Title: DE Various.pdf

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text:









UNCLASSIFIED

Combatant Status Revlew Board
T0: Tribunal Members
FROM: September 2004)

Subject: Summary of Evidence for Cumhuutnl Status Review Tribunal

1. Uncle: the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum. dated 29 July 2004.
Implemenlan'mr of Combatant Slam Review Tribunal Procedure: ?rr Enemy ambatant:
Detained a! Guamanamn Bay Nam! Bare uba, a Tribunal has been appointed to review
the detainee?s designation as an enemy combatant.

.2. An enemy comhatant has been defined as "In individual who was part ofur
the Taliban at Quid: fumes. or animated forces llurt engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person
who committed a belligerent at or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy
armed forces."

3. The United States Government has previously determined that them is In
enemy combatant 111i: detenmnetion is based on information possessed by the United
States that indicates thathe Is a member out on He engaged in hostilities again? the
United Mates or It: coalition partners.

Denim it member at ll ()uldu.

t. Detainee traveled from Great Britten to Afghanistan. using his own funds.
It) receive military training and to ful?ll his jihad obligation.

2. Detainee was csconcd from Queue. Pakistan to I guesthouse in
Afghanistan. Mien: recruiting tool: place. At the guesthouse. detainee
relinquth his passport and money for security purposes. compteted an
application form. and chose a nickname. Detainee we: then taken to
(Jump l?eronq for mining.

3. A: Camp Ramon. deuinee received military training. including but not
limited to. city tactics. mountain tactics. weapon. maneuver.
surveillance, and During weapon: mining. detainee turned
on the ??owing weapons: AKM. AK-d?l, RPG. and PK machine gun.

4. Mler basic training. detainee volunteered for courses in
Mountain "tactics and City 'l'neties. Detainee attended these courses
hcclusc this running was it for being sent to the ol'lhc
front lines.

t?iJ

000022 Exhibit

UNCLASSIFIED
. I




9%

Manse Redwocan Discovery DEFENSE EXHIBIT 6 is for idcnt' cation
PAGE OFFERED: PAGE A man:
PAGE of PAGES









UNCLASSIFIED

5. After hm basic training. dcmincc met wuh mammal a! Unidn
leaders. During, this meeting, detainee that he 1ch his home, in the
United Kingdom, to Lake acrion against Americans and Jews.
this meeting. the detainee voiunrcercd for a missiOn.

Detainee was present Usanm Bin ludun gave a speech a! .11 l-?armrq.
detainee was present win-n Usunm Bin Laden visited the
warfare camp.

Detaincc was identi?ed as guard poslcd to watch a spy.
Thir tuck plan: at horn: of; Talibrm of?cial.

0 Demincc engaged in hustiliucs uguirm the United Slates.

I. After I I September 200i detainee was forced to leave lh? guesdrousc
whcn: he was slaying. Detainee volunteered 10 be sent to defend the
Kandahar airport. bccause i: was; most dangerous mission. White
Ihcrc. detainee served in a 511ml! unit oral Oaidu ?ghters. intent an
defending the airport againsr the Americmxs.

4. The detainee has the opportunity to comes! his designation as an enemy cornbatant.
The Tribunal w?ll endeavor tu arrange for {he presence of any reasonany availabtc
witnesses or that the detainee desires: to call or introduce to that ha is no:
an enemy cmnhatanl. The Tribunal l?rcs'rdcm will dam-mine the reasonable
or wmrcascs.





UNCLASSEFIH) i
000023






028120 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000002

Case1204-cv-O113r-RMC Document44 lFiIed?l1/02/ZUO4 Page1of2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOAZZAM BEGG, et al.
Petitioners,

v. CASE NO. (RMC)
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.

Respondents.

NOTICE OF FILING OF PUBLIC VERSION OF DOCKET NOS. 32 AND 34,
FACTUAL RETURN OF FEROZ ABBASI
Petitioner Feroz Abbasi and Respondents ?le the attached public version of the factual
return ?led in this case on October 22, 2004 (Docket No. 32 and 34) that was subsequently
ordered sealed by tie Court. The Factual Return contains redactions made by Petitioners
consistent with the Court?s Order Addressing the Sealing of Material to protect the personal
safety of individuals. The redactions made by respondents in the factual return are the same or
consistent with those made by respondents in docket nos. 32 and 34, and such redactions were
made for the reasons explained in the Declaration of James R. Cris?eld, Jr., contained in the

factual return.

Dated: November I, 2004 Respectfully submitted,

ls/ Shayana Kadidal

Shayana Kadidal (D.C. Bar No. 454248)

Barbara Olshansky

CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS

666 Broadway, 7th Floor

New York, New York 100l2

Tel: (212) 614-6464

Fax: (212) 614-6499

5182
028121 Defense Reciprocal Discovery 0 0 0 0 0 3



Case Document 44 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 2 of 2

Lawrence S. Lustberg

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez

GIBBONS, DEL DEG, DOLAN, GRIFFINGER
VECCHIONE, P.C.

One Riverfront Plaza

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Tel: (973) 596-4493

Fax: (973) 639-6243

Counsel for Petitioners

Terry M. Henrv
Joseph H. Hunt (D.C. Bar No. 431 134)
Vincent M. Garvey (D.C. Bar No. 127191)
Terry M. Henry
Preeya Noronha
Robert J. Katerberg
Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW. Room 7144
Washington, DC. 20530
Tel: (202) 514-4107
Fax: (202) 616-8470

5183
00000004

028122 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44-2 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA



MOAZZAM BEGG, et (11.,
Petitioners,
v.

Civil Action No. 137 (RMC)

GEORGE W. BUSH,
President of the United States, er al.,

Respondents.





FACTUAL RETURN TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
BY PETITIONER EROZ ALI ABBASI

Respondents hereby submit, as explained herein, the record of proceedings before the
Combatant Status Review Tribunal pertaining to petitioner Feroz Ali Abbasi as a factual return to
petitioner?s petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Exhibit A. For the reasons explained in the
record, petitioner eroz Ali Abbasi has been determined to be an enemy combatant. Accordingly,
petitioner eroz Ali Abbasi is lawfully subject to detention pursuant to the President?s power as
Commander in Chief or otherwise, and is being detained.

The portion of the record suitable for public release is attached hereto, and the remaining
portions of the record, including information that is classi?ed or not suitable for public release, will
be filed under seal and made available to petitioner?s counsel upon the entry of a protective order
governing such information by the Court, and the issuance of security clearances to petitioner?s
counsel.

Respondents reserve the right to rely, in addition to the complete record, on legal grounds
for petitioner eroz Ali Abbasi?s continued detention, presented in brie?ng opposing the petition

for writ of habeas corpus in accordance with a schedule determined by the Court.

5184
00000005

028123 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44-2 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 2 of 2

Dated: October 22, 2004

028124

Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General

KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN
United States Attorney

BRIAN D. BOYLE
Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General

DAVID B. SALMONS
Assistant to the Solicitor General

DOUGLAS N. LETTER
Terrorism Litigation Counsel

ROBERT D. OKUN

D.C. Bar No. 457-078

Chief, Special Proceedings Section
555 Fourth Street, NW.

Room 10?435

Washington, DC. 20530

(202) 514-7280

Preeya M. Noronha
JOSEPH H. HUNT (D.C. Bar No. 431134)
VINCENT M. GARVEY (D.C. Bar No. 127191)
TERRY M. HENRY
PREEYA M. NORONHA
ROBERT J. KATERBERG
Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW. Room 7144
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-4107
Fax: (202) 616-8470

Attorneys for Respondents

5185
00000006

Defense Reciprocal Discovery





Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 1 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FEROZ ALI ABBASI, et
Petitioners,
v.

Civil Action No. 137 (RMC)

GEORGE W. BUSH.
President of the United States, er al.,

Respondents.





DECLARATION OF TERESA A.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I, Commander Teresa A. McPalmer, Judge Advocate
General?s Corps, United States Navy, hereby state that to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief, the following is true, accurate and correct:

1. I am the Legal Advisor to the Office for the Administrative Review of the
Detention of Enemy Combatants at US. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (OARDEC). In
that capacity I am an advisor to the Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

2. I hereby certify that the documents attached hereto constitute a true and accurate
copy of the portions of the record of proceedings before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal
related to petitioner Feroz Ali Abassi that are suitable for public release. The portions of the
record that are classi?ed or considered law enforcement sensitive are not attached hereto. I have
redacted the names and addresses of detainee family members and information that would
personally identify certain U.S. Government personnel in order to protect the personal security of
those individuals. I have also redacted intemee serial numbers because certain combinations of

internee serial numbers with other information become classi?ed under applicable classi?cation

5186

00000007

028125 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44-3 Filed 1 1/02/2004 Page 2 of 30

guidance.
Ideclare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: 05?: 0+

Teresa A. McPa?lmer
CDR, JAGC, USN



5187

00089008

028126 Defense Reciprocal Discovery





Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 3 of 30

Department of Defense
Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunals



0249
20 October 2004
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

From: Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunal

Subj: REVIEW or COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL FOR
DETAINEE ISN -

Ref: Deputy Secretary of Defense Order of 7 July 2004
Secretary of the Navy Order of 29 July 2004

1. I concur in the decision of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal that Detainee ISN
meets the criteria for designation as an Enemy Combatant, in accordance with references and

03)-

2. This case is now considered ?nal and the detainee will be scheduled for an Administrative

Review Board.
J. M.
RADM, CEC, USN
Distribution:
NSC (Mr. John Bellinger)
(Ambassador Prosper)
DASD-DA
JCS (JS)
SOUTHCOM (COS)

OARDEC (Fwd)
CITF Ft Belvoir
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 51 88
028127 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000009

Case Document 44-3



Filed 11/02/2004 Page 4 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED

19 Oct 04

MEMORANDUM

From: Legal Advisor

To:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunal

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW or COMIBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FOR DETAINEE ISN

Deputy Secretary of Defense Order of 7 July 2004
Secretary of the Navy Implementation Directive of 29 July 2004

Appointing Order for Tribunal #11 of 29 September 2004
(2) Record of Tribunal Proceedings

1. Legal suf?ciency review has been completed on the subject Combatant Status Review
Tribunal in accordance with references and After reviewing the record of the Tribunal, 1
?nd that:

028128

a. The detainee was properly noti?ed of the Tribunal process and made a sworn
statement at the Tribunal. Following his failure to comply with repeated warnings from
the Tribunal President to con?ne his comments to the issue of his status as an enemy
combatant, the detainee was removed from the Tribunal.

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

c. The Tribunal substantially complied with all provisions of references and
Note that some information in exhibits R-4 thru R-7, R-10. and R-14, was redacted. The
FBI properly certi?ed in exhibits and that the redacted information would not
support a determination that the detainee is not an enemy combatant. Note also the
following duplicate pairs of pages in exhibit D-and 32.
Finally. please note that the Tribunal?s reference to a consultation with the Combatant
Status Review Tribunal Legal Advisor is misleading. The Tribunal consulted
with the Assistant Legal Advisor on this matter. I have not consulted with the Tribunal
regarding this particular case.

(1. The detainee requested that several witnesses be produced to testify at the Tribunal.
They included his attorney, his mother, and multiple U.S. Government employees. The
Tribunal President denied the request for his attorney because her expected testimony --
that the detainee was unlawfully detained in Guantanamo Bay - was not relevant to the
determination to be made by the Tribunal. The President denied the request for the
detainee's mother because be determined that her expected testimony information
about the detainee?s state of mind before leaving the United Kingdom -- was also not
relevant to the Tribunal. Finally, the President determined that the expected testimony of

UNCLASSIFIED
51 89

00000010

Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 5 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED

Subj: LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FOR DETAINEE ISN

the US. government employees -- addressing issues related to his health and alleged
maltreatment at Guantanamo Bay was not relevant to the Tribunal. He also determined
that the witnesses were not reasonably available because the request for them was not
timely.

In my opinion the Tribunal President's witness decisions were not an abuse of
discretion.

The detainee also requested that documentary evidence be produced. He ?rst
requested his autobiography be produced. It was produced and was considered by the
Tribunal. The detainee also requested his medical records to substantiate his
deteriorating medical condition and abuse that he claimed he had su?ered. The Tribunal
President declined to order the production of these records because be determined that
they would not be relevant to the Tribunal's decision. Finally, the detainee requested a
letter he had written to his mother. The detainee claimed that the letter would support his
allegations of maltreatment. The President denied this request, again on the basis of lack
of relevance. In my opinion, the Tribunal President correctly determined that the denied
documents were not relevant to the issue of the detainee?s classi?cation as an enemy
combatant. His decisions were not an abuse of discretion.

e. The Tribunal?s decision that detainee properly classi?ed as an enemy
combatant was unanimous.

f. The detainee?s Personal Representative was given the opportunity to review the record
of proceedings and declined to submit comments to the Tribunal.

2. The proceedings and decision of the Tribunal are legally suf?cient and no corrective action is
required

3. I that the decision of the Tribunal be approved and the case be considered ?nal.

gt R. FIELD JR.
USN

2
UNCLASSIFIED 51 90

028129 Defense Reciprocal Discovery









Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 6 of 30

Department of Defense
Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunals

29 Sep 04



From: Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunals
Subj: APPOWTMENT OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL #11
Ref: Convening Authority Appointment Letter of 9 July 2004

By the authority given to me in reference a Combatant Status Review Tribunal
established by ?Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for
Enemy Combatants Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba" dated 29 July 2004
is hereby convened. It shall hear such cases as shall be brought before it without further
action of referral or otherwise.

The following commissioned of?cers shall serve as members of the Tribunal:
MEMBERS:

?a Colonel, U.S. Air Force; President
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force; Member

(JAG)

Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy; Member

J. M.
Rear Admiral

Civil Engineer Corps
United States Navy

5191

028130 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

. .



r- Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 7 of 30

HEADQUARTERS, OARDEC FORWARD
GUANTANAMO BAY. CUBA
APO AE 09360

13 October 2004
MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, CSRT

FROM: OARDEC FORWARD Commander
SUBJECT: CSRT Record of Proceedings ICO

1. Pursuant to Enclosure (1), paragraph of the Implementation of Combatant Status Review
Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatants Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba
dated 29 July 2004, I am forwarding the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Decision Report for
the above mentioned ISN for review and action.

2. If there are any questions regarding this package, point of contact on this matter is the
undersigned at DSN 660-3 088.

$491?
DAVID L. TAYLOR
Colonel, USAF

5192

028131 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00060613



Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 8 of 30


(U) Combatant Status Review Tribunal Decision Report Cover Sheet

(U) This Document is UNCLASSIFIED Upon Removal of Enclosures (2) and (4).

(U) TRIBUNAL PANEL: #11

(U)

Ref: (U) Convening Order for Tribunal #11 of 29 September 2004
(U) CSRT Implementation Directive of 29 July 2004 (U)
(U) DEPSECDEF Memo of 7 July 2004 (U)

Encl: (1) (U) Unclassi?ed Summary of Basis For Tribunal Decision
(2) (U) Classi?ed Summary of Basis for Tribunal Decision
(3) (U) Summary of Detainee/Witness TestimMy
(4) (U) Copies of Documentary Evidence Presented
(5) (U) Personal Representative?s Record Review (U)

1. (U) This Tribunal was convened by references and to make a determination as
to whether the detainee meets the criteria tobe designated as an enemy combatant as
de?ned in reference (0the Tribtmal determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Detainee i.is properly designated as an enemy combatant as de?ned in reference

3. (U) In particular, the Tribunal ?nds that this detainee is a member of, or af?liated
with, al Qaida, as more fully discusSed in the enclosures.

4. (U) Enclosure (1) provides an unclassi?ed account of the basis for the Tribunal?s
decision. A detailed account of the evidence considered by the Tribunal and its ?ndings
of fact are contained in enclosures (1) and (2).



Col, USAF
Triblmal President

DERV FM: Multiple Sources
DECLASS: x1 51 93

028132 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000014







Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 9 of 30


UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY OF BASIS FOR TRIBUNAL
DECISION

(Enclosure (1) to Combatant Status Review Tribunal Decision Report)

TRIBUNAL PANEL: #11
ISN -

1. Introduction

As the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Decision Report indicates, the

. Tribunal has determined that this detainee is properly classi?ed as an enemy combatant
and is a member of, or af?liated with, al Qaida. In reaching its conclusions, the Tribunal
considered both classi?ed and unclassi?ed information. The following is an account of
the unclassi?ed evidence considered by the Tribunal and other pertinent information.
Classi?ed evidence considered by the Tribunal is discussed in Enclosure (2) to the CSRT
Decision Report.

2. Synopsis of Proceedings

The unclassi?ed summary of the evidence presented to the Tribunal by the Recorder
indicated that the detainee traveled from Great Britain to Afghanistan to receive military
training and to ful?ll his jihad obligation. It further indicated that when he arrived in
Afghanistan he was taken to a guesthouse where he was recruited, given a nickname, and
sent to the al Farouq training camp. At the camp, the detainee participated in both basic
and advanced courses. The unclassi?ed summary of the evidence also indicated that,
after training, the detainee met with high level al Qaida leaders, volunteered for a
mission, was assigned guard duty over a suspected spy, and then volunteered
to serve with a small unit of al Qaida ?ghters who were to defend the Kandahar airport
against the Americans. The detainee chose to participate in the Tribunal process. He
requested several witnesses, requested a number of unclassi?ed documents be produced,
and made a sworn verbal statement. The TribundPresident found the requested
witnesses not relevant to the issue of whether the detainee is properly classi?ed as an
enemy combatant, and denied the requests. The Tribunal President ordered some of the
unclassi?ed documents requested by the detainee to be produced and the Recorder
complied. The President also denied the several of the detainee?s document requests,
?nding that the requested documents were not relevant for purposes of the CSRT process.
The detainee, in his verbal statement, read verbatim ?'om several of the documents be had
previously submitted as evidence. The portions he chose to read were not relevant to the
issue of whether the detainee is properly classi?ed as an enemy combatant. The
President asked the detainee several times to con?ne his remarks to issues relevant to his
status as an enemy combatant. The detainee refused to comply with the President?s
request, and was ?nally removed from the hearing room. The Tribunal continued in the
detainee?s absence, and the Tribunal members later considered all the evidence submitted
by the detainee, including the documents the detainee was reading verbatim during his -

ISN
Enclosure l)
Page 1 of 6
. 51 94
028133 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000015



Case 11/02/2004 Page 10 of 30

sworn statement. The Tribunal President?s evidentiary and witness rulings are explained
below.

3. Evidence Considered by the Tribunal
The Tribunal considered the following evidence in reaching its conclusions:

a. Exhibits: D?a through and R~l through

b. Sworn statement of the detainee.
4. Rulings by the Tribunal on Detainee Requests for Evidence or Witnesses
The Detainee requested the following witnesses be produced for the hearing:
Elm President?s Decision Testi?ed?

Gitanjali Gutierrezz not relevant no?

not relevant no?

Multiple U.S. employees not relevant/not reasonably available not?

MI Guteirrezz is the detainee?s lawyer. The detainee proffered that this witness would
testi?l regarding how the detainee is wrongly being held as an enemy combatant, because
he should be held as a POW under international law. The Tribunal President ruled that
this information would not be relevant to the CSRT process and therefore denied the
request.

-5 the detainee?s mother. The detainee pro?'ered that this witness could
submit the detainee?s last will and testament that could attest to his name of mind before
leaving the United Kingdom and would cover the reasons why he left home. The
Tribunal President ruled the detainee?s state of mind prior to leaving Great Britain was
not relevant to his classi?cation as an enemy combatant but reserved the option to
approve the witness request if, after consideration of all evidence presented, it appeared
that the proffered witness would be relevant and help?il. After review of all the evidence
presented the President?s ruling did not change. The President felt that the detainee?s
actions once he'arriVed in Afghanistan were the relevant information needed by the
Tribunal to determine whether he had been properly classi?ed as an enemy combatant,
not his state of mind when leaving the United Kingdom. Further, the Tribunal President
felt that the detainee?s 148 page autobiography, along with his three additional
documents, which the Tribunal considered, contained su?cient background information
regarding the detainee?s state of mind, and the last will and testament would be
cumulative. He therefore denied the requested witness as not relevant.

ISN
Enclosure (1)
Page 2 of 6
51 95
028134 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000016





Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 11 of 30


In Exhibits D-c and D-f, the Detainee requested many witnesses and documents that
related to his health, various indignities he feels he has suffered while detained at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and related matters. The Tribunal President denied these
requests because they did not relate to whether the detainee has been pr0perly classi?ed
as an enemy combatant. The President also felt that these witnesses were not reasonably
available because the detainee did not request the witnesses until he was before the
Tribunal, despite several earlier opportunities to do so. Inasmuch as the requests alleged
maltreatment of the detainee, the Tribunal President forwarded the documents to the
CSRT Director for appropriate action.

The Detainee requested the following additional evidence he produced:

Evidence President?s Decision Produced?
Detainee?s autobiography reasonably available yes
Detainee?s medical records not relevant no*
Letter to detainee?s mother not relevant I no'?
Other documents authored reasonably available yes**
by the detainee

The detainee did not proffer that either of these exhibits (which he requested only in an
exhibit submitted during the hearing), Were in any way relevant to the issue of whether he
is properly classi?ed as an enemy combatant. The detainee proffered that his medical
records would show that his health has deteriorated since being transferred to Building
Four-Echo. He proffered that the letter to his mother would support certain allegations
of maltreatment while detained. The Tribunal President therefore ruled that the
documents were not relevant and denied the requests. Inasmuch as the requests alleged
maltreatment of the detainee, the Tribunal President forwarded the documents to the
CSRT Director for appropriate action.

Submitted as Defense exhibits
5. Discussion of Unclassified Evidence

The Tribunal considered the following unclassi?ed evidence in making its
determinations:

a. The recorder offered Exhibits R?l R-2, R-3, and R-18 into evidence during the I
unclassi?ed portion of the proceeding. Exhibit R-1 is the Unclassi?ed Summary of
Evidence. While this summary is help?il in that it provides a broad outline of what the
Tribunal can expect to see, it is not persuasive in that it provides conclusory statements
without supporting unclassi?ed evidence. Exhibits R-2 and R-3 provided no usable

ISN
Enclosure (1)
Page 3 of 6
51 96
028135 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000017







Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 12 of 30


evidence. Exhibit R-18 is the detainee?s Habeas Corpus petition, which the Tribunal
carefully considered. Predominately, the Tribunal had to look to classi?ed exhibits and
the exhibits submitted by the detainee for support of the Unclassi?ed Summary of
Evidence.

b. Essentially the only unclassi?ed evidence the Tribunal had to consider was the
detainee's sworn testimony and the exhibits submitted by the detainee. A summarized
transcript of the detainee?s sworn testimony is attached as CSRT Decision Report
Enclosure (3), and the detainee?s exhibits are attached, marked D-b, through D-G. In his
statement, the detainee read portions of his exhibits verbatim to the panel. His remarks
were focused on the legality of his detention and similar matters. The Tribunal President
asked the detainee several times to con?ne his remarks to matters relevant to the question
of whether his classi?cation as an enemy combatant was proper. After multiple
warnings, the detainee re?ised to address matters relevant to this issue, and was removed
from the hearing room. Since the detainee had been reading his comments directly from
his submitted exhibits, and refused to intte ect any additional information, the Tribunal
carefully considered the detainee?s exhibits after the detainee was removed from the
hearing for his disruptive behavior.

c. The Tribunal felt that several of the defense exhibits, submitted at the
detainee?s request, generally supperted the allegation that detainee is a member of al
Qaida, and speci?cally supported individual allegations in the Unclassi?ed Summary of
the evidence. For example, in Exhibit D-f, page 9-11, the detainee explains why his
military training was necessary and was his obligation. This helped the Tribunal
understand why the detainee voluntarily traveled ?'om Great Britain to Afghanistan,
using his own funds, to receive military training and ful?ll his jihad obligation. On page
11 of Exhibit D-f, the detainee writes about the guesthouse in Afghanistan that is the
subject of paragraph of Exhibit R-1 . He explains that the process in the
guesthouse was more similar to enrollment in a university course, and that the person
?enrolling? was under no obligation to do so and it was ?their free choice and initiative."
This paragraph helped the Tribunal understand the enrollment process and convinced the
Tribunal that the detainee made a free and conscious choice to train at the al arouq
terrorist training camp. On page 13 of Exhibit D-f, the detainee explains his state of mind
when leaving Great Britain for Afghanistan. He says that he left Britain to either ?join
Taliban or ?ght for the sake of Allah in Kashmir.? Along with convincing the Tribunal
of the detainee?s true intentions, the Tribunal President felt that this statement regarding
his state of mind when leaving Britain supported his earlier conclusion that the detainee?s
mother was not a relevant witness. (Detainee proffered that his mother would submit the
detainee?s last will and testament as evidence of his ?ame of mind before leaving
Britain). Also on page 13, the detainee clari?es the statement that he is alleged to have
made in paragraph of Exhibit R-1, stating that the true construction of the
statement should be ?to take action against THE Americans and THE Jews.? On the
same page the detainee states that he read ?Declaration of War? by Usama bin Laden and
knew before he le? that bin Laden ?had issues with the American military.? On the next
page he con?rms that bin Laden funded the camp, and that he was present when bin

ISN
Enclosure (1)
Page 4 of 6
51 97
028136 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000018





Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 13 of 30


Laden gave a speech at the camp (Exhibit Rwl, paragraph Exhibit D-e provides a
plethora of support for several of the allegations in Exhibit R-1, most notably in the
chapter regarding his terrorist training at the camp and associations with other lmown a1
Qaida ?gures. Finally, on page 27 of Exhibit D-d, the Tribunal noted that the detainee
states that he is ?in no way perturbed? by being classi?ed as an enemy combatant and is
?humbled that Allah would honor me so.? He concludes this statement by referring to the
United States as ?terrorist America,? and asserts ?none of the oppressors before has
escaped punishment for their sins.? He further asserts that the US. army is occupying
?our very Sacred Centre - the Arabian Peninsula." The Tribunal considered these
statements not because of their in?ammatory rhetoric, but because of their similarity to
statements made in the past by senior a1 Qaida ?gures. His mimicry of their oft-heard
claims further convinced the panel that this detainee is deeply involved with the al Qaida
organization.

After carefully considering the detainee?s exhibits, the Tribunal was fully convinced that
the detainee is pr0perly classi?ed as an enemy combatant. However, the Tribunal also
relied on certain classi?ed evidence in reaching its decision and found that the classi?ed
evidence also supported the allegations in Exhibit R-1. A discussion of the classi?ed
evidence is found in Enclosure (2) to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Decision
Report.

6. Consultations with the CSRT Legal Advisor

The Tribunal consulted the CSRT Legal Advisor during the course of this hearing in
regard to the document that .is now marked Exhibit D-b. The Tribunal President asked
the legal adviser ifthis one-page document, in which the detainee purports to ?of?cially
claim the status of prisoner of war,? changed the detainee?s legal status in any way. The
Legal Advisor informed the President did not changethe detainee?s legal status and
advised the President to allow the document to be submitted as a defense exhibit. The
document was admitted as Exhibit D-b and given appropriate consideration by the
Tribunal.

7. Conclusions of the Tribunal

Upon careful review of all the evidence presented in this matter, the Tribunal makes the
following determinations:

a. The detainee was mentally and physically capable of participating in the
proceeding. No medical or mental health evaluation was deemed necessary.

b. The detainee understood the Tribunal proceedings. He asked several questions
and actively participated in the hearing.

c. The detainee is properly classi?ed as an enemy combatant and is a member of,
or af?liated with, al Qaida.

ISN

Enclosure (1)
Page 5 of 6
51 98
028137 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000019











1:04- -O1137-RMC Document 44-3 Filed11/02/2004 ,Pa e14 of 30
case CV

8. Dissenting Tribunal Member?s report

None. The Tribunal reached a unanimous decision.

Respectfully submitted,



Col, USAF

Tribunal President
Ism-
Enclosure (1)
Page 6 of 6
51 99
028138 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

09000020



Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 15 of 30
FOUO

Summarized Sworn Detainee Statement

When asked by the Tribunal President if the detainee understood the CSRT process, the
Detainee answered, ?Yes.?

Tribunal President: Do you have any questions concerning the Tribunal process?
Detainee: May I have my legal representative present please?

Tribunal President: No you may not. This is not a legal proceeding it is a Military
Tribunal. Do you have any other questions?

Detainee: No.

[After the Recorder read the unclassi?ed summary the Detainee stated the following:]
Detainee: He read something different. The factual basis that I was here is di?erent in
some of the particulars. . .(inaudible). Most likely his will be submitted but this one will

be rendered redundant. So I would rather have this one actually submitted as
well. . .(inaudible). 4

Tribunal President: Do you have a copy of the original there?

Detainee: Yes it was just handed to me by the Personal Representative and he read
something different.

Tribunal President: Then we will submit that one as exhibit
Tribunal President: Do you wish to make a statement to this Tribunal?

Detainee: I did make a defense call, for a. witness to be called. This supposed suspected
spy who supposedly identi?ed me as his alleged beater.

Tribunal President: When did you make that request?

Detainee: It is in one of the documents, it is defense-calls essential witnesses and
documentation. I have made a number of defense calls for certain witnesses and certain
documents to be presented to the court as evidence.

Tribunal President: I will consider all of those and make a determination on them at a
later time.

Detainee: I would like it to be lmown that the actual suspected spy is present or was
present in Guantanamo Bay Cuba as a detainee. I would like him to be called as a

ISM.

Enclosure (3)
Page 1 of 9

UNCLASSIFIED FOUO 5200

028139 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000021



Case Document 44?3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 16 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED FOUO

witness in order to verify what he is saying and to ?nd out why he has alleged me as his
beater, when I did not beat him.

Tribunal President: If we determine a witness to be relevant, the witness will have the
option of attending or not attending. We will look at that and make a determination then
contact the potential witness, if we determine it is relevant.

Tribunal President: You also requested formally through your Personal Representative
two Witnesses and a document. You requested that your lawyer be allowed as a witness.

Detainee: As a legal advisor to the defense not as a legal advocate in anyway.

Tribunal President: You stated your lawyer would testify about you being illegally held
here against International law. This is a Military Tribunal not a legal proceeding, so the
request for the lawyer was denied.

Detainee: On the basis that the Tribunal can actually hold me here in incarceration 0r
release me, I would consider this a criminal proceeding.

Tribunal President: The second request you had was for your mother, who you stated
would talk to the frame of mind you had prior to leaving the United Kingdom and the
reasons why you left home.

Detainee: I actually stated that there was a document which I wrote, my last will and
testament, and it was. . . (inaudible)..that my mother would actually come as a witness to
submit the document as evidence.

Tribunal President: I have determined that your ?ame of mind prior to leaving the
United Kingdom is not relevant at this time. Rather what you did while you were in
Afghanistan is what is relevant to this Tribunal.

Detainee: The reference is made that I actually left the United Kingdom in order to take
action against Americans and Jews. That document actually clari?es that as well as my
biography the reasons why I actually left the United-Kingdom.

Tribunal President: Your biography was the third item in your request. We have that and
will consider it in our deliberations.

Detainee: I would like to make a point, my last will and testament is speci?c to certain
sections in my biography. The biography, because it covers many years is very general
and the last will and testament is speci?c and covers certain parts of the biography and
. . .(inaudible).

