Sharbat (Guantanamo detainee 1051)

Infobox WoT detainees
subject_name = Sharbat

---

image_size =
image_caption = | date_of_birth = Birth year and age|1973
place_of_birth = Khairo Village, Afghanistan
date_of_arrest =
place_of_arrest= | arresting_authority=
date_of_release = | place_of_release=
date_of_death = | place_of_death =
citizenship = | detained_at = Guantanamo
id_number = 1051
group =
alias =
charge = no charge, held in extrajudicial detention
penalty =
status = Cleared for release on October 7 2005
csrt_summary =
csrt_transcript=
occupation = | spouse = | parents = | children =

Sharbat is an Afghani held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba.cite web
url=http://www.dod.mil/news/May2006/d20060515%20List.pdf
title=List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006
author=OARDEC
publisher=United States Department of Defense
date=May 15 2006
accessdate=2007-09-29] His Guantanamo Internee Security Number is 1051. American Counter-terrorism analysts estimated he was born in 1973, in Khairo Village, Afghanistan.

Combatant Status Review Tribunal

] Three chairs were reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed.cite web
url=http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3902
title=Annual Administrative Review Boards for Enemy Combatants Held at Guantanamo Attributable to Senior Defense Officials
publisher=United States Department of Defense
date=March 6 2007
accessdate=2007-09-22] ]

Initially the Bush administration asserted that they could withhold all the protections of the Geneva Conventions to captives from the war on terror. This policy was challenged before the Judicial branch. Critics argued that the USA could not evade its obligation to conduct competent tribunals to determine whether captives are, or are not, entitled to the protections of prisoner of war status.

Subsequently the Department of Defense instituted the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The Tribunals, however, were not authorized to determine whether the captives were "lawful combatants" -- rather they were merely empowered to make a recommendation as to whether the captive had previously been correctly determined to match the Bush administration's definition of an enemy combatant.

ummary of Evidence memo

A Summary of Evidence memo was prepared for Sharbat'sCombatant Status Review Tribunal, on 2 November 2004.cite web
url=http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/000700-000783.pdf#42
title=Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal -- Sharbat, First Name Unkown
date=2 November 2004
pages=page 42
author=OARDEC
publisher=United States Department of Defense
accessdate=2008-05-07] The memo listed the following allegations against him: :

Administrative Review Board hearing

Detainees who were determined to have been properly classified as "enemy combatants" were scheduled to have their dossier reviewed at annual Administrative Review Board hearings.cite news
url=http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/storyarchive/2007/07octstories/102907-2-oardec.html
title=OARDEC provides recommendations to Deputy Secretary of Defense
publisher=JTF Guantanamo Public Affairs
author=Army Sgt. Sarah Stannard
date=October 29 2007
accessdate=2008-03-26
quote=] The Administrative Review Boards weren't authorized to review whether a detainee qualified for POW status, and they weren't authorized to review whether a detainee should have been classified as an "enemy combatant".

They were authorized to consider whether a detainee should continue to be detained by the United States, because they continued to pose a threat -- or whether they could safely be repatriated to the custody of their home country, or whether they could be set free.

ummary of Evidence memo

A Summary of Evidence memo was prepared for Sharbat'sAdministrative Review Board, on
9 August 2005.cite web
url=http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Factors_000794-000894.pdf#65
title=Unclassified Summary of Evidence for Administrative Review Board in the case of Sharbat, FNU
date=9 August 2005
pages=pages 65-66
author=OARDEC
publisher=United States Department of Defense
accessdate=2008-05-07] The memo listed factors for and against his continued detention.

The following primary factors favor continued detention:

:

The following primary factors favor release or transfer:

:

Transcript

Sharbat chose to participate in his Administrative Review Board hearing. cite web
url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/ARB_Transcript_Set_11_21662-22010.pdf#83
title=Summary of Administrative Review Board Proceedings of ISN 1051
date=21 September 2005
author=OARDEC
pages=pages 83-89
publisher=United States Department of Defense
accessdate=2008-05-07] In the Spring of 2006, in response to a court order from Jed Rakoff the Department of Defense published a seven page ummarized transcript from his Administrative Review Board.cite news
url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/US-releases-Guantanamo-files/2006/04/04/1143916500334.html
title=US releases Guantanamo files
publisher=The Age
date=April 4, 2006
accessdate=2008-03-15
quote=]

Enemy Combatant Election Form

Sharbat's Enemy Combatant Election Form, read out by his Assisting Military Officer, described him as "polite and attentive" during the two initial interviews he had with him.The two interviews were held on September 16 2005 and September 19 2005, and lasted for 64 minutes and 15 minutes.

