Second Army Officer Faults Gitmo Panels

A detainee is moved by military guards at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba in this May 1, 2007 file photo. Critics have long complained that military panels at Guantanamo Bay recommend continued detention of inmates based on little evidence. Documents obtained by The Associated Press may show that prisoners are sometimes let go for reasons that appear to be equally vague. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley) (Brennan Linsley - AP)

In previously filed court documents, his attorneys said Hamad, a father of four, worked in a charity hospital and has no involvement with terrorism and was not an enemy combatant.

The lawyers noted in those earlier court filings that military records showed an Army major who sat on the detainee's CSRT panel called Hamad's detention "unconscionable" and not based on sufficient evidence.

The Army major appears to be the same one who provided the new affidavit about the CSRT's though Wax declined to comment on the affidavit or the officer.

The lawyers say in the affidavit they obtained permission from U.S. military authorities to interview an officer who sat on their client's CSRT. They also agreed not to release his name without his permission.

The officer is an Army reservist who has also worked as a criminal prosecutor as a civilian. He said he participated in 49 of the CSRT panels and that "training was minimal" and "the process was not well defined."

In his panels, the only witnesses who testified on behalf of detainees were other prisoners at the camp. There was no exculpatory evidence presented separately, as required by the rules, but some times it emerged accidentally because contradictory evidence would be presented.

He said there was "acrimony" at a meeting in which commanders discussed why some panels, considering the same evidence, would come to different findings on the Uighurs, members of a Muslim minority in China who want an independent homeland.

The officer said he suggested that inconsistent results were "good for the system ... and would show that the system was working correctly." The admiral in charge, he said, had no response.