Tribunal President: Thank you, we will take that into consideration as well.

ISN

Enclosure (3)
Page 2 of 9

UNCLASSIFIED .FQUO 5201

028140 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



00000022





Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 17 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED F0 0

Detainee: The habeas proceeding going on, on my behalf and I believe the actual
determination from this. . the basis to go toward those habeas
proceedings. I wonder whether the documents are going to go toward the habeas
proceedings?

Tribunal President: To my knowledge none of the evidence submitted today will go to
the habeas. The decision it self might You have a lawyer representing you in the habeas
and if he chooses to submit that as part of the habeas that is up to him.

Detainee: I believe that Judge Greene in the United States she requested the basis as to
why we are being held here for the habeas petitioners. And the record is

actually. . a common sense review Tribunal. I believe Speci?c basis are
presented to her and those documentations will actually go into. Maybe you haven?t been
informed on this matter.

Tribunal President: I have not. We will check into it and if that is the issue and again we
will decide if it is relevant then we will request it and have it submitted as part of the
package.

Tribunal President: Please understand this is the ?rst time we have seen the evidence as a
panel, so it is di?cult sometimes for me to answer the relevancy until a?er we have seen
the evidence. If after we have gone through the Tribunal and we feel that we need this
evidence and it is relevant then we will recess and call for the evidence and reconvene at
a later time.

Tribunal President: Do you wish to make a statement to this Tribunal?

Detainee: May Ibe presented with my defense reSponse to the accusations for my
designation as an enemy combatant.

[The Detainee was swom.]

Detainee: This is to be submitted as a document into evidence, so I wrote it as a
document rather to be spoke on, but I am going to speak from it anyway, so bear with me.

[Reading]: Malcolm X. I am not anti-American and I did not come
here to condemn America. I want to make that very clear. I came here to tell the truth
and if the truth condemns America, then she stands condemned. .. sun
rising is splendor. A. Notice. It is my duty as a Muslim to warn all who are involved in
this matter that they are personally responsible for their actions at all times before Allah.
Allah says in this uncreated world that is the Koran. Is then the man who believes no
better then the man who is rebellious and wicked? Not equal are they. For those who
believe and do righteous deeds are gardeners as hOSpitable homes for their good deeds.
As to those who are rebellious and wicked their abode will be the ?re. Every time they
wish to get away there from they will be forced there into and it will be said to them.

ISN
Enclosure (3)
Page 3 of 9
UNCLASSIFIED I FOUO 5202
028141 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

0006-0823





Case1:04-cv-O1137-RMC Document 44-3 Filed11/02/2004

Page 18 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED FOUO

Take ye the penalty of the ?re, the which ye will want to reject as false. And indeed we
will make them taste of the penalty of this life prior to the supreme penalty in order that
they may repent and return. And who does more wrong then one to whom are recited the
signs of his lord and who turns away there from. Vary from those who transgress we will
exact due retribution. Chapter 32, Al Sajdah, versus 18-22. It is also my duty and
pleasure as a Muslim to happily proclaim that Allah will forgive any wrongs we do
and/or have done upon sincere repentance.- And those who have done something to be
ashamed of or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring Allah to mind and ask for
forgiveness of their sins and who can forgive sins except Allah. And are never obstinate
in persisting knowingly in the wrongs they have done. Fro such the reward is forgiveness
from their lord and gardeners with rivers ?owing underneath an eternal dwelling how
excellent a recompense for those who work and strive. Chapter 3, Al Imran, versus 135-
138.

Tribunal President: Excuse me. While I appreciateyour concern for our souls I would
really like you to get to the relevant information concerning this Tribunal. Directed
speci?cally to the facts relevant to this Tribunal.

Detainee: Okay, I just wanted to let you know. I wanted to make that point as a Muslim
it was my duty.

Tribunal President: I appreciate your religious duties. I would appreciate more now that
you get to the facts of the Tribunal.

Detainee [reading]: B. Deputy Secretary of Defense Order of July 7, 2004. The Secretary
of Defense has established a Combatant Status Review Tribunal process to determine in a
fact?based proceeding, whether the individuals detained by the Department of Defense at
the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are properly classi?ed as enemy combatants
and are to permit each detainee the opportunity to contest such designation. The
arguments in this written presentation are con?ned and directed to the above. C. Islamic
Law. It was we who renewed the laws to Moses, therein was guidance and light. By its
standards have been judged the Jews, by the Prophets who bowed as in Islam to Allah's
will, by the Rabbis and doctors of law, for to them was entrusted the projection of Allah?s
book, and they were witnesses thereto._ Therefore fear not men, but fear me and sell not
my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath
revealed they are no better than unbelievers.

Tribunal President: Once

Detainee: This concerns my designation as an enemy combatant. Ifyou will allow me to
go through the process you will understand -

Tribunal President: I will allow you to go through the process if you ever get to the part
about what we are here to talk about today, which is your classi?cation as an enemy
combatant.


Enclosure (3)
Page 4 of 9
UNCLASSIFIED I FOUO 52-03
028142 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000024



Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 19 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED FOUO

Detainee: This does concern my classi?cation as an enemy combatant because I am
Speaking to you on the point of view of Islamic law.

Tribunal President: This is not Islamic law; it has no authority here and has no bearing
on these proceedings. This is a Military Tribunal. You have been designated as an
enemy combatant against the United States by the US. Government. That is what is
important here. We do not comply with or consider Islamic law.

[The Personal Representative attempted to hand the Detainee a copy of the unclassi?ed
summary.]

Personal Representative: Would you like to look at this, this is the speci?cs, you wrote
some notes about this.

Detainee: I understand, I understand. Iknow what I am doing.

Detainee [reading]: In July 2003, respondent Bush announced that he had designated Mr.
Abbasi an enemy combatant subject to the Executive Military Order of November 13,
2001. D. The Joint Resolution. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the
United States at the direction of Respondent Bush, began a massive military campaign
against the Taliban government, then in power in Afghanistan. On September 18, 2001, a
Joint Resolution of Congress authorized the President to use force against the nations,
organizations, or persons that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist .
attacks on September 11m, 2001 or that harbored such organizations or persons. Defense
Response: Unlike the greatest terrorist acts known to history, committed by the United
States of America. The atom bombings of the civilian population of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima. There has not been shown any adequate, su?icient, and substantial evidence
to establish the guilt of Al?Qaida as the very perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of
September 2001. But there has been much unfounded and biased. . .(inaudible).
Therefore based upon the wholesome legal principal of, innocent until proven guilty
without a shadow of a doubt, Al-Qaida can be said to be innocent of the terrorist attacks
of September 2001. Unless adequate evidence is presented before a fair and just
court of law, which then establishes Al-Qaida as the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of
Sepmmber 11th without a shadow of a doubt. Al-Qaida being innocent of perpetrating the
terrorist attacks of September 11th, Taliban cannot be guilty of harboring terrorist. If
Taliban is not guilty of harboring terrorist and Al-Qaida is innocent of the September 11th
terrorist attacks then the fundamental basis of Congress? Joint Resolution authorizing the
use of necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations, or persons that
planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the September 2001 attack, Al-Qaida
terrorist attacks; not only does not have a leg to stand on, it does not even have buttocks
to sit 011, nor a back or sides to lie on. In fact the unfounded use of military force
commencing I believe on October

ISN a.

Enclosure (3)
Page 5 of 9

UNCLASSIFIED FOUO 5204

028143 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000025







Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 20 of 30.
UNCLASSIFIED FOUO

Tribunal President: Excuse me. This is your last warning and this is the last time I am
going to tell you this. This is not a matter of Al-Qaida this is not a matter of government
against government. This is a matter of what you did in Afghanistan.

Detainee: Ibelieve this is a matter of my classi?cation as an enemy combatant.

Tribunal President: It is not. I am here to tell you it is not. These matters are beyond the
control and beyond the range of this Tribunal. I am telling you for the ?nal time to
con?ne your discussion to the matters before this Tribunal. I will help you Speci?cally
address the matters on the Combatant Status summary of evidence on the combatant
status review Tribunals, which speci?cally address your actions in Afghanistan.

Detainee: Wouldyou, Persona] Representative, didfyou not tell me that I?m here and that
Tribunal is going to deal with one thing, my designation as enemy combatant. You never
told me specially I had to address those matters. want to address my designation as
an enemy combatant, by International Law and the Geneva

Tribunal President: Once again, International Law does apply, Geneva Conventions do
not apply. You have been designated as an enemy combatant. This Tribunal will fairly
listen to your explanation of your actions. We will consider what you have written but
for the purposes of this Tribunal, for this session, I will once again direct you to address
the matters speci?c to your actions in Afghanistan.

Detainee: Well sir, you told me that I?m here to address my designation as an enemy
combatant. don?t see why I should be con?ned to those matters. I have
right here my status. And my status shouldn?t be incompetent. I should have P.O.W.
status. So, you are telling me I am an enemy combatant. I am telling you by special
Geneva Conventions, I am a non?combatant.

Tribunal President: I am telling

Detainee: U.S.law you should hold me as a combatant. But you are
saying that I cannot do that. Those accusations ?'ankly if the Recorder would have read
my autobiography those accusations would not havebeen made. In the .
original. . or response there are mistakes that
di?er from autobiography, you would not have made them.

Tribunal President: Once again, International Law does not matter here. Geneva
Convention does not matter here. What matters here and what I am concerned about and
what I really want to get to, is your status as enemy combatant based upon the evidence
that has been provided and your actions while you were in Afghanistan. Ifyou deviate
?om that one more time you will be removed from this Tribunal and we will continue to
hear evidence without you being present

ISN
Enclosure (3)
Page 6 of 9
UNCLASSIFIED FOUO 5205
028144 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000026





Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 21 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED FOUO

Personal Representative: (to the Detainee, while attempting to hand him the unclassi?ed
summary) Do you want to read from this and whatever you said that was speci?c to this,
?om our meeting today? Do you realize what he is talking about? These.

Tribunal President: Would you like to have a moment to confer with your Personal
Representative, to gather your thoughts?

Detainee: I amjust thinking of what ever works. This speci?c document will do it much
better. Okay, Defense ?callto essential witnesses and documentation.

Tribunal President: Just for clari?cation and once again. You are not being limited
except for the fact that we will consider everything that you have written.

Detainee: Iknow but I have the right to

Tribunal President: No you don?t.

Detainee: And the Personal Representative told me I can say what ever I like.
Tribunal President: He was mistaken if he told you that.

Detainee: Okay.

Tribunal President: But we will consider all of what you have written.

Detainee: This concerns my being said to be a member of Al-Qaida and an Al-Qaida
?ghter. . [reading]: It is unclear whether Mr. Abbasi is or is not a prisoner of war, but this
is clearly a question appropriate for inquiry by a competent Tribunal. The answer would
depend upon the precise facts of the case and in particular upon the exact relationship
between the Taliban, which in our view was as a matter of International Law the
government of Afghanistan, even. though it? was not recognized by the United States as
such, and any organization in which he was an active participant in Afghanistan. We
understand that it is said Mr. Abbasi was a member of Al-Qaida, but we are not aware of
any proof that this is the case, or of any proof of thenature of the relationship between
Al-Qaida. This point is important because the de?nition of a combatant in International
Law may be wide enough. ..

Tribunal President: Once again. .International

[The Detainee continued to read from his document, speaking over the Tribunal
President, as the Tribunal President attempted to stop. him.]

Tribunal President: Mr. Abbasi your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute
?nal warning. I don?t care about International Law. I don?t want to hear the words
International Law again. We are not concerned with International Law. I am going to

[sub

Enclosure (3)
Page 7 of 9

UNCLASSIFIED 5206

028145 Defense Reciprocal Discovery




Case 1:04-cv-01 1 Foglad 11/02/2004 Page 22 of 30

give you one last opportunity, for which I am being much more generous and perhaps I
shouldn?t, but Iwill give you one last opportunity to address the speci?cs on the
summary of evidence. Ifyou wish to do so you may, if you do not wish to do so we will
have you removed.

Personal Representative: (to the Detainee, while attempting to hand him the unclassi?ed
summary) Why don?t you use this in defense answers to the allegations.

Detainee: Let me see this. I believe the Recorder is suppose to present evidence on the
circumstances of my capture.

[The Detainee kept trying to interrupt the Tribunal President as he stated the following:]

Tribunal President: The unclassi?ed evidence the Recorder had to submit has been
submitted, and provided for your review. Any other evidence he has, has been classi?ed.

Detainee: So, the government evidence has been classi?ed.
Tribunal President: Any other evidence

Detainee: I want to make it aware to this Tribunal that I have a copy of the Combatant
Status Review Tribunal process and Iarn aware of how this Tribunal is to be conducted.

Tribunal President: So are we.

Detainee: That?s good, and the Recorder is suppose to present the government evidence
based on government information and part of that evidence is the circumstances of my
being captured. [The Detainee turned to the recorder and asked:] Is that classi?ed or not
Recorder?

Tribunal President: The Recorder is not required to answer your questions. All the
unclassi?ed evidence he has, has been submitted.

Detainee: I would like to bring it to the Tribunals attention, The Combatant Status
Review Tribunal process. [reading]: E. Combatant Status Review Tribunal Authority. 3.
Request the production of such reasonable available information in the possession of the
U.S. Government bearing on the issue of whether the detainee meets the criteria to be
designated as an enemy combatant including information generated in connection with
the initial determination to hold the detainee as an enemy combatant and in any
subsequent reviews of that determination as well as any records, determinations, or
reports generated in connection with such proceedings. . herein after
the Government Information.

Tribunal President: The Tribunal Recorder has requested a closed session to present

further evidence.
ISN s.
Enclosure (3)
Page 8 of 9
UNCLASSIFIED I FOUO 5207
028146 - Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000028 1







Case 1:04-cv-01137-RMCi Eiaggnt 3 1 1/02/2004 Page 23 of 30

Detainee: I understand that.

Tribunal President: That further evidence will be submitted. Do you wish to address the
speci?cs on your unclassi?ed summary or not? Yes or No.

Detainee: I think no.

Tribunal President: We are going to ask for you to be removed ?'om the Tribunal
- hearing. Thank you for your

Detainee: I would like to make it known to the Tribunal that all your actions will come
before Allah and he will be just when allowing consideration for this. And Allah may
forgive you and Allah may punish you.

[The Tribunal was recessed to remove the Detainee from the room]

AUTHENTICATION

I certify the material contained'in this transcript is a true and accurate summary of the
testimony given during the proceedings.




Col, USAF
Tribunal President
ISN
Enclosure (3)
Page 9 of 9
UNCLASSIFIED FOUO 5208
028147 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000029





a

Case Document 44~3 . Filed 11/02/2004 Page 24 of 30
DETAINEE ELECTION FORM
Date: 26-Sep-04
Start Time: 0845
End Time: 1000



1mm!
Personal Representative:

(Name/Rank)
Translator Required? Language? ENGLISH

CSRT Procedure Read to Detainee or Written Copy Read by Detainee? YES



Detainee Election:



Wants to Participate in Tribunal
Af?rmativer Declines to Participate in Tribunal
[j Unc00perative or Unresponsive

Personal Representative Comments:

Detainee has reguiested 3 witnesses.
#1 His Lawyer, Gitanjali S. Gutierrezz located at Gibbons, Dell Deo, Dolan, Grif?nger



I I It.

4500. His lawyer will testify regarding wrongly being held as an enemycombatant, should be
held as a POW by International Law and the Geneva Convention.

His mother has his Last Will and Testimony as well as supplemental Notes that can attest to his
frame of mind before leaving the United Kingdom. It covers the reasons why he left home.







#3.He ave a
in Britain through his capture

a 130?}gge documentfbiography that egplains his history
by Afghanistan that explains his actions, intents, and basis for his

no" I in I I





a non? I

presented to the Triunal.














Personal Representative:




5209

i
028148 Defense Reciprocal Discovery 0_ A I


sale I
coats-ease





Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 25 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED

Combatant Status Review Board
TO: Tribunal Members
FROM: 01C, CSRT (23 September 2004)

Subject: Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal Feroz Ali
Abassi

1. Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum, dated 29 July 2004, 1
Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatants

Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba, a Tribunal has been appointed to review

the detainee?s designation as an enemy combatant.

2. An enemy combatant has been de?ned as ?an individual who was part of or
supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person
who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy
armed forces.? .

3. The United States Government has previously determined that the detainee is an
enemy combatant. This determination is based on information possessed by the United
States that indicates that he is a member of at Qaida. He engaged in hostilities against the
United States or its coalition partners. 7

a. Detainee is a member of al Qaida

1. Detainee traveled from Great Britten to Afghanistan, using his own funds,
to receive military training and to ful?ll his jihad obligation.

2. Detainee was escorted ?'om Quetta, Pakistan to a guesthouse in
Afghanistan, where recruiting took place. At the guesthouse, detainee
relinquished his passport and money for security purposes, completed an
application form, and chose a nicknarrie. Detainee was then taken to
Camp Farouq for training.

3. At Camp Farouq, detainee received military training, including but not
limited to, city tactics, mountain tactics, weapons, maneuver, topography,
surveillance, and ambushing. During weapons training, detainee trained
on the following weapons: AKM, Ali-47, RPG, and PK machine gun.

4. After basic training, detainee volunteered for advanced courses in
Mountain Tactics and City Tactics. Detainee attended these courses
because this training was a perquisite for being sent to the ?oat of the

front lines.
a at
UNCLASSIFIED 5510
028149 Defense Reciprocal Discovery Exhibit K.

00000031 1



i





Case Document 44?3

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 26 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED

5. After completing his basic training, detainee met with high-level a1 Qaida

leaders. During this meeting, detainee stated that he le? his home, in the
United Kingdom, to take action against Americans and Jews. Additionally
at this meeting, the detainee volunteered for a mission.

. Detainee was present when Usama Bin Laden gave a speech at al-Farouq.

Additionally, detainee was present when Usama Bin Laden visited the
mountain warfare camp.

. Detainee was identi?ed as the guard posted to watch a suspected spy.

This took place at the home of a Taliban of?cial.

b. Detainee engaged in hostilities against the United States.

1. After 11 September 2001, detainee was forced to leave the guesthouse

Where he was staying. Detainee volunteered to be sent to defend the
Kandahar airport, because it was the most dangerous mission. While
there, detainee served in a small unit of al Qaida ?ghters, intent on

. defending the airport against the Americans.

4. The detainee has the Opportunity to contest his designation as an enemy combatant.
The Tribunal will endeavor to arrange for the presence of any reasonably available
witnesses or evidence that the detainee desires to call or introduce to prove that he is not
an enemy combatant. The Tribunal President will determine the reasonable availability
of evidence or witnesses. .

028150

?ch=2

UNCLASSIFIED 52 1

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000032






se WWEI 6:633 11/02/2004 Page 27 of a

emoran
,4 2
Qiz?i?



To Department of Defense Due 09/08/2004
Office of Administrative Review
for Detained Enemy Combatants
Col. David Taylor, 01C, CSRT




me FBI GTMO
Counterterrorism Di

Subject REQUEST FOR REDACTION 0F
- ?mm-mm NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

(ISN

Pursuant to the Secretary of the Navy Order of 29 July
2004, Implementation of gomhatant Review Tribunal Procedures for
Bay Naval Base, Cuba,
Section D, paragraph 2, the FBI requests redaction Of the
information herein markedl. The FBI_makes this request on the
ef

the United States?. Inappropriate dissemination of said 1
information could damage the national security Of the united
States and compromise ongoing FBI investigations.



CERTIFICATION THAT REDACTED INFORMATION DOES NOT SUPPORT A
DETERMINATION THAT THE DETAINEE IS NOT AN ENEMY COMBATANT

The FBI certifies the aforementioned redaction contains
no information that would support a determination that the


m? . -- .- .


The following documents relative to ISN - have been
redacted by the FBI and provided to the OARDEC:

FD-302 dated 03/22/2002 dated 05/03/2003 FD-302 dated 06/10/2003
00/03/2002 FD-302 dated 05/06/2003 20-302 dated 06/11/2003

FD-302 dated 12/09/2002 FD-302 dated 05/17/2003 FD-302 dated 06/19/2003

20-302 dated 04/14/2003 FD-302 dated 05/24/2003 20-302 dated 06/20/2003

dated 04/22/2003 FD-302 dated 05/31/2003 FD-302 dated 06/21/2003

FD-302 dated 04/23/2003 00-302 dated 05/07/2003

FD-302 dated 04/30/2003 dated 06/09/2003



1Redactions are blackened out on the OARDEC provided FBI
document.

?See Executive Order 12958

Wat/2551,3150 mu R2

028151 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

09000033



Case Document 44-3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 28 of 30


Memorandum from to C01. David Taylor
Re: REQUEST FOR REDACTION, 09/08/2004





If you need additional assistance, lease contact On
Scene Commander
or Intelligence Analyst
I











-2-
magi/Ffsz 5213
028152 Defense Reciprocal Discovery
Case l[lj'iled 11/02/2004

Memorandum





Tb Department of Defense Dme 09/22/2004
Office of Administrative Review
for Detained Enemy Combatants


me FBI GTMO
Counterterrorism Division

AS I - Winks.

Sm?ed: REQUEST FOR REDACTION OF
NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Pursuant to the Secretary of the Navy Order of 29 July
2004, Implementation of.Combatant Review Tribunal Procedures for
Enemy Combatants Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba,
Section D, paragraph 2, the FBI requests redaction of the
information herein markedl. The FBI makes this request on the

. . -





the united States?. riate dissemination of said
information could damage the national security of the United
States and compromise ongoing FBI investigations.



u? .177- .. a -

CERTIFICATION THAT REDACTED INFORMATION DOES NOT SUPPORT A
DETERMINATION THAT THE DETAINEE IS NOT AN ENEMY COMBATANT

The FBI certifies the aforementioned redaction contains
no information that would support a determination that the


CLLULUJ



The following documents relative to ISN - have been
redacted by the FBI and provided to the OARDEC:

dated 06/09/2003
FD-3D2 dated 06/10/2003
FD-302 dated 06/11/2003
FD-302 dated 06/20/2003'
FD-302 dated 05/21/2003



1Redactions are blackened out on the OARDEC provided FBI
document.

zSee Executive Order 12958



5214

028153 Exhibit '3
00000035



Case Document 44?3 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 30 of 30

Memorandum from to Col. David Taylor
Re: REDACTION, 09/22/2004

If you need additional assistance, please contact

Assistant General Counsel
.01: Intelligence Anal st .





Intelligence Ana?mu-mm- -.
lit-17.:
-2-
5215
028154 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000036





Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 1 of 35

I,


GIBBONS. DEL DEO, DOLAN. GRIFFINGER VECCHIONE

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

masons LAWRENCE s.
PUBLIC INTEREST 8t CONSTHUIIONAL LAW A770 3 Eys AT LAW DIRECTOR
:3;qu I. SBBONS ON RIVEHFHONT PLAZA PHILIP G. GALLAGHER
10R Anmsn JENNIFER CHING
NEWARK, N.J. 07102-5496 JONATHAN
9?3_595_4500_ GITANJALI s. GUTIERRFZ
NOT IN NJ.

WEB SITE




July 9, 2004

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT REQUIRED

George Walker Bush
President of the United States
The White House

1600 Avenue
Washington. DC. 20500

Re: Kurnaz v. Bush, et Doc. No. (D.C. DistCt.)
Begg v. Bush, et ah, Doc. No. (D.C. DisLCt.)
O. v. Bush, et Doc. No (D.C. Dist. Ct.)

Dear President Bush:

Enclosed please ?nd two Copies of each of the habeas petitions in the above-captioned
matters which have been ?led in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any furthers questions.

Simm?

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez
Enclosures

cc: Donald Rumsfeld. United States Secretary of Defense
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller
Army Col. Nelson J. Cannon
I aim D. Ashcroft, Esq., Attorney General of the United States
Roscoe C. Howard. Esq., United States Attomey



023155 NEW YORK OFFICE - ONE '212-649-4700 5,
1

00000037





Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 2 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


I.



Detainee, Camp Delia,
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;



as Next Friend of

FEROZ ALI ABBASI,
Detainee, Camp Delta,
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and






i















- i
Petitioners, PETITION FOR WRIT











i












0F HABEAS CORPUS
v.
No.
GEORGE W. BUSH,
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500;

DONALD RUMSFELD,
Secretary, Unith States
Department of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1000;

ARMY BRIG. GEN. JAY HOOD,
Commander, Joint Task Force - GTMO

Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and

ARMY COL. NELSON

?30722"
00000030

028156 Defense Reciprocal Discovery





Case Document 44-4

Commander, camp Delta, .

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 3 of 35



Guantanamo Bay Naval Station

. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba



Respondents.

All sued in their official capacities.
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that. on July 9, 2004, I caused two copies of

petiti - as Next Friend of - Perez Ali Abbasi;

and I as Next Friend of Peter. Ali Abbasi?s, Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, to be served on the following respondents and counsel by certi?ed mail, return receipt

requested addressed as listed below:

George Walker Bush .
President of the United States
The White House

1600 Avenue NW
Washington. DC. 20500

Donald Rumsfeld

Secretary, United States
epartrnent of Defense

1 00 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC. 2030 1? 1000

Maj. Gen. Geoffery Miller
Commander, Joint Task Force -
GTMO

Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

1..
a
I,

Dated: July 9, 2004

028157 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



John D. Ashcroft, Esq. . -
Attorney General of the United States
5111 Main Justice Building

10th Street Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Roscoe C. Howard, Esq.
United States Attorney-
555 4th Avenue
Washington. DC. 20530

Army Col. Nelson J. Cannon,
Commander, Camp Delta,
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba



Gitanjali s. Gutierrez
- Attorney for Petitioners

521e- 72
00000039



Case Document 44?4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 4 of 35




i .



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Detainee, Camp Delta,
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;

as Next Friend or-



FEROZ ALI
Detainee, Camp Delta,
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station

CASE NUMBER
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and

1:04cvo113:
JUDGE: John D. Bates
TYPE: Habeas Corpus/2255

DATE STAMP: 07/02/2004

PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS
V.

GEORGE W. BUSH,
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Ave" N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500;

No.

DONALD RUMSFELD,
Secretary, United States
Department of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 10301-1000;

ARMY BRIG. GEN. JAY HOOD,
Commander, Joint Task Force - GTMO































3










Petitioners,
~l


































Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and


ARMY COL. NELSON J. CANNON,

521?
028158 Defense Reciprocal Discovery 07' 22

00000040





Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 5 of 35

Commander, Camp Delta,
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guaut?'namo Bay, Cuba

Respondents.
All sued in their of?cial capacities.



PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

1. Petitioner?and Feroz Ali-Abbasiseek a Writ of Habeas Corpus. They act on
their own behalf and through their Next Friends,- the wife of-
and? the mother of Porn: Ali Abbasi.

2. Petitioner- (?detained Petitioner") is a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Petitioner-is a citizen of the United Kingdom. Petitioner?is being
held virtually incommunicado in Respondents? unlaw?il custody.

3. Petitioner Peroz Ali Abbasi (?detained Petitioner") is also a citizen of the United Kingdom.

resides in? Petitioner Feroz Ali Abbasi is being held
virtually incommunicado in ReSpondents? unlawful custody.

4. Pursuant to either the President's authority as Commander in Chief and under the laws and
usages of war or the November 13; 2001 Military Order, see 1] 38-40 itt?'a. Respondents
George W. Bush, President of the United States, Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of
Defense, Army Brigadier General Jay Hood, Commander of Joint Task and
Anny Colonel Nelson J. Cannon, Commander, Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station,
Cuba are either ultimately responsible for or have been charged with the responsibility of

maintaining the custody and control of the detained Petitioner at Guantanamo.

JURISDICTION
5. Petitioners bring this action under 28 U.S.C. ??224l and 2242, and invoke this Court?s
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ??1331, 1651, 2201, and 2202; 5 U.S.C. ?702; the Fifth, Sixth,
and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights; the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man; and

5220

028159 Defense Reciprocal Discovery 5: of:

00000041



Case Document 44-4

028160

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 6 of 35

customary international law?. Because they seek declaratory relief, Petitioners also rely on

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

This Court is empowered under 28 U.S.C. @2241 to grant the Writ of Habeas Corpus. and to

entertain the Petition ?led by-and?as Next Friends under 28

U.S.C. ?2242. This Court is further empowered-to declare the rights and other legal relations
of the parties herein by 28 U.S.C. ?2201, and to effectuate and enforce declaratory relief by all
necessary and preper means by 28 U.S.C. {52202, as this case involves an actual controversy
the Court?s jurisdiction. I

II
PARTIES

Petitioner -is a citizen of-who is presently incarcerated and
held in Respondents? unlawful custody in Camp Delta, Guantanamo. See Exhibit A (Af?davit
of?t . .
Petitioner- is .5 wife. She is a-citizen. Because her husband cannot
secure access either to legal counsel or to the courts of the United States,-acts as his
Next Friend. See Exhibit A.

On her cum and through counsel, Gareth Paine,- has repeatedly tried to contact her
husband, to learn more about his condition and status, and to gain access to him. The British
Authorities have either rebuffed or ignored the requests of Mrs. and her counsel. See id.

10. Petitioner Feroz Ali Abbasi is a citizen of the United Kingdom who is presently incarcerated
and held in Respondents' unlawful custody in Camp Delta, Guantanamo.
(Af?davit of Louise Christian).

11.Petitioner? is- mother- She resides in -

Because her son cannot secure access either to legal counsel or to the court of the United States,

?acts as his Next Friend. See Exhibit C.
12. On her own and through counsel, Louise Christian,- has repeatedly tried to

contact her son, to learn more about his condition and status, and to gain access to him. The

See Exhibit

United States authorities have either rebuffed or ignored the requests of Mrs. - and her

counsel. See id.

3
5221

gaff;
00000042

Defense Reciprocal Discovery





Case Document 444 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 7 of 35

13. Respondent George W. Bush is the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of
the UnitedStates Military. . It is pursuant to the November 13, 2001 Military Order
promulgated by him or alternatively, under his authority as Commander in Chief and under the
laws and usages of war, that is being detained. Accordingly, Respondent Bush is
ultimately responsible for Petitioner?s unlaw?il detention.

14. Respondent Rumsfeld is the Secretary of the United States Department of Defense. Pursuant to
either the November 13, 2001 Military Order orthe President's authority as Commander in
Chief and under the laws and usages of war, Respondent Rumsfeld has been charged with
maintaining the custody and control of the detained Petitioner.

15. Respondent Hood is the Commander of Joint Task the task force running the
detention Operation at Guantanamo. He has supervisory responsibility for the detained
Petitioner. I I

16. Respondent Cannon is the Commander of Carhp Delta, the U.S. facility where the detained
Petitioner is presently held. He is the immediate custodian responsible for Petitioner's

detention.



detained Petitioners are not, nor have they ever been, enemy aliens, law?il or unlawful



belligerents, or combatants of any kind.

detained Petitioners are not1 nor has they ever been, ?enemy combatants? who are ?part of



or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners in Afghanistan and who
were engaged in an armed conflict against the United States there." See Hamdt? v. Rumsfeld,

.542 U.S. *4 slip op. at 8-9 (June 28, 2004).

