Hozaifa Parhat

This article is contains text from sources which may express a point of view or may contain an unbalanced critical assessment. Do not edit the article to adjust it to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy; one's perception of the humanity in Anarchopedia's philosophy is enhanced by knowledge of the direction and degree of steps taken away from humanity

Ablikim Turahun (also known as Hozaifa Parhat) is an Uyghur refugee, wrongly imprisoned for seven years in the United States Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba. His Internment Serial Number was 320. Joint Task Force Guantanamo reported he was born on February 11, 1971, in Ghulja, China.

Turahun is one of the 22 Uighurs held in Guantanamo for many years despite it became clear early on that they were innocent.

He won his habeas corpus in 2008. Judge Ricardo Urbina declared his detention as unlawful and ordered to set him free in the United States. He was sent to Bermuda in June 2009.

This article contains content from Wikipedia An article on this subject has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Hozaifa Parhat Current versions of the GNU FDL article on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article

WP+ NO DEL

Parhat v. Gates

He is the lead petitioner in Parhat v. Gates, no. 06-1397 (D.C. Cir.), a case brought by seven Uyghurs challenging their "enemy combatant" designation under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

Susan Baker Manning, one of Parhat's attorneys, commented: Template:Quote

Combatant Status Review

Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held in small trailer, the same width, but shorter, than a mobile home. The Tribunal's President sat in the big chair. The detainee sat with their hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor in the white, plastic garden chair. A one way mirror behind the Tribunal President allowed observers to observe clandestinely. In theory the open sessions of the Tribunals were open to the press; three chairs were reserved for members of the press. In practice, most Tribunals went unobserved; the Tribunal only intermittently told the press that Tribunals were being held, and when they did they kept the detainee's identities secret. Only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Christopher Mobley

Originally the Bush (WP) Presidency asserted that captives apprehended in the wars for capitalism and oil, known as the "war on terror" were not covered by the Geneva Conventions, and could be held indefinitely, without charge, and without an open and transparent review of the justifications for their detention. They were not offered the protections afforded by criminal law either, leaving them in a legal limbo through years of detention. Critics argued that the USA could not evade its obligations, and to keep the Geneva Conventions at arms' length, the concept of competent tribunals was invented, tribunals to determine whether captives are, or are not, entitled to the protections of prisoner of war status.

The Department of Defense instituted the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (WP). The Tribunals, however, were not authorized to determine whether the captives were lawful combatants, again to avoid the Geneva Conventions standards -- 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, further attempting to institutionalize a standard that stood against the consensus of international law.

Critics mounted legal challenges to this policy. Justice James Robertson ruled that the United States was obliged under article 5 of the Wikipedia:third Geneva Conventionthird Geneva Convention to treat all prisoners as lawful combatants, who would be entitled to prisoner of war status, unless a "competent tribunal" had determined that they were not lawful combatants.

The policies of the tribunals themselves were also challenged by the Judicial branch. In 2004 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Rasul v. Bush, that Guantanamo captives were entitled to being informed of the allegations justifying their detention, and were entitled to try to refute them.

The released prisoners are arrogantly, even absurdly called "No longer enemy combatants" (WP); an attempt to make numerous issues, including illegal arrest and holding without trial, disappear in plain sight.
Template:CSRT-Yes The memo listed the following allegations against him:

The detainee is associated with al Qaida and the Taliban:

1. The detainee departed China in May 2001 and traveled to Tora Bora, Afghanistan via Pakistan.
2. The detainee received training on the Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle and other light weapons at a Uighur training camp in Tora Bora, Afghanistan.
3. The training camp was provided to the Uighurs by the Taliban.
4. The East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) operated facilities in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in which Uighur expatriates underwent small arms training. The camps were funded by Bin Laden and the Taliban.
5. The detainee lived at the Uighur training camp from early June through mid-October 2001 until the United States bombinb campaign that destroyed the camp.

The detainee participated in military operations against the United States and its coalition partners.

1. The detainee stated that the Uighur training camp was destroyed during the first night of the United States bombing campaign.
2. The detainee fled along with others farther into the mountains of Tora Bora with the initiation of the United States bombing campaign.
3. The detainee was captured in Pakistan fleeing Afghanistan with other Uighur and Arab personnel in 2001.

Transcript

Parhat chose to participate in his Combatant Status Review Tribunal. On March 3, 2006, in response to a court order from Judge Jed Rakoff, the Department of Defense published a ten page summarized transcript from his Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

Response to the allegations

• Parhat acknowledged traveling to Afghanistan, from China, via Pakistan.
• Parhat acknowledged being shown how to use two different weapons while in Afghanistan.
• Parhat testified he didn't know who provided the camp.
• Parhat disputed that the Taliban or al Qaida funded the camp.
• Parhat acknowledged living in the camp from mid-June through mid-October.
• Parhat acknowledged that the camp was destroyed by US aerial bombardment. He did not know whether it was bombed on the first night of the bombing campaign, or not.
• Parhat acknowledged fleeing the bombing with the other Uyghurs.
• Parhat acknowledged being captured, in Pakistan, together with the other Uyghurs.

Opening statement

Parhat disputed that he and the other Uyghurs were opposed to the United States.

Beige uniform

"Non-compliant" captives are issued orange uniforms. Compliant captives are usually issued white uniforms. Hofaiza Parhat wore a beige uniform to his Tribunal.

Q:	We noticed that during these Tribunals that some Detainees come to us in different colors. We have orange, beige and white. You are in beige. What is the significance of you being in beige?
A:	That means level one.
Q:	Is that for good behavior or for some other reason?
A:	Yes, I believe so. If you do not have good behavior they will not put you in level one.

