Holding tribunals accountable

Saturday, July 5, 2008 | 2:07 a.m.

A federal appeals court has overturned a military tribunal’s assertion that a Chinese detainee was an enemy combatant, saying the tribunal based its decision on questionable evidence.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the Combatant Status Review Tribunals have a responsibility to ascertain that the evidence presented to them is reliable before rendering judgment.

The ruling, issued June 20, called for the U.S. government to release, transfer or hold a new hearing for Huzaifa Parhat, a member of a Muslim group that is seeking to establish a separate homeland in western China, The Washington Post reports. The opinion by the three-judge appeals panel was declassified and made public Monday.

Parhat and other members of his group fled China in 2001 and took refuge in a camp in Afghanistan before a U.S. airstrike there sent them fleeing to Pakistan. Once in Pakistan they were turned over to U.S. authorities, the Post reports.

Parhat’s tribunal found he did not engage in any action against the United States but asserted he was an “enemy combatant” because he lived at the Afghan camp, which allegedly was run by someone with ties to al-Qaida. In its opinion, the appeals panel wrote that the tribunal based this decision on evidence from classified documents that “do not state (or, in most instances, even describe) the sources or rationales for those statements.”

What’s more, the judges noted, some of the information used as evidence was supplied by the Chinese government, “which may be less than objective” in its review of members of Parhat’s group.

The military tribunal system is not identical to a U.S. civil or criminal court of law, but it does have the same requirements and responsibilities to present factual information. Accusing someone of being an enemy combatant is a serious charge. Pinning such an accusation on questionable evidence undermines the very foundation on which the U.S. judicial system is built.