{37:19: Petitioners seek to enforce their right to a judicial determination of whether there is a factual
. basis for Respondent's determination that they are ?enemy combatants};
20. In August of 2001, Petitioner- his wife- and their children moved to
live in Kabul, Afghanistan with their life savings in order to establish a school. Once they
arrived, they purchase a home and Mr..began setting up the school. See Exhibit A. After
5222

028161 Defense Reciprocal Discovery 7071??

00000043



Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 8 of 35

the events of September 11, 200L?and his family remained in Kabul because
they lacked-the means to leaveimmediately and hoped that the threats of military repercussions
would not materialize. After the bombing of Kabul,_and his family sought ?nancial
assistance from family and Heads to ?ee to Pakistan. See id.

21. By November 2001, and his family had re-established themselves in
Islamabad, Pakistan and leased a new home. See Exhibit B.

22. During the night of January 31, 2002, Pakistani of?cials seized- from his home
in Islamabad, Pakistan. See Exhibit B. He was able to make one call to his father stating that
he was seized by Pakistan of?cials and that United States of?cials were also present. See id.
Both? family and counsel have repeatedly attempted since that time
to intervene on his behalf and to acquire informan'on about his detention. See id.

23. Shortly after his seizure, Pakistani lawyers ?led a habeas petition on behalf of
in Pakistani court. On March 1, 2002, the court ordered the Pakistan Interior Minister to
produce?before the court on March 7, 2002, but the Interior Minister refused to
do so. On March 3, 2002,-s lawyer, Mr. Abdur Rahrnan Saddiqui, submitted
that the Pakistani Security Services and the United States Central Intelligence Agency
had seized? and that the 181 had interrogated him. Upon threat of
sanctions, the court again ordered the Interior Minister to produce ?on March
14, 2002. Again, the Interior Minister did not do so. See Exhibit B.

24. On March 4, 2002-5. father learned from an International Red Cross worker
that Pakistani authorities had transferred custody or- to United States
authorities. According to the Red Cross worker, United States forces had taken Mr. .to
Kandahar approximately 10 to 14 days earlier. See Exhibit B.

25. For some time, the United States held? in detention at a United States military
airbase in 'Baghram, Afghanistan. See Exhibit. ?5 family received a few messages
from him through the International Red Cross. See Exhibit A. In one letter to his wife dated
November 20, 2002,? stated that he wished his family to consult the lawyer,
Gareth Peirce, on his behalf. In a letter to his father written December 15, 2002, he also stated

5
5223
sol-F 72

00000644

028162

Defense Reciprocai Discovery





Case Document 44?4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 9 of 35

that have not seen the sun, sky, moon etc. for nearly a year? and that am in this state of
depressionand I am beginning to lose the ?ght against depression and hopelessness.? Sac
Exhibit B.

26. Thereafter, at some point in family was informed that United States of?cials
had transferred himto Guantanamo Bay on February 6, 2003. See Exhibit B. has
been held in US. custody at Guantanamo since that time.

27. In July 2003, Respondent Bush announced that he had designated Mr. - an ?enemy
combatant? subject to the Executive Military Order of November 13, 2001. Mia-has yet

?to be charged, provided access to counsel, or granted any other legal process. Mr.
c0unsel has been informed that NIL-has been held in solitary con?nement since his
designation in July 2003. See Exhibit B.

28. Both??5 family and attorneys are concerned about his deteriorating physical and
mental health. See Exhibits A - B.

29. At the time of his detention, not a member of either the Taliban government?s
armed forces or the Al Qaeda armed-forces. He did not cause or attempt to cause any harm to
American personnel or property prior to his capture. Mr. - was not in Afghanistan at the
time of his detention, but was taken into custody in Pakistan, turned over to the custody of the
US. Military there, then transferred to Afghanistan, and ultimately transported to Guantanamo.

'i'he British Foreign Of?ce has con?rmed that Feroz Abbasi is being held in Guantanamo,



subject to interrogation, and denied Consular access. See Exhibit C. The United States has not
disclosed the of his seizure but Petitioner- believes that he was taken by
United States Military Forces in Kandahar, Afghanistan sometime on or before January 11,
2002.

July 2003, Respondent Bush announced that he had designated Mr. Abbasi an ?enemy
combatant" subject to the ExecutiVe Military Order of November 13, 2001. Mr. Abbasi has yet
to be charged, provided access to counsel, or granted any other legal process.

the time of his detention, Mr. Abbasi was not a member of either the Taliban government?s

armed forces or the Al Qaeda armed forces. He did not cause orattempt to cause any harm to

2.5.
5224


028163 Defense Reciprocal Discovery "7 7 2

00000045





Case 1:04-cv-01137i-RMC Document 44-4

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 10 of 35

American personnel or property prior to his capture.

. . 'The Joint Resolution

Sign the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States, at the direction of

Respondent Bush, began a massive military campaign against the Taliban government, then in
power in Afghanistan. On September 18, 2001, a Joint Resolution of Congess authorized the
President to use force against the ?nations, organizations, or persons? that ?planned, authorized.
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks 'on September 11, 2001, or [that] harbored such
organizations or persons." Joint Resolution 23, Authorization for Use of Military Force, Public

Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (Jan. 18, 2001).

A b.






i,
The detained Petitioners are not, and have never been, a member of Al Qaeda or any other

.I

terrorist group. Prior to their detention, they did not commit any violent act against any

American person or espouse any violent act against-any American person or property. Nor
were they involved in the ensuing armed con?ict. They had no involvement, direct or indirect,
in either the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, or any act of
international terrorism attributed by the United States to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group.
They are not properly subject to the detention order issued by the President. As they did not
participate in the armed con?ict at any point in time, they also are not properly subject to the

Executive?s authority as Commander in Chief or under the laws and usages of war.

detained Petitioners have had no military or terrorist training. They at no time voluntarily

joined any terrorist force.

detained Petitioner - was not initially taken into custody by American forces. It is

unclear how Petition Abbasi was seized. Both, however, were taken into custody against their
will and handed over to the Americans. They did not engage in combat against American

forces.

37. The detained Petitioners identi?ed themselves by their conect name and nationality

028164

to the United States. They requested that the United States provide them with access to their
families and to legal counsel. The detained Petitioners were kept blindfolded against their will

for periods while being taken involuntarily to Guantanamo.

5225

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000

[0372
046



Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 11 of 35

The Detention Order

38. On November 13, 2001, Respondent Bush issued a Military Order authorizing inde?nite
detention without due process of law. The Order authorizes Respondent Rumsfeld to detain

anyone Respondent Bush has ??'eason to believe":

i. is or was a member of the organization known as at] Qaida;

ii. has engaged in, aided or abetted, or-conspired to commit, acts of
international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have
caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to
or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national
security, foreign policy, or economy; or

has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in

subparagraphs and
See Military Order of November 13, 2001. President Bush must make this determination in
writing. The Order was neither authorized nor directed by. Congress, and is beyond the scope
of the Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001.

39. The Military Order vests the President with complete discretion to identify the individuals that
?ll within its sc0pe. It establishes no standards governing the use of his discretion. Once a.
person has been detained, the Order contains no provision for the person to be noti?ed of the
charges he may face. instead, the Order authorizes detainees to be held without charges. it
contains no provision for detainees to be noti?ed of their rights under domestic and
international law, and provides neither the right to counsel nor the right to consular access. it
provides no right to appear before a neutral tribunal to review the legality of a detainee?s
continued detention and no provision for appeal to an Article or any other court. In fact, the
Order expressly bars any form of judicial review. The Order authorizes inde?nite and
unreviewabie detention, based on nothing more than the President's written determination that
an individual is subject to its terms.

40. The Military Order authorizes the use of military commissions to try noncitizens accused of

terrorism and other war crimes. 1t establishes no guarantee that charges will be

5226

023165 Defense Reciprocal Discovery 2L
0

00000047





Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 12 of 35

brought, that these charges will be made know to the accused and his counsel, or that a speedy
trial providing adequate legal process will be afforded to determine guilt on such charges or
their legal validity under domestic or international law. it permits prolonged pee?commission
detention in solitary con?nement, risking such long-term injury as that suffered
by Mr..and Mr. Abbasi.

41. The detained Petitioners are not preperly subject to the Military Order.

42. However, the Military Order was promulgated in the UnitedStates and in this judicial district,
the decision to detain and designate Petitioners were made by Respondents in the United States
and in this judicial district, the decision to detain-Petitioners at Guantanamo was made in the
United States and in this judicial district, and the decision to continue detaining the Petitioners
was, and is, being made by Respondents in' the United States and in this judicial district.

43. In the related case ofRasul_v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002), Respondents contended
that the petitioners in that case were being detained not pursuant to the President?s Military
Order but rather under the President?s authority as Commander in Chief and under the laws and
usages of war. However, Petitioners in this matter were not arrested or detained by the United
States in the courseof the armed con?ict,

44. Moreover, Petitioner- was detained by Pakistani not United States authorities and was
arrested by them not in Afghanistan, but while in his home in Pakistan, nowhere near a
battle?eld. Accordingly, Petitioner is not properly detained under the President's authority as
Commander in Chief or under the laws and usagesof war.

GuantanamoBay Naval Station

45. On or about January 2002, the United States military began transporting prisoners captured
in Afghanistan to Camp X-Ray, at the United States Naval Base, in Guantanamo Bay, cube. in
April 2002, all prisoners were transferred to a more permanent prison facility in Guantanamo,
Camp Delta. O?'enses committed by both civilians and foreign nationals living on
Guantanamo are brought before federal courts on the mainland, where respondents enjoy the
full panoply of Constitutional rights. Detainees incarcerated at Guantanamo are entitled to test

the legality of their detention in the federal courts. Rasul v. Bush, 542 US. m, (June 28,

5227

028166 Defense Reciprocal Discovery 7 2/

00000048

Case Document 44-4 Filed 1 1/02/2004 Page 13 0f 35

2004)
46. In or about February 6, 2003, the United States military transferred the detained Petitioner
- to Guantanamo, where he has been held ever since, in the custody of Respondents Bush.
Rumsfeld, Hood, and Cannon. In or about January 2002, the United States military transferred
the detained Petitioner Abbasi to Guantanamo, where he has been held ever since. in the
custody of Respondents Bush, Rumsfeld, Hood, and Cannon.
7 The Conditions of Detention at Guantanamo
47. Since gaining control of the detained Petitioners, the United States military has held them
virtually fncommunicada. On information and beliefs, they have been, or will be, interrogated
repeatedly by agents of the United States Departments of- Defense and Justicepthough they
have not been charged with an offense, nor noti?ed of any pending or contemplated charges.
They have made no appearance before either a military or civilian tribunal of any sort, and have
not been provided counsel or the means to contact counsel. They have not been informed of

their rights under the United States Constitution, the regulations of the United States Military,

Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, or customary international law. Indeed,
Respondents have taken the position that Petitioners should not be told of these rights. As a
result, the detained Petitioners are completely unable either to protect or to vindicate their
rights under domestic and international law.

48. On information and belief, the detained Petitioners have been forced to provide involuntary
statements to Respondents' agents at Guantanamo. The detained Petitioners have been held
under conditions that violate their international and constitutional rights to dignity and freedom
from cruel, unusual and degrading treatment or punishment. They have been housed throughout
their detention in accommodations that fail to satisfy either domestic or internationally accepted
standards for any person subject to detention. For example, upon information and belief, they
were initially forced to use a bucket for a toiletrand were not provided with basic hygienic
facilities. They have been refused meaningful access to their families. They have not been

provided with the Opportunity fully to exercise their religious beliefs and they have been

10
5228

028167 Defense Reciprocal Discovery {g '23

00000049

the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American







Case 137-RMC Document 44-4

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 14 of 35

humiliated in the exercise of their religion. They have been exposed to the indignity and
humiliation of thecameras of the national and international press, brought to Guantanamo with

the express consent and control of Respondents.

49. In published statements, Respondents Bush, Rumsfeld, and of?cers Lehnert and Canico who

preceded Hood and Cannon in their respective positions, have indicated that the United States
may hold the detained Petitioners under these conditions inde?nitely. See. Roland
Watson, THE TIMES (LONDON), Jan. 18, 2002 (?Donald Rumsfeld, the US. Defence Secretary,
suggested last night that al-Qaeda prisoners could be held inde?nitely at the base. He said that
the detention of some would be open-ended as the United States tried to build a case against

them?).

50. Indeed, according to the Department of Defense, detainees who are adjudged innocent of all

51.

charges by a military commission may nevertheless be kept in detention at Guantanamo
inde?nitely. See Department of Defense Press Background Brie?ng of July 3, 2003, available
at (last visited on July 1,
2004).
Iv
CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(UNLAWFUL

Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 50 by reference.

52. The detained Petitioners are not, nor have they ever been, enemy aliens, lawful or unlawful

beliigerents, or combatants of any kind. Petitioners are not, nor have they ever been, ?enemy
combatants" who were ?part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition
partners in Afghanistan and who were engaged in an armed con?ict against the United States

there." See Hamdz' v. Rumsfeld, 542 US. slip op. at 8-9 (June 28, 2004). The Petitioners





See also TIME MAG, Welcome to Camp X-Ray, Feb. 3, 2002:

028168

More curious still is the matter of the prisoners' ultimate fate. Rumsfeld has laid out four
options: a military trial, a trial in US. criminal courts, return to their home countries for
prosecution, or continued detention ?while additional intelligence is gathered.? The last seems
a distinct possibility; the Pentagon plans to build 2,000 cells at Camp X-Ray.

11

Defense Reciprocal Discovery







Document 44-4 Filed11/02/2004 Page15'of 35

have committed no violation of domestic, foreign, or international law. There is no basis

whatsoeverin law for Petitioners? detention.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
1mm PROCESS - FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION)

53. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 52 by reference.

54. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and
continue to violate the Fi?h Amendment to the United States Constitution. Respondent Bush
has ordered the prolonged, inde?nite, and arbitrary detention of individuals, without Due
Process of Law. Respondents Rumsfeld, Hood, and Cannon are likewise acting in violation of
the Fifth Amendment, since they act at the President?s direction. On its face, the Executive
Order violates the Fifth Amendment.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
QUE PROCESS - FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION)

55. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 54 by reference.

56. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and
continue to violate the right of the detained Petitioners to be free from arbitrary, prolonged, and
inde?nite detention, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The Executive Order, as applied to Petitioners, violates the Fifth
Amendment. .

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(QUE PROCESS INTERNATIONAL LAW)

57. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 56 by reference.

58. By the actions. described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and
continue to violate customary intemational law, Arts. 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and Arts. XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration on
the Rights and Duties of Man. Respondent Bush has ordered the prolonged, inde?nite, and

arbin'ary detention of Petitioners, without legal process, in violation of binding obligations of

12
5230

028169 Defense Reciprocal Discovery 1 5 oi":

00000651







Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 16 of 35

the United States under international law. Respondents Rumsfeld, Hood, and Cannon are
likewise acting in violation of,intemational law, since they act at the President's direction. On

its face, the Executive Order violates international law.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(DUE PROCESS INTERNATIONAL LAW)

59. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 58 by reference.

60. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and
continue to violate the right of the detained Petitioners to be free from arbitrary, prolonged, and
inde?nite detention, in violation of customary international law, Arts. 9 and 14' of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Arts. XXV, and XXVI of the
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. The Eaecutive Order, as applied to the
detained Petitioners, violates these and other binding obligations of the United States under

International Law.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEE
PROCESS - FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH US. MILITARY REGULATIONS AND
LAW)

61. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 60 by reference.

62. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and
continue to violate the rights accorded to persons seized by the United States Military in times
of armed con?ict, as established by, inter alter, the regulations of the United States Military,
Articles 4 and 5 of Geneva Convention Geneva Convention IV, and customary international

law.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AR POWERS CLAUSE

63. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 62 by reference.
64. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have exceeded
the constitutional authority of the Executive and have violated and continue to violate the War

Powers Clause by ordering the prolonged and inde?nite detention of the detained Petitioners

13
5231

028170 Defense Reciprocal Discovery LE of

00000052







Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 17 of 35

without Congressional authorization.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
OF THE WRI I 1

65. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 64 by reference.

66. To the extent the Executive Order of November 13, 2001. disallows any challenge to the
legality of the Petitioners? detention by way of habeas corpus, the Order and its enforcement
constitute an unlaw?n SusPension of the Writ, in violation of Article I of the United States
Constitution. The actions of the Respondents in claiming the legal right to detain petitioners
without judicial authorization or review constitute a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in

violation of Article I of the United States Constitution.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(ARBITRARY AND UNLAWFUL DETENTION VIOLATION OF THE APA)

67. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 66 by reference.
68. By detaining Petitioners for the duration and in the manner described herein, Respondents have
arbitrarily, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally detained the Petitioners, in violation of the

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. ?706(2).

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION - VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

69. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 - 68 by reference.

70. Pursuant to the Executive Order of November 13,2001, Petitioners have been designated by
Respondent Bush as ?enemy combatants" subject to a possible trial by military commission.

71. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and
continue to violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Respondent Bush
has ordered that individuals designated as ?enemy combatants? may be tried by military
commission, without Due Process of Law. Respondents Rumsfeld is likewise acting in

violation of the Fifth Amendment, since he acts at the President's direction. On its face and as

14
5232

028171
ense ecuproca Iscovery 7 of" 72?

00000053







Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 18 of 35

applied to Petitioners, trial by military commission pursuant to the Executive Order violates the



Fifth Amendment. -
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(UNLAWFUL TRIAL BY MILITARY COWISSION - VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL
Arm

72. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1- 71 by reference.

73. The trial by military commission for which Respondents have, by designating Petitioners.
indicated that he may be eligible, violates the rights accorded to persons seized by the United
States Military in times of armed con?ict, as established by, inter alia, the United States
Constitution, the regulations of the United States Military, Articles 4 and 5 of Geneva
Convention Geneva Convention IV, and customary international law.

74. As Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General, said a weelt ago,

There will always be' measures which are not Open togovemments.
Certain rights for example the right to life, the prohibition on torture,
on slavery - are sharply non-negotiable.

There are others such as the presumption of innocence or the right to a
fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law,
where we cannot compromise on long-standing principles of justice and
liberty, even if we may recognise that there?may sometimes be a need to
guarantee these principles in new or different ways.

See Lord Goldsmith, error-ism and Justice: The British Perspective from the Attorney
General, Speech at the Cour de Cessation (June 25, 2004), available at
politics/3839153.stm. The manner in which Petitioner has
been treated in Guantanamo Bay, and the ?tribunal? that has been organized to try him
described by another respected British jurist, Lord Steyn, as a court that is a "mockery of
justice" and that "derives from the jumps of the kangaroo" - cannot pass muster under the most

basic and fundamental description of due process.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, petitioners pray for relief as follows:

15

5233'
rear: 7;

028172 Defense Reciprocal Discovery







Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 19 of 35

1. Grant Petitioner-Next Friend status, as NextFriend of?;

Grant Petitioner? Next Friend status, as Next Friend of Feroz Ali Abbasi
Order the detained Petitioners releasedfrom Reapondents? unlaw?il custody;

resets

Order Respondents immediately to allow counsel to meet and confer with the detained

Petitioner, in private and unmonitored attorney-client conversations;

5. Order Respondents to cease all interrogations of the detained Petitioners, direct or indirect,
while this litigation is pending;

6. Order and declare the Executive Order of November 13, 2001, unlawful as a violation of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

7. Order and declare the Executive Order of November 13, 2001, unlawful as a violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 702;

8. Order and declare the Executive Order of NOVember 13, 2001, unlawful. as a violation of
customary international law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man;

9. Order and declare that the Executive Order of November 13, 2001, violates the War Powers
Clause;

10. Order and declare that the provision of the Executive Order that bars the detained Petitioners
?'om seeking relief in Court is an unlawful Suspension of the Writ, in violation of Article I
of the United States Constitution;

11. Order and declare that the prolonged, inde?nite, and restrictive detention of Petitioners is
arbitrary and unlawful, a deprivation of liberty without due process in violation of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in violation of the law of nations and treaties
of the United States;

12. Order and declare that the detained Petitioners are being held in violatioo of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution;

13. Order and declare that the detained Petitioners are being held in violation of customary

international law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American

Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man;

16
5234
(9 57? 72.

00000055

028173 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44-4 Filed 1 1/02/2004 Page 20 of 35

14. Order and declare that the detained Petitioners are being held'in violation of the regulations of
the UnitedStates Military, the Geneva Conventions, and international humanitarian law:

15. Order and declare that the provisions of the Executive Order that authorize trial by military
commission violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

16. Order and declare that the provisions of the Executive Order that authorize trial by military
commission violate the various provisions of the regulations of the United States Military, the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions, and international law;

17. To the extent Respondents contest any material factual allegations in this Petition, require
respondents to show the facts upon which Petitioners' detentions are based, grant Petitioners an
opportunity for meaningful discovery into the case against them, and schedule an cvidentiary
hearing, at which Petitioners may adduce proof in support of their allegations; and

18. Grant such other legal or equitable relief as may beappropriate to protect Petitioners' rights

under the United States Constitution, federal statutory law, and international law.

17
5235

028174 Defense Reciprocal Discovery
3 0 e7;

00000056





Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 21 of 35

VERIFICATION

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

information. and belief.

Executed on this glday of July 2.004.







5236

alof 73
00060057

028175 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 22 of 35



Respectfuiiy submitted.

Counsei for Petitioners:






. Susanin

.S. ct Court for the
istrict of Columbia Bar No. 455429

Lawerence S. Lustberg
Gitanjali S. Gutierrez .
Gibbons, Del Deo. Dolen. G?f?nger 8: Vecchione. RC.
One Riverfront Plaza
Newark. New Jersey 07102
(973) 596-4500
(973) 639-6243 (fax)

Counsei for Petitioners

Mr. Susanin appears as local counsel for all attorneys.

Dated: Newark, New Jersey
July 2, 2004

5237
920;;2
00000058

028176 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44?4 Fiied 11/02/2004 Page 23 of 35

EXHIBIT A

5238

028177 Defense Reciprocal Discovery '1 2 07': 7 2,

00000059





Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 24 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

All Next Friend Of

Petitioners,

v. No.
GEORGE
President of the United States

DONALD RUMSFELD.
Secretary, United States
Department of Defense

MAJ. GEN. GEOFFERY MILLER
Commander, Joint Task
Force -
Guanuinamo Bay Naval Station
Guant?namo Bay, Cuba

ARMY COL. NELSON J. CANNON,
Commander, Camp Delta
Guane'mamo Bay Naval Station
Guanta'mamo Bay, Cuba



Defendants.

AFFLQAVIT OF SOLICITOR GARELTH PEIRCE
l. GARETH PEIRCE, of Inverness Street. London, United Kingdom, NW1 being

duly sworn. depose and State as follows:

5239
a

00000060

028178 Defense Reciprocal Discovery







Case Document 44-4

028179

Filed 11/02/2004 Page solicitor in England and I am a partner in the ?rm of Bimberg Peirce at the above
address. I have been retained by the Second Petitioner. to act on her behalf and also on

behalf of her husband- the First Petitioner, who is presently detained by the United

- States military at Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba (Guantanamo).

2. On 2"6 February 2002, was retained by the father of- - and
thereafter by his wife,- to act on their behalf and on behalf of?himclf
Annexed hereto marked is a copy of my designation as a solicitor for- and her
husbanc- in these proceedings.

3. My undersranding of the events that preceded Mir-?5 detention in Guantanamo Bay is as
follows and is derived from interviews with his wife and also information ?nm the British Foreign
Of?ce.

4. In August of 2001,_ his wife and their children towed to live in Kabul, in
Afghanistan. This had bean a long term plan of the family;?believed that he and his
family could live safely in that country, and that he could be involved in ?work of secial value,
namely by setting up a school. He and his family had travelled to Kabul with their life savings.
Once they arrived they acquired a house in Kabul and -was involved in the process of
setting up the school. Mr- spolte to family and friends from time to time after their arrival and
was believed by them to have become safely settled there.

5. The events of September ii. 200] and their repercussions, however, had an immediate and
disturbing effect upon-and his family as they did upon the entire civilian population
of Afghanian in the light of statements about military repercussions planned by the United States.

and his family remained in Kabul during the bombing of that city; it had been
2

Defense Reciprocal Discovery





Case Document 44-4

028180



Filed 11/02/2004 Page 26 of 35

almoSt impossible for them to leave and, like many others, their initial reaction had been to wait and
hope that conditions did not worsen. HoWever, they were eventually compelled to flee.

6. it. is my understanding that, by the end of November 2001,. and his family
had reached lslarnabad and his father in?and a family friend were involved in arranging
for the sending oi" monies in order for the family to re-esteblish itself in lslamabad. The family
entered into a lease an accommodation there and were intending to stay and attempt to re-settle
themSelvres.

7. On the 3 January mill?telephoned his father directly, stating that he had
been seized by Pakistani of?cials, with Antericans also present, and that he was making the call
from a mobile phone which had not yet been taken from him whilst he was in transit from his house.
He had been arrested from the premises he had rented, with his wife and children presdnt.

8. From the date of the receipt of that call continuous attempts were made by and on behalf of
his Earnin to obtain answers to what happened -md to obtain intervention on his
behalf. Lawyers Were instructed in Pakistan to initiate habeas corpus proceedings there to obtain his
release ?'om detention. All of the papers in those proceedings can be produced should they be
considered of assistance to the Court. The a?'adavit evidence of all relevant departments in Pakistan
with authority to make arrests, denied all knowledge ems existence, despite the
prodUction in those proceedings by Mrs-of the lease taken out by her husband for the property
in which the family Were living at the time of his am

9. In parallel, on behan of the family, i asked for intervention by the Foreign Of?ce. The

response of the Foreign O?ce was that, upon inquiry (indicating that they had been shown a cepy

Defense Reciprocal Discovery 1L





Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 27 of 35

of Mr-?s Pakistani passport) they could make no formal intervention to Pakistan in view of the
fact that Mr- had dual British and Pakistani nationality.

10. i The Court in Pakistan on ist March 2002 ordered the Interior Minister to bring Mr .to
Court on 7th March; the interior. Ministry failed to comply with that order. On 8th March 2002, Mr
lawyer, Mr Abdur Rahman Saddiqui, submitted that we. had been taken from his home
by the CIA and the Pakistani Security Services (5151?), and interrogated by the 151. The Court
ordered Mr-?s production on 14th March 2002, on pain of sanctions being imposed upon the
Interior Ministry. Still Mr-was not produced.

I l. However, in the interim. on 4th Match 2002. a tar-tram the Red Cross telephoned
Mr-s father it- to Say that?had been handed to the US authorities
by Pakistani-authorities, and had been taken to Kandahar, some 10 to 14 days previously by US
forces. It is our understanding that Mr- was thereafter held at a US military airbase in
Baghram in Afghanistan. In the light of the sworn responses to the habeas corpus application in
Pakistan it is clear that -was removed to Afghanistan unlawfully.

l2. Thereafter his family received few communications from him of which two are exhibited
here, one to his wife . dated the 20'h of November 2002, and one to his father, dated the 15'h of
December 2002. In a letter to his wife he makes speci?c reference to his wish that the family
consult a lawyer, naming myself as the lawyer who had representet- in the year
2000. in his letter to his father, he states have not seen the sun. sky, moon etc for nearly a year.?
He states, ?1 am in this state of desperation and I am beginning to lose the?ght against depression

and hopelessness.?

5242

117}? 7a
00000063

028181 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



a



Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 28 of 35

13. i on behalf of - and- the father of the ?rst petitioner pressed the

Foreign Of?ce by letter and in interview in England to ensure the most basic provision of
information concerning Mr. The? Foreign Of?ce indicated it was impossible to obtain any
information whatsoever from the US authorities. As one exarnple. in a letter dated the 24"1 of
October 2002 the Foreign O?ioe con?rmed that ?we have made regular requests for information on
and access for welfare purposes. pre?rably Consular access. to Mr- and any other British
nationals who may? be in a similar position. 1712 US position is that they will not allow us Consular
access, or access any weifm-e proposes, to any British national detained in Afghanistan or
provide us with any information about Mr .19 detention." 1 exhibit a copy of that letter at

14. Mr.?s family was informed he had been transferred to Guantanamo Bay on
February 60', 2003. On the 10'11 of February 2003 on behalf of?s father and his wife 1
instructed the Centre for Constitutional Rights in the United States to initiate all such legal action on
his behalf as they considered possible. (1 had already in 2002 instructed the Centre for
Constitutional Rights in similar terms to initiate habeas corpus proceedings on behalf of-
- and- whose petition is now shortly due to be heard by the Supreme Court in the
United States.) The Centre for Constitutional Rights petitioned the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights for the Organisation of American States on March 2003 on behalf of -
-and others.
15. 1 have continued to press the Foreign Of?ce in England to achieve the release of Mr-
and compliance with international law. 1 enclose one example of letters written to the Foreign

Secretary Mr Straw, and to the Attorney General. 1 am aware that the Attorney General has

5

5243


0025000364

02810-2 Defense Reciprocal Discovery







Case Document 44-4

028183

Filed 11/02/2004

Page 29 of 35

continued to press for due process to be applied to who is now. i understand
designated as a person who may be placed before a military tribunal as an ?enemy combatant"
although no charges have yet been proffered against him. I have been informed by the Foreign
Of?ce that he has been held in solitary con?nement since the time of his-designation.

16. A?er two years in custody~has been detained wholly incommunicado from
any legal advice. He has clearly and speci?cally asked that his family obtain the assistance of his
lawyer, namely myself but, as has been throughout the case with- and- no
possibility of access by any who might provide him with advice has been achieved. At repeated
approaches by myself and his family to. and meetings With, the Foreign O?ice, no further or better
information concerning? has been achieved. No letters have been received by his
family since July 2003. in the past 24 hours i have been told that reliable information suggests that
there are serious questions as to_s mental health. Such a condition is wholly
unsurprising given that the Foreign O?ce has stated that he has been held in solitary con?nement
for some six months. As a lawyer with experience of the effects of isolation upon the
ability of any detainee to stand trial, and to make appropriate decisions concerning his defence, I am
certain that_ must tiow be in urgent need of wholly independent advice, both legal
and medical.

l7. 1 know the facts deposed to herein to be true of my own knowledge, except where othemise



appears.
SWom by the Deponent at on this 2 day of March, 2004
A OSBORNES SOLICITORS
68 PARKWAY
LONDON
. $A?r?r
020 7485 881 1

Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44-4 Fiied 11/02/2004 Page 30 of 35

Before me:




5245

6

028184 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44?4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 31 of 35

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

as Next Friend of

Petitioners

v. No.
GEORGE WALKER BUSH,
President of the United States

DONALD
Secretary, United States
Department of Defense

MAJ. GEN. GEOFFERY MILLER.
Commander, Joint Task
Force - 160
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

ARMY COL. NELSON J. CANNON,
Commander. Camp Delta
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba



Defendants.

EXHIBITS TO FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVIT 0F SOLICIT OR GARETH PEIRCE

A. Copy of designation as solicitor far- and her husband?

in these proceedings.
B. GPZ: Copy of letter sent by the FOREIGN OFFICE to Bimberg Peirce Painters.

(October 24, 2003)


osaoawes some
as PAHKWAYITORS
LONDON
NW1 7AH

028185 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

63%5567



Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 32 of 35

EXHIBIT GPI

5247

0636 07507568

028186 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Ftled 11/02/2004 Page 33 of 35

"h'I dun-L.

