Sa ad Madhi Sa ad Ha Wash Al-Azmi

From dKosopedia

Category: Illegal combatants

Copies over from Booman Tribune 6/2005 (Technical Problem with Copying links to be resolved).

Perhaps I'm looking "too hard" - or, more likely, I'm reading into what I see. In both of my cases (Adil Zamil Abdull Mohssin Al Zamil and Sa'ad Madhi Sa'ad Ha Wash Al-Azmi) the summary documents say the Tribunal's decision rests on two things - classified information that is (obviously) not included in the documents we have available and the detainee statements.

In their statements, both detainees are very clear in their denial of the charges in full and additional denial of specific charges during the sworn statements.

Both Tribunal decisions are very clear in their condemnation which is based on the assumption that these men are lying.

Neither detainee called witnesses, Al-Zamil specifically said that he would have called witnesses but he couldn't as no one who could support his statement knew where he was and he had as yet been unable to contact his family.

Furthermore, both detainees admitted their work with WAFA and said they understood WAFA to be a humanitarian/charity type organization. I understand that the al-WAFA listed on our "bad guys" list could be a front for al-Qaeda, and perhaps I'm being naieve, but isn't there a way to look at the money trails of these organizations to see exactly where the money went? I mean, of course the good old US of A wouldn't make an "on purpose mistake" to get more people at Gitmo, right?

Certainly there isn't a confusion in translation or on the part of investigators between this WAFA, and this al WAFA?

Here is a wire item from 13 August 2004 which, I believe, specifically mentions Adil Zamil Abdull Mohssin Al Zamil. The first few paragraphs closely quote some remarks from Al Zamil's testimony.

While both files show (in my opinion) a clear disregard for due process, that's not surprising - we all know that military tribunals of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo bear no resemblance to American jurisprudence. From comments I've seen here and over on DailyKos, I understood this hunt to be for accounts of abuse, FBI/DOD confusion, or things of that nature. Am I correct in that understanding?

If what is needed here is a more detailed description I will be more than happy to provide. Please advise! Thanks~

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~Frank Dane by kwhowell on Tue May 31st, 2005 at 12:34:56 PM PDT