Legal sufficiency review of Combatant Status Review Tribunal for Detainee ISN 940 (2005-01-25)

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Legal sufficiency review of Combatant Status Review Tribunal for Detainee ISN 940 (2005-01-25) (2005)
by Peter C. Bradford
133365Legal sufficiency review of Combatant Status Review Tribunal for Detainee ISN 940 (2005-01-25)2005Peter C. Bradford

Unclassified 25 Jan 05

MEMORANDUM

From: Assistant Legal Advisor
To: Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunal
Via: Legal Advisor
Subj: Legal sufficiency review of Combatant Status Review Tribunal for Detainee ISN # 940
Ref:
(a) Deputy Secretary of Defense Order of 7 July 2004
(b) Secretary of the Navy Implementation Directive of 29 July 2004
Encl:
(1) Appointing Order for Tribunal 19 of 4 November 2004
(2) Record of Tribunal Proceedings
1.

Legal sufficiency review has been completed on the subject Combatant Status Review Tribunal in accordance with references (a) and (b). After reviewing the record of the Tribunal, I find that:

a.

The detainee was properly notified of the Tribunal process and elected to participated. See exhibit D-a. The detainee also provided sworn oral and written statements to the Tribunal. See enclosure (3) and exhibit D-b. The Tribunal considered both the sworn oral and written statements in its deliberations.

b.

The Tribunal was properly convened and constituted by enclosure (1).

c.

The Tribunal did not request that any witnesses or evidence be produced.

d.

The detainee did not request that any witnesses or evidence be produced.

e.

The Tribunal's decision that detainee #940 is properly classified as an enemy combatant was by a vote of 2-1. The dissenting tribunal member's report is attached to the Tribunal Decision Report as enclosures 3(a) and 3(b). In my opinion, the Tribunal could properly determine, based on the evidence presented, that the detainee should be classified an enemy combatant. I do not concur with the Dissenting Member's argument.

2.

The proceedings and decision of the Tribunal are legally sufficient and no corrective action is required.

3.

I recommend that the decision of the Tribunal be approved and the case be considered final.

Peter C. Bradford
(signed)
LT, JAGC, USNR

Unclassified