GREAT BRITAIN

ALTHOPJSATIUN
COMES NOW, being duly sworn, and deposes and states as

. follows:

1. I an: related He is my husband. Ilovoh'ttn andwant only what is inhis
best Wests.

2. It is my undetstanding thathe is not allowed access to 3 [avatar or to the courts of the United
States.

3. I wish to acres his "next Eriend"?end1horeby retain request and authorise Garth Peirce,
solicitor. and Daniel Guedalla, solicitor, at Bimberg Peirce and Partners solicttors, 14
Inventess SHEEL London NW1 7H1, United Kingdom, and the United States I retain
and authorise Clive A. Sm?'ord Smith. and his associates. to act on behalf of Mom
Bag and take whatever legal steps that they consider to he in his best interests.

Sworn to this day of March 2004

?Messed: Irma)

TYNDALLWOODS
wmosoa HOUSE
TEMPLE sow
BIRMINGHAM a: 51's

. 5248

0281.87 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

33:1572,
00000069







Case Document 44-4 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 34 of 35
EXHIBIT GP2
5249
028188 Defense Reciprocal Discovery


Case Document 444 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 35 of 35

EXHIBIT GP3



5250

25$ 72,


028189'_ Defense Reciprocal Discovery

Case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 1 of 35



24-DCT-ZBBE 11:29 FROM 13w ..

Foreign

24 October 2002 Commonwealth

Office
Birnberg, Peirce and Farmers ?$333?
14 Invemess Street Old Admiralty Building
lander: London
NW1 - IPA
By Fax to: 020 79110170

Bacall: Jntheuey?rngewk

brass

Thank you for your letter to the Foreign and Commonwealth Of?ce of 8 October about Mr

who is believed to be detained in Afghanistan by the United States. I am the
05cm? dealing with-s case and have been asked to reply. Please use the above
address and fax number for correspondence.

1 would like to assure you that we are conscious of the importance of safeguarding 011.5
welfare.

You have asked for a meeting to discuss this matter with FCO o?cials. It will be possible to
have a meeting at 14.00 on Wednesday 30 October;_ Head ofConsular Division
and myself. will attend the meeting. Please could you advise us in advance of who is
attending from Peirce 3: Partners and from Mr-?s family. We will have to limit
the total number of visitors to four. If this time is inconvenient, please contact me by
telephone to ammgc a different time.

In. answer to the four speci?c points raised in your letter:?
d: b) There has not been a consular visit. I

c) hearing reports of possible detention in Afghanistan by the US
authorities. the FCO sought information from the US Government about his identity and
location. Since then we have made regular requests for information on and access for welfare
purposes, preferably consular access, to Mr. and any nth-?r? who may be
in a similar position. The US position is that they will not allow us consular access, or access
for any welfare purposes, to an detained in Afghanistan or previde us with
any information about Mr 5 detention. Wede however continue to press for access and
information. We understan the International Red Cross (ICRC) has had access to Mr

- at Bagram.

5251
36 if



028190 Defense Reciprocal Discovery







How:

Case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 2 of 35





d) We have not been provided with information on his status by the US authorities.
1%
Consular Division
cc:
2
53% m;
028191. . Defense Reciprocal Discovery


Case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 3 of 35

EXHIBIT A

5253
36: 07C



028192 Defense Reciprocal Discovery





[lag-CV1 01.1 QT-RMQ ?W?Dvgg'umg?t?i?wn Fiied 11/02/2004 Page 4 of - .-

01715810407

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

i
As Next Friend Of

w,
re?tioners.

v. Nu.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH,
President of the United Slates

DONALD
Secretary. United States
?Defense

MAJ. GEN. GEOFFERY MILLER.
Commander, Joint Task
Forte - GTMO
Guantinamo Bay Naval Stan'nn
Guantinamo Bay. Cuba

ARMY COL. NELSON J. CANNON.
Commander, Delta
Gnant?namn Bay Naval Station
Gnant?namn Bay, Culu

Defendants.
- 0
or?- being duly sworn. depose and
state as follows: 7 .
1. lama ?zewifeof-andlama-ci?zcn.
?smce-.

5254
390?
00000075

028193 - Defense Reciprocal Discovery









Case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 5 of 35

.-
0

01716810407

4-.-..-

2. All of the relevant backgrOnnd is already set out in the witness samurai-int of Gareth Peizee,
made onmyhehalf, andeontaetwithlhe?Withthe :30onme with
the courts in and o?einls in Pnidstan has been conducted on my behalf by my father in law
and our solicitor, Gareth Peirce. She has provided an a?davit in these proceedings. and i do not
repeat whatis contained inher- affidavit
3. I have been married for-years my husband. We have. ehildrui. one child having
- been born my return to- from Paltistan
4. in August oflast yea my husband and 1 moved with our children in Kabul in Afghanistan
The reasons for our move were related to the wish of our family to live in a society that we regarded
as safe and. in which we wished to bring up our children. My husband?s plan was to be involved in
the nursing of a school. We, in consequence. cent: to move to Kabul in August of 2001 and bought
a house in Kabul. My husband was engaged in setting up a school what the events of September
ll. 2001 occurred. and bed an e?'eet upon all civilians livingin Afghanistgn. We believed that the
sensible thing was to wait and see what happened. hoping that the rumours of war would not
materialise. 'However. after the bombing of Kabul Doom-red, in which we were living. we wue
forced to ?ee, although we were not in a position to do so immediately.
5. We evenmally in gating out of Afghanistan and. with the help of monies sent by
our families and friends in England. rented a house in Islernebed where we re-settied and were
living with our d?ldten in what we believed, thenito be safety. ?le?proton: were rented in our
name. and there was nothing clandestine about our presence.
6. During the night of 3151 January 2001, when I was asleep, people who were not known to

me arrived at our house and took-ewdy. extremely concerned about him for a range
2

5255

r: 6

028194 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44-5
85/933694

028195

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 6 of 35

6171.661646! wiaiocdwul

01716810407

13': :1

ofreasona, but including the factthatheis someone whohas su?'ered ?omill health foramunba
ofyeara. When heexertahirnselfinany
way, even going up the stairs. he has to have recourse to an inhaler. lam aware that he cannot


all times.



7. I have not seen my husband since that time. As is set out in the statement of Gareth Peirce. .

proceedings were initiated in Paldstan and all knowledge of my husband's detention was denied in
the course of those proceedings by all relevant Pakistani audioritics with power to arrest. It was my
father in law who received a call during the time in which those proceedings were ongoing. to say
that my husband was in American hands in detention in Afghanisutn.

8. Iwas
behalf have been made ?by my father in law and our solicitor of the Foreign Of?ce at frequent
intervals. No infatuation has been provided that reassures us, nor allows us even to know what is
his legal situation, and what is his physical condition I have received a ntunher of letters ?om my
husband though the Red Cross in which the average delay has been several months in arrears of the
date appearing on each letter. I do not feel that myhusband is able to say anything that re?ects what
is happening to him. His letters are very obviously sored. He has indicated that time is passing
very slowly, and that await scents like a year. He says always that he prays for to andwiah Into
pray for him. I have however had no letter since July of last year.

9. I have seen it reported that my husband was captured on a battle?eld and have now learned
that he has been designated an "enemy combatant" and yet I know that he was seized ?ntn our

Ira-n

5256

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

if

0


0

000077







case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 7 of 35
01715310407

house in Islamabad. Iknow himto he a pason who wastrying.
family, the a responsible and socially use?tl life.

10. Ihnve asked that an Steps be taken on his hehalfh?ng this in View are:
now extreme alarm 1 ?ee! at my husband?s never ending detention at the hands of the Antericttn
authentic: who have at all times indicated publicly that they do not intend to be bound by what 1
understoodto heintemationalminimtnn nouns.

11. -has moaned in correspondence to me the name of our family?s solicitor. Gareth
Peirce. and itis mycertain beliefthathewould mm meme?: action onhis
behalf. Consequently,lwish to aetashis ?nattfdend?? Inthis capacity I havemhmlandhere
record my continuing request and amho?sah?en to Gateth Peirce solicitor or her meters and
Michael Rainer attorney for the Centre of Cons?m?onal Rights (can) in New fork, and any
lawyets associated with the CCEL husband-s behalf and Ink:
whatsoever legal steps they consider to he in our best interests.

12. Ilmow the facts deposed to herein to he ofmy own howledge, except where othawise

appeals.

Swot-n hy the Deponent at maw??mon this day of Match, 2004







Before me:
.-

TYNDALI
Hanson 4005!
more new
mum-mm 33
5257 -
028196 I. Defense Reciprocal Discovery
- er 7 a

00000078



Case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 8 of 35

EXHIBIT



5258

028197 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

wag-?76,
00000079





Case 1:04-cv-01 137-RMC Document 44-5

uh.
'u

028198

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 9 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FEROZ ALI ABBASI

as Next Friend of Feroz Ali Abbasi

Petitioners
v.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH.
President of the United States

DONALD RUMSFELD,
Secretary, United States
Depu'tment of Defense

BRIGADIER GEN. MIKE LEHNERI,
Commander, Joint Task
Force - 160 .
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

COLONEL TERRY CARRILO, .
Commander, Camp x-Rny
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Defendants.

FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No.

OF LOUISE gm
I LOUISE CHRISTIAN of Christian Fisher of 42 Museum Street, London

ILY in the United Kingdom being duly sworn. AND STATES as

follows:

1. I am a solicitor and I haw. been engaged by the Second Petitioner?

- to act on her behalf and on behalf of-hcr son Emmi," the ?st

Pe??on'cr.



5259

Defense Reciprocal Discovery I

00000080











Case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 10 of 35

2

2. On the 8th February 2002 Itvrote to W'de Parish, the US Ambassador to the UK
and"to the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack'su-aw in similar terms. The letters are
attached hereto and marked

3. On the 18th of Fehmary 2002 menzbers of my ?rm, my client and Stephen
Solley QC. Leading Counsel instructed on behalf of MI Ahhasi had a meeting with
Baroness Amos of the UK Government.

4. We have instructed Leading Counsel Stephen Solley QC and two leading academics
Professors Vaughan Lowe and Guy Goodwin-(30110 advise on the legal status of Mr
Abbasi and his right to access to lawyers. I attach mad-red a copy of their
Opinion. The Opinion was handed to Baroness Amos but she said she would not be

responding to it.

- -.

5. On 215: February I telephoned the US Ambassador?s o?ce and asked for an
immediate reply to our letter of 8th February. [was told I would be telephoned later
in the day. I subsequently sent a faxed letter dated let February a copy of which is
attached marked The letter non'ftes our requirement that an independent
Court or Tribunal detennine Mr Abbasi's status and that his lawyers be giv asses
to him.

6. I have not received arepl'y to my letters to the US Ambassador.

7. I have not received any other communication either ?'om any authority of the United

.. 4 u. .m . .. .

States apart from those referred to above.

8. - has received messages don: her son Feroz one of which is

attached to her a?dnvit.

I

5260

028199 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

r;
00000081





- Case Documaent 44-5

SWORN by the Deponenl at

028200

9. 1 him: spoken to a Red Cross Rename in ?ne UK who has con?rmed to me
thai'the Red Cross will piss letters ?rm the family no Perez but these messages are
to be limitcdto mattetsof?m?ynews only.

10. I know the facts deposed to herein to be true of my mm knowledge. except when:

otherwise appears.

dayof


BurtonWeods
Solicitoae

Museum House
25 Museum 8199!
Lennon WC1A 1JT

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 11 of 35

5261
#6 7 a,



0006-0032



Case 1:04-cvn01137-RMC Document 44?5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 12 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTEE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FEROZ ALI ABBASI
As Next Friend of Feroz Ali Abbaai

Petitioners
No.



V.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH,
President of the United States

DONALD RUMSFELD
Secretary, United States
Department ofDet?ense

BRIGADIER GEN. MIKE MERT.
Commander, Joint Task
Force - 160
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

COLENEL TERRY CARRILO,
Commander, Camp X-Ray
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Defendants.



EEK

This is the exhibit refuned to in the Af?davit of Louise Christian referred to as exhibit



?ve WU Li

"no-on. nus?--

5262
028201

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

974.; 75
00000083





028202



Case Document 44-5

8 February 2002


William Farish Esq
US Ambassador

US Embassy

24 Grosvenor Square
London W1A 1AE

BY FAX: 0307 59:. 3525

Dear Mr Farish,

RE: FEROZ - QETMNED IN GUANTAHAMO

We have been instructed by Ms-Ipto represent her

son, Feroz Abbasl. Mr Abbasi who is a British National has been
reported as being detained by the US Government in Guantanamo,
Cuba. This has been confirmed by the Foreign D?ice who states
that Mr Abbasl has been interrogated by M15 of?cers from Britain
who con?rmed his identity. The Foreign Of?ce have however
stated that they have been denied Consular access to Mr Abbasi.

We are writing on behalf of Mr Abbasi to express a number of
extremely urgent pressing concerns about the legal authority under
which .he is being held, the status which the US Government
accords to him, the conditions of his_detention and in particular any
sensory deprivation to which he is being subjected, the lack of
access by any independent person or medical expert, the question
of whether we as lawyers will be allowed access to visit him in
Cuba, the proposed future conduct of the US Government in
relation to him and whether he will be afforded a fair trial and if so

in what jurisdiction.

We write to let you know that we have instructed Stephen Solley
QC the Chairman of the Bar Human Rights Committee and that we
have received backing from the Law Society Human Rights
Committee and the Bar Human Rights Committee in requesting
immediate access to visit Mr Abbasl in Guantanamo to check on his
welfare. We would like access for a member of this ?rm, Mr

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 13 of 35







5263

49,92? 72.

00000084



Case Document 44-5. Filed 11/02/2004 Page 14 of 35

Stephen Soiley QC and an independent medical expert instructed by
US. 'We would be grateful to hear from you urgently whether you
are able to. grant us access to Mr Abbasi at Guantanamo.

Obviously Ms- Mr'Abbasi's?mother would also like access to
her son so we also make a separate request for a visit by her.

We would like to have an urgent meetingwith you in person to
discuss our rednests, the basis on which Mr Abbasi is being held,
what e?orts have been made to confirm his identity, and the .
conditions of his detention. We would be grateful if you could
telephone Louise Christian or Elaine Kassablan on the above
number as soon as possible to an'ange such a meeting.

We have instructed Stephen Soiiey Qcto advise on whether the US
Government has lawful authority to detain Mr Abbasi at
Guantanamo, on whether his status is that of a prisoner of war or a
person detained on suspicion of a crime, on the conditions of his
- - - detention and the treatment being a?orded tohim and on his right . . . . . . . . brought before a Court or other Tribunal which will satisfy the
international law requirements for a fair trial. We intend to let you
i have a c0py of Mr Soiley?s opinion as soon as possible.

We would be grateful to hear from you extremely urgently in
respOnse to our request for a meeting and for access to Mr Abbasl
as his lawyers to confer with him in private.

Mr Abbasi who is a British Citizen was born on the 29th October
1979 so he is only just twenty two years old._ He disappeared on
the 12th December 2000 to the enormous disbess of his mother
who is extremely close to him. His mother is extremely concerned
that she has not received any personal message from him or'had
any infarmation at all on his medical condition or well being. She
has passed a personal message to the Red Cross to give to him but
has had no re5ponse or information from them. Similarly she is
very disturbed that although it is said that MIS of?cers have
interrogated Mr Abbasi in Guantanamo no Consular access has been
allowed. It appears to us that the lack of any independent access
whatsoever to Mr Abbasi constitutes a grave breach of international
law and that the US Government is laying itself open to veryiserlous
accusations should any harm befall Mr Abbasi while he is detained

in Guantanamo.

5264

028203 Defense Reciprocal Discovery if? a; 7 a

00000085



Case 1:04wcv-01137-RMC Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 15 of 35

We would be grateful to epeak with you urgently concerning this
matter and for your response to our request for' access to Mr Abbasi

In Guantanamo.

We are sending a copy of this letter to the Foreign Secretary and
of?cials in the Foreign Of?ce, to Mr Abbasi?s MP, Mr Geraint Davies
and to the Bar and the Law Society Human Rights Committees.

We await an urgent response.

Yours faithfully5265

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

028204

foofza
00000086





Case Document 44-5

028205"

.u

8 February 2002

LC.RG .10121-00 1

The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP
Foreign Secretary

Foreign Commonwealth Of?ce
King Charles Street

London

BY 55;; g207 839 2517
Dear Foreign Secretary,

RE: Fenoz ABBA - AINED IN GUA TANAMO



We have been insbucted'to act for Mr Feroz Abbasi who has been
detained in Guantanamo. We enclose a copy of a letter sent to the
US Ambassador and also a copy of a letter-to the British Red Cross.
We are writing to ask for an urgent meeting with you in person for
ourselves and our client, Ms the mother of Peru:
Abbasi. We are concerned to hear from the Foreign Of?ce that
Consular access to Mr Abbasi has been denied. We have asked for
proof that re has been a request for Consular access and of the
reply. M5 is extremely concerned that she has not received
any personal message from her son even though they are very
close.

As you will see from our letter to the US Ambassador we are asking
for access to Mr Abbasl in Guantanamo for ourselves as lawyers and
an independent doctor. We anticipate that a member of this ?rm
will be accompanied by Stephen Soiley QC, the Chair of the Bar
Human Rights Committee. The request for access has the backing
of the Law Society and the Bar Council Human Rights Committees.

We seek an urgent meeting with you as we understand you have
called for the British detainees in Guantanamo to be returned to the
UK. Ms- would urgently like to hear from you as to what
communications have been between?the British Government and
the US Government in furtherance of your request.

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 16 of 35

5266

EMF 72.
00000087



Case Document 44-5

028206



Filed 11/02/2004 Page 17 0f 35

We awalt hearing from you urgently.

Yours faithfully,

CHRISTI HE

ENCS



5267

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

52:4? 72

00000088





Case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 18 of 35

IN THE UNITED sums COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FEROZ ALI ABBASI
As Next Friend of Feroz All Abbas!

Petitioners

No.
v.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH.
President of the United States

DONALD RUMSFELD
Secretary, United States
Department of Defense

BRIGADIER GEN. MIKE LEHNERT,
Commander, Joint Task .
Force- 160
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

COLENEL TERRY CARRILO,
Conu'nander, Camp x-Ray
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba



Defendants.
EXEJBQ:

This is the exhibit re?ned to in the Af?davit of Louise Christian referred no as exhibit

Signed: -W umLe

Dated: Lh (mi-

5268

0%5076089

028207 Defense Recip?FocaI Discovery





Case Document 44028208



Filed 11/02/2004

In the tram or the detention of Mr Feer Abbasi at us
Quantanamo BaseI Cuba. - -

Opinion on Status. Qgtention,- Flight of Legal Access, Consular

Access, and Remedies.

.1. We understand that Mr Abbasi is held under the United States
Presidential Order dated 13 November 2001- This advice is based .

Upon the text of the Presidential Ordericurrently :14 February 2002}
displayed on the US Government website, at

ll 1.2001 1 ?l 'l 3-
27.hml.

. The Order does not automatically apply to anyone: it applies Only to

those individuals who have been determined by the President. in
writing, to be a non-US citizen whom there is reason to believe was

at the 'relevant times' (and the Order does not define the ?relevant

times'l a member of al Qaida or engaged in international terrorism

. . aimed. at. Uniteds?cetes. interests. 9F.liathtir.9d ant such. person and .

Whom it is in the interests of the United States to make subject to
the Presidential Order (Section 2). We do not know whether such a
written deten'nination has been made in reapect of Mr Abbasi.

Mr Abbasi's status



3. As far as Mr Abbasi's status 'is concerned, as a matter of

international law there are only three possibilities: lil he may be a
combatant, now held as a prisoner of war; (ii) he may be a civilian
detainee, now interned; or he may be an unlawful combatant,

now detained, either pending trial or simply. detained and not pending

trial.

. if Mr Abbasi is a prisoner of war. his detentiOn is governed by the

terms of Geneva Convention ill. He couid not be required to give any
information to the US authorities other than his name, rank, serial
number and date of birth. He could not be prosecuted for his
involvement in the hostilities: he could be prosecuted only for war
crimes and crimes against humanity. He would be entitled to be
released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of

hostilities. art. 11 81-.

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

Page 19 of 35



5269
00000000







Case Document 44-5



028209

5. The United States denies that Mr Abassi is a prisoner of war. As a

matter of law that question is regulated by Article 5 and Article
45 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions
l?APl'l.

. The United States has not ratified APL However, in the Operational

Law Handbook (JA 422) issued by the Judge Advocate General?s
School. United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia. in 1997, it is
stated, 'thet the US_views [among others. Article 45 as
customary international law? {page 18-2), which would bind the
United States along with all other States. The Handbook-summarises

Filed 1 1/02/2004 Page 20 of 35

Article 45 in the following terms: "prisoner of war presumption for

those who participate in the hostilities".

. This Statement is quali?ed in the 2002 edition of Operational Law

Handbook. in which it is now said that the US views Article 45
as ?customary international law or acceptable practice though not
legally binding' (Ch. 2, p. 11). it is practically incanceivable that the

customary international law has changed in this way since 1997. in

any event it would arguable before an international tribunal that the
United States is estopped from denying that represents
customary international law. particularly given the fact that 159
States have now ratified Additional Protocol (such an argument
would; however, be less likely to succeed before a United States

court or tribunal).

or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the party on
which he depends claims such status on his behalf by noti?cation? to
the United States. he is presumed to be a prisoner of war, and
retains that status until such time as his status has been determined
by a competent tribunal. it is not known whether prisoner API stipulates that if Mr Abbasi ?claims the status of prisoner of war,

status has been claimed by or on behalf of Mr Abbasi. in our view, -

however, such status could be claimed on his behalf. certainly by the
British Government, and possibly by his legal representatives. [Some
doubt as to the right of his legal representatives to make the claim
flows from the fact that API does not eXpressly give such a right,
although earlier-US practice has confirmed the. roleof counsel in
proceedings to determine status; see further below). We understand

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

5270

?El??gil? 1



Case Document 44-5

028210

Filed 11/02/2004

that the United States has not submitted the question of Mr Abbasi's
status to a competent tribunal.

. In our view, the United?States is obliged to submit the question of

Mr Abbasi's status to a competent tribunal. which is also consistent

'w'rth the practice of the United States in Other theatres of

.

operations.

During the Vietnam War. the US Military Assistance Command
in Vietnam issued comprehensive criteria- for classification and
disposition of detainees. Annex A of Directive Number 381-46 of
December 27, 1967 defined 'detainees' as ?persons who have been
detained but whose ?nal status has not yet been determined. Such
persons are entitled to humane treatment in accordance with the
provisions of the Geneva Conventions.' It further provided for the
systematic classi?cation of detainees into 'prisoner of war' and 'non-
prisoner of war' categories.

Among the non-prisoner of war class. the directive included

civilian' defendantsliable- to trial by the Government .of. Vietnam .for. .

offences under local law. as well as certain categories of ?irregulars'.
such as guerrillas 'detained while not engaged in actual combat? and
a detainee ?suspected of being a spy, sabotaur or terrorist'.

Directive Number 20-5 of March 15, 1963 made extensive
provision for the of eligibility for prisoner of war status
applicable, among others. to ?nOn-prisoners of war and doubtful
cases who are captured by or are in the custody of United States
forces! The Directive relied expressly ori Article 5 it provided
that 'All United States military and DOD civilian personnel who take
or have custody of a detainee Afford to each detainee in
their custody treatment consistent with that of a prisoner of war,
unless or until it has been determined by competent authority in
accordance with this directive that the detainee is not a prisoner of

war.? .

The Directive provided further in relation to the rights of the
detainee that, ?No person may be deprived of his status as a prisoner
of war without having had an opportunity to present his case with
the assistance of a qualified advocate er counsel', and that, ?The

Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Page saw?

0000:0092
f?af 72,







Case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 22 of 35

--

Detainee shall have the right to be present with his counsel at all
open sessions of the tribunal.'

14-. The Directive madeextensive provision for the 'Fiights of
Counsel for the Detainee', including ?a period of at least one week
before the hearing in order to prepare his case', free access to visit
the detainee and interview him in private?. a ?reasonabie opportunity
to confer privately with essential witnesses, including prisoners or
war?, and rights of?cross-examination and presentation of witnesses

and tesrimony.

15. it is unclear whether Mr Abbasi is or is not a prisoner of war,
but this is clearly a question appropriate for inquiry by a competent
tribunal. The answer would depend upon the precise facts of his
case, and in particular upon the exact relationship between the
Taliban (which in our view was as a matter of international law the
Government of Afghanistan, even though it was not recognised by
the United States as such] and any organisation in which he was an

. active participant in Afghanistan. We understand that it is said that

A 'M?r'AbbasiWas a member of'Al O'aida, but we are not aware of anyproof that this is the case, or of any proof of the nature of the
relationship between Al Q'aida. This point is important because the
de?nition of a ?combatant' in international law may be wide enough
to embrace Al O'aida fighters if, as a matter of fact, they were
integrated into the Taliban command structure.



16. if Mr Abbasi were a civilian detainee, his internment would be

. governed by the terms of Geneva Convention iV. He would'be
- entitled to visits, communications, and other privileges, and to be
released as soon as the reasons, which necessitated his internment

no longer, exist art. 132].

17. Even if the exceptional provisions of Article 5 apply and .
a person is detained in the territOr'y of a Party to the
conflictloccupied territory ?as a person under definite soapicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power?. suoh he or
she shall be treated with humanity and, 'in case of trial, shall not be
deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the

present Convention.?

. 5272 -
028211 Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case 1:04-cv-01137h-RMC Document 44028212

18. lnternees in the territory of a Party to the conflict against
whom penal proceedings are pending? for offences not exclusively
subject to disciplinary penalties, may be detained until the close of
such proceedings and, if circumstances require, until he completion
of the penalty: Art. 133, However, the provisions of Articles
71-76 inclusive shall apply by analogy to proceedings against
internees who are in the national territory of the Detaining Power;

Art. 126 GCIV.

19. Among others, Article 72 provides for rights of defence,
including assistance by a qualified advocate or counsel of their
choice, ?who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the
necessary facilities for preparing the defence.'

20. We understand that the United States does not regard Mr
Abbasi as an internee within the terms ofGC IV.

The third possibility is that Mr Abbasi is an unlawful
combatant, entitled to treatment neither as a combatant prisoner of

'iiv'a'r'nor a?s' a'cl?vilian ?internea: This appears to be the status that the -

United States regards him as having.

22. Unlawful combatants are not without rights. They are entitled
to the minimum standard of treatment set out in article 75.
Article 75 is among those recognized by the United States in 1997
as representing customary. international law. Article 75 reads as

followsz-
Art 75. Fundamental guarantees

1. In so far as" they are affected by a situation referred to in
Article 1 of this Protocol, personswho are in the power of a
Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more
favourable treatmant under the Conventions or under this
Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and
shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this
Article without any adverse distinction based upon race,
colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other
opinion, nationai or social origin, wealth, birth or pther status,
or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the
person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such

Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Filed 11/02/2004 Page 23 of 35

.-

5273

00000094

53:94:72.





Case 1:04-cv-01 1371RMC Document 44028213

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 24 of 35

persons.

2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any

time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by
civilian or by military agents:

la) violence to the life, health, car-physical or mental well-being
of persons; in particular:

ii) murder; .
(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;

corporal punishment; and
mutilation;

lb] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment. enforced prostitution and any form or

indecent assault:

lo) the taking of hostages;

collective punishments; and

le) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3; Any person arrested, detained or interned for aetions related - - - - -
to the armed conflict shall be informed in a language
he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been
taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for panel
offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum a
delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances I
justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to 3

exist.

4. N0 sentence may be passed and no penalty may be
executed on a person found a penal offence related to
the armed conflict except pUrsuant to a cenviction 'pron0unced
by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the
generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure,
which include the following:

the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed
without delay of the particulars of the offence aileged against
him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all
necessary rights and means of defiance; (our emphasis)

lb'} no one shall be convicted of anoffence except on the basis
of individual penal responsibility;

(cl no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence



5274

- 000000 95
572:7?73.

Defense Reciprocal Discovery



Case Document 44028214



Filed 1 1/02/2004 Page 25 of 35

on account or any act or omission which did no: constitute a
criminal offence under the national or international law to
which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor
shall a heavier penalty'be imposed than that Which was
applicable at 'the time when the criminal offence was
committed; if, after the commission of the offence. provision
is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the
offender shall bene?t thereby;

id) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent Until

proved guilty according to law;

lei anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be
tried in his presence;

(fl no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to
confess guilt:

(9) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to
examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to
obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his
behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
no one shall be prosecuted or punishediby the same Party

for an offence in respect-of which a final judgement acquitting . . . .

or convicting that person has been previously pronounced
under the same law and judicial procedure;

anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to
have the judgement pronounced publicly; and

a convicted person shall be advised on conviction or his
judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which

they may be exercised.

Women. whose liberty has been restricted for reasons

related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated
from men?s quarters. They shall be under the immediate
supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases where families
are detained or interned, they shall, whenever possible, be held
in the same place and accommodated as family units.)

Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons
related to the armed conflict shall enjoy the protection
provided by this Article until their final release, repatriation or
're-establishment. even after the end of the armed conflict.

7. In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and

5275

0797a.
00060096

Defense Reciprocal Discovery



I . . . prisoner of war, civilian internee, or unlawful combatant.

Case Document 44-5

028215

23.

24.

25.

trial of persons accused of war crimes or crimes against
humanity, the following principles shall apply:

'lal persons who are accused or such crimes should be
submitted for the purpose of prosecution. and trial in
accordance ?with the applicable rUIes of international law; and
{bi any such persons who do not: bene?t from more favourable
treatment under the Conventions or this Protocol shall be
accorded the treatrnent providedfby this Article, whether or
not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave
breaches of the Conventions or of this Protocol.

8. No provisionof this Article may be construed as limiting or
infringing any other more favourable provision granting greater
protection. under any applicable rules of international law, to

persons covered by paragraph 1

- Article 75 represents the minimum standard of treatment to
which Mr'Abbasi is entitled. That is so regardless of whether he is a

Mr Abbasl's detention-1

In so far as Mr Abbasi's detention is concerned, the
entitlement of the United States to detain him without proceeding to
try him for any offense is limited. it was noted above that prisoners
of war and civilian internees must be released as soon as possible
after the end of hostilities or the cessation of the circumstances that

warranted their detention.

The United States may claim thatlthey are'entitled by the right
of self-defence to detain Mr Abbasi, in order to avert a real and
imminent threat to the United States. The generally-accepted
statement of the criteria of self-defence appears in the
correspondence concerning the Caroline incident, where it was said
that there must be shown "a necessity of self-defence. instant,
overwhelming. leaving no choice of means, and no moment for
dellberatlon't and further that the State invoking self-defence must
do "nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act. justified by the
necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that neccssity, and
kept clearly within it.? [British Foreign State Papers, vol. 29.
c.1137]. Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes-that the right of

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 26 of 35

660555097





Case-1:04-cv-01137-RMC Document 44-5 Filed11/02/2004 Page 27 of 35

self-defence may be exercised by any single State, and also by
States acting in exercise of the right of collective sen-defence. That
might be said to warrant Mr Abbasi?s detention in order to avert a
threat to any of the United States' NATO allies.

