lt. Col. is writing a legal brief on his opinion based on his experiences within the tribunals. [/quote]

    Compared to what?

    A military tribunal is not the same as a civlian court of law...and before you ask for my credentials to say that, I spent 22 years in the military, and 4 of them as Legal Officer of a USN Destroyer where I handled many legal matters in accordance with military regulations.

    Not once did this man state the military did not follow military protocol or the rules of the tribunals...his opinion of what needed to be released was not met; that does not mean that anything wrong occurred.

    Rules of evidence and other legal procedures are not similar in military courts of law and I would bet they ain'[t the same for tribunals either. It's a war zone and these acts occurred during a time of war...this isn't a civilian case.

    [QUOTE=cr726]The spokesperson is told by the gov't what to say period. Do you think the gov't is going to come out and say oh man this guy is dead on.
    [/quote]

    Of course not, but not for the reason you assume...which is that they are doing something illegal. They will get the chance to present their case to the USSC.

    [QUOTE=cr726]Notice they just try to say he didn't experience enough, yet he was an liason and sat on a tribunal.[/QUOTE]

    And as a liason and member of the tribunal, he was not privy to all of the information available to the military, some of which I am certain was sensitive. He had every right to vote as he did for release, that was doing his job as a member of the tribunal.

    But his criticisms fall short with me for the reasons I have stated, and now all he is doing is creating bad press.

    If he had a problem with the tribunal process in particular, then he can state his case...but to take up a particular case that went before the tribunal is very shady to say the least....and, with the amount of time they spent in the article trying to protect his position in the reserves (trying to ensure he is not reprimanded) I have to wonder if what he did violated the military ethics rules.

    He was on duty with the US Military, and members of the military are NOT free to 'speak their mind' on any matter they choose.
    Last edited by Greenwave81; 06-24-2007 at 05:05 PM.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am aware of the difference with civilian law and the UCMJ.

    This was not just an op-ed piece. He wrote a brief that was for the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you think he would send a pointless brief to them?

    My opinion of what is going on with the tribunals and the enemy combatant is that NO ONE knows the BEST way to deal with it because of it being brand new.

    The very reasons you state are the very reasons why everyone needs to take a look at what are gov't is doing.

    [QUOTE=Greenwave81]Compared to what?

    A military tribunal is not the same as a civlian court of law...and before you ask for my credentials to say that, I spent 22 years in the military, and 4 of them as Legal Officer of a USN Destroyer where I handled many legal matters in accordance with military regulations.

    Not once did this man state the military did not follow military protocol or the rules of the tribunals...his opinion of what needed to be released was not met; that does not mean that anything wrong occurred.

    Rules of evidence and other legal procedures are not similar in military courts of law and I would bet they ain'[t the same for tribunals either. It's a war zone and these acts occurred during a time of war...this isn't a civilian case.



    Of course not, but not for the reason you assume...which is that they are doing something illegal. They will get the chance to present their case to the USSC.



    And as a liason and member of the tribunal, he was not privy to all of the information available to the military, some of which I am certain was sensitive. He had every right to vote as he did for release, that was doing his job as a member of the tribunal.

    But his criticisms fall short with me for the reasons I have stated, and now all he is doing is creating bad press.

    If he had a problem with the tribunal process in particular, then he can state his case...but to take up a particular case that went before the tribunal is very shady to say the least....and, with the amount of time they spent in the article trying to protect his position in the reserves (trying to ensure he is not reprimanded) I have to wonder if what he did violated the military ethics rules.

    He was on duty with the US Military, and members of the military are NOT free to 'speak their mind' on any matter they choose.[/QUOTE]

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like
    So you, Cheney, Wolfy, Rice and Scooter all dodged together?
    You are a waste.

    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan]So does John Kerry....[/QUOTE]

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726]So you, Cheney, Wolfy, Rice and Scooter all dodged together?
    You are a waste.[/QUOTE]

    Let's not forget Billy BJ.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like
    Or you.

    [IMG]http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Thor_Hammer_Costume.jpg[/IMG]

    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan]Let's not forget Billy BJ.[/QUOTE]

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726]I am aware of the difference with civilian law and the UCMJ. [/quote]

    I am not even sure that the UCMJ is applicable here in the case of military tribunals for enemy combatants.

    [QUOTE=cr726]This was not just an op-ed piece. He wrote a brief that was for the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you think he would send a pointless brief to them?[/quote]

    It's been done before.

    I'm saying I have no idea what this guy's mission here is...for all I know, he may be legit or he may be a leftist leaning fraud harboring a grudge. This is quite unlike you, who assumes this guy and what he has to say is the sacrosanct truth because that's what you want to believe.

    Let's let the courts have their say before we jump to conclusions.

    [QUOTE=cr726]My opinion of what is going on with the tribunals and the enemy combatant is that NO ONE knows the BEST way to deal with it because of it being brand new.[/quote]

    Than cut everyone some slack.

    [QUOTE=cr726]The very reasons you state are the very reasons why everyone needs to take a look at what are gov't is doing.[/QUOTE]

    And everyone is...part and parcel confirmed by the fact that a USSC brief has been filed.

    You are just being overcritical of anything involving this war based on your own personal hatred of the POTUS.

    We see that.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like
    Think this creates a ton of pressure and I don't want to see what typically happens with this Administration. Lie, lie and leave it for the next guy to worry about.

    [QUOTE](e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.[/QUOTE]

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726]Think this creates a ton of pressure and I don't want to see what typically happens with this Administration. Lie, lie and leave it for the next guy to worry about.[/QUOTE]


    let's see a reference...where did that come from?

    next question....

    Was that written by the present administration, or has it been in existence for military tribunals previously?

    Not being snide, I want to know.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us