Combatant Status Review Tribunal Decision Report Enclosure 1: Decision Report that Detainee is an Enemy Combatant

Case 1:04-cv-01227-RBW DO_~~~.Eln! 7~.-~_ Filed 12/~q~2.~~. .Pa.ge 9 ?,f 2~_... • • • •• 0 __---• UNCLASSIFlED/fFOUO UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY OF BASIS FOR TRIBUNAL DECISION (Endosure (1) to Combatant Status Review Tribunal Decision Report) TRIBUNAL PANEL: #12 ISN#:~ 1. IntrodactioD As the Combatant Sta1us Review Tribunal (eSR!) Decision Report indicates, the Tribunal has determined that this Detainee is properly classified as an enemy combatant because he affiliated himselfwith the Taliban and a1 Qaida, which are engaged in hostilities against the United States and its coalition partners.. In reaching its conclusions, the Tribunal considered both classified and unclassified information. The following is an account ofthe unclassified evidence considered by the TnlnlDAl and other pertinent information. Classified evidence eonsidered by the Tribunal is discussed in Enclosure (2) to the CSRT Decision Report. . 2. Synopsis of Proceedings . The unclassified evidence presented to the Tribunal by the Recorder indicated that the Detainee, a Bahraini citizen, admitted he traveled from Babrain to Afghanistan on 13 September 2001. His purpose was to fight for the Taliban and die in jihad. At the time he departed Bahrain, the Detainee knew he would be :fighting the Northern. Alliance and the United States. When he arrived in Afghanistan. the Detainee requested and received directions from a Taliban representative to an offiCC/guesthousc in Kabul. Afghanistan. At that Taliban offiCe, the Detainee introduced himselfand told the Taliban representative that he had come to fight. After November 2001, the Detainee traveled to the Pakistan border where he was arrested by Pakistani authorities and later turned over to U.S. authorities. The Detainee chose not to participate in the Tribunal process. The Detainee requested one off-island witness. Mohammed Salman Al-Khalifa. The U.S. Department of State contacted the witness through the Bahraini government and offered him the opportunity to testify OD bo~Owmtanamo Bay, by conference call or written statement. The witness elected to testify through written statement and submitted two . documents for the Tn'bunal's consideration. The Bahra:i:oi govemment also submitted a document to the Tribunal. The Tribunal President's evidentiary and witness rulings are explained below. 3. E"Vidence Considered by the Tribunal The Tribunal considered the following evidence in reaching its conclusions: a. Exhibits: D-a through D-d, and R-l through R-12. UNCLASSIFIED/IFOUO ISN,-. Enclosure1n"Paae J of4 ·~o2J.,..f 743 DOD JUNE .__.... -.. 000055993 Filed 1213012004 Page.1 ~.~~~~_ Case 1:04-cv':'01227-RBW Document 79-2 UNCLASSlFIEDIIFOUO b. Testimony ofthe following persons: None. 4. Rulings by the Tnlnmal on Detainee Requests for Evidence or Witnesses The Detainee requested one witness. The following was introduced for the Tribunal's consideration: Evidence President's Decision Statement from Mohammed Relevant Yes Salman Al-KhaJifa 2d Sta1cment frrim Relevant . Mohammed Salman Al-Khalifa Certificate of"Good Relevant Conduct" from the Babriani Interior Ministzy ·The Detainee requested testimony from the witness, which was produced. Apparently the witness, Mohammed Salman Al-Khalifil, took it upon himself to provi~ a second statement, the chara.cter refm:nce. which was accepted by the Tribunal for consideration. The third document (also not requested but provided nonetheless) was the Good Conduct Certificate submitted on the initiative of the Bahraini Gove.mmcnt that"was also accepted and considered by the Tribunal. 5. Discussion of UnclaJsified Evidence The Tn"bunal considered the following unclassified evidence in making its determinations: . a. The Recorder offered Exhibits R-l through R-3 into evidence during the unclassified portion ofthe proceeding. Exhibit R-l is the Unclassified Summary of Evidence. While this SUIDIl18lY·is helpful in that it provides a broad outline ofwhat the Tribunal can apect to see, it is not persuasive inthat it provides co;nclusory statements without supporting tmelassified evidence. Exhibits R-2 and R-3 prOvided no usable evidence. Accordingly, the Tn"bunal bad to look to classified exhibits for support ofthe Unclassified Summary ofEvidence. b. The De1l!inee declined to make a statement or to be present for the Tribunal. However, the-Personal Representative did present two affidavits on the Detainee'·s behalf, discuss=d further below: -, ISN_ UNCLASSIFIED/IFOUO EncIOSU'Ce (1) Page 2 of4 '. 744 DOD JUNE 000055994 Case 1:04~,-01227-RBW Documen!!9-2 Filed 12130/2004 Page 11 of 24 ==-":-'--=-:'-:-=: ,.... ,, __.~,_.o;;_._ .....~ .___:====::-::.:":::.~.-'-~.,.~~-.'