CSRT Decision: Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud al Hami (ISN 892)

<p>Tribunal determined that the detainee in question has been accurately classified as an enemy combatant and that he was trained in using a Kalashnikov rifle and heavy artillery and weapons in an Al Qaida camp. Detainee denied all allegations and claimed that previous admissions were the result of torture.</p>

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Case 1:05-cv-00359-GK ' Document 23-2 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 8 of 19 UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY OF BASIS FOR TRIBUNAL DECISION (Enclosure (1) to Combatant Status Review Tribunal Decision Report) TRIBUNAL PANEL: .#2 ISN #: .892 1. Introduction As the Combatant Status Review .Decision Report indicates, the Tribunal has • determined that this detainee is properly classified as an enemy combatant In reaching its Conclusions, the Trilnmal considered both classified and =classified information. The follOwing is an account of the unclassified evidence considered by the Tribtmal-and other .pertinent information. Classified evidence considered by the Tribunal is discussed in Enclosure (2) to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Decision Report. Z. Synopsii of Proceedings The unclassified evidence presented to1he Tribunal by the Recorder indicated that the Detainee was a fighter for Al-Qaeda because he attended the" Itraining camp inAfghanistan in 2000 or 200 1 (although e ee denied m oral statement at the Tribunal on 7 Angst 2004). At -. training camp, theDetairiee allegedlywas trained howl° use a 1Calasbmioi e, as well as heavy artillery and heavy weapons (the Detainee denied this as well in his oral statement). The =classified evidence supported the Government's proposition that the Detainee freely chose to support Al- Qaeda through his actions. After an initial reluctance, the Detainee chose to participate in the Tribunal process. He did not request any witnesses be produced on his behalf The detainee made an oral, sworn statement, in which he denied being a fighter as well as being a member or supporter of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. 3. Evidence Considered by the Tribunal The Tribunal considered the following evidence in reaching its conclusions: • a. Exhibits: D-a, R-1 through R-8. • b. Sworn statement of the detainee. 4. Rnlings•by the Tribunal on Detainee. Requests for Evidence or Witnesses The Detainee requested no witnesses or additional evidence be produced; therefore, no rulings on those matters were required to be made. ISN #892 Eackaore (I) Page I of3 3 2 S NOV00144 DODDON-000546 Case 1 :05-cv-00359-GK Document 23-2 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 9 of 19 5. Discussion of Unclassified Evidence The Tribunal found the following unclassified evidence persuasive inmaking its detaminations: Exhibits R-2 (21 Feb 03) and R-3 (13 Mar 03), respectively. Exhibit R­2, in pertinent plat, indicates that the D . .'rued, after an initial reluctance,receiving free weapons training at the . • . ....• camp in Afghanistan for 10 days. This training included instruction on the . .•• v rifle, heavy artillery, and sonic type of. weapon. Upcm•eing questioned further about his reasons for attending•the..• 1 .. camp, the Detainee could not provide an answer. Exhibit R-3 provides• a detailed summary of the Detainee's account of how he got to Afghanistan (thciugh his assertion of never having heard any discussion of 'Pied" while studying at the Islamic Law institute in Kandahar is not credible, given the environment atthat time in 2000-2001). The Tribunal notes that the Detainee also denies being a member of Al- Qaeda in Exhibit R-3. In reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal was guided by Paragraph G-11 of Etickisure (b), and assigned a rebuttable presumption of genuineness and accuracy to the Government Evidence. •. . The Tribunal found the following rrnelmified evidence unpersuasive in making its • determinations: the Detainee's swam statement (even though during deliberations, the Tribunal considered the fact that the statement was swam and weighed this evidence ' accordingly). ... After changing his mind as to his decision•to participate and his method of participating, the Detainee eventually Chose to make a sworn statement He claimed that he was tortured into initially making the admissions of =limy training . (as reflected in Exhibit R-2) while being questioned in Afghanistan. He claimed that this information should have been in his file (it was not present in any infomiation submitted to the Tribunal). He claimed not have been tortured after his snivel in Cuba When reminded that he had made his statement as reflected in Axhibit R-2 after he arrived in Cuba and that it made no mention of previous torture, the Detainee asserted that he didn't change his•story because he thought he would be tortured in Ube 2S he had been in Afghanistan. The. • detainee claimed to have "recanted" the information provided as reflected in Exhibits R-2 and R-3 although there was evidence presented that he had made any attempt to do so since February or March 2003.. • The Tribunal also relied heavily on the classified evidence presented in reaching its decision. A discussion of the classified evidence is found in Enclosure (2) to theCombatant Status Review Tribunal Decision Report 6. Consultations with the CSRT Legal Advisor • One issue arose during the course of this hearing that required consultation With the CSRT legal advisor. One of the pieces of evidence as indicated in paragraph 3a3 ofExhibit R-1 was marked as SECRET/ NOFORN. Observing that chiasified evidence is • ISN #892 Enclosure (1) Pagel of3 3 (2Sc NOV00145 DODDON-000547 Case i:05-cv-00359-GK Document 23-2 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 10 of 19 not supposed to be provided to the Tribunal during the unclassified portion of the hearing, the Tribunal . inquired as to whether the information really was classified. Upon review of Exhibit R-2, the Tribunal President noted that the intimation referenced in paragraph 3a3 was actually contained in R-2, an Tinnteekified exhibit. The Tribunal President therefore found that the information referenced in paragraph 3a3 was actually unclassified, and therefore no improper release of classified information bad occurred. The Deputy Legal Advisor considered the matter and advised that the Tribunal should reconvene on the record to resolve the issue. The Tribunal did so (in a clOsed session, as the discussion concerned classified information) and clarified this matter on the record. 7. Con-elusions of the Tribunal Upon careful review of all the evidence presented in this manes, the Tribunal makes the following deumninations: a. The detainee was mentally and physically capable of participating in the proceeding. No medical or mental health evaluation was requested or deemed necessary. b. The detainee understood the Tribunal proceedings. He asked questions regarding his rights, appeared satisfied with the answers provided•by the TribunalPresident, and otherwise actively participated in the hearing. • c. The detainee is properly classified as an enemy Combatant 8. Dissenting Tribunal Member's report None. The Tribunal reached a unanimous decision. Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Tribunal President ISN #892 • Enclosure (1) Page 3 af 3 NOV0014 6 DODDON-000548