The Tribunal substantially complied with all provisions of references (a) and (b).
Note that some information in exhibits R-4, R-6, and R-8 was redacted. The FBI properly
certified in exhibit R-2 that the redacted information would not support a determination
that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.
On 16 November 2004 a tribunal unanimously determined that the detainee was not properly designated as an
enemy combatant. Following that tribunal, CSRT intelligence personnel conducted another search of the Government
Information for evidence relevant to ISN 250's status. They collected additional evidence which eventually
became exhibits R-18 through R-29. Due to the detachment from OARDEC of two of the three members of the original
tribunal panel, the additional evidence, along with the original evidence and original Tribunal Decision Report,
was presented to Tribunal panel 32 to reconsider the detainee's status. (One of the members of the original tribunal
sat on the new tribunal panel.) Following their consideration of the new information along with the original information,
this Tribunal unanimously determined that the detainee was properly classified as an enemy combatant.
I noted that Exhibit R-18 contains a troubling statement: "Inconsistencies will not cast a favorable light on the CSRT process or the work done by OARDEC. This does not justify making a change in and of itself, but is a filter by which to look at the overall Uigher transaction since they are all considered the same notwithstanding a specific act." Fortunately, there is no indication that the Tribunal adopted this inappropriate "on size fits all" policy.
The detainee affirmatively chose not to participate in the CSRT process but requested that his Personal Representative
make an oral statement to the Tribunal about the allegations contained in the unclassified summary. A letter from the
Personal Representative initially assigned to represent the detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reflects the detainee's
elections and is attached to the Tribunal Decision Report as exhibit D-b. The original Tribunal proceedings were held
in absentia outside Guantanamo Bay with a new Personal Representative who was familiar with the detainee's file.
This Personal Representative had the same access ot information and evidence as the Personal Representative from
Guantanamo Bay. The addendum proceedings were conducted with yet a third Personal Representative because the second
Personal Representative had been transferred to Guantanamo Bay. This Personal Representative also had full access to
the detainee's file and original Personal Representative's pass-down information. The detainee's Personal Representatives
were given the opportunity to review the respective records of proceedings and both declined to submit post-tribunal
comments to the Tribunal.