Classified record of proceedings and basis for Administrative Review Board decision for ISN 571
(U) Classified record of proceedings and basis for
Administrative Review Board decision for ISN 571
- 1 (U) Introduction
- 2 (U) Synopsis of Proceedings
- 3 (U) Primary Documents, Assessments, Testimony and other Considerations by the Administrative Review Board
- 4 (U) Discussion of the primary factors (including intelligence value and law enforcement value of the Enemy Combatant)
- 5 (U) Consideration by the Administrative Review Board on Enemy Combatant's requests for witness statements and home country statements provided through the United States
- 6 (U) Consultation with the Administrative Review Board Legal Advisor
- 7 (U) Conclusion and Recommendation of the Administrative Review Board
- 8 (U) Dissenting Board Member's report
(U) The Administrative Review Board (ARB) determined ISN 571 continues to be a threat to the United States and its allies. In reaching this determination, the ARB considered both classified and unclassified information. The following is an account of the proceedings and the factors the ARB used in making its determination.
(U) Synopsis of ProceedingsEdit
(U) The ARB was convened and began its proceedings without the Enemy Combatant (EC) present. The Designated Military Officer (DMO) presented the unclassified summary, both in written form and with an oral summary of the unclassified primary factors. The Assisting Military Officer (AMO) present the Enemy Combatant Notification as Exhibit EC-A, identified herein as Enclosure (2). The AMO also presented the Enemy Combatant Election Form as Exhibit EC-B, identified herein as Enclosure (3). Exhibit EC-B, indicated the EC chose to decline to participate or appear at his ARB. The EC indicated he did not want to appear due to the fact that he told the truth at his Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) but was still declared an enemy combatant. The ARB expressed concern to the AMO about the EC not appearing and indicated that if the EC appears his testimony and comments are usually beneficial. The AMO read the EC's comments from Exhibit EC-B that denied and/or qualified the information contained in the unclassified summary. In addition, the AMO presented Correspondence Submitted on Behalf of Enemy Combatant as Exhibit EC-C, identified herein as Enclosure (4). The board asked a few questions to clarify the information in the unclassified summary. The AMO then stated that the Joint Detention Operations Group (JDOG) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) said the EC's lawyer had visited the EC five times since December 2004 and that on the last visit the EC had refused to leave his cell. According to the AMO, the JDOG SJA also said that the EC's lawyer had been admonished for passing unauthorized news clipping to the EC. The AMO then commented that he thought the contract enclosed towards the end of Exhibit EC-C was not really a contract but some other form of communication to the EC. The unclassified part of the proceeding was adjourned. The ARB moved to the classified portion of the session and the DMO presented the classified summary. The board asked a few question that were answered satisfactorily. The AMO then provided additional comments about his thoughts concerning the contract contained in Exhibit EC-C on pages 21 thru [sic] 26. The contract is unsigned. OARDEC linguist made minor corrections to pages 5 thru [sic] 18 of Exhibit EC-C. AMO again stated that he thought it was an attempt to somehow pass on a message to the EC since his lawyer had previously passed the EC unauthorized press clippings. The board PO thought the AMO's comments should have been captured during the unclassified session so he reconvened the unclassified session to allow the AMO to repeat his comments. The session was then closed for deliberation. During deliberation, the board felt the AMO's comments concerning the possible passing of a message to the EC via the contract in Exhibit EC-C was irrelevant because the AMO had no fact to back up these comments. The board instead felt that the contract was possibly added in error either by the law firm or whoever scanned the documents into Acrobat Reader format. Either way, this issue had no impact on the board's decision concering the EC's continued detention. The board did review the letters on behalf of the EC contained in Exhibit EC-C and considered them during the proceedings.
(U) Primary Documents, Assessments, Testimony and other Considerations by the Administrative Review BoardEdit
(U) The following assessments considered by the ARB are summarized as follows:
(U) Discussion of the primary factors (including intelligence value and law enforcement value of the Enemy Combatant)Edit
(U)The ARB considered the following key indicators in the decision to assess the EC as a threat to the U.S. and in its recommendation
a. (S/NF) b.
d. (S/REL/USA/AUS/CAN/GBR) e. (S/REL/USA/MCFI) f. (S/NF) g. (S/NF) h.
(U) Consideration by the Administrative Review Board on Enemy Combatant's requests for witness statements and home country statements provided through the United StatesEdit
(U) The EC is a citize of Kuwait. No witness of home country statements were provided.
(U) Consultation with the Administrative Review Board Legal AdvisorEdit
(U) Conclusion and Recommendation of the Administrative Review BoardEdit
(U) Upon careful review of all the information presented, the ARB makes the following determination and recommendation:
(U) The EC is athreat to the United States and its allies.
(U) Dissenting Board Member's reportEdit
(U) There were no dissenting members in the decision.