-:=:=---' ~.-=-7. __-.-..._.. .... UNCLASSIFIED/IFOUO 1. ExhibitD-b. 11 November 2004, is a statement by the Detainee's friend (and perhaps cousin), Mohammed Salman AI-Khalifa., who is also the cousin ofSalmAn Al-Khalifa. The author claims that he was very concc:med about bis cousin because he did not know where he was (although he believed he may have becIi in Pakistan or Afghanistan). The author further claims that the Detainee was not connected to any jihad groups against the UDited States and that the only reason he went to Pakistan and Mghanistan was to bring back his ftiend. Salman AJ.-Khalifa. While iDitially persuasive, the exhibit is contradicted by the Detainee's previous statements as indicated in Exhibit R-8. discussed more fully in Enclosure (2) to the CSRT Decision Report. 2. Exhibit D-c; 1i November 2004, was a second. statement apparently from the same individua4 Mohammed Suleiman Al-Khalifil, and is a character reference concerning the Detainee. Itis not otherwise relevant to the Detainee's enemy combatant status. . 3. Exhibit D-d is a Oood Conduct certificate from the Kingdom of Bahrain's Interior Ministry, indicating that there is nothing adverse agaiDst the Detainee in Bahraini criminal records "till to date." The infOl'l1l8tion given is somewhat contradiCtory, however. On one hand, the date ofgeneration ofthe certificate is given as 09/1112004. On the other hand. the date ofissue is given as 02106/2001 and the expiration date is 0210612006. However, further below. the certificate states that it is valid for three months from the date of issue, which 'would mean-an expiration date of 05/0112001. Iftbe latter information is comet, however. this meaDS that the Detainee's alleged acts postdate the expiration date ofthe certificate, making the certificate irrelevant Read in the most favorable light to the Detainee, the certificate indicates that the Detainee has not broken any Bahraini laws and that the Bahraini government evidently does not consider the Detainee's alleged acts serious enough to deny him 8 "Good Conduct" ccrti:ficate. While this exhibit is moderately persuasive. the United States government obviously has a different view, which bas been formed by virtue ofthe exhibits discussed in Enclosure (2) to the CSRT Decision Report. c. The Tribunal also noted an allegation of the Detainee, relayed through his Personal Representative, that be was tortUred while detained in Kandahar, Afghanistan and that consequently he admitted to things that he did not do. In accordance with standard operating procedure, this allegation was forwarded to officials at the Criminal Investigation Task Force for further coordination with Joint Task FOrce Guantanamo, and for their investigation and disposition, as they deem appropriate. The Tribunal also notes, however, that nODe ofthe information presented to it for consideration was generated from the Detainee's detention in Kandahar. d. The Tribunal also relied on certain classified evidence in reaching its decision. A discussion ofthc classified evidence, including the Detainee's alleged aJ Qaida UNCLASSIFIED/IFOUO ISNe Enclosun (1) Page 3 of4 745 DOD JUNE 000055995 . -...._------..._- UNCLASSlFIEDIIFOUO affiliation. is foUlld in Enclost= (2) to the CombaWU Status Review Tn"bunal Decision Report. 6. Conl1lltatiou with die CSRT Legal Actvisor No issues arose during ~course oftbis beari.Dg that Jequin:d consultation with the CSRT legal advisor. 7. CondatioDl orthc Tribunal Upon cardWreView ofa1J the evidence presented in this mastc:r, the Tribunal makes the following determinations: a. The Detainee was mentally and phySic:ally capable ofpartieipa1iDa in the proceeding and no further medi~or mental health evaluation was requested or deemed I1t;CCssary. b. The Detainee uuderstood the TnDunal proceedings, The Detainee chose Dot to participate in the Tribuna) process. as iDdic:ated ill Exhibit I-a. A.ftar DUDlCfOUS interviews with his PenoDBl Representative. and despite baviDs given an earlier indication that he would participate in the TnoUDal, dse DetaiDee decided OIl, the day of the TribunalllOl to partieipate. 'Ibcie WU DO indication that u did DOt understand the process; rather, he related to biJ Personal Representative that eommUDication be had received from ~civillim attorney iudicatcd that he was being advised DOt to participate and so the Detainee made his decision accordingly. c. The DctaiDcc is properly classified as an enemy combatant bec:ausc he affiliated himselfwith the Taliban and Al Qaic!a, which are engaged in hostilities aga.ia.st the United States and its coalition par1Ders. 8. Diss.catiag Tribuul Member', report None. The Tn'bunal reached a unanimous decision. Respectfully submitted, Tribunal Presidcar UNCLASSlFlEDllFOUO ,ISN" .EncloIun:-m- Pqe4of4 '. 30267 DOD JUNE 746 000055996