26. it is a question of fact whether the circumstances warrant the
exercise or" a right of self-defence by the United States. Mr Abbasi
might have presented a danger to the United States immediately
after September 11, 2001. He might have presented such a danger
when he was in Afghanistan", and would clearly have done so if he
were engaged in hostilities against United States or other NATO
forces operating lawfully in Afghanistan land for present purposes
.we assume that the United States action in Afghanistan was, as a
matter of international law, lawful). But he plainly cannot be held
indefiniteiy without trial on this basis.

27. If Mr Abbasi is facing prosecution?by the United States, his
detention for a reasonable period pending trial will be lawful. If he is
a prisoner of war he could be prosecuted only for war crimes and
crimes against?humanity; if he is an unlawful combatant he could be. .
prosecuted for his involvement in hostilities: for example, he could
be prosecuted for they attempted murder of any United States

soldiers against whom he fought.

Mr Abbasi's right of access tg a lawyer

28. if Mr Abbasi is or may be facing prosecu?on, Article
75l4llal, set out above, expressly entitles him to 'all necessary
rights and means of defence'. That must include a right of access to
a lawyer. That right is reinforced by similar provisions in other
international agreements. Two inStrurnents, to both of whichithe
United States is a party. are particularly signi?cant. The American
Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man sets out various
entitlements to'equality before the law (Article resort to the
courts (Article to Submit petitions to comperent authorities
(Article and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

{Article

29-. The lntemational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets
out the right of every person to life (Article 6), the right to liberty
and freedom from arbitrary detention (Article 9), to treatment With

028216 Defense Reciprocal Discovery





Case Document 4431.

32.

028217



Filed 11/02/2004 Page 28

.-

respect for their humanity and inherent dignity [Article 10) and'to
equality before the law and to adequate facilities for the preparation
of his defence (Article 14).

in our opinion, those instruments all establish a right of access
to a lawyer, for any person facing possible prosecution. Moreover, in
the particular circumstances of this case the right of access arises in
two Section 2 ill of the United States Presidential
Order indicates that the President has already determined in writing
that he has reason to believe that Mr Abbasi has committed one or
more of the offences set out thereafter at (ii. and These are
similar offences to those faced by in the
criminal proceedings he faces in the US District Court of Virginia,
having been detained. it will be remembered. in Afghanistan- Mr
Abbasi plainly faces the real prospectof prosecution. There would
otherwise be no reasonable basis to detain him. Whether in due
course he- is actually proschted is a different quastion and one that
does not affect the issue of legal access. Mr Abbasi is entitled to
seek legal advice so as to present his position in such a light that he
is? not prosecuted.?Erigiish jurisprudence is clear upon the point. as is
European Strasbourg Jurisprudence. Secondly, access might arise in
the context of proceedings before the 'competent tribunal' that
would determine Mr Abbasi's right to the status of a'prisonar of war.
The international instruments do net explicitly establish such a right
for persons who are detained without facing prosecution, but in our
view such a right is implicit in all of the instruments cited.

These rights may be the subject of derogations where, broadly
speaking, it is necessary to do so in order to preserve public safety
in time of public emergency: see American Declaration on the Flights
and Duties of Man. Article international Covenant on Civil
and Political Flights. Article 4. Any such derogation must be limited
to what is necessary to preserve public safety. Again, there is no

of 35

evidence to suggest that the denial of access to a lawyer is strictly

necessary in order to protect public safety.?

No derogation from its obligations under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been declared by the
United States. or communicated to any of the other 144 States
Parties through the intermediary of the UN Secretary-General. as

required by Article

Defense Reciprocal Discovery







Case Document 44-5

- I "not?be' suspended. because there is reasonable fear that lawyers



Article 14 it will be recalled, requires adequate

-. facilities for the preparation of a defence, and declares that 'All

persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. in the
determination of any criminal charge against him or of his rights and
obligations at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public
hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal

established by law.?

in the present case, it is difficult to see how it can be argued
that the denial of'access to a lawyer is strictly necessary in order to
defend the United States. The question is whether the prisoner is
any more of a threat to the United States if he has access to a
lawyer than he is if he does not. it is very difficult to see that this
could be so. Only if there were a reasonable fear that Mr Abbasi?s
contact with a lawyer might enable items or communications
prejudicial to public safety in or out of the prison could this be
maintained. Moreover, that fear would have to be one arising in the
specific case of Mr Abbasi and his lawyers. Mr Abbasi?s right may

visiting other prisoners might conStitute such a danger. In any event,
no argument to this effect has been made out by the United States.

it might be argued by the United States that access to a
lawyer would impede the process of interrogation. Even if, as a
matter of fact, this were true, it would be relevant only in so far as
the interrogation was the only means available to enable the United
States to defend its vital interests, in accordance with the
circumstances in which derogations from human rights instruments
are permitted. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case:
and given the length of time for which the prisoner has already been
available for questioning, it is dif?cult to believe that any such case
could be made out. Moreover, this argument would be relevant only
in so far as the interrogation did not involve the application of
intemationaily unlawful force or .pressure to the prisoner:
international law does- not permit States to suspend their basic
humanitarian duties, and self-defence 'would not operate so as to
permit the use of torture or other internationally unlawful preSSUre to
the prisoner. Even if a State had a right not to have lawful
interrogations impeded, that right could not extend to unlawful

interrogations.

Filed 11/02/2004 Page Defense Reciprocal Discovery

fears:

64
00





000100

Case Document 44?5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 30 of 35

36. There is a further and important reason why the United States
may not suspend the right of access to a lawyer in this case. The
Presidential Order of 13 November 2001 specifically excludes from
its scope US nationals. prisoners are as a matter of law thus
discriminated against in relation to their access to lawyers and to
right to petition courts in the United States or other countries and
international tribunals. This is objectionable on three grounds.

37. First. Guantanamo Bay is Cuban. territory. currently leased by
the United States: see Article 3 of the Agreement Between the
United States and Cuba for the Lease of Lands for Cpaling and Naval
stations; February 23. 1903. The apparent claim in the 13 November
2001 Presidential Order that the United States may forbid foreign
nationals outside United States territOry to petition non-United States
courts is entirely without foundation as a matter of international law. -
The United States has no competence to' give any such order: it lies
beyond the reach of United States? jurisdiction.

A Second, by?dis?crimin'ating?between the Cuban prisoners on the -
basis of their nationality, the United States is violating its
international legal duties to maintainthe equality of all persons-
before the law. without discrimination; That duty is set out in the
American Declaration on the Rights and Dutiesof Man (Article ill.
the lntemational Covenant on Civil?and Political Rights (Article
and (Article 75(1). The United States is not entitled to deny to
British nationals right that it gives to itsown nationals.

89. Third. notwithstanding its characterisation under US law,
Guantanamo is clearly a place for which the United States is
responsible and in respect of which the international obligations of

the United States apply.

Consular acgess

40. We note'also that the United Kingdom is entitled to insist upon
consolar access to Mr Abbasi. That right is set out in Article 36 of
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. which provides:-

"Communication and contact with nationals of the sendino

state.
1. With a View to facilitating the exercise 01" consular functions





a- a-

5280

655076101

028219 Defense Reciprocal Discovery







Case Document 44relating to nationals of the sending State:

is) consular officers shall be free to communicate with

nationals of the sending State'and to have access to them.

Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom

with respect to communication with and access to consular
- officers of the sending State:

lb) if he so requests. the competent authorities of the
receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post
of the sending State it, within its; consular district. a national
of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody
pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any
Communication addressed to the .Cconsular post by the person I
arrested, in prison, cuStody or detention shall also be
forwarded bythe said authorities without delay. The said

authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of -

his rights under this sub-paragraph:
(oi consular of?cers shall have the right to visit a national of
the sending, Statewho _is.i_n prison, custody or detention. to

national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or
detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment.

Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action

on behalf of a national who is inprison, custody or detention if
he expressly opposes such action."

Remedies

028220

41. There are three main approaches through which Mr Abassi's

rights might be enforced. ?rst..there may be an appeal to the United

States' courts. We understand that such an application has already
been lodged. We are not experts in United States law; but it seems
reasonable to suppose that. given the terms of the Presidential
Order, it is not probable that a United States' court will rule that the
detention of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is entirely unlawful,

although it may be more likely to uphold claims to humane treatment
and to access to lawyers for those detained.

Second, the British Government should make diplomatic

42.
representations to the United States Government, requiring that Mr

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

converse and correspond with him and to arrange tor hisle'g'al
representation. They shall also have the right to visit any

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 31 of 35


- ..

5281
92,

00000102



Case Document 44-5

. i - a 9

028221

. Filed 11/02/2004 Page 32

--


Abbasi and other British nationals held at Guantanamo Bay be
treated in accordance with'the United States' obligations unde'r

of 35

international law, and in particular at the very least have immediate -

access to legal assistance.

43. Third, a petition might be lodged on Mr Abbasi's behalf with
the inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Article 1 of the
Statute of that Commission gives it jurisdiction over matters arising
under the American Declaration of the Rights and Doties of Man.
Article 25 of that Statute empowers the Commission to adapt
precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm to persons. This
is a case in which it would be appropriate for the Commission to
order precautionary measures, as a matter of urgency.

Stephen Solley QC. Charter Chambers
Prof. Vaughan Lowei Essex Court Chambers

Prof. Guy Goodwin-Gill, Blackstone Chambers

. . . . . . Defense Reciprocal Discovery



5282



Case Document 44?5



Filed 11/02/2004 Page 33 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FERO I ABBASI

As NeitFrland ofFeroz Ali Abbasi

Petitioners

V.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH,
President of the United States

DONALD RIMSFELD
Secretary, United States
Department of Defense

BRIGADIER GEN. hm LEHNERT,
Commander, Joint Task
Force 160
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

COLENEL TERRY CARRILO,
Commander, Coup x-Ray
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Defendants.

Egmxyaz



DISTRICT or COLUMBIA

No.



This is the exhibit referred to in the Af?davit of Louise Christian referred to as exhibit

wow-t.

Siwed: 5% ave mic?e

Dated:

5283

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

If? .177 '77

00000104







. - . . -

Document 44-5 Filed11/02/2004

-21 February 2002
LC.RGJ0121-001

William Farish Esq
US Ambassador .

US Embassy

24 Grosvenor Square
London WIA 1AE

BY D207 93 3425

URGENT FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

Dear Ambassadorz . . .

A3 A51 - DETA NE GUA
INTERN ERIA NUM R-

We act for the above and write further to our letter of 8th February
a further cupy of which we enclose. We are extremely surprised
not to have received a response and con?rm our telephone

conversation when we advised Ms that we require a
response Urgently. We understand that decisions are being taken

- in Washington and we w0uid like to speak to the person making the

decisions so would be grateful for a name and telephone number.

We enclose a copy of a Counsel's opinion which is written by Senior
Leading Counsel, Stephen SolleyQC, Chair of the Bar Human Rights
Committee together with two leading academics in the ?eld of
international human rights law. We respectfully draw your

attention to its content.

We are extremely disturbed that the status of our client has still not
been clari?ed by the US and that he is still being detained without
any clari?cation of whether he will be charged with any offence or

the procedure to which he is subject

We wish to notify you formally that we consider our client to be a
prisoner of war and subject to the terms of the Geneva Convention.

028223 Defense Reciprocal Discovery





Page 5284

52707: 75.
00000105



Case Document 44-5 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 35 of 35

We understand that this is disputed by the. US Government and
vvnte to give formal notice that we require a determination by an
independent Tribunal or Court as soon as possible as to his status.

We also require access to him as his lawyers as requested
previously.

We consider this matter to be extremely urgent and look forward to
your urgent raponse today.

Yours faithfully,

-

CHRISTIAN ?Sleg
ENCS
. 5285
028224 Defense Reciprocal Discovery
.3 7 7

:20
00000106





Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 1 of 27



(Peggal?ef: DEFENLE CALL- Tc: gsseNTmL. Nun Doguguwm?t?IDN

?Pawn? ?4&1 Iran?s kin-9.. WQs '11, WAG
dmasms? Eng Mm m, Em, {31m 113.

I
?r *v nil-led tun.

?gram. mecca; Jamal;?
i

E1: Bun-l: Bk?. ?L??la \e-L Alufeanabld cu cut-w. inn/VH5





TWWE, lit-L SlumU 04.46 Eu Han.

-, a a

..

EFENCE 7-1. .M whack-emu. WW,







.- ma?a?) W3mto cupAcLG?x JEN-attaTous-MH
?gaimsw c4. hon-s new: .?nbo Quin-eh: a; LLS. or awed Farm.
CALI. 3 ?ak
Inmgackul. chin?km an LLB.- As?rpavi?. amcl
Wm; re?awt. be. chJ-euLm

- ?aws? gum: awe ?he
:an Auk-34.9.. Fekrua-Ma 1007. - Qua-ma 2002." (?1.9mm a-noL

.. fir??2mm wort" h: cc-U-td. cu 9? ?Jenn/as.

hid! . .

. DEFENCE UL. fem. (CIR-.55) 8w.
?.mt Fele?m be?, :an
W4 .Apzil .1993 r: Ausrd?r CW5.) Guy-\cL_ Apn?I. 1003

1
mmwed??-he cams); rum?3 bu Lit-4L
.
- c?L-u-wknanms cg. Aka-ya 4-2404 human MW EH. c1. U-S. w-





-0

i ..
E?Emceanbri.
iPWt: Ea P'egan?ed L?g ha; 4,5
?w?ms Adair-Ens W3 OW ?11 84;.
{mean- 05, Um. Lumwa Cm. RR En. reamed 0: m?du?za? N-

028225 Defense Reciprocal Discov ry

P3434

00000107



(Ease Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 2 0f 27

i.


Hamel.
DEFENCE ALLEDGES EXTQACTIDN 0: GOVERNMENT EEQKMN
UNDER



DEFENCE CALL ewe-c c.1275. we M1 E81
mama-, who .anexe?x Mam. WA Zeoz-kwt- 20-
?03 away.) Aqua 1033- S?w 29:33 chmx.) (AM 0.3. Lurc-
-m&e.5 tn \Mc?ka-l and amok-shad Benn. $595 a} Gum}:?
mme Kama? MW Am 2901 AREA: 190%.



DEFENCE CALL 3 Ewe (We,3


Sam. rammed waxy? Dex-(nit, Magma; Magi ti m.

9.4 Fm: M-Ed?n EM. m_ amuzooz? Awe 10.5.. 20012. (WM) 1,4,
mud cu mms?s pug-ha to M, Whub'on op med SW: ?Wm
an. alumina uvum?nn up. Ewan?t: Lehman?

Angui? lm??

quJu is CchM?ve ci- huait nah: am. NQOm-ana fuiaa?. Random?
Lm ?awar??ha. Mt (mm we? cm- ox.

met-amt bL.J-a1aluaul C-unmL-anm Bu. Budwwm an.
Ada?Ma. allisi-ans_-_ mam-hm qu umqu ?mum m. ?imam. lee prev-3 mew-Ha
Lmi Amt?) W55,th Cov?fuv'l?: Khan?s PM Wm,aml
mmgfafen 4? ?in: WW4 one 35?:an Qw?a? awn-am,

MW raw-dd W?Eub'dn,

can at. bl: ?pk h'mlkeJL Eu Spcu'cihk:
M323 he}. Sex an REL. (ma-m. De?nes. ?eV-aabs ha ha wu-
0.. cal-rut; 13me LI name-n a; ?ew-L Lsuk 19mg Hus





028226I Defense Reciprocal Discovery


00000108







Case Document 44-12

I



028227





Filed 11/02/2004 Page 3 of 27

DEFEJULE CALL-TD EssaoTtm. nun-mesmas mug Dog mew-nuns

"1514.1th Wm

i .

z/{Ll CALL (J {Adan-be. lad-E nah lab-{Hi b? my?. Auk-aim
1M3, %m?z:1 Um. bremhe cp?zr Simiaqu Mia Eu. HM,
aged: 01. ,Uw. Antwan. Wimp; bmbb..b.a hump?;an



Fag-v. his k1, {44:4 faunas be.
Amok. 7

?ll-.1 can. is LA.- mh in: RFC..- Eo-n. clnkuim. cilia-52,3
Ln'aL Eu a. "huh flu?kg." {kw-K, ??aw-Val bu ?ca-ck 34?. clue-Jam
.?ammai anal dab-1m 2119.43?, Cm gm: Eu

n3- - Eur ram?Enid.? 91116-1325 ., SlawoJJsk - mack ?it .

urea{em-ya .4. $er not: L'M?xd 1m REL-mew. dun-Lug.

.M?z?saa? um. Mum??5 Pausst buJ?-er r534: Satanic at. Hm a. Hm,
Man-H- M25, m? ?Ww was a. (Jani?mt PM Jain-inn?
?3?5ch mm WM

mu. Is c4. buk ms: ?NH-cl go em. aiming. Mu.
w; 195.6. -, uni an, my. 0" Du?asuyt-
a; Edema-65w, Emspimd. Mam Lyme a? dam-5m?! waned 4mm:
Warn, MM remasq? fw w, Cabana. much/Lat as Wm
aimed?, As:th we JJM menial new In a ?Wm:
M:

DEFEQCE- CALL- 1.3% wwb?m: L3 mam. Dawn. r?cv-WAB Platte



jf?mwes o5. {gamma -ch Ca?? Educ ecu"; Mag-mm:
Emma pm. Dang-c, N..da:am) ulna twat cured..? mm we? alaba?m Isz?aa

me
am Flu. 2.063 Hum?? MW: 1063, an
'3 Defense Reciprocal Discovery
i

Pa 3~7

00000109





Caee Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 4 of 27

i

i

rame ?cu m. q. ancl alum Defeat-2.
grime? My. mmsaui 044m ecu-h.? to aw. Wh?Lajn'ou at, kw; cw}

.

Doc?burr.
HM. 1603. 3% 200's (aw/orb mack claim-4M1?
cg, Sukaw?mub m.m?vs
31:: be emu-J- au. cg, ?lm-55-

EDEFENC-E 11" In 1.31?: a} DEF-31. 10 Def-?ack. waxika

Fruv? Fem: h. flush-n: ha. $4,45quan E0 km {Jamel au-
Lbouwmhm3
eke-?can k?u cause?L m. {3?2an L1:
v29.?th Ct: 1:54. a4, Ammu? my,
?lf?abr?n
wens-JhM Edna mt,claku.im Qua-clan, awe: Lu. mamd?
imsintm.

. - It
NGTKE. qrwe cmwmu.

'd-sL Judged. a} mam?h- Inwuum umA? Ms
E-Awrm 1003)? bu. Mann': kn x?luum qushx in Cid-?3 9.003 ext-J:
gk?L \Mk Merged aha-4m. om. armame? haw a,
EEXewhh'a/Q. N?ikunn 0L 1.001,

?Max ?9 5M
1 I -

E3 Mbkaew ?65 ch.

1091 5% bear-s Muir-L cmww'ms ?W?s

Cumbnk?mt 53W, Wlua?w Shorbka awe-g racy-auh 'to
3


1

5289

028228 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000110



Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 5 of 27







q? DEFENCE CALL. To ESQENTIAL. wn?mes'ses moo DcLuLuaq?TA?rtoM
..
-.-- talcum-L 1'1: haw-2.. (Leia-AM o. Leda-r- Eu
_..;Lsgyaewh _Ct?ltmac-E?ZK. Arr". 7-0213 uf?CM

Jam-1&4 Hafck, obs?Sex, .m'M 4 ch35 vi?. swam?L

Wax-uh, an. um. \eJd-w vow-L45
?Mm?Mm? new
qr k3; ?Utah-O.

{Aha-uni. o: Jacw?naa



Damnmn L?u EM.

0 Asa-4cm.
Ddco?-su- En. hm oi. {an 913?
1-1 (L) mpm?l? cu-?L ?lo?Eds {IL-mice:

Egg; A-m ?Lida Amman. fawth w.

mm: M, Jab-Jun. cum, Su?-we: dam mange?barns. (LL. We;

. w. mam be. .mmea h. 42% cu Jaw f1

0.. ?9.34% w. Lab?s? ?3445-. Jana/JD? Qi- Calabash-c.

D??e?cE CALL. -

Cavanan ?5)th 112W Qwugwam, Ram wot

?awsxozubgs 1 C. (Egan-mm; c1, ?ewxnm 921.0% Mature?

Wc?yal We} w; ?lls-Junk wan?u. Fair-36. meb

gawk/e cu wl?cz-m: {a ovals.? to clearly-3., 411%., Mb, can-?J,

wow?J: anal- flaw-1445., 25.9.. We: Mac?? :n um. sown

.. Maris- Kahlil. use-'1 lag Kandy/.5 tin Unn- uwmsi?ed. Ha.
. Ha. ?ap-hm. Each-An.?
and {debut-1':
- .it-o dummy clap/~41 W934 . are. A. 4.. but:



- I 5290

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

an 40

028229

00000111







Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 6 of 27


(3210

i
3

Ml? -

a Una. Vklanmn \Jw, HM. MCUEMS As?shnc; sin \l'hkncuh
{Stu-u). Cit-Lot Aisvmaib'cm of, Mm?s, Auruug

A 1323:.sz Mum-302v- a; Dew-\W 17+, 3367(? Mm]. im?
?rg?m? hm 512:2.? MAL-J. the 91% :m mu no: 303,



gag/L. Fm?; ED Wen-un?? I-n Wf?i?

~amuz, wQL'k 2m. (amasme cl, L423 Fux'cker ?omvkl-ELL [cw-





GEE)





?natkevhab?c. ob int-n l?Wc?i. hut?4'? Dunc}. r?uh~ruqcn?f

6f. wear1 Cake-?u .

l/ka, Wag. Wm em. be 1) .
Exehu'n to EM. mack beta?acre. Bu. few of. EM. ~4er
?Mtg-?mm :21 U1 (WE Op.

Shaina Pram: I Pracde 6,3
ELLA-3 206??) 8-1 CaMuQ-n"nb Wade?s um Maul 1m yak?{H 1:444
be. we. snowman: 1-D ember stab-u. as Gun W3 Wsme :n m. an?awb
Shim-4 Prams, Bu. a?nomJE-?abo (.msedk un't'k arm-4' mesHR-d
L3 a. {Juana}. ?eefmbh?g cast w. op tn. can-Am. of. EM. ilk-EA
Shula; h: Maine?: gnaw leak-bun FHJ an
??z?uak have? nun-km a} the ?chin. t-u bane-m .3 anxan Au
Mme.? wart. .sc, ELLA 160%.

GI. WILD-IL. Fn?d'f' gimm? he?lni.) Ham
me'hach-mnk Ski-u 75W MVUL in; Hair-3 as am
mm ?meme Unitel Seam ij:m 3113 13m 206%?

'In 2.003} Guk mammal but. REL warm-l ?Kn-Mum;
am am: Wbmkaa Sdud-?H-b ED Exibl-b'? ci_

?Nu?ml??r 100.1.



028230

5291

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000112





Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 7 of 27



("0131 15:4. DEFENCE CALL. assemnm. Add?) Macaw-{mu

refute-?ca- man claw?- uw? Dawn. Wm Bu. 3w amp-3
Shah-.5. a; 34-3. pn?e-v- Eu Preea'Jn?nl:
?pausL-?s Mammt (an..th Judas, can "amp-.3 cc.de

Dem tau-LL: Elna. ?ca Macao?: in Owedki cal In Wu.
.?nwv-Hmn mthmuu'S to} an. lam-?ank oL Lu] chief!
?'minc-MW? all kin-t chin-Cm m?fem-w?D whack-ant? mask and. ?e;th (Luisa/n
s} em Swi: 53 w. Fm;th L1. \aa a4 ahmw?a .Qm-ck?u,
Una. (32.9. lam-HMS (11), cm), usual (DEFENCE 034-?;
Non5 To? Rid-l?cL
in?;

nape; ?ea-rer bu HAL, Vii-me} ML-

gamma :1 14.; Man. Mel. amp-En whack-3?

(V) 1L2. Ozkaxm aw. Each/215., In) HA. {Aha-Mai cu-cl u-Lol':

gin-?L WMA bu kn O-ML ?dd Sbm?
. 1?
9mg. h; :c??mms hurl 9.1-.-



(QEVAL Gupta", or: AL (300132.0311

??aw Mr. Nuke-a; or not a f-w?swl?up wow, bui- huh ?5
a MGM (2w gag-n3 as a. award-eat 640%. ?lm.
wnuxdwlap-oai 910:,? km. wear: {ewes c3}. em. Laura, a?we?: c4
may w. Mme op Awism, Que-?it
3.1: oat-b ADE ?mammal 1w. M) oqvxuow
fin ?hr-J. R2. was cm mw'u-L Pm?dpmb in AHthL-am. Xi;
{s gag-i JukoJr: Hr. A?Uocu; an; :0 WW Q9 AH Q?s-iclu, Haul: we. curl





2' - 292
028231 EMB- nse Eeciprocgl??is?o?veg?a? or 0" m3 fungi

993?? 00000113





Casife Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 8 of 27

028232





inc-th 6} m. wmsk? Guam. {Lu Fax- .) .M?qwt bemu-

Uw. ?s?h?amt? Inn ?w (Ha-uh B. ?El-ad





?zz-Jamkb Gray. {g5 ?un?t? Di__wa?m%








M,

w?



USW Lin Lax-Jan lead-9r op, wde ?19: uni-is;-
'ba- Maugham ?Umw, may "imam owl,
Comm-cg.? upm- Galina?:? in Iskm-?c-
Iocn and. ngdua (cum 05 Samba-33.2; ?won wear-
Eva?bu}. AI. 61:34?. in og. 1001)
{buxom twat MM suhwdindz-E. c?xcl. in Eu.
Mao-I?th- 1?4ui:mmul ?me m. (paw-op- m-M?
f?:wm- le?w cf. -

i! also a. 91M fwd: Bu.

Gama?opA?h?v?jrh
Awkwm, ohm-?aw b3 cur ?war-cm Ram, 53 Una.
Kim-Aka Cm mm ween mm, mu; ?53 M, 045 AM.) 2
the. Lpuu-I-cp- Ach-n ?mlishd 53 Ha, aw Bu. Erug'r-

I

We. {was ugh. Laban-gig,?

\?mct, Ewen reams, Nahum, hmap?es, {Aida acamvwa.? nub'umi
So of. pixel? em.
SW4 be. wage gm. MW Heu- cu m.
Ecwwu..-e; 4492;?; - - Lim'c? cum-e Awq.m( .J.

.

Defence ref/#144 fawn: 4a.

DQPAQL o. Atkin?h'm Quirk-1:3?

5293

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000114



Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 9 of 27



(?at 6 ESSENTIAL I?ch
.. -
ho 3.41. Ml I'm a. Inseam a. (MW
EQQECLRS Ham?!? nga? ., m: 7 ML


mama.) haw a. 19mm him an

y?



:Explaxn En

anM macaw, W, and. ?Maui-1?

(iu)?In Una. (mesz wepemm,h,4nwb'mfm and, Uni. (Deena. Calla Tail?-
g?ul: NOHLQ, h: 1" ?me await-1m. recvu-?ru k?wv?f
Etc tva-Jm in Aafw,-boa m. ?9qu MA beg?; mmxm?xq man
Um. GED-him amicdvoktd an cam-Hand?? Mn W5ms.
Mats,U-L Mam. ?5 ma fife-rm sate-am (Ah-



Canticl?z'ed a. ,gqm'smnD-r-oi. mun-r 5W) ;9 Ida. 0.23.1.2.wa


I

fem-?LE: ha.
i

I (LEQMAETYRD OM

Defiance? rev-4w Radar btcruI-LHBJ. Tn?kmd cg mfwm.
idawwcm up. a Mug-cm??

explu?{n in clam? 2m, angina ?wt?mt-
.. .iumd.? "m?rgm wit-?0?

3

.- T,
AamusTHA1, Moi?.353 far-?4?? L1: {Khan?ml. De?bu. Han. agar-53a: c4, .3. ELIL (mtEI-p.

h; Hg. .mu?ua up ?WwLn Han. prim-4r (kW-Mt?

II can e-A'no

Begum. Wm 34. gem-ab, h; 3
Gian. Una. MA a. WWi-v-z. a gamma q_ 114. ml

02823;?) ?txf?m? mwe ?lr d?kq?l ?LL0?gm
Pa than


Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 10 of 27

(130W applan Hal: Jackie-an 64. cantat- c4. ?10v:sz

LF)

Dara-m. Wm tha?

(33 TE ?i?ala?JA Eu 41":wa. an) ma? Cun'c?x?c Hm. $53.42, 0+ch
"La/ck th?c"



(3) Foam?;

(I) Enema ?cc. {Ahmad 0.4 in and: 2w. Ruwd-lr M.
opt-0.5m 1w?

(Mka kn Mann.? ucw'h Una. fwrou. cf. w, ?Mfumebbm

(B)

De?ner. Wm 34.. Kean-2n!? Eu

Explain in: km. {.4th and its; UAR. monks a; Wt). "SA?W?J-?l?-nsu marl
con?sca? of, White. M, clan?twain. if. a 3mm van-1c oi. AK-Glm?clu.
Fire-rs, :nH?nb om chi-barns eta uJ-qawt Rae-Hu-

AML airman an. em modem for egnxeam 59 M3, in em
e} weak and ma oL (clKiibux-

ti) "oPeam?E'?;

{La Def?Laue; recruit ?dao. Keyed-L- b: 1

a) gkeh-LJA ?z-u MA In sauna Eu'q
?gym

Macmue emf;

. I:
(J) KALASHNIKDV

page; cn?ua smash'd 65km



5295

028234 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000116









Case

i)
(.23.
(N)

(h





Page 11 of 27

Document 44-12 Filed11/02/2004

Dewar: CALL To assent-ml. Ma;

if

WLQA ELL Huh-L
#911?? Risen owl. wee-A
.3395:

1 I 1
314?; MA Wick-n ulna?h ?Hahn l-uv' In W?s

.
I. N.- rhT-ut


Qfm. for ?Mp-e a; 84.7;ka aw; Barman. mu: o. uni??
Nui- swat? q.



Hon?J man?a Fur-5w 6?0 ca. {ri?e-1* unit??
DEFEMCQ CALL. 135

?l/ha. Defuu. CALI-S Um Maggi My? ?miraclk3
?5 Ck '?agavtx fsiktcl duh ?k 0F9;L:ull V~=an. E33 L- tha.

DEFENCE. CALL 1g:
cum EH. 59.3" who Han?x, uJ-Li-I-l?quaglb-abbam We. chi-ah-
Muub,? Han. mm. wand? we?! gnaw-m5,

Mun??5 (wand. .

Deg-nu. 5% wp?s?wad 3m" {5 or was a. Wm ed:
?gcua 1 (Lulnc~, as .thuanimuuz clculnng' Faxnd. 5fw~i\unr-
Pam {Ame-kw



028235

CAL-L.

