Combatant Status Review Tribunal: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Tightening; staying on specific subject) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
{{TOC-right}} | |||
The [[United States Department of Defense]] held '''Combatant Status Review Tribunals''' (CSRT) from August 2004 through January 2005, to confirm whether the detainees they had been holding at [[Guantanamo detention camp]] were [[enemy combatant]]s. | The [[United States Department of Defense]] held '''Combatant Status Review Tribunals''' (CSRT) from August 2004 through January 2005, to confirm whether the detainees they had been holding at [[Guantanamo detention camp]] were [[enemy combatant]]s. | ||
In the summer of 2004 [[Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]] announced that the detainees would be given an annual [[Adminstrative Review Board]] hearing, similar to CSRTs, but with a slightly different mandate. While the reviews of late 2004, early 2005 were to determine whether the detainees were '''illegal combatants''', the annual reviews would determine if the detainee still represented a threat. | |||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==The manner in which the tribunals were conducted== | ==The manner in which the tribunals were conducted== | ||
All the tribunals convened in a small room, which had room for the three officers presiding over the tribunal, a clerk to keep a record, an officeramiliar with the detainees case, possibly the detainee and his translator, and up to three three observers. 37 of the 572 Tribunals were observed by a member of the Press. | |||
All the tribunals convened in a small room, which had room for the three officers presiding over the tribunal, a clerk to keep a record, an | |||
[[Image:Room in which CSR Tribunals were held - Guantanamo.jpg|thumb|200px|CSRT hearing room]] | [[Image:Room in which CSR Tribunals were held - Guantanamo.jpg|thumb|200px|CSRT hearing room]] | ||
===The role of the presiding officers=== | ===The role of the presiding officers=== | ||
The DoD kept the identity of the presiding officers | The DoD kept the identity of the presiding officers, and the rules to guide their decisions, confidential. | ||
===The role of the detainee's representative=== | ===The role of the detainee's representative=== | ||
Detainees were informed that the role of the representative was not to serve as their advocate. Nothing told to him was confidential. He had no obligation to present their case in the best light. If the detainee was not present during their tribunal, the representative would present their case without their co-operation. | |||
===The role of the detainee during the tribunal=== | ===The role of the detainee during the tribunal=== | ||
Detainees who did attend their tribunals were, generally given an opportunity, if they wished, to explain why they should not be considered an unlawful combatant. | Detainees who did attend their tribunals were, generally given an opportunity, if they wished, to explain why they should not be considered an unlawful combatant. They did not have access to specific details of the the classified reasons why they were held, so a precise rebuttal was not likely. | ||
Detainees were not allowed to attend their own tribunals, unless they signed a | Detainees were not allowed to attend their own tribunals, unless they signed a agreement, wherein they agreed to waive rights. Half or more of the detainees declined to sign the agreement, without independent legal advice. | ||
==Results== | ==Results== | ||
Revision as of 19:17, 7 March 2009
Template:TOC-right The United States Department of Defense held Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) from August 2004 through January 2005, to confirm whether the detainees they had been holding at Guantanamo detention camp were enemy combatants.
In the summer of 2004 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the detainees would be given an annual Adminstrative Review Board hearing, similar to CSRTs, but with a slightly different mandate. While the reviews of late 2004, early 2005 were to determine whether the detainees were illegal combatants, the annual reviews would determine if the detainee still represented a threat.
Background
The Third Geneva Convention require combatants to fulfill certain requirements in order enjoy the rights of POW status. But it requires belligerents to continue grant the rights of POW status to those prisoners suspected of failing to fulfill the conditions that would afford them POW status, until the belligerent had convened a competent tribunal. to make a determination as to their status.
The interpretation of the Bush administration was that the Geneva Conventions obliged belligerents to convene a competent tribunal to review the combatant status of prisoners only when their status was in any doubt.
The manner in which the tribunals were conducted
All the tribunals convened in a small room, which had room for the three officers presiding over the tribunal, a clerk to keep a record, an officeramiliar with the detainees case, possibly the detainee and his translator, and up to three three observers. 37 of the 572 Tribunals were observed by a member of the Press.
The role of the presiding officers
The DoD kept the identity of the presiding officers, and the rules to guide their decisions, confidential.
The role of the detainee's representative
Detainees were informed that the role of the representative was not to serve as their advocate. Nothing told to him was confidential. He had no obligation to present their case in the best light. If the detainee was not present during their tribunal, the representative would present their case without their co-operation.
The role of the detainee during the tribunal
Detainees who did attend their tribunals were, generally given an opportunity, if they wished, to explain why they should not be considered an unlawful combatant. They did not have access to specific details of the the classified reasons why they were held, so a precise rebuttal was not likely.
Detainees were not allowed to attend their own tribunals, unless they signed a agreement, wherein they agreed to waive rights. Half or more of the detainees declined to sign the agreement, without independent legal advice.
Results
The tribunal determined that 38 of the detainees had never been combatants, and never should have been held. Four of those 38 detainees have been released.