An Ex-Member Calls Detainee Panels Unfair

In his affidavit, Abraham said there was considerable pressure from commanders for officers serving on the tribunals to determine that detainees were enemy fighters. He also said that it was "well known" that those officers who concluded otherwise would have to explain their findings to McGarrah and his top aides.

He said he and two fellow panel members were closely questioned by McGarrah and his deputy after they decided that there was not enough evidence to conclude that a prisoner was an enemy fighter, and were then ordered to hold an expanded hearing to reconsider their conclusion.

"What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence," Abraham said in his affidavit of the information provided about a detainee they reviewed. "Statements allegedly made by percipient witnesses lacked detail."

The Detainee Treatment Act passed by Congress in 2005 allows detainees to go to U.S. federal courts to seek a review of the tribunal verdicts, but the first challenges have not yet been decided. Congress is considering legislative changes that would allow defense attorneys to participate in the military hearings.

David Remes, a lawyer who represents 18 detainees at Guantanamo and has filed challenges to the CSRT determinations in federal court, said yesterday that Abraham's declaration is "astonishing."

"The tribunals lack any of the most basic evidence they would have needed to make fair determinations," said Matt McLean, a detainee lawyer who first contacted Abraham last week. "We've had our suspicions. Now we can prove it."

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.