Defeat-e. Cad-Ls Far HAL vet-3 Lam's, at Jib?Knack 4124-13-?
0-3 ?an SW Mm. M161 W?ck Eb

93-6an S?Mvvin?A 268-. SEVW ikQ?bE-?n
qk Woodm? {Mai w, ?gu'nb 3w same. {ital-3

~u





?u?o -n-o jaw-c.-

?5 a Lain-?nck . .4039} Buck,
Defense Recuproca Iscovery

'7 c197







028236



Case Document 44-12



Filed 11/02/2004 Page 12 of 27

i



CALL Roam AQML k;
1W2 ?M?t?uf? canal 15163..?
?u/b vr?-Wo? ?25

i
IDEFEM 1? 1 9252.412 5.1.1.5 0% slow.? L1 ASL?dam
I

{Ef?e?.394 - CC.1.T.F 'aqu' b) 11

luaepeaecl 5g; ?yw? Le Pmtaok cu wawj ankle?Am.




. fur





1 5297

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000118 1



Case Document 44-12 ?Filed 11/02/2004 Page 13 of 27

SAFE lava?(Ex: In Moi. MM, NAME W?u'uusj LJI
L?m nos.- gmh? Amman, WA (Md-ant: We. h, cum? Am'cJ-Jh
szmke?
Ema-Mn. C-rvuqumvu Hum 31-4.. (WM 1?39
?re-.35 Max?Lit aux-a. Mo-lnaim -



Dafznu, Graph-cm Ema (?4111, K:S;ns 0"

0 (Afhs?oncag

M13 9-: ca vista
M- kHz-Tr. bh'm?bchh? Anal? nut-L
. :5 ?=35 ?nahzi Qmjah"

?g


. raga-n no laei?P?n Limb Huh, mm 5

MIME MA ?In,
J:
A ui?n Ag Amt-L5?, thlluq as

Lwt?h-o?qh. \hwsr. fw ngcL) aha-ls.

it

As Bans:- 9.4-. Wan-5 ?wiqculj (1952.4,- ojumkn. un'n
a lamb-a.

hi- curacL uh.? Shall Ea w: ?fmk

3 a

. a. 7

. false.

Adm-4L .411 (mm mm. 45w. qua. PW a?

pm .Ev. um, 5.4m {n um: m?m? mew: ML)

1 (I

Sivan: Lord. cungl uno Frau-
Hoe?, v4.9.0. Wan-areas ML sun can?).
4: (Jaw-er 31: Al 59-644.; ?was l8~21>>
?319: (a 6140 ma dub; (?max cu Mush ?kn Wiles tummy? Amwiil
?6
And kM-1n3 Eu b-L ?kw
Khali- new-ls, awm?s ??ns En uni-4.1 MK 6-W-


I


-m-u fry my. -- an-a cm 5.3: ?rm-?rt- 1%th- Wt]
chrb'naue. in pea-mini l?wwu?nc?fhb (an; mu?? Etc?3
Lane.
a For aux?AA Hal. wt Ls M3
028257 "hm-"5 ?We
93

5298

0

00000119





Casje Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 14 of 27

I


Wm. fuu- than (cu-mt Seam)!? ?Own.? KL
ELL (Uncut-aim: c4- re?t-?ban. out =Wi 9?m1~

Hg. sin mi. km saw: [or {law?s emu: Lara..ch we. Law?L.
intake: Wm an: (Md?m? by NULL. u) {54.5.33
?at-Ja'h3 Wee-mus cum-d. (L) ken?.4. Eu. our
mac 2-1 ham: abde amt: w'u mt

i


urq- rifts-5L 5w 5.3-. smk? emu in MAE-A3 cu Inna
awe snub-E: HM mm Ema. ma. uwmi: uu.
Aug. m?u ma, Et- ngi- s4:qu Hm): BM .52. M443 5.31 5i-
.Mu. tun: Hm Fm cam-{zwwh

(BXDEPUTY SECRETAQY oc DEFENSE. ORDER OF 1-, ?wow:
Wu gurus-m.) a; Data-am km a. CNN "Sham Keg?
{Jams Wim, {a 6.. fade-Lausecl Fruw'nm
?5,242.4; Wand ea D2ka :4 0w?. aJc em. LLS. Nomi
Gumbamc: Cpl-am, Clare (Weft: umszmi a4 fawn Wain-ah

?auw1b Egg}. Man-9.. HAL. h. cmecak chicamohhvu.?

i

In In.? Omega.? can: Md J??w a. ?Jam.

(d?lsuch LAW:
~44 newts?4 Luz-w (to Mom): Ma we?: j-?lknu. Gaul Wu;
{h ShauchJ-s Mew-L Ere-v- tiwd-?a?ld ?tho. Ems, Ma an. ulna Lu: In
iL?im) Aklqu-?s NM, tan um mom Deal-wt qr. Lmu'. kart-u mm was
Ch?ri Eur?0 M:
m?c? ?an, lav-Ja- Pan-r MAL, c-?cl. Era-u Me ME ?5'ng
aha A.) p04! .rb Pan. L3 (eta. Wang mime Ana. he. W,
m. cm Lieberman-1). Wad?m.

wn??

5299

028238 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

000001330



Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 15 of 27

{#131191}. DEFEMLE Response '11) UNCLJ-kggqub MUS m: DETEMWN

?k?'okk 9mm, amt hm: esp-mi EW mam?
ibAnal. kah?

?3 .
LI wQ Mack Mn {w i fur {?31 25-69.? run-v. ?avg, k? emf-J

In Eur-3r fw?o??b?afi S?E-mk 5m ci, YM, Wk?M??na Una. Lag-1
w! \m'm Ha. chiral..- o-w-l Lad-k,



Hrs-L Ben-J: WA kid-v..-



am. (Jewel. 30.13; ha ?he Anus; Lad. manna M5
Asiaqu any) Adlai- Lh?-Hn M.) 1.43.5114-
?Una-L.



?c'c
1: Han-1? WI. mt HAL. (A M, W4-

hum-a we swap um}. Am?m, #W?nl m??-Jct. m4: 0.x.

P?i?caJ-q Vacs-LL 5o RC kiln-ch M. MAE. haul?A. k. ??r-?LsL ?fth) Lav-b

t-u Agnk {a uJ-udc jerk-.13 Em skunk?. Iv. Cam. ?nu.

lit-In {all Jr?cu-ES. intfa?ankro?. qu- Cilm IE- I?s H-no}: win SLN gab-u.?

. 1? ?Md-x
a

Han Curl comm-?LO? 3.413.. ?new. balamv-u? man. Aug. Lab.

gm, car-<1. 9?le My. 0ch emi?-s, WM q, mt- Wm
even my; cg. um): (ice-#43) Aux {when am;- am. A4 .1,
?are. mum-L (W sen?; mun mum A. Minus Mm,
.. pwm? W. was: WK cw. 5300

028239 Defense Reciprocal Discbvery
3 e5?le

00000121

Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 16 of 27

i
7

Do Elm-Ln (\er ca, c+ Eur-t yJ??Q?l Evv? a garb!?
U-inoi-?i Fuu'k'k I.) Esra-r044, Ca.? Exam


.

- v4?: fWLa-dce. [w 6M WakaBLbu'u-n) Wendi ?cm-.7
Lia-cl vw?c (a 94;? be. ?nch.? Hen-1 Us?





iAch\ ?Jim-2. lam new: Eu she-n. MM m3 MGM,
M653 L?Lui- bat-'3 I. Curated: cw'crnub'm as
cmswef' (Sen. ?ifwe-aca. mela'o-n W1)


$0.03 mu, 12th Em}. we,? Lu. m4 cm-W4L m?mmi
GM ?Wn :mkmk? Sega-en: ?cb em. Orr-1M up

me R,

(D) THE Foumr RESouu'noN

m. gum-.0; w. Wt.? 1001 deem, hue. U?:me Shaka, <24: 0a.
?-I??bbh oil. Eurasia?J: ?ask, a. Waive ?Elke-43 ?Mafia-Jean carp'nw 64:.
{2.1;th c?wunmeGait: Qad?h oi, curs-areas Wu?ud in, Wash?: bu u-Pe. guru. mane-sk? km. a

nub?wu, cv' wa'cmkj cw
QJM Mk when; Saw?: ?1le 200:1s Eeuax] ?Man-cal.
rmw.? (Tape Euel+uam ?13, U4: oi.

Hum: Vim-L ?rm-lire, w; Shh. 11% (Ian. i8,



EDEFEMCE
. .

Una. GreeME lm?ui'c Adi: \me? En Lawn-n3. EN. Thwikh watch
op 441. ?km brak??-?JS up. EHL. CIVILJRN c4.
NBA-await: L?s-4 mi: Shaw?M Ova?ha Wig-??ick,
adv-VA Mel-D.? ED HAIL up Q5

95:. ?i #333 5301

028240 Defense Reciproca! Discovery

00000122







Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 17 of 27



may. 30.; wk) DEFQUCC To OMB-FEED teats ox: oa?ggmow
?Us fJeaFWV-g cg. Maw cg. 11%, 7.691. PM
cum-l kissed.
bated ?oi-10% Madura'nupm op. ,?s'nmuA: umb'l ?amr?L-a
A 5&me er: A-wduufST: Al (324.ng kn. 5-ch in
of. ?ne. .Mnb mac: Sarawak 119.. 100-1 Eggs; audit},-
a?-M is rww'eu! Eugen cu {an .MA 394- Bi, LN Dung
Al chm: ci.
A Sid-Ahead m: Daub??
Guide)? Lax: known: a; Una, ch than? :4 gu?am'w 11a.
tam-mi: Ba c5. Wm!
(when is Mt 3.4% a; kWh: mm ch Al Gee-cw. .10me LL
$214.me Jae-vanit- mm fumdmn-m-?L-ul lanai; Cwea??.?
gifek Q15;on Mm".k3 bk mhna quh& gawk?
inn??rims, crying?hm, Era/3M umx- (Jihqml .J Mammal? cu?aqmj W-
Iin anww 11, 7.001 Mail; WM: asb?ccuq 3 Me mp3
Ml: a Lash shard Jun nah.? sue-?MM (oath-ac: he m;nw
be?: of salsa. to 14.1. on!
fad:OLWr-cihn 2.001, ?49.1% a rev-amt wu? c?a?h un?t?me
?Ebme-nas c4, LxM-e-?msdewy. Ammuwuw CT 0: WAR I
Emirsz? Hm. ham-Lam: Eb ALL. 391.? agave-'4 mum? law-u
and gay..? cukag,? ?amour ?Mm web-?ca.
73mm Wen; W.

?unk: Lu'sl'mns bur-3 (kw Hunk (Wu: a} :Mrch
5- - - . . (12
028241 bagse rw- km. .lecuamc. @mrukew}.

- $55qu 00000123







Case 5:04-cv-O1 137-RMC Document 44-12

028242

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 18 of 27

i


503,41?; WEI-0 urinals 95, 53W (Que-J. all-?-

.q I




3
1

funk: is made. Mam mac-us . In: Han. sol?amwh Emu.- U??mmk ?00:!1

renewal a M. Arm-{cm Ware-?b. ?lLok

tank 431; 1.9.. we; ?cu we, s-?mztv Mm- .L Am-
?gon?nf? ?3 5%?9 {a wax?nth": a
gonad hm. fungus?LA. an I We}. Eu. u.fo ci, we.

%wwma?SI 55s.. in Hui. was.

?HoEcnmL?j ?as-t 2km, 3h 'C'u

(lulumn radio ?ma Mu.an
- 1" ?v a.

?15m} ?lm. nAeL'Cb 8w. flu-Auibkn. Sua?aiu?ux-a

?.Wur cm new-1;; Sadr. 3-1: is
Elm-Jr c? puma: sham e. Freu./IL4_ dew boa.?
a. M) ??ah?cqm? Pugs (bf: 0.. Laura? HA. Mwlu'rw,



Lac?r (ML Mb out him-?g] q??-?Qntb Ck.
Una?? l/J-xu LAP?nah be Luca.? MW bun-1-

ab ME) Eu lack in; Mei-.1 via-o ?nub Fru-nq Han}: weal.

dim ad: he. Hat. MEL m? ?.?Jkuj
3e when e. can-we mm: ?71?61-

enzl mgr-.MA-o. 0L Wok Prov-x Arm! Cancun Me?s ?%wudL

Fade?-Rg
5303

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00009124



Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 19 of 27



(9?31 UHF 009) TD omcmib (3&0i. mama Madam? fur"

. @42- M?o?mhmh of. .WW5 ?cu-?L km? ashlaLhkLA-L cur-?
hfw. hub- Sm??Mgl (costs, i: aw chub-5 Eb see. 0.4.6.5. CAPMQA Wham,
and ?J?:do than. pan-bs_ ?was. Eu. Me. an?? buns?)

i
o?oee

3?7

Wh'm ebb-UL Km.

?70 annual Lu? Irena-n b. Mm,

I .
I. av- qcuL a} the,

managcl )1 NM cv- W, En QWMLES m;

AIM In ?Mlcr, um;- Luu-e. Law-Hull EAMH ma.)
When?110.4 Wr- uJa-s ha, 1W ma
fed-Kn,
hw?kh 4.9.1.14 NAAQ clung-{HA -.-
00(3), (.1 I.

~13th Calm/.- l3, 2.001, LEW-.0 mwk? this Jake?r:
1L4. Lu? Can-?arena
0.1 UM). Sci-f9. EU. up

QEWEN Tramumm, Nance To DETAINEES
Banks bum cm maxed?wt 0,.3 m. United Sabin AMA Ems.
7 "ma-?D CMEWE 04.0mm we was lam?A..- a}
.0 91HQAQJA W3, ?so-Jamal. ham-,3 "m age? ma?a?; ka?b'ubru grum-
UmilaA Skates. av (nudism emu/WM. l?aciuJ?-i was 9mm
Ila-ma a. 0m Lrecehb MWM kuwlih'uf'

.A.-. v. .

3951600336:
[Frauen

@001 . . . C5204

028243 UL ??u?efg??g?kec??ok?mww mf?vec?? Lea-u

00000125








Case?1204-cv-01137-RMC Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 20 of 27

I

1:qu we maul ?wrung/(w: El?n-L we;

?1

C15, MAN can mun-a MWE-.. Quake.

I.

1E Scam-?5 mnco?nb a} 1.: a E0 UM. Wm'b Orv\L'l I
1-:


1?

Nu MOQHGV- t} Eu WIH HAL My
Samoan?, Gaza?.

ACW clab'nlkw'ws ?149 in: he. Q, HM MNWK Can-mark- fw- Elma. ma?
?anks-?O Mum Wmi: .11 Manama. EMA ?$50453 gums
M'mn ?mk L1: seoy- 39.94:: Own-?1 Hem cuq
cumk we.? B?n. or a-nn?ckchi?.

Lieu; c1? Wk .1

W653 PM Caren-Bamak- Stub?: [Tammi Net}; ?m Ninm)

11


d: I .4 L: not.- A labmk arm ram-1k

Qua-k Mg? ("menus 1 1, Page? Hum)?: 143mm:
was 3(3) 3; tag-4.40M owe-mm; tm. mum. shad-l m, twang, used}-
14:41 an cmwe, and Dew, (LS m, ?(Mu 4.00.43

ilk-diam.) Dim) 5m gamma-i wvi'rkea? op
Amnm cL'v?cid?ntu Baa. Mot ea. Men-n3 sun.

mLm'rL Dub Own. a} DEED-inns}. Amid, oi, Rube?1 on?.ch
skincar- Wk? Ochi-u- h: rumi? a}



b: th-?na-JrL ELL MW q. 19% ?get. up em
CM?cn-s c4. [Arr $3.002;be
?Icr?kauJuu, in um?; mg. D??ekw) CERT, um? Hue-L
fin-Hm mu Tune ??sbnu. um'u. ?nag-ea: h. mm

. - as
tux/?5,
i

5305

028244 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000126





Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 21 of 27



(Pct-a1 g3; aw) Dif-?auce 25.3%.ng T?o v3.4a: OF azmmom .
filmy.qu b3 w. mausfng-nm m. Tat-Md. um ?um an. empty-A3
s:
64? hi- Cage-Era? in ?g m, 11?] f:
I . - ?n
CL. Md-u'nal (Loyd, Bu. [nicks-J. musk ?luau Ru}: we ?Di.
Duh-?ca- ?cu Elna? ?of?.n.3 :k OW Sam; ELL

6?
Anal Ind: .I. ELL Grand: ?at
WA, has Moi-mag Mai Dru-.1, m?wk neahkwi. -



PM, Aug? ?up. mama, Aha Mu. I: fun a;
Wed? mad; Ohu?ujriv- AL 10%-

THE MATTER OF THE QF Ma Agm? Arr us

. EGMWAMO EASE, CugA:

Na. ?Amt-hek met Maw w. Uhtuvi Sadat:
dds?cl. 13 ?$591.5: \oou. u-?mm w. Icem- qr
Orin,- WW3 2001) curbwul. 033 chm-
l-beif/Ww-u. uhfwamm- gw/ms./.W5/Loo1 [11.

E323. lat-ML.)

Mn.?

3? moi: th?u mu.? Han
?Lo kin-H. cLWh-ugd k5 a ck

u?u

girl?- US uh:qu haul-M wins.? [an sz'w. ?5.3 N: {gt-q.

xix Mi, (lat: {we Ema-i) cg OP
Ti. Eur-f Cave-.3124 Win-{Ivan Cub-um linkaJEjk-gj 6.,
inch/?rid M3 emu?n, MA paw .1 (n .?th-s .4. um?; EL?uj?ag




E?u Q?va-?qr Na. \Cvu-nw I'Mlq
{it-Is. Wruih-JKM W: Mob. vip- ck Hr.



.
Naked}; Shh-+1,
fa-f 0-4 Mr, khan ?3 5mm ?3 5 as MW .?ngam?kguwd \uw
gin/e kwu. kn. man 15.; ck guwnaWk?, mm
023245 Dc? We??i?teh?ncgm?c?v?gc? 05")

00000127

- F9 ?15012

Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 22 of 27

W3 WM-xt, nun-.- En?d
okLkv?u??uh mack Ad, paaeL'nb

Hahn: i's ca pn'm ax 'h-K WARM is coo-9W k? Hem: of,
a??ua?m, He m: '61: fee. b3
(LS wg?hn Lu} mm, mm, Wei amen tin-E1 a;
?biru?. Hi cmi m; A Panama H, I- hah?lJH-u; Ls.
icmcik m'pmsewhsk for WM w-w Rwy? Wmih. ?1 Mel
Eu twek W'ml mun ?we 04? cmxub'm
acre.

3mm 0151mm ugl? ?Ul-r. Agnes I: a ppm-m,- um: Ax c. mega, a;

we} Wkly?. reWmHuL kn (ICE Mun. 0?14. Amt-Ma
Eng. We Arm-Lame fame c. m. We emu-M

g.

U?ckcl gm kw N1: M'?agk ART, va.? 3n Lupus} Hunt
g.-L.mn< CIA awed LG m. T0431 Mme. Wu SELWI, 044x44 Sum

WERNER.) mire-4:0? a mu, 5: small, Ru.? us
?Ecm-xoma '3in Ark-cu, wt; API :1 :34 WW (We; 084.1.
wan-u). ?ocmL Qua. Wheel Sum ?Laws ewe-x cw 'Eknksu, Haw-41a-
Puumh'ng 4% 2 ?Fmch 6L ww ("CHI-wra?

?~Hm pw {Mum ?he (hemp-Ga. :5 Ha.

.
39?ka :5 Wye-29A 3.. 200.1. Bug? Hun-?1?
??szj is man: sac-'4? 9.9.1? US via?a: M1 ck; "em-P
ch?rul-?xs. puma. WE
1' r, all (am-mus mum-4?43 Liza-?
g?nu-?mxu 1w ?ns: ngv-?i?cL tn mu Mme 2i:
i?.ch panama 5.;ch Zebu?enguwl tome-?Q as. Wm?ml Skim air

grease-1;

Defense Reciprocal Discovery



5307

02 8246

00000128





Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 23 of 27





get, up) per-acct; '70 Mats or: Dem-mww
34% M. pag- Sanka-s KM ?aky-9A (kick;th
Ma:me I me anakmwy g4; mg. mum be gamut
a. U-nducl Shim t:ng er

{0 1H, (Lt-um: who, lagging: q. Winn}, up W, we},

JwJ-s km, are? ?awt? cm, w?w km
ids-Ava; 5% SM L3: toil-?LL L31 mh'wgub?m? L. U..th Elam, Lug.
5 ha. ?x r??rwu-r- rung? gm M1 cu
gin-3 use.? mmu'raA 9.3 mqu, Mn, 1M
q, 049., Lucas In, a- a; Hr.
Md?; W, 544? awn-M MA HQ g,me WE Bacrv?

q, Nuke-4?? in my w'w, 512.4. sigh-.4 (Lu-cl. 5.0. ugh-mt
Lu} L30 .uu. 9.4 (as:ij 0? w:
Inga-X aha?Jal- Vdnn. (?y/Lb 0., Kirk
an). [An-n 41:93:. 61.92:. war nymku TM.
. K. whit-t Mk.? US rmuh'u L?s?'5 Bx ?Fu?r-?t q,

- - .. . rimmb?rj; Eu Mina. Stub-4?) Snag. kw). W9. whee??4 ELQJ:

LL?;th 5w; [hm ms? t?u?am3k?cV-DK Hm. evka pp Mr, Auumlu 5W

q. awake?N: haiku?m4.)

Vii-*4, km. SEA-RA olJ-?w h, cl, Hr,
gpf?n?ass?II'U .EWI to a. ?1ka is anti-1H
- . Pam?ca- aye-a. {a ctr-av q,

Vdv?znemx qu EK-L US W-?iih?U persismu, Viv.an
Aha?Ed? fw ctsva-szh'w. q, Mam,
A a; Drew-re. Essa?H. qr '23, m1? Wyn-?4
a4 1 Wm: ulna. Lem?. J?sL-zdxazck ?ou-L ul-ca-g F?A?ak thinks
3m mg. 33.1., ammumu Emu rum cw. amwu?x 5; Wu?.

5308
. . a .
028247 Mb 3n wowse?gcmocchh 3 Wax will.? [7911

95.06%
00000129





028248

ib? fu?rU?U BALL. ?lv-v. {rake-ALI





1 I
UL Cate-?an?.

iliA-v-ann kw. q. wav- cJa-u, tine. WQL-
Liam en ten-e1, L3 (:4me fw cw: war?, Lou-i
Cu VGA-IL cu; my. who-tin 0L ?haw?, wry-NM
eat ?hm. vw?r engage! can?Jack Ma. Mm Sara-m1 .L
Leia; a. Srh.) a mr' wart

MM Zoes Neva. IQ, H65 New. for
Amman-raga? ?z?Jk-i-y?oslitqa [w vanime em, sen?Iva wl-?mhki ?mu-v.3
Mar-wt, (am-93W new Cunt-14 are. quMA Laser-
are the gwhol? U?;ch 52W pom-u." D-rmJn?nD. rep-at exp-w-

?43 cm {mated ?Ail Lugke}. Sheds-5 ?Jich
DOD :44ch (Mertm 9J~u inn?mu ov- kM aye.g .bkm?mL
A?oml h) aw?. Mam. .2. mesa magma: Niel. kw:



of, W, hunt-ad! ow Luau We. B:
Marika Q. acWOmae.? v..ka Eh.) ?red-{VE? Baa?5.- 5.4L is 0.

i

IOASOHW oi, baa?:2,

03322.4(th va/w-IeLI-rl PM ha (Qin-Lw'm Eu EH. .r-?Iakh q. M,

6No Veda-? mun-3 be; as. 3m: q; ck Vn'qu_ vau- mm
\fb rrmw?: Lain gun. w'k'k U1 maittu-mw. cg,? cyA?pzA




. .. .
machine. COM-HM), and. ?nut, Illa-IL SL041 hay?L 5:114: \?15 LL.

Frau-Hi: w'Hn k'u (muss-d? oJr a? ?ve. Laughs 6} Ha. Human?L)

4L1 Dire?b'un. ?rwe. oi, fa? l-Lq



?ck ?03?an. up?; a ?Ra? ?a h,

i A i.

LG: Curl"; new M131- H-Q. rim '?uLx. . (aha?5w Lvm? In

n: 1? ex Feud.qu L-IJ Cma?auv- m'u? mhlh?nkl Mtgm?i?a?

i

D. Tao-r!

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

5309

00060130



Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 25 of 27





U4-) 1121:??521362' QESFUJQSE TC) QASLS 0F Dg?r?m?mu
palm of.- wwy, Gun-cl q, MU qua-L plan?5J4m
w?b~hm earl RaE?n-own.

Mr. #6..me ?my not ck q, an.? \och- km.
SE ha a. agar?amt
Wok Wov- 12M. {are-um of, tut-1L, In
kw. Ba. (?than (?bk cu
Han. Gaant- cl, Awhuwi
gue ?mgr;a4 a; ?\uhkh
and ?Luv-o. ?om'q?aumt I'm We, H.134, 5. 5.154
Mr. Mhm: mm c. MW Ad 1.3.4: wt. ?~13
Bun-J:- Cap-2., Wei, Och-b (Huey, air ELL macath-
Ear. {La ?53.1: is M'?gum deck
i??kcme" .L :awn?-WWL LL Wu. mam-6L Eu enx'ortuu. At Qua
kw?; M, Han {ab 8-4. Taxicab?. adm?

?vv?awl ?~41an ?dawnch kw ?Qacha- 71A,:th Mu

fun GrawAb-OP Mwm?g m- Awu-?w? La

la.- 05%? Liz? LnJam w. Sevwgu. ice: L?ch

Ln 't-u Aw}; Hmiaun main Mwmol untu- Q??cl
gm Maw-Mu ?mi Eu Aux Hm?nu? Al Q?ib??n- ?ewu- MA ad?: a w- .?rah?m dead?J 5L9. Isl
3 3? Mut? 4: qr

3:41? Gnu-1 \s-L Said uJatuCl!?
:t f: abut, @134.)

May-x MAL (A

Hi. cl;

i


IVL, 1%:me ?a ?.403th k5; slaw-?cum L1. W4 k3
Q-wznh'm thy-(Ekch b9
5310

028249 ?wms: "cl cum" delgm'RecmprEf??lmcoL?ry "at an 'cns}

12 mm 000-00131



Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 26 of 27

?~aem~=4r ne. 1cm?? enmi- o?r'r. i321.
Eu?? :9 14.2.. ?atuka (Ma?a-ha. q, {Lk?giLE QWLQ BMGR. q?oMm
gr} Eta-L 6L. 1 E's??63 E-u Eu. Cu-Ap'cb/ awful ?ed-49m
fast cs. fuss?: scary? in?, mayday Lends. W03 a;
WW: 51?qu be un'H. may.?
can, a? and, Shula my? be. clean-Mi at, Aha/kt: cl, Fug, cw; ream
me?LtA ,1an any. FrE-c-i??r
MW qr}. W-w Ema (1mm.?
guecL?Aas rang?: fw aim my, Eu cupcw-nm
rmaual u??H Wu. 4. 9w.? Mex-m4st Mug ig.
raw-5P1, twat-HIM. Vanni?53 m,
U?i firm?iws air 3:1?16 kkdi
mac?1.5% EI- [fmua?J-?a?as a?cu'qle- n?nW .u?He ?Ar-3? km? "uh'md
um. ?Dunc-?e: Fm; Meme (re?t,

Aww? cub-M1, Arm-.01 pmM?J-?x [av- magma q, mum, chewy-a mart-Mm.
cw q; scum ham?:
gum? gut-a3 Mum habit-cu rrqachnt?j
a,

I

clam Ni;- rew mm; "\th

gammy Mn.

huh-9L roisi?ansf'hb :5 ?d-xui- time; :1 Out?t-WE, iv.de
Mt;- naJB-w (3.5 a igxsw wov- Os th'om
We? in. Ln. Bu. Stain-a. 6-5.. sixth Feta-emu tu'a

i} 99: 5311

028250 Defense Reciprocal Discovery







Case Document 44-12 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 27 of 27



veri?cm? To Qt: De?rax?mtaw
__Cgmdaokuml's qr?- mi- w'efLi-x. 4L1 ma ?mud-J. L1: ism. .m'm?m
qr 5m: In APE mun. 1-5. r) mmb??km
raccxaw?ud b3 Shiv-4 .2. as
.. Ambit?. 7-5 mum-L: cu Film-433'
-- Arl- gun-mm:
.L?rksg grumkb aswb?n (Wt-{Halo Mull
6? gmch?a puma?u ?he. k?u. ark-:1, 10% En. Eta. an?;ng
I
av- bu'l {'15me be. ?u?emL-LJ. 11.x
urwmw a4 skuu a. asnmm

1 rmM'oL-x [??M'chcl

mitten-q- 0453 mcwri- cai?n?auhbn Md magic-1m,

mph. ..

52x, ?O-nw) {-21.15% wins?; ov- can, way?, nan?mJ.
n? Equal _orCcru?n?_ bit-EL. or am, SW, Wm can-3 nib, ?lm-Haw
Port-La MMJL bu. (arson, ,?rmuw,
wmwm? c} au?LL? filled. uJ-v'da
km hen-n we,th 151% 0431 tau-.1. cu. Cw

rm?qu

i
-.

2.. MEL Mm'? 64-- kin-11.
'c?n?aune-D uxm?E-kggl. av L?s mlick"

cg-Bsu-?h
(Ck) Eu Han. UP.) pv- or rum-4M 0'9.

?nun-?r .

?ae/sovss,




(H harm a; nun-nob, mm FHHCAJ.

.

Vina haw-n. Bu.? Mimi Line?s.? u-thhb I
0.- \ru 54?. Ck Ammk?. Ema-\fb ?osa HAL

WEI-1Q. u?hna arrays: that. 531?; Lawn-.3" :4
MM *1 .
028251 (-1: Fa WImm Wksb?ba; eJck.? Us? k-u I dean,

Reciprocal Discbvery

es 13?? dua

00000133







Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 1 of 30

028252

[Jada-es: AMM M: Ru iWO?gfj? ch W'uln?
~emla5 ZJ. 4PM 7.06% Wr/ote/ was A-u. (Linn-.5; (lach

M12: swath Val/raw QNL Alarmed-2?3
We CI W41 \aM-e. we? been menu! 19.3 than. JJML
Aqu'guf,? Paw, gig-WI: Ink-?L5 3 gum yaks?; who. Jennie}, We?
fat-view, wink-John van-3 huh-
91% pm 51:. Sub'm 14mm has
(?J-Him; aha-?J ?m?a an?:an "v.3 M7
G?o-?i Wu;- J?m&

(C) huh-.333 6i.

(A) C?uixw?. ?Bm?a?humabs;

(2'1 Mia h: (MAK- cum?3 up mics,

Anna PLAN. curvesde Auk-dread; Ow- Ink?mud ng-eci be EN).

