Combatant Status Review Tribunal: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Considerable movement of subjective and unsourced material to talk page; document citations to) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
The [[United States Department of Defense]] held '''Combatant Status Review Tribunals''' 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. | ||
These were initial 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== | ||
The [[ | 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 [[George W. Bush|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 interpretation of the [[George W. Bush|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== | ==The manner in which the tribunals were conducted== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 15: | ||
Tens of thousands Americans service members, and their families, live at Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay has been described as being like a small US city. It has lots of structures where the tribunal could convene. | Tens of thousands Americans service members, and their families, live at Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay has been described as being like a small US city. It has lots of structures where the tribunal could convene. | ||
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 officer delegated to be familiar with the detainees case, possibly the detainee and their translator, and the three observers. The captive was shackled . 37 of the 572 Tribunals were observed by a member of the Press. | |||
[[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]] | ||
| Line 32: | Line 28: | ||
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. However, if they were given this opportunity, they would have to guess why they were being held, in the first place. Unlike prisoners in the criminal justice system, they were all being held without charge. The evidence against them was classified. | 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. However, if they were given this opportunity, they would have to guess why they were being held, in the first place. Unlike prisoners in the criminal justice system, they were all being held without charge. The evidence against them was classified. | ||
Detainees were not allowed to attend their own tribunals, unless they signed a long, complicated agreement, wherein they agreed to waive rights. Half or more of the detainees declined to sign the agreement, without independent legal advice. | Detainees were not allowed to attend their own tribunals, unless they signed a long, complicated agreement, wherein they agreed to waive rights. Half or more of the detainees declined to sign the agreement, without independent legal advice. | ||
==Results== | ==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. | 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. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 17:46, 27 February 2009
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.
These were initial 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
Tens of thousands Americans service members, and their families, live at Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay has been described as being like a small US city. It has lots of structures where the tribunal could convene.
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 officer delegated to be familiar with the detainees case, possibly the detainee and their translator, and the three observers. The captive was shackled . 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 confidential. The instructions the presiding officers used to guide their decisions was confidential.
The role of the detainee's representative
Each detainee's case file was the responsibility of a detainee's representative. Detainee's 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. However, if they were given this opportunity, they would have to guess why they were being held, in the first place. Unlike prisoners in the criminal justice system, they were all being held without charge. The evidence against them was classified.
Detainees were not allowed to attend their own tribunals, unless they signed a long, complicated 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.