His Assisting Military Officer said that when Sharbat was offered the option of keeping a copy of his Summary of Evidence memo, that had been translated into Pashto, he mentioned that he had asked to be enrolled in the Pashto literacy classess.Sharbat also told his Assisting Military Officer that he "had filed a "habeas" petition".

Sharbat submitted a letter from his brother, who was captured during the same incident he was, but who was detained in the Bagram Theater Internment Facility, not Guantanamo, and has since then been released.

Response to the factors

*Sharbat's description of their capture was: quotation|"This explosion happened and my brother was sitting on the top of the hill watching his goats. Then, the soldiers took him and I ran after him. He had five goats missing and he was looking for them. They came and took him and I went after him and they [covered] my eyes and that was it.'
*Sharbat denied that he had ever denied knowing his brother.
*Sharbat denied that he had ever changed his account.

Letters from home

Sharbat submitted two letters from home. They were read into evidence. But they were not included in Sharbat's transcript. His transcript contains no indication who the letters were from or what they said.

Return to the Enemy Combatant Election Form

Sharbat's Assisting Military Officer offered the account Sharbat offered during their interview:
*Sharbat had told him he didn't hear the bomb go off.
*Sharbat had told him he was near the main road through the village, with vehicles going back and forth, so he may not have heard and "sic" explosion on the other side of the hill over the noise of the vehicles.
*Sharbat had told him he thought interrogators made up the story that he had denied knowing his brother.
*Sharbat had told him he had not voted in the last election, and did not seem to know there were any elections.
*Sharbat said that the interrogations were frustrating for him, as he could not answer anything except about goats and grass.

Response to Board questions

*Sharbat repeated that his brother had been looking through their binoculars for their five missing goats.
*Sharbat repeated that he could not see the explosion from where he had been standing.
*When asked if there was a hill in the way, He testified there was a mountain in the way.
*Sharbat confirmed he was mystified as to why he was arrested.
*When asked if there were American soldiers in his area Sharbat stated he didn't know as his Afghan captors covered his eyes.
*Sharbat confirmed that he had been held in Bagram. Both he and his brother had been held in Bagram, but in different sections.
*Sharbat testified he didn't know why his brother was set free, while he was continued to be detained.
*Sharbat was asked whether he had initially misled interrogators over whether he knew his brother because he was afraid. He repeated he never denied knowing his brother.
*When asked how far away he had been from the explosion, Sharbat said:

Board recommendations

In early September 2007 the Department of Defense released two heavily redacted memos, from his Board, to Gordon England, the Designated Civilian Official.cite web
url=http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Decision_memos_000766-000859.pdf#42
title=Administrative Review Board assessment and recommendation ICO ISN 1051
date=7 October 2005
author=OARDEC
publisher=United States Department of Defense
accessdate=2008-05-05
pages=page 42] cite web
url=http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB_Round_1_Decision_memos_000766-000859.pdf#43
title=Classified Record of Proceedings and basis of Administrative Review Board recommendation for ISN 1051
date=21 September 2005
author=OARDEC
publisher=United States Department of Defense
accessdate=2008-05-05
pages=pages 43-48] The Board's recommendation was unanimousThe Board's recommendation was redacted.England authorized his release on 7 October 2005.

Very few of the captives who left Guantanamo on the recommendation of a Review Boardhad their outright release recommended. Almost all of the Boards recommended tranfer to thecustody of their home country or another country.Sharbat is one of the few captives whose Board recommended an unconditional release..

One of the unredacted paragraphs in the decision memos stated:quotation
Behavior. The EC's behavior during interrogation and detention indicates that he is capable of posing a possible threat.

References