EN

Ethyl?Lb Skq?u {Wu?n a Lurk}; Emmy,
.4, ?thaws an.) WW km use.? law?z?. Exwt- A new 6?
(new ov- alanF-?M {or fume-.1 ewe-?cm, PM int-4cm sLuJuk he. out-L EUL
minim {Lulu-.5 Vo??kLg. ?2?4 man we: rm ?4 drw?m?nm
?cak'?g'sgm wb, Mk'w? (DA-aegl Km exile,

Hz Na manna was fail-id H4 vac-u,? name, ?an. erml an c?
rum? ?guilt-5 gap aka-?EL .ML Eu hm. W1 Crave-U:
1mg??- PWE h: a. Candi-Mien ?'71
(ewe??L3 CUWKHW w? Huh '?u?aUpU?i cl.
ha;qu (Maw, .4491. tux,

(CK) ban. wow ?aruva-LL f0,- MW en 5.9. Cabin-qu Law Ania:
c} Una. own?ce? nts-?gs? ?and .5de R?ov?d km.
.W ?sh-nka Lun- ku?cJ mun-M: 34ng MA Nan:
Cw mph-4(4)

no em; Skull cw?uhd tkurt- the. Lac-4;: c;



?I?Mchl (15?!an Lac-13.8.;

5313

00000134

95 K: a? 3917

Defense Reciprocal Discovery





Case 1:04ucv-01137-RMC Document 44-13

(PG-sax. clui-



028253



i
r?
a




2

a










Filed 11/02/2004 Page 2 of 30

R?s?aw? To mm a:

(51m: ma. ?mill New! c-L' Cz-am?d-ul cam-"ad ownug on amWL

av- can? may or Mariam u-Lv'd? cL-v?o?s W?r musk-'h-A-L cu. chm-Ed OWL-41L

W04. inc?Ham}. cw En Lu. was Mya- give.

?aha, do? mum-w} ?Malt R. pat b4. .?w?ad
m?ka col-m9?

kkn-a Hand.- .4345 wk- My?;

qut'Uu-q. Germ nuance? much .3: L33 [w

{Mpasmm 50 Lila-?ev- rahwu?a,? shank My 153%)

(A) awn-3mg. ans??gs. .wieu own?u. ls firm-wk {amen?ac use? pawn-A
3,115.3 tn. Eq_rnm'hlm' km Gm?ranQL'c-


(33 gag/3,14 mie?a.? 995,29. 5% ?51kt: he.
orwwum'mk, UNL qaaxm-xv Lg,? om.) km awn

5% amen tug-dark lain?,

(L) me. man. pros?w (manual 1% saw-L Fwa Ga? 0%
?aw?ace. in Auras)- qr. ups-(LL. kiwi: auWuJEb?ns mau'm'?
Bat-J: Lana (g-uvm-Muuk u??JO-r HAL \u?ua c?Aal.

M'u'nl.

(U mek cM-?nu? Ska-ii kmmn. .4:th? Eu km 5-41..
francmnuz-J.

(3) (?idea?- be. ugh-rind. a? Cauxdch'cvx mg m. Mud

amok u?a HAL?uh?cs Mid-(r- v?L?c-Jn

-

WW khan?. fa.- wavnx (ac-1:14 Ban.

cusxvuq- 5w \a-L \rchl {a when [yuan mam}: cum.
be. Maur??l'w NEWMS)
in Qua-z: ?blamed 59W ., H?s?3 Small,

(catibx?L, lot. in gm mmuaLokic? 6.1

also?; him rm JAMA fan- (Ed-4mm





Document 44-13 Filed11/02/2004 Page3of 30

i

i
i.



HRH- Skull ELQ arm's
WILL u.an Vac-xi m, o'r'
Rwy air M: Car-?W?Ck.



1. 1h cum-TA aw atoll-LL- Wn.?n% Md

bg?ai Perms Mum-'43 qw- hy?gi
2. 3 rn'nuvIU-l ELM-LL

Cod u?l?o pure. Sud" 3L.an

. .4

..

?qr-(SW ?my. air \qw? $.41

2
(HWMWI cine-mic {you
WW undo.? Game.? ae. ?1,510" be new-

2.1 (fame ram-m cm
rick Una. grim; c4, wit-2w Han-:3 w?kib-?qu-?L.
12M Esq; Cambium a} ken-'1 (lacuna.

.-

NO op W1 Ark-3?11. lat. QMMA 0.: \g'vsjh??n

mega Maure- rub-.253

. ..

chwo?ng *tf?nb'CL?Al?bkiL rut-L?s: qr kHz-mnth {cm-a, yawn?u twi
?3 NJJWI. .
.
rap-?nah ?dn-L brta-EvvJ??-E' l-u v4.5a. {Mn
Egkb'?mc :3 QMHM ?Len Gag-bani?! a. fix-ma- oj, is
yaw-in? at, M?v- Lu; a av mu? (Aw) cv?
meme-
?Ma magmas mac-am
st. ?FuV-cus McLean, Mk'aq .3 (chm, Ha. tax?emu a;
LLIkcl 3644.5 5 claim'r. WM u?H-uxnl' E-?a Lam

CAM ?Aim-$4 QM Mel.

. P5 (La a? 3% 5315
028254 Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000136



Case Document 44-13

. 1&6me To ?3?45? ot-ra?mcw

i

Fiied 11/02/2004 Page 4 of 30



ELIW Maxed mam VanilgLa. MN 51, hmb'tdklu. gnu-

I
1



{kt-12.. mtub'un q, we. o?rwskuwus aw}: WRGL train Mbbn,

I

028255

_l



Eu dim-m Mr. Adriana, LIA Era Mk:- Mel ?~~Cmb Hates-It

SCWL al? wk.?
Cw?arm mesa/his?) BNL \?591hnka



?len-vt 3c, Win-3:1- Hoar-Q Mb ?09- S-on-em Cir I

W93, "ea-?Hm; cadHide-m Una): ?dd-t. $5.38. sawb'?a CL:
umsivz'; scam qua-T 5.3 0.4. mam-.353 558+-

wcg, Ude . 0.3 9.2.x we 0.50:?

7 [gawk Qaw?.? swag Qafm, 1?1, r- 113?]. New. ?51 a; UM

Hakka}. "Set-Kp?cllg-a?-?u. UM kt WJRA 5x3 Gum-3

i

?Lu-l. aha tun Scum wk?) u} ?r1, tuKL-tab'vi
Swainl .Scu ..



E91 WE- o. Eu gr NATO Mu.

1.

I

?Mice 03?:ch 6F Rap?7:11pm ha UAJM W. km

$3101. Mair-L- km vr?m?M a. Wu out?: 11.



3 .

ird?R??a-cj- FL use. Lia-Maul Ska?lat tMmJ-Sciaba ?few 11,
i

{6-va 1AM 3? knibw?a?u C?td?vzn?ns?.?

?-l-Ler?ur-s?LShE?S can, rm? was xwewu? 4n A?kmism (and
We've-Jr {urns-Ls wt cutwma? Una-k WM gm ?wh?
gum-s, cu hub??- ink-nuanth {weaklcl .mci dumb.
Can?cA-x :n in; Lima Awmam um 25; xmw.m
clipknc'c \naue. 2.19% DEM
Emu.) ?CCMu?uw, may. 3-41 leam Embed-a, ten.? claw.
mm.- Reel

:95; Raf-$18 00000137





Case Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 5 0f 30

Li. Wei .I?cLibJ?ucbka an Um) W125-

11.31;. Mr. Nath (aqua {Jo?csew-Ch? g3 an?. ?Mikael Stakes, 11:; Mann
fa.? c5 Mme.le rant-.d Wanna Im?uL Wm 13.4.4. J4. 1&2: a (mum. at;
new m. max?3 Aw m'w MA wag-ML Rum-\?
Mha. k; a an WAG-wilti- c--toakwehm ng he. WW {w w:
in immune?; Mm, Luz. we). be. gamma-l [w Hal.
W91. 01, an: Unite?; S?s-Jets SolaJM ?Gainer whom k3. pwedkeESwL
Em exampu. :3 KM II: ((9.94 we. sum 3cm.-
In 8-1 Jam?a. mam guild. U?e. war-cl ?hung-eh?. want me. 3m'
menu Wubka- {Lea Jabs.? Win
oi?, ?5:92. S?awu aka-?inst. ,u?nek I
dime it.? I a?em?m ?MA/aha wok km mm
?mu-4 ?We WW ?lbw-4?
Qua. 931.535 Cu-ml-Cab \Enu'r: at cafe.
no Sm; 5.1 3% gig? s.?r9413 N91- sni-
Oul'aeLv?N?i, exp/vast? 2.44M kin- k'o (all nit-he. Wrci. 3
4nd ww-sb am a my? new; a a. \w user. {La-k ?-Afwc-n-J
czm?w rmxrianx 1a. zine-v- {Amok-bani anagram-nah. h?aukl.



i
1

3p? 5.9, Lia?s-l Skull-Ra Yam/Eva, Gert raw-KM 5"??1vcth 4L.- Mam
an, Eicdkh .qJ Dudebl, er Me.? 2w Miamh a,
., m)
e1,st haw-o. Eu. km (Adam; fed-we In. mum .cu
., (v.0
ytsusmii: b. ma?a-4: WHM mack a
. I
innu'mE VFW
A I
Cue/.1 5:31:15 ?an. (1':qu

934:}? 5317

028256 a Defense Reciprocal Discovery




00000138



Case Document 44?13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 6 of 30



(Ref. 9.10;, In?) chuAtrtFit-E?D ?ea?(ls aw:
Ming (hi-(Sam- k-u CArb?u. 63., BM. .4144. h. ?ha/Ens ?at Pom
Mango-n Bed] (Ariadne. We ?are. FN M1,
MA (Ami: (Lark?s (Aw-m. 10) M4 ea Qwas L?,fqu
en ?cinch-?eke. Fm-J?h?u ya?? Werenw?m cp 1411mm. (mug tut).

aid-Mam, ?Limb: elk awsk a. ?kg-u: at. am L'a a. imwj
v-om'm- MW, in m. rut-3W" ower-
ap LL.) ?La?a. ELL dead-xt- cy in km hon-35. 7:49, Seuh'cm
3.0110,, B?cukas 5" ?4.2an Q44, w.
Maui {n ?Aha-A m. Mu, rEcucrn be uni: M: New}
wamlkl-?d cm we. a; apnea/.5 524.- o1.- (3.3502), new?
?:5wa kn aw}; guy; Lon-ilk? Put?, VJqu LAch

in; yum an. US Oahu q. ughbw
m'wtoa WM, in 'Mr. Naked."
(god. (MW-44.1: or me'M Elf. owl-La EM. Mam: Cad-14:1 WM \o?TMs Exci-

Ek"n3_ . ada?i. Luz. no aim.me

5m. :n Cam-L m. Wu? .3 a.
one. ?tment Awe?s ?mk- cw #44. (3:02. :4 Mada}. ?was, 'Nr,
?AHami [s eke-Earl to beau-K 50 cu kn yaw-2rd: Fake,? (A sunk
L'qkt- kl Act 9mm. swarms I: wagon HM.
Epea?n?c, m: (s Euwvm AMeraaAu, mes?n: mziuc Mp.
um. came?25': ranger,qu Sam M. ?We ww? cam]: ?(Luck Jul-t?
39mins). Hf. Abbml": nI-amk- in Ha. shut-v?: oi, a. a} my; 4L1, (?Main?-
5th ch. na't? cg ?2115\n- Qw (GA-aw
W'me rmku-Ja?ewq bub ?a ww- m'aw. E.qu a .4:ng {parlibk



3ASMK cad,

?23w, Wanna, Lu. S1?.de Amw-m: We. Erwin.? weak-NJ) ?5
namsmj Sum ?aring;

028257 ?tmu?a?b'g'j? 3% Wu? Vg??{kh cum-A Eula-ii c} an,

P5 3?35" 00000139





CESQE1ZO4-CV-O1137-RMC Document 44?13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page U?ei

m, Leumkomi 0.4 ML ?000.14 01.04%,

W, AWUM mw?mn Wu. be. marital bu ulna-k 5: ?mama Eu
ham-e. yuan; Jam, A545, Eu 50ch M.

am: Eu 1 1; 30.4% .wh? Mk, (w



MD .11 unalia?clh'w: Bat. on

gem 6H1 Pam-0.x. IQ:qu L0H 5mm ugh; 8mm,
gowns-numin 5? man Duel-J Shaka 'FM-b'u 20,9069 ?ak.
LLN m. reg,ng k3 Av?cla.
Icg?e 51g .1: wcu be. mam, ww fudlib'ufy
at. nasal BrakaU pea/Sons Shun
equL UNI. Cara?rift car-c4 Ewan/Ls. Una. on:
q-B?Jnn? him, or at, ?cf-M ?Angusw'ma; ut? hubWm; W41. (1 0



shaman}.



Cum" H.- Adm? km WW
1:04V?m'sww 2.1 WM 6y cg Bar-Isak Eu
Mk9, ?0,022.? 1:1: ?2 hkah
in: ELM mun-1.5L 3o. {LMw-Lr?im :?aqwusuh.
{beas?r?s (mm wn'kk q. Emu-0.5.14. zR-A-u cv' Camuvw'uJ-u'ch?
Eb fat-LL sag?115.5 in w- ?14. Talia-v. ma 51 WAHQWL
Hue-J: Eta?r- yam-ink ken?an. ?tu be. car-e. m'n'nra HM. arugg, cage. My;
cum-L k0 wan?. .0300 men-h m. are.qu Wm
c, f?e?uicha?KL kw kW}. oU-w-
iamsb'kuk GA. in ware?uh, r16 E'h Bad

Wanda. bu 3.1 U.ka $Eahes.

028258 Defense Reciprocal Discovery


00000140





Case 1:04ucv-01137-RMC Document 44-13

4?

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 8 of 30



- l? .
mgr?on To mm: Oumu?om



3533.? be. 04.2. 3m mus '0 lW? Luau-LA
6w. emu-35?F Even :hu a. Wn??v? (Peak, Bk};
:2 Wm so? rel-Ede 5? :15 at s..va um: w.
Wham. mu. U-nrkec? Swan.? in. IE: .L-Mes,
car.sz km. awash-mag 21 Amw'w faw?

are. I: no 1-. SVWIE 3&5: .2 egg. ecu-L3
E'J-ncl. 34% 714.535,. cL Pow ?My. 3* W403 m. Wi-
For wank? c: es. mue- ekwc amt, ma?

cut-b. Mm, Btu} Wt.- uruuxcL b4. mk- In Sc. u: H?u.
(LA not. Chunky-a. Ha. grith'w-s wimpy-J- Foru-
Ear Pr?iSwE?. b: {nMuMca-?al. [w szR-?s ME Eu
Basic ?as, aw; Mg.-ch ma?t

5c be Vern-db me. a? We. curm- Mtuuqful
gwum kc. w. MW, at. a sauce q. 51qu mg. 0. km lwfu-L

i?kmw'ms: Ef?okaarumk, n?ctkt mums. no?t? UM Eu vamp-?L
a

reaqnn aka a Uml?uk Shakes nu?
m. w'?kb chcgui Eu. km. (LN-1..
gel, Mina?.th ?0.01 pm it: Sm US Mun?
pn?sm c? ?U-uu. man?ka- tilt?Mh?

7 act-Ls: Pugh-2532.5 haw: b- PaJo'b?m was Want 8:51:15

1'

1:40, We 6% :1 Cume Want), W001 {want an ea. \Lmk

028259

1 ha. AWWE Wm Eu. LL-JM $L-uke4 curl
[fa-hm. beau?z. pu? Cmi-?p? one; Maul amt-nu;

chum t3 Moran-w local Ont?
gen:- 0. wad {Lav-7M (Xv-ka make? 80?034
uh WeRQm?bahbi?w Ecru-4+: tab-nit.)

00000141





Case;


i


3?8

1

3?



Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 9 of 30

"Qb'm OLE o. MmHQ-sr? oi. lav-*3. waiicegl. Lat-t no writ?

k1: 5% 05W: ?5 Ls?amd {4-13. .W qr Wia?

.

Seam-=1, ?03 Baku-um Elna. CxJumn vn'IM/a 0? lot-mi vi- Mr
Nthokiu,? 34. 0?:sz a make?) "ab-annath team; deuce. e.
the-ian Em. ecV-enaiu'hjs cf. mu? pus-cm: haw-e km. pHHm-x?L cuiu-JMJ-Iul?b-q_
a? in an. became-M em. vague ?a Dem
lei, Ha.? (Awh?dq. Err?)1? CaxaI-R-u-?M w. an; (5.1.1!ka
{?ak (Ark-um 1), AP: Cka?dd. 19cm. 4L1 mack we. .3 my hewa

Eva in ?nk-{1L rue-4?sz ?aked-5 kku-J- 1E \1 awn

hawk?xku?cla?ns 1?3 uni-LIL,- Us huh-4., (?whh-

1. W: (:me pt,? quu.? gm. 00:04 Ebb-bu. m?mi.w_
Um-Eul



in mr-v?u- were?. kw. Rake?ammo?)
$Eefm Seaman QCJ Dam-Ia.?
Lca-wnL1 ESRK Cauvlc

(my. Cam-v5 Blemishch

?icks-?a ?1 a c?ocnawp UJ-udn um meg-m K1 an?qlqn?
CW, Swing. an}me QC, Ono.)- 1'33, thw'km.
ww't?L. Kauai-?ch, U-Q Valet
#15191 b; U-Anoun I s.an Mn Emmy,
As tom-l um. gawk. Hem?N3 Sat-?cl,
q/lLu-o. W3 guard?L 6-1-9? .mk- Eu camv?MH.
Wk w?wh fw uw-qau- up. mar-.6.- to Life, 5.1 an
Gum, skews sg'mrkb mwumaubth-L.
are. c?uvs- cq are.me {agents-nu. cv- urq. were



028260

?70 curs o-nr-J- gas-um?mi

Jive? 5321

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000142



Case Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 10 of 30



(PG-31 Gov QESPONSVE *01 UNmassd-Zu?b 653??: q? QWQW
J24) lauds hr?- W?Mna'v: Gm?wnahida. im?hsmniu-?A? oi.

quh?uz, Clap-?4 ammcha ?can;

Mire-Q. wahuJWLn?l Nun?a WFML



Low?=1 {Wm?xm cucl l??lh?LLI ?6153? fen-m Eli-u.

W, Savage/hut u-a. Gwen. Cums? (Sum. LS1 Lemur), mum;

m5

-,

.

A .E?i?g {id eb'cl'hw Mat wa?kg (So-an,

Eng 9.3
1

.
9r gl-



SM'tt-a [or-cl 892.3.? 3 c4. cwk? 1; (?up 6L
g??uik?Q?? E34.- M5 cl; ng.l,? WI,
mal?: EMUL-
?akh?l Hum): CmaEq?hmk SW geldManna-.3 o1, and. fat-1M Unl- Ms up HH- ?C?Laam'c

I
(acur van?u.er When.)- 40303.0?

{E'Ea'm q, claw-2. TMS, MM 1E7 magmas H-L-QA: km; hung-I In



THE Dmmum oF Ma Rama mgagi? m- as
i

iGQmNAi-v?do 9:39:36, Cum?. Irma; 5 mi, um woke.? I cemen?

3 11mm; as awn-Mi @U?m



?11

:2 6? '5
{2316.56 F061 CLASSKFILATLON AS. AN ENEMY

I

peFeNc-E. RESPONSE 1

US. ?m mut? kutL-w. Yaw. O?Hara: VA Ww 0.4m wok

Lin! CLUB-M M'M?nm _5cw.. ?33?

v: Mpgmi ab saw. mick int-u canal a?..th Nutc?a? "flak,

:3 to ?Al 25 ?(cww? lam-'5 bah:

?1.5 an ?Mam?n {umkkakf A :5on WA

. 532
i Lia-1 (J. . Cm ??aw hub-d?"
028261 Eb q? tm 5efense Reelprocamco?grvh?
E. 35596!

00000143



Case j:04-cv-01137-RMC Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 11 of 30

'imi IS We MST.
1

1m: gun-nun: 01?- 0

new hr?!

ngamumN ..

028262



'71\?nfuwgsulh?m? .L OurGun?s hwy-1. :nfuvv?ikh'm 5? KL .1 HA,
5 d-Iu

\pn 3 Mi 44?qu '1 b_ Can-Jac.?

seam M2353 fame rmeb-uh?o-n ci.
Whisks. inf-muh'w? In Eu. WM EMA:
Bu. issue. Auk-Jam. .W 2H. egg?Lab. be he. :JliC?r-mJa-Kbl- cm can
awn-.WE, (Mucus; {nfvw?oJ-kv? In wwon 91-56

.4, kw;? a: emu; cu crab rum?ch,
.

\ruA 2k:- ax-Js nun- haw-mg Mil-L :n cuxs'ipw?

w- rofw?q ?nds?M janw'm wiw. 5.2.4.. rmm?y (ww? camel



?M?ngfu? 14-;



Wx?b (?Wth Ind: (New (G:ch "rb raven?
HQ. gwmk'cm gm QJHM 9km qmw'cub?uh

2 (Jule-Skim fw- Eh:- Jnggehodcicw Riv-43M ow mix-FM? to
lined: run-?u. qr L-hh. 924W Wei. awM ca. Wig-Jig?
(?Lac but MALL C: we 2M3 gubch'm
m3 an wuu?IV?ul or, an?: Cl..me Why?d,

i

Cs also a?x?ack 1 wsmw?a knnaub'u nigge?lr (neuh'an

- q"

EAS J. Lyn-Lurk: b? ck Why-5L. gt,

if 11

Qm'clcx Luz: avail-3 313 Jirviz-f? exp-Ax tissu? up. new? Sun-Ami,
knee. ms Wkuclb v.44- hrzm?sLJ in its. 51n'r-

51 a 19 n-

., viva meal- USme. BL. Laeolnn ., gig-aback: WGH- WM
pa ?2de 5323

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000144





Case Document 44-13

?to?

028263

1
i



Filed 11/02/2004 Page 12 of 30

QEs?aMse To QASLS op



w, .
Wt 7M So here-4 um J. 30:53 k-u Gwen-H: sud. Ohm ail?Laotan

mm A min? :5 53 mwm- Park

4
?aims. - CAM 0.1.x m2. cu. \Itco.? cu.
i all-?3 ca *3

VA?an cu.

. . .- .
Cebu 0031::

.. . .
DO flak? ba- IAEB Ek- I?l?o?hh .L Gun-1 I. .x (lg-"j -
we. as ck Cum-Sen: Jud.) r: In vibe E0 Coda/tuna.

am Hank Mal hmmJ?r MEL Us {tan-365:4: 1
I

?ll-3C9. ED 11? (?Jab-dd. GL What ED. an. Ash's? k!sz wash-Luigi had-44.



Cit-cal.) agave?=17 awaited Hue. Blair-s pp Afw?m?

1

i

mud I M3 Whigch \w o.

Picky-41,4 an Whig-av

?59k Ina 12,13 ?505? cm, his facL..wCh-W4Ed Gare (I
and kin?- cm Eva-9.2.. Hi: {11091.4 mans. fir-.2.
OUQWL- mm?. EUNDUFMT
can-do! ken?n. Yea-10..? WA: Lama. his ?ve. ~aw old. San. \Icu. Mum
gnak- WM hon. eBay?s-um. {ca/mid: txqu (we?

cue? tar-LL15 ~31; Jr. MD ueq'ng b, 3.7m; bat Jet-q. U3. Cum-Ler

bra-Bk Mo. Batu-a. Mn {aaDJ Udabk u? RM l- ?em FM Awh'uz.?

Eg?c?nrb km. ham? m5: INNOUEMT

Hun-1.5 Can?n 51W I
I 5324

w?l?m? 1 Refei?e Recipme Sw?b'wq??L

aswew?

00000145







Caseg?zo4-cv-01137-RMC Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 13 of 30


.

if?nus \s MU 154-qu
put ?ma summit:
use m: ?magmas-T1,





028264

haw-L Vanuatu can AWW SO?waw we Saidjc/avj Amman}. Eb,
Mm Panda UAR. a}

DJ QPM 3: 6.16.4:- Eu he. an Tag}. M513 curb?~43 Han-J:

5c Hugg? care-.91.: WM lac-Jaw; Leak 5&1 en. tat-14L I

i

been Sims-dud.

All <3th . :3

Una. Do 3m Um'ak I wank? Eu 5L

at
faced Eu Dun Mama 3 3.4., as Maw-2r smcL'esokcLh?d cla Kim :35 be cham- Faafhs? c.qu Oust?l tun?'1?

?1


Do UN I: but. 0.. saw-Gad Eu 6. nah-Em Back
WAKE gb'uq Me]- s'curma avast {Eu-ans cash

3w? 3: maul FAA 3M Shh-?J41 I?de (a

lam-'H?:ka be. Swill-Ln :n kaI-n Moo-do

0ND: luvan cw jun.- Gan-9L um.? do (-exWL? Anni. EMJVCASL

N99 WW- UM. Wren-um been?. 21ml Fun:kaqu [av Sid.
-Qa:=b npA %?ms 3m+ uh?? Ewan $xmak?n a 5w?

7

Es \chaMk- to bank chm-14.. Will ?ew. Cleave?



Um, cars-w: excl, chefs.)

5?

H19 in Dana-f

Cf
yak, 3.51.3 04; (cur?Jana)? Eel-dd, N43

PM We.

Hez- ho?c, lay?L- return h; kin-Q, W4 UNI-35 4 an}; mid?

am.)



(I 1

s?
Masai, Hun?V5 my); Elma; a Fad the-h? $5

an
.WW, cu cu?m?s WWJ.

7.: Anuna?; H-ES

was


?35?

Defense Reciproca! Discovery

5325

00000146



PEEL mom,? 251%? - 1
93.353104 cv 0113758MC 11/02/2004 P3430 4959085?

AM ?at: (Ln GM ED
iquEaMMv?naWuiim?d?FLEDWM

Ha?- Ema-Bk Mia, be?. we; stun?.115

gunk-"i": I




19:56:. in Hun. vxcu?z. Anal". Mm?: mw" Mad- Hm'r?A,
DEFENCE
. fw%_ Eu. h) at. Wat
imp-Lamb. I. :3 Jamal .fnv w. Cub-wk
Sign?: (new (?Jug-a1 at, (Lang 9% blunt gw?cm Guan-
., 14-sz 3a.; Cuba. - . -wu-

?a swag}. ms. nu. gkukuw?oa?sg m3 ?go. I mil..de
Fame. 2.993-. gang-ea. foul. ml: Lwl; emsmmu? Wm,
'bm??ed p.11 :3th 1:24 Qua. I ma hub-5 q, Maw?5am; 6a
Eu- {anGf-Jn'uh FR 6: Spam: .
an M3 Wad; d?A Mn ear-use. um. tlu ?Frbfa?-agkg?l. "Lam?t??kw-wl uhi'sk?rr?dwi.



J?wnaics? JD- pad. -w-zm Tour; Em

i
5
"t


_u9h~91

.
ffe?IAE-?aa Li: +9 plane-urn a? kn. J: ku Lean cw?gmu?
Eb LIL ca Acme-T'th am an

(pkg-I: In Mr?nd I ?Agni-5 ?rms; h, Quail-
?nan-ul?zd Ob-??n?bn CLS

Swami: L-o but) emch cm {can 26&
5326
ozazbs Def??pmr?ql Discovery thLI't 0-. F:

00000147



dase

.
028266 5

.. hum dam.
1.91m
a-A. av- ugs. 1b.

?4,9921%

Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 0.3: 3 Cu.? (Lula m3 emu-US ?1,341. Magnum;

srwp'c. ?1mm :42. emu: "1943.? Awake 43% in ?95,..ch Raw.?

Wcl, MAW, (?fume-Jth ?was :5 4m. :3ko

eff. ?rd 5015mm. Mm. q, mu. Mbiowbuj new wane-m oLuMEu?
.em?M,

mm. we clamor. Ifwdebem
. MW .
Ian-gt" Wm 12. MAE-wagsi Lie?. a-

. mum-5?d:ch .3. the. Egg-Ed e?eL Doom-Alma

1-2 m- C5321.

?Ween. ?4.26; mu.
them 3991;. ?0x45: on. smegma"
en: mus?3 ex=x__m_ H9695-
ij-t:_ merit um -
[Wen a?J-

WA Gum-?3 at m. +ima, I, Mel. Hed-



-quv-L akin?Fuk- .W-ka?os?? Hum Ewe

-mrux. -) HWM ?Wm

Ups- .I mart (tum:

?sts-r5 caning-{Ethan

3.69m

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

i

5&7

00000148



Case Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 16 of 30

Weak-2o}. ?Tu

12-99- 4. w.
tang-Ma WM .
M44 59mm
??nale-A - .

I







raWV-{amzuL ninth
0

hag-?ll I Law-7.
am. In beg-m m? a -.





may; Hutu-Jame?. {gawwm nak- ammo-?a .i-r?hmwauf

- Pr; :E?tas3_w_
_ea_r: was new:
(Le-.de Eu

mlbh?m n1, --

Cram 14-- ouiu?uhl-n

5A5 Int?Lima AHM



.
Ems-Mal Lw_bgd~_ke_ whimia?f;

-


v'l- ?1



. Ewen.-.. .. ..lawn a; luc'eavl cg. 1 ma
.. p?uu' .01. 1:51:21. Hm 3; a camam?u?.
(t
- . 9-64}; 1 Sol-1.3L, - uh:- wm?ukgbg


02826:?! . Defen'se Regb$? ascovery

5328

00000149



?ase Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 17 of 30
i

'33

1'14. Wt? Cn-
a; uni?: {tons {a ?rm Wad-a um I
?he; ahead. Saw-am be to Er alo?i. W585
fach m. but m'mb cg: rub mama. guy. .oksh'm-h: but Lb
renal). Ava-J I. Elia-HA =41 Eel-5M MEL out-4 84L
l?cjuc ?an ?tum; anal hum-l renal-3' :h ?nub-xix. :4 9.116
pix-a I hue. =59;de was cu haiku. I'n_
(Wkch MW cape-4 h: Faxing Hml.i{. I Eva-L3
em ?3.4.155 W5. Lab's-3 Md. 1 kick. ,n?gl. UL with 1 SN ark-R4?
?g 1 1M ?Edamw :4 MA

11mm run {Kmab?no (Hr?2,
on: We: mega-'5 Jar-L MEL Haj Wedge. mm. auepubxci;
Hut-L 200; anal ?ch-b w?euwz. and Mung)- 2311-. (Sm-Ans?)

?ma-?a
1 Lu- .Imm ..

. ti
52:69:? 53.,
,1 u-?m pita?t.? I. ?Luna?L.



on. Bui- 5L3 ulowl' urn-'3 Una-g. .

A?n Law bu, "new-ram he'd. {ah-u whwa

and: of. wank Wm?roz?wq I 1W1 Maw!

huh mo}. ma mam-.1 mm ALA Maq-u. W5 chi-2v bum
ma.? '1 amt (m-?uot' Him 1 that:
?2?va Eu. Pan-me, j: dual. Bu?: Leanna-H.71? Nude Unsa- mural gaw?
mm nae?3 We- ?43 met f?w- I fauna mi.

5329



028208 I I 031% I?l?-cilprocal Discovery

00000150





Case Document 44-13
I
1
1
1



P?aggq,

THE became-:75 Mama?'35 Free: Augean-luau

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 18 of 30

imam-Admin summuna? auburn when.

. par-spawn) 2 NH ELLE- - H4. to
.. paw-11411.4-.mmn hiss-.253 Mr. . Cantu.) n4

.1. thoE-i Fatwa-3

[m :04? I Mama-94'slwu-a a. gem, mm

um. may? him-*3 H4. .04 53Amt-am 1699'?. .

"4

-

.