Federal appeal

On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Boumediene v. Bush. Its ruling overturned aspects of the Detainee Treatment Act and Military Commissions Act of 2006, allowing Guantanamo captives to access the US justice system for habeas petitions.

On Monday June 23, 2008, it was announced that a three judge Federal court of appeal had overturned the determination of Parhat's Combatant Status Review Tribunal on Friday June 20, 2008. Parhat's was the first case to ruled on since the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush. The panel that reviewed Parhat's CSR Tribunal determination was made up of David B. Sentelle, Merrick B. Garland and Thomas B. Griffith. The court initially published only a one paragraph announcement as its full ruling contained classified material. According to CNN the judges ordered the Department of Defense to either: "release or transfer Parhat, or to expeditiously hold a new [military] tribunal."

According to Sabin Willett, one of his lawyers, it was not possible to tell Parhat of the ruling, because camp authorities were holding him in solitary confinement.

The Los Angeles Times quoted comments on the ruling from David Cole, the author of two books on military law:

Now all of these cases have been revived and this is the first case to move forward. And here is somebody that the military has been holding on to for six years and the federal court now says he shouldn't have been held in the first place. Absent this independent judicial review, he might have been sitting there for another 10 to 15 years. Now he has a chance to find freedom.

On June 19, 2008, Congressional Representatives Bill Delahunt and Dana Rohrabacher published an open letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, calling for the Uyghurs to be moved to more humane conditions within Guantanamo until a country can be found to accept them.

The 39 paqe redacted, unclassified version of the ruling was published on June 30. The ruling pointedly criticized the government's argument that evidence must be reliable because it appears in several documents, stating that “This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true.” It compared this argument to the Bellman's dictum in Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark: "Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has 'said it thrice' does not make an allegation true."

Steve Chapman a legal columnist at the Chicago Tribune commented on the Bush administration's arguments:

The operating assumption here is that the prisoners are terrorists who were captured while fighting a vicious war against the United States. But can the critics be sure? All they really know about the Guantanamo detainees is that they are Guantanamo detainees. To conclude that they are all bloodthirsty jihadists requires believing that the U.S. government is infallible.

Petition for release into the USA

On July 23, 2008 Susan Baker Manning filed a motion requesting Parhat be released on parole in the USA, until his habeas petition was completed.

On August 5, 2008 the United States Department of Justice opposed Parhat being released in the USA, and to having a judgment made on his habeas petition. The Government's opposition filing was 22 pages long.

The Department of Justice had initially claimed it was necessary to convene a new Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which might consider new evidence supporting a determination that Parhat was indeed an "enemy combatant". On September 2, 2008 the DC Circuit Court denied the Department of Justice plea, ensuring that there would be no re-hearing for Parhat.

The Bush administration still maintains no foreign country is willing to accept Parhat, and is resisting calls to offer him residency or asylum in the USA.

On September 29, 2008 James Oliphant, writing in the Chicago Tribune, quoted Jason Pinney, one of the Uyghur's attorneys. Oliphant characterized the USA decideing to label the Separatist group the Uyghurs were said to have been affiliated with a terrorist group, long after they were captured, in order to curry support from the Chinese for the invasion of Iraq:

"The Uighurs are really the poster boys for what happens when you exclude judicial review from something like Guantanamo. You get abuse." "If you connect the dots, it does not look good. The government knew it did something wrong, picked up the wrong people." "They want to blame the international community. They won't accept these poor Uighurs. You've brought them here and you have labeled them terrorists. The worst of the worst. Cold-blooded killers."

Oliphant also quoted Commander Jeffrey Gordon, a Guantanamo spokesman, who defended the record of GI's at Guantanamo:

"This assertion is categorically untrue. For years, we have been hard at work with the international community in resettlement options for the Uighurs at Guantanamo, as we do not repatriate detainees to countries which cannot provide credible assurances of humane treatment."

Sent to Bermuda

Huzaifa Parhat and three other Uyghurs Abdul Helil Mamut, Emam Abdulahat and Jalal Jalaladin were set free in Bermuda on June 11, 2009.

Current status

Five Uyghurs, whose CSR Tribunals determined they had not been enemy combatants were transferred to detention in an Albanian refugee camp in 2006. A man who was born to Uyghur parents, in Saudi Arabia, and thus was considered a Uyghur, was nevertheless returned to Saudi Arabia. All the other Uyghurs remain in Guantanamo.

In September 2007, the Department of Defense released all the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for the Administrative Review Boards convened in 2006. There is no record that a Board reviewed his status in 2005 or 2006.

In September 2007, the Department of Defense released the recommendation memos from 133 of the Administrative Review Boards that convened in 2005 and the recommendation memos from 55 of the Administrative Review Boards that convened in 2006. No recommendation memos were released for Hozaifa Parhat.

External links

• From Guantánamo to the United States: The Story of the Wrongly Imprisoned Uighurs Andy Worthington October 9, 2008
• Judge Ricardo Urbina’s unclassified opinion (redacted version)
• MOTIONS/STATUS HEARING - UIGHURS CASES BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICARDO M. URBINA
• Human Rights First; Habeas Works: Federal Courts’ Proven Capacity to Handle Guantánamo Cases (2010)
• "Flimsy evidence, arrogance keep detainee in limbo". Erie Times. 2008-07-12. http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080712/OPINION09/807120314/-1/OPINION. Retrieved 2008-07-19. mirror
• Uighur detainees: U.S. helped Chinese interrogate us

Template:Infobox WoT detainees