1

i .u?v WEE-II

-y





i

iwa?bgkik. mama. Erch-L. inhismaaun?f We? :1.th
{sumo em i 4.3. mi; m, 43 Leak? was 4.11 mi? when
was ,(ch M_Gmg.._1 19.4 mm 44.3 Lax

Defens?e Marbiscovery

1

ozazsb

.- n-m?aA?v?ws
.



a

1






I

h. lea-4.5.41. M- .

.- No.1; b4: 1. My. ewgn M.

gain ~3sz 4:11.- nut _Skm mate. .9- wiM 841
1 51:4be - 2.633-
.M?h all Tani?? fau?

CW



Wu- .1. 31:43

m. Ail a. -94 HAW. Max

. his->9- ?1.12994;

0

31-2-93. 5.49.- seal. gnawed. Hr. rm
Mon- 1125-: 9-54 'm aha?Md. EN.
__an-hsh. Serum-W11?-
.1531 En (Mi- er?asa?gn. 43.14- I

.. - .. Err but-1H .

. tel-9:. . _,Wh_h W1: .


. 9?9119. nae-n. nr-?I 4. LL 1'

00000151



Cese Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page incl-.- Wm ?AN-?anal
. . Uriah-1:. AW-

- ?lint: mosribkanwue-mlen ego: ~54 Hit-3
i dun-'5

{Md 01.21;; W. "av-s than

i

I

..

Ln mm mun-k Us. 0.4.3. Mt Wag-1mg .
?Julia-?5 Swu'nbi-D v.52? aBm-izn-H (6-: mun-J.)

. .Bm-?rr iar??hid?quu ragga.--waxul "and magma wet
.. U'Jv'?d be. Lama-5&1. Ea. timing-oi. .
e. 19.1.4:
Jana- we 5M. u?h may. firm-C- Eran-r31: Mamba?,3. kin-M
0?


-M 44?.
.M. 44:33:49.- Hint-19*. 22.6.; a
tuna-?aka 3: awhile: ?and. m3.- M'h3.w ..
n3 cu-u. ham-? Wee. 53% my; Minn Jame-km mum-
Vick? mm in cub-LA Sank-Mm. mus
.2th mild-cal. Euh?du Bo w; 443ml". Imam. dam suit-'5
.Eu u-L Can again ha: Tm: Finn. Seaway??

am.

495191: ?21550; pal. .
. w.


?ma-L1





.
-.. . 51Judah-:1: .. adv-2- ahv?k?, .34.-
I W?s tint?
Blah-ask dine?aim (.4 aJw-b-L [ww- Hlas and. M. fus-

i=0- (909?! 5531

028270; Defense Reciprocal Discovery

00000152





.. .

yam: 6. [wabyawnh??webz' -- .
I

Case Document 44-13

Filed 11/02/2004 Page 20 of 30

Amsme ?Tb me. ALI-Era-A?nums



M. My} -lnc?mp-Lh?-cn_





. amt-r. in an?-
WW3 a. tau-L (2m: ..



. um?. . .-

Q94





F.
.9441:? Jamaw,. Cab. 0






-(mluikm?q?gmaau c327airy-b MMe?cj has. h. ?gratin



.th-uq.? .. .











ij,5_,c~ Mamba-?- c4.
0..-.
R.

Lag- ..
I.
-?i-?isbm him. q; . huh-2k
.- EAL

LL. A.



Auqmmf? w: toluLand Hen-'1'



want; .554. I. um

M..- -2.6m um lam}: 5&3ch



028271

.151}; haveas, cur?- W'ni mag.

J.
(all {gig-1;: cLu-g a. Ma

5332

0000-0153

Defense ReCIproca?lngiscovery





Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 21 of 30


3

56 Elm} Wuhan 94m nua?bbn~ Ava-5m Jim-u we.


a
1. (Win?l Frth? Gran-l.- B?n?l-u?n 14.45.13 M, sub-ad
mam?n a, cuiasb'mf

?u'Ln-d In 'Ln WS ?Eu Shirl? It". Be.

Cab Puma-r u-K Ha. Shiv-4L. nae-Jaw Ema. and? {me-m 49-1 5-1-44.

U-l. SHE-mum} Sbr?uv. tack pay-k- tkr. $5.2me ?ea-d b5 Ed;qu

raw-A, knits (.21) EM ?1 5?s.an in? 3L0..le Salli;

at. 5x,sz m?u.

u] . a: J,hhd. .
pm M55 .5ka putt. E-o dun-min (fwuLm) La Maud P:an .L

um Mae. Eula.? .4 Say.) inalln'cLJ-J

wean ML- I

(I .

33 any. hm, an?, ?ma-alarm.
m?mb? (?rick (nun. (Ma-w, Alida, ?aLcJ-?nb

Do (ref-u Ur; Hg. We}. We.

?Na. is EH7 4.94:5: Ufa, cu: ?mars-meal win

Ia; $0 WW, wilt Va-u-dsk ?235-. v?W P?-n?J-ba,

and (.4: c-th-rs I'm new rugs, Lag-J: Us.? new No.44. m6: MW



La. ?dn-I. Laws?" For All-min \uqu 10W ALL
38-33%?
urn-1 Hue-w. W494, can 5: h. AMA, Hun?L- Vim-up.ch '53
WM fun-1k u-h'H- 1. won ?nae-1.1L.



GWM ?kn-IL Bud- war-1A bum In Hui?pare fu'v?
ivy-4.5 (Altai. Ml'cl) {0-11 fads-L is cLa-ue. Eu mid-? Us: ma. aw.
:I?xnl Mam-'ha-Eu e?m-l i=0 (NAN uh: air 4.11:1.
r. 5333
02827;! Discovery

00000154







Case Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 22 of 30



?3134, THE ?th we Ameumnoms

I
I


.5 r. - a
fw- 6-4 W?t?as 51,, ?643. mee [Kw fn?ngcvub. M, :9 Sum-
yum-R3 hi m?goLnuaoAq'm Empty} Ham-su.z?rplses.? Jan h: a. fungi: E9 1oz Emu/uni Iran-U-?j tun-0L Cow ED would. mania.



A. ..-..

.Izu?Jr. lea-H33 ML-


khan-a ?an,


I


(mwdi?suw ?n Leacw. @9465: ?so. I um


(3)1707:4. Ch -
- 4H - E-ma ugh-'13, A?uaL 5: Wait ?ame-44 fw Ham-

.

. - who Foo-?a (a

,2 A. .n'rg-t- (Ear. .53.st M. was .ama?, {Ow Lad. Auda?.
uruA-xo': AikuAn cham?lmmog. as,



tum: ban-n rm Jud-La MHte?Aes, M, 5.34?
a-scL Maseru, a5. 34. am Alma

. ,_m1cc.cL {a c-JoMJp?nb Wat-3 ad knot-E- we.

. pageag?ufk fr. Ru wuses?w, Exsuul

gave/.211 At

. a

a:ka Pew?L?s How Lumel; Can. Begum. 5 Wipe;
?er 9:43; a a4 Cow-?Watt, =1
Juana when. {a C. 3441.1-

?1

(z
i 5334
028373 Defensaeegw Discovery





C?ase Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 2?4 3.9-.

. . . :4 El?n-1r no. Gm. Wheat cg. 33m chi-L:
. at.


"hangs-.14: '3



~qu_

?f



LA: khan-



.0 ?.40



. Madh? tk-JL.Lu U??s W, Jakob: gym.? ?rmsm
. . awe. 9:1?0 ?5mm? MkiNW%uwWw?mwwmaammw

.rune. 1:54:64. wit61?.A9Whi?v; 94. gamma? .c.s.a.T I

Sand ?gfe?-RJ. L?o .?Amaw on

a} ?Mariana H1 Ltq?

. 5335
028274? - Discovery
00000156

- .



i

fear??-



Case Document 44?13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 24 of 30



Anaswaas ?71: THE ALLEWDNS

-7 Depauce?s . .
rat-3K5 9} 4H. Citing wan. who fez-??3
m-e?tulfm 5:13an 353:. Lem.? 09.1,, {nu


{Qat? -mA .. - ..
(v34mew-keel .
?w-ov. glut-L- pang?mt..- pw M2345 9.1L;qu
. w'qLc'Lt-Lu'm 9&4- EtaCab: r:


Lawn?map ew? x?n



ES



7..



'ba-cn?nz wan nab-he elm-?lg. ?ak.





315m.













than.2. {yaw 9L(alleys-c3. swims-hen
- Hm max?





I
0 cu? 150?.? ecu-dd

nun-J 9v?

cauqu mud- Mr we.? Irv?kn 2%

.., mi: a 3&5, mtm.

5?36

00000157

028275

Defense FkWiscovery





Qase Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 25 of 30

(r
3. - WM,

Mung?? Kain?thw?w5_ fish?s PK Wan. cg?.

Hcauub _;nqw b.4- 13M at w. Mun(7K risk-M (HM-E. .L awn?- Ewan; Satin 2. 1331.35!

{c
Lt W. Cad-+4124 mks?'1? {?ts CHE/{wig
13

it! Um, . .

me-a, clash-2M3.
sud mu: m, \ayt- Lg. km, {a 9.9. tum mam, Eu hon-? man
war-um.- M?m 5.4 EWLM ch sm- than.
niowa Ferr- a 7)

A um 5-4.5; (00.1. km! (ch ?Lth .up ?fawn.
I un-s awn swung-a EM. was-mm. Ch) I mi: #"lmq, Hun;
Wtd.?nh Ens-0K. Wham I .1. ?an?32.1 I
no?- a; Hue. ovum. or I?m-?rm ?mt-3 ?tenzina uma?ut UM.
(J) I. no?: ME :wbg-? o; endow-.5 .3. Eu MRS
:l-u Hw? Mo.? Eu 34.4. Asa 1 (wave Am. Mae-L cl,


I. w; 5.}.me gmakb ?m was (Irv-nu Mia? strum
WM: cu ?Etta-?J. a. a; Ai?chuj, (Emu?J
Al?Qmictqk': 1 Emmi-tel. war-cl "cam??4" m?h?m mu:an Harm
Sou. m, ?Cam?:4 dm'ef, JU-LL 1 aha ??3.sz
mma gap?; wan-4m. ma AF-lecknk Wot; EM I



Eur-L; 5?1? :?pre-Q?an Bag).- ELL Gnu??0i. 64ml.)

1.02.? Eu. (Jug: a} (Anus:th avg-l H: 0.655

1

i
I
.

1


5337
ozazv? Discovery

00000158





Case Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 26 of 30





r1311?; . THE. To me
La; nucL ?av?3 WhiuWK-? 1 Dun-n3 this Wab'aba
1)

I 15.2, art?u, km, A an (1?34 \cg?am?, KIM
3
El- Lew; 43%. Jar-Tn ay- Sc-Ju. Alicia in

Equnqr, kai {Layla-1" awn?? ?Ga-tang. W. u..me

vwaaLL 1E- Md 'u-M-ri you al.
I .

:B?amw embed),-



t?

- 15
?Cu; Em tucker-n midday: Asa-Mink: a??J Ems. SLWS Whit-



.J??mcdw WM in: W. Ema-.2.

1


A u- 5:
??uww. sLMquge,? u; gllumnggay awash Mg?: ?4 $us.

5
hbkikg (as \au'u. Qua-u rum-n: {Lam
i d- I h.

. ole-1- and. man-Jr 43?4:

- -

5MEB- law-ir- I 5'93 ?1?va and ?Han. 5.15:" UNI. ?0?th l?w. 0.4419113

ME 1'25 hut-?3 m.

In

1:15 easy-gel kn 1% "owm'f Max,?
1 So 5mm?: knelt. ta-Qfone. run-r
Hun-b] Used- uni-A3 In SLR L3

ELL cgvs" 0-0 Hm. qulv-w CJ-iwab?m





331d (Ta-Flo?s-Ja?hjka M. Wigwam. WA
tug?ceiru-c tea?1M5 Maia?4: chat cu
Mean: 0?4 miti'ca-JLB I. Mel
Eff-?c3 an E14. remake? an; Peal-3 L.an Ara-lain? eta-Jam) L3
W5. mung. Labs?; ma; mu}. \IOC?hA?rQL-knqh Hit-m4"
c?w-s wag??3? Mb a. I Shasta. when?;
{mf?sseM-Jr ?93 Ba 0?4 ?gawk-EH 0L-

. I
kw; 1.3 Uigma. (?re??WA 5an So



in: ?Ln?Hm: 3. Him-?c. LaA-n-m kuk fun-2.1 um'h 5?2. MELIM
Aka ?:49 ?thJ- EH. Lann Luz-J- WLL

k1) Swat-t? up Lam-?4. 6L.

028277 Vi

5338





00000159



0282783 1 'Defense eciproil Discovery



Cp?ase Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 27 of 30

1

?gm; Vn?ano" hack watchm-Ka. LM
fr

LL [Aha?'th L4 qua->5? Sp Hts?n bran-?Honda Ll:- Eus max-3, MM WW4 Mitt-1M."
A mGrE. fun?law'th MB1EWK3-



4. km LLG-L. ?Wt, Fawn-V, Pbpud? (re?Pink. (?N-Eut-
\Ann.? LLG.L. brim-.4 Mme?aann f? -
Inc-?L Shh-R4? Chi-1.633% bulk
l.
Mam.



I
glui- 1L2. lea: STEVE/kicqu Her-m -.-.- :5

4?un Lu, ha. Emu?- 44..
Ava-rims! M3 Mane?w ?404 MkaL . .1: ?Ok-enm?k ea
the-1:. ELL fa! elk-yaw. Eat-4.1: an nib-vb, I



.tL'cln'L one. 9:1 Sin-1w $mv?14
Saw-4- I?n wane?$1 .


"(mack ha. ..



Spa, hum: rm . .aJr. inch-me. GM
2'

11

ah Jake-fun. ww?nl, 14-: {*wa -

i

'i

_i



?g 5339

00000160





Case Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 28 0?
UNCLASSIFIED

Combatant Status Review Board
TO: Personal Representative

FROM: Recorder

Subject: Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal Feroz Ali
Abassi

1. Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum, dated 29 July 2004,
Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatants
Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba, a Tribunal has been appointed to review
the detainee's designation as an enemy combatant.

2. An enemy combatant has been de?ned as ?an individual who was part of or
supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person
who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy
armed forces.?

The United States Government has previously determined that the detainee is an
enemy combatant. This determination is based on information possessed by the United
States that indicates that he is a member of Al-Qaida. He engaged in hostilities against
the United States or its coalition partners.

a Detainee is a member of Al Qaida

Detainee traveled from Great Brittan to Afghanistan, using his own funds,
to receive military training and to ful?ll his jihad obligation.

2. Detainee was escorted from Quetta, Pakistan to a guesthouse in
Afghanistan, where recruiting took place. At the guesthouse, detainee
relinquished his passport and money for security purposes, completed an
application form, and chose a nickname. Detainee was then taken to
Camp Farouq for training.

3. At Camp Farcuq, detainee received military training, including but not
limited to, maneuver, topography, surveillance, and ambushing. During
weapons training, detainee trained on the following weapons: Klashnikov,
PK Pistol, RPG, and PK machine gun.

4. After basic training, detainee volunteered for advanced courses in
Mountain Tactics and City Tactics. Detainee attended these courses
because this training was a perquisite for being sent to the front of the
front lines.

UNCLASSIFIED 53 4 0

028279 Defense
00000161







Case Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 29 of 30
UNCLASSIFIED

5. After completing his basic training, detainee met with high-level Al-Qaida
leaders. During this meeting, detainee stated that he le? his home, in the
United Kingdom, to take action against Americans and Jews. Additionally
at this meeting, the detainee volunteered for a mission.

6. Detainee knew that Usama Bin Laden operated Al Farouq. Detainee was
present when Usama Bin Laden gave a speech at Al arouq. Additionally,
detainee was present when Usama Bin Laden visited the mountain warfare
camp.

7. Detainee was identi?ed as the guard posted to watch a suspected spy.
This took place at the home of a Taliban o?icial. The suspected spy
recognized the detainee because the detainee beat him, because, as
detainee explained, it was his personaljihad.

b. Detainee engaged in hostilities against the United States.

1. After September 11, 2001, detainee was forced to leave the guesthouse
where he was staying. Detainee volunteered to be sent to defend the
Kandahar airport, because it was the most dangerous mission. While there,
detainee served in a small unit of Al-Qaida ?ghters, intent on defending
the airport against the Americans.

4. The detainee has the Opportunity to contest his designation as an enemy combatant.
The Tribunal will endeavor to arrange for the presence of any reasonably available
witnesses or evidence that the detainee desires to call or introduce to prove that he is not
an enemy combatant. The Tribunal President will determine the reasonable availability
of evidence or witnesses.

5341
028280 Defense Redpro??i?qy2

00000162

Case Document 44-13 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 30 of 30


Personal Representative Review of the Record of Proceedings

I acknowledge that on 1 October 2004 I was provided the opportunity to review the
record of proceedings for the Combatant Status Review Tribunal involving ISN

t/Ihave no comments.

My comments are attached.

ame Date



ISN tag
Enclosure

5 3 4 2

028281 Defense Reciprocal Discovery


"rm; GUANTANAMO Flu-:5

tioned me, and they kept me
ice.?i
:ste rn Afghanistan. Mahmud
1 Match 2004), was married
as a agent in Turkey,
ecuntry in search of work,
:an, where he was captured
it for three months before
-two-year?old Abdul Maiid
released in October 2006),
and explained that he went
(e money out of drugs and
be punishedfOr desertion.
watchman for the Taliban,
vn to kill Iranians, and that
a Catholic, and said that he
rs, who thought he was an
ms?
were captured in Kabul
lbdulrahim Kerimbakiev
family members, including
5 and but denied
:he Taliban, saying that he
here he spent most of his
for his tribunal to accept,
We?re trying to understand
ildn?t detain someone for
vegetables. Can you help
to be imprisoned
ined that one of the other
i, Yakub Abahanov, ?was
'he third Kazakh, 18-year-
the house for five dayS,
:en he and the others were
r, who held them in ?some
barn,? before transferring
1g, Kerimbakiev was still



028329









oaw

OTHERS CAPTURED 1N AFGHANISTAN

in Guantanamo, while Abahanov and Magrupov were released in
December 2006.3

Abbas; Briton {released in January anon,
was captured in Kandahar. A student from Croydon, he traveled to
Afghanistan in December 2000 with james Ujamaa, a black American
civil rights acrivist who converted to [slam in the early 19905 and
traveled to the UK, where he became close to the radical cleric
Ahu Hamlin a'ldvlasri at London?s Finsbury Park mosque. Abbas-i
also became close to al-Masri. InsPired by his Speeches, he became
a volunteer for jihad, eventually living at the mosque, and ?relying
solely on Abu Hamza and his followers for his education in Islam.?
Having pressured al-Masri to allow him to fight in Kashmir, he was
eventually sent to Afghanistan, where be trained at al~Farouq, and
was then introduced to Abu Hafs, al-Qaeda?s military commander
(killed in an air strike in November 2001), who asked him, ?Would
you like to take any actions against the Americans and the Jews??
When he answered yes, he was sent to receive specialized training in a
camp at Kandahar airport, where, he said, he was the only one of the
recruits to argue that Operations should only be directed
at military targets and nor at civilians, a moral stance which was also
at odds with the views of his mentors, but which resurfaced in his
opinions about 9/11. ?I?ve had enough of innocent people losing their
lives," he wrote in a 156-page autobiography that he produced in
Guantanamo. did not leave my home except to defend innocent
people.? Although he agreed to undertake a suicide mission after
the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud, he was unable to find
the office to which he had been sent to receive further instructions,
and, as the aftermath of 9/11 brought a temporary halt to al-Qacda?s
Suicide missions, he was disPatched instead to another location in
Kandahar, and ordered to await instructions to fight with other
?English?speaking brothers.? He was eventually called upon to defend
the caves near Kandahar airport against Gul Agha Sherzai?s men, a
terrifying experience in which he spent his time ?running around
like a madman in the middle of nowhere trying to dodge missiles,?
and then found himself alone, as the Yemeni fighters with whom he
had spent the night ran away. A few days later, having decided to
undertake a freelance suicide mission, his iihadi adventure came to an
ignominious end when he was caught with a grenade Stuffed down his

Defense Reciprocal Discovery

memo;

000001

6

khan/o?:







028330









114 THE GUANTANAMO FILES

trousers by two Northern Alliance soldiers in Kandahar. ?This guy?s a
nutter,? one of them said, before handing him over to the Americans,
who had, by now, esrablished their prison at Kandahar airport.4

The ?Spies?

The most unfortunate group of prisoners captured at this time were
five men who were held by the Taliban as spies in a prison for political
crimes in Kandahar: Jamal al-Harith, a 35~year?old Briton (released
in March 2004), Abdul Rahim al-Ginco, a 23-year?old Syrian Kurd,
Aryat Vakhitov, a 24-year-old Tatar (released in March 2004), and
two Saudis, Saddiq Ahmed Turkistani, a Uyghur who was born
and raised in Saudi Arabia (released in June 2006), and 46?year?old
Abdul Hakim Bukhari. When the Taliban vacated Kandahar, 2,500
prisoners?including 1,800 in the political prisonwwere released, but
the five foreigners were made to stay behind. ?We want to release
these men,? the prison?s new warden said, ?but for their security we
are requiring them to stay here as guests. If they walk into the bazaar,
the peeple will think they are from al?Qaeda and will kill them.?
The five men had found themselves on the wrong side of the
Taliban in different ways. jamal al-I-Iarith first revealed his story to
the journalist Tim Reid, who met him at the prison and gained his
trust by bringing him some antiseptic cream and a shonane radio,
which he had requested. Born Ronald Fiddler to parents of Jamaican
heritage, he had converted to Islam and had changed his name in
1992, after reading Malcolm X?s autobiography. A website designer,
he went to Iran to learn more about his religion in 1993, and traveled
to Pakistan in September 2001 for a three~week holiday to continue
his studies. His problems arose when the USwled invasion began, and
he decided to return home. Having paid a lorry driver to let him travel
with him to Turkey via Iran, he had no idea that they were going to
travel through Afghanistan, and after a few days they were stopped by
three Taliban soldiers. According to al?Harith, ?It all turned to hell?
when they saw his British passport. Stripped of his belongings, he was
accused of being a Spy, beaten for three days and sent to the prison in
Kandahar, where an American prisoner died after a particular brutal
beating. am sure I would have got the same treatment,? he said,
but I made sure that every time my guards saw me I was praying. The

Defense Reciprocal Discovery 00165









Tt-tt: FILES

'6 ?rst got there the level was
?i?ed that we might be killed
us, ?wc could kill you at any
i?t know you?re here, nobody
you?re missing and we could
is stage, no onemnot even the
lerstand the Americansw?had
it Red Cross representatives
cy pointed out that in many
a sign that someone is about
it led to a few improvements
ted to get the Ito-talking ban
:c that the prisoners would be
successful in their attempts to
5? complaints about their lack
for more food (2,100 calories
it is not), and their requests
ed near other prisoners who
jumpsuits was addressed in
*v a member of the Joint Task
.or to tell them what is going
RC says they are very sca red.
be dark vs. teiling them what
being taken to be shot.? As
the author concluded, ?This
round of interrogations.?
iess random violence than in
red that regular punishment
l. Sha?q Rasul said that their
:he most minor infringement
rails of the cell, for example.
hey were subjected to indis?
of the military personnel.
the mOSt dangerous men on
of whom were
uardwtook the propaganda
v, when the restrictions on
the first few weeks, several



028331



Ferroz analog

opens :33

told him they had been briefed that they were ?wild animals," who
?would kiil them with our toothbrushes at the ?rst opportunity, that
we were ail members of al'Qaeda and that we had killed women and
children indiscriminately.?

The Extreme Reaction Force

The mosr extreme brutality came from a special unit called the Extreme
Reaction Force, which wasm?antl iswa ?veaman riot squad responsible
for beating supposedly recalcitrant prisoners into submission, and its
use was so prevalent that a new phrase--?to be ERFed?wwas coined
by the prisoners. Mohammed Saghir explained that, in the early days
of Camp X-Ray, even prisoners who attempted to pray were
?They wouldn?t let us call for prayers,? he said. tried to pray and
four or ?ve commandoes came and they beat me up. If someone
would try to make a call for prayer they wouid beat him up and gag
him.? Tarek Dergoul, who spoke at length about the ERF after his
release, confirmed that their attacks were largely prompted by minor
disciplinary infractions, which he described as ?an act of deliberate
provocation.? Explaining what happened to him on one of the ?ve
occasions that he was ERFed?Jor refusing to agree to a third cell
search in a daymhe said:

They pepper-sprayed me in the face and started vomiting; in ali musr have
brought up ?ve cupfuls. They pinned me down and attacked me, poking
their ?ngers in my eyes, and forced my head into the toilet pan and ?ushed.
They tied me up like a beasr and then they were kneeling on me, kicking
and punching. Firtaily they dragged me Out of the celi in chains. into the
.rec yard, and shaved my heard, my hair, my eyebrows.2n

Dergoul was the ?rst released prisoner to point out that each
attack was ?lmed, by a sixth member of the team with a video camera,
and this was con?rmed by a spokesman for Guantanamo in 2004, who
said that they were used to monitor whether or not excessive force had
been used. He refused to discuss how many times the ERF had been
used, but in july 2004 the Pentagon said that ?only 32 hours? of the
tapes showed the units using ?excessive force.?

One of the most vioicnt of the assaults tool?: place in Camp
X~Ray at the end of April 2002. The victim was juma al~Dossari, and
the attack was witnessed by Sha?q Rasul, Asif lqbal, Feroz Abbasi and.

Defense Reciprocal Discovery









THE: FILES

lismissed the ease, ruling that
us because they were non-US
CCR then appealed, arguing
ion to review the executive
uld act in any way it chose
me in the world.? In March
ippeal, setting the stage for a
oted that the Court ?ignored
elated ?cnemies? of the United
omestic tribunal? and were
ivity without any legal basis,?

cation is a foundation of liberty
ms. The US is not Only denying
apardizing any claim that a
of all of us. The court?s ruling,
ose tailed in territory over which
ml," is utterly erroneous. Every
ay in court?

tion of the administration?s

was challenged in June
. on behalf of Yaser Hamdi.
lozs When the authorities at
15 citizen rather than a Saudi
ginia in an attempt to prevent
of Guantanamo. Hamdi v.
-??the government?s assertion
my unit and received military
is an ?unlawful combatant,?
ystem, and Hamdi?s assertiOn
and was mistakenly captured
work. Although the adminis-
tition, Judge Robert Doumar,
-r stamp? for the government,
and the level of ?af?liation?
combatant status,? and
enabling the court to perform
ig Statements by the Northern



028332

W9) ?chasm-Wm



my tee/o7- MW

THE LAW 25.9

Alliance regarding Hamdi?s capture, the dates and circumstances of his
capture and interrogations, and a list of all the of?cials involved in the
determination of his status as an ?enemy combatant.? Overturned by
Appeal Court judges, Doumar?s principled demands were never met,
but the challenges meant that the case, like Hdmdi v. Bush, also made
its way to the Supreme Court.?

The third challenge came in July 2003, when the administration
announced the names of the ?rst six prisoners to be tried by Military
Commission: David Hicks, Salim Hamdan, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul,
Ibrahim al?Qosi, and, initially, Moazzam Begg and l?erot. Alihusi.
Although apparently authorized by the Military Ort?lcr, the proposcd
Commissions attracted ?erce criticism from the moment they were
announced, for a number of obvious reasons, including the fact that
the juries and presiding officers would be hand?picked by the admin
isttation, that evidence obtained through hearsay or torture would be
allowed, and that both the accused and his lawyers could be prevented
from seeing certain evidence. Despite hoping that the Commissions
would proceed smoothly, the administration failed to realize that some
of the military lawyers who were assigned to defend the prisoners
might, like Charles Swift of the Judge Advocate Genetal?s Group
(JAG), balk at what was required of them. Swift, who recognized
immediately that the proposed system was monstrously flawed, ended
up defending Salim Hamdan. ?He had never been involved in any
shootings or real violence,? he told the journalist Marie Brenner in
January 2007. so he was a driver to one of the worst men on

earth. All that really links him is that he worde for a motor pool.
He wasn?t necessarily a henchman. I thought, I can work with this.?
What particularly disturbed Swift and the other JAG lawyers, as they
learned more about Guantanamo and the proposed Commissions, was
that they were primarily intended to sidestep the prohibition on torture
and to secure prosecutions againsr men whose guilt had already been
decided by the Executive. He told Brenner, ?It took me about a month
to understand: why a military commission? Because if you torture
someone, it is the only way you can get their statements in and not have
to admit it in public.? ?The whole purpose of setting up Guantanamo

Bay, he continuet ?is for torture. Why do this? Because you want to

escape the rule of law. There is only one thing that you want to escape

the rule of law to do, and that is to question people coercively?what

Defense Reciprocal Discovery















































028333

THE FlLliS

post traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the
effects of prolonged isolation.?"

Combatant Status Review Tribunals

For the lawyers who had spent so long ?ghting for the habeas rights
of the Guantanamo prisoners, the verdict in Rand v. Bush appeared to
vindicate their belief that due process would triumph in the end over the
abuse of executive power. However, while lawyers began ?ling habeas
petitions in the hope that they would lead to trials, the administration
refused to be derailed from its lawless mission. Although the authorities
at Guantanamo could not refuse prisoners the right to meet lawyers and
?le habeas petitions-??itaniali Gutierrez was the ?rst lawyer to visit



the she met Moamm an-d'Ferez
Abbas?i, . of the had lawyer?s lay-May Elsi?they

did everything in their power'to disable the process, from intimidating
prisoners to obstt'uaing the lawyers themselves. One. in wyer noted
that several prisoners told him ?they had been interrogated by people
who claimed to be their lawyers but who turned out not to be,? Juma
al-Dossari reported that several interrogators told him his lawyers
were liars, and Fouad al-Rabia was told that ?if he complained to
his lawyers about conditions at Guantanamo Bay he would be kept
there for life.? NumcrOus lawyers have also pointed out that their
Security clearances are often held up for months and they are regularly
prevented from meeting clients, and in October 2004, responding to
their complaints, a US District Judge ordered the Pentagon to stop
eavesdropping on lawyer?client conversations, which she described
as a ?bedrock? American principle.?1

The administration also introduced its own response to the demand
for greater transparency and accountability, announcing in July 2004
that the prisoners" status would be revicvved in Combatant Status Review
Tribunals As mentioned in Chapter 8, these resembled the
?competent tribunals? demanded by the GeneVa Conventions, which
had taken place on or near the battle?eld during every other US military
operation, but at Guantanamo they were nothing more than hollow
simulacra: prisoners were not allowed legal representation, were not
allowed to see or hear secret evidence against them, and, given the ?low
evidentiary hurdle? mentioned in Chapter 13, the tribunals judged that

Defense Reciprocal Discovery





(1H

all but 38
designatcc
to acknov
innocent.
the admin
Combata:
who ende
Where
predecess
available
and place
prisoner:
Shocking
no inteni
other pr
or rclati
the case
phone
any inn
any in]
current
very ea
?They
further
prove
Abdul
who
of his
the gr.
Taliba
In
how i
of At
Walsl
three
unab
Natii
A ca





e-Highlighter

Click to send permalink to address bar, or right-click to copy permalink.

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh