Huzaifa Parhat

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium

For more information, see: Uighur detainees in Guantanamo.

Huzaifa Parhat is a citizen of China, held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps.^[1] His Guantanamo Internee Security Number is 320. Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts report he was born in February 11 1971, in Ghulja, China.

Parhat is one of twenty-two captives from the Uighur ethnic group.^[2] Parhat has filed a challenge to his designation as an "enemy combatant" under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

Information paper: Uighur Detainee Population at JTF-GTMO

Documents released in response to the writ of habeas corpus Hassan Anvar v. George W. Bush contained a memo entitled: "Information paper: Uighur Detainee Population at JTF-GTMO".^[3] This memo, dated 30 October 2004, provides one paragraph biographies of 22 Uighur captives. The memo asserts that all 22 captives are suspected of membership in the "East Turkistan Islamic Movement" (ETIM)", and were captured at an ETIM training camp]]". This memo was drafted prior to the Summary of Evidence memo prepared for Parhat's Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

The portion of the document devoted to Hozaifa Parhat

states:

Hozaifa Parhat is a 33-year-old Chinese citizen. who is an ethnic Uighur from the (sic) Ghulja province of China. He claims to have fled the Xinjiang province, China to train in Afghanistan and return to fight Chinese oppression of ethnic Uighurs. He was last interviewed in mid 2004. He has no reported incidents of violence in his discipline history. Parhat is suspected as being a probable member of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). He is suspected of having received training in an ETIM training camp in Afghanistan.

Summary of Evidence memo

A Summary of Evidence memo was prepared for Hozaifa Parhat's Combatant Status Review Tribunal, on November 8, 2004.^[4] The memo listed eight allegations that were offered as justifications for his continued detention. Those allegations included:

• that he was trained to use an AK-47 rifle at a Uighur training camp in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in a camp run by the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, and funded by Osama bin Laden, with the support of the Taliban.
• that he fled the American aerial bombardment of Tora Bora with the other Uyghurs who survived the destruction of the camp.
• that he was captured in Pakistan with the other Uyghurs and "Arab personnel".

Transcript

Parhat chose to participate in his Combatant Status Review Tribunal.^[5] On March 3 2006, in response to a court order from Jed Rakoff the Department of Defense published a nine page summarized transcripts from his Combatant Status Review Tribunal.^[6]

Testimony

• Parhat confirmed he left China in May 2001, traveled through Krygizstan and Pakistan, and lived at the Uyghur camp in Afghanistan from approximately June through October 2001.^[5]
• Parhat confirmed he was shown how to fire two weapons in Afghanistan, an AK-47 and a pistol.
• Parhat testified he didn't know who funded the Uyghur camp, but he did not believe it was funded by either the Taliban or al Qaeda.
• Parhat confirmed that he and the other Uyghurs fled the American bombing campaign together, after American bomber attacked the camp, and crossed into Pakistan together, and were captured together. He testified he and the other Uyghurs didn't associate with the Taliban.

After addressing the allegations in the Summary of Evidence memo Parhat clarified that Uyghurs, like himself, did not have animosity for any other nation than China.^[5] And, in particular, he admired the USA and thought that the USA could be an ally to the Uyghur people.

After Parhat responded to the allegations in the Summary of Evidence memo, and started responding to general questions from his Tribunal, his Tribunal's President explained that some of these questions were based on the testimony of other Uyghur captives who had previously appeared before them.^[5]

• Parhat confirmed he had met Hassan Maksum who the Tribunal officers described as "an important gentleman in the Uighur community".^[5] He confirmed that Maksum was the leader of his "Uighur group".
• Parhat confirmed that he saw Maksum visit the camp twice.
• Parhat confirmed that Maksum met with Abdul Haq and confirmed Haq was the camp's leader.
• Parhat was asked to address the "concern that Mr Hassan Maksum may have relationships with al Qaida people". He replied:"I don't think so. The people in Turkistan will not associate with al Qaida."
• Parhat confirmed that his beige uniform signified he was a level one, or "compliant" captive, who was being rewarded for good behavior.
• Parhat testified that he never met any Arabs during his travel to Afghanistan, or within Afghanistan, prior to arriving at the camp. Parhat testified no Arabs ever visited the camp.
• Parhat testified that during their flight from the American bombing the Uyghurs came across a group of approximately 60 Arab refugees, who had an Afghan guide. They followed the Arab refugees and their Afghan guide, across the border to Pakistan.
• Parhat testified that when the Afghan guide lead them across the border to a Pakistani village, the villagers welcomed them, offered to help them, killed a sheep, served them a feast, but instead of helping them delivered them to a Pakistani prison.
• Parhat confirmed the Guantanamo camp authorities had allowed for him to be interviewed by Chinese officials.
• Parhat testified the Chinese official told him he would be sent to prison if he were returned to China.
• Parhat testified he had not had any contact with his family during the three years he had spent in Guantanamo.
• In response to questions about his travels Parhat testified he had never traveled to Kyrgizstan.
• Parhat testified he knew nothing about an attack on the US Embassy in Krygztan.
• Parhat testified he never had any contact with Uzbek Muslims, and had never heard of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
• Parhat testified testified that when he left China he traveled to Afghanistan with three other Uyghur men, but he lost track of them during the confusion that followed the US bombing.
• Parhat testified that during the four months he spent at the camp he and his companions built a house. They were not visited by representatives of the Taliban or any other people. Their food had been brought to them by two Uyghurs, who were among the Uyghurs in Guantanamo.
• Parhat testified that he had been treated well by the camp guards.

There is no record that an Administrative Review Board convened in 2005 or 2006 to review his detention.

Parhat v. Gates

Parhat and six other Uyghurs challenged their detention in Parhat v. Gates.^[7] When the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 stripped Guantanamo captives of the right to file new habeas corpus petitions, it also opened a more limited route of appeal through the US Justice system. Starting in 2006 captives could file challenges over their designation as "enemy combatants" in a Washington DC court of appeal, if they could argue that the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants did not follow its own rules.

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, allowing Guantanamo captives to access the US justice system for habeas petitions.

On 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 June 20, 2008.^[8] Parhat's was the first case to be considered since the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush. The court had only published a one paragraph announcement as its full ruling contained classified material, and an unclassified version had not yet been prepared.

According to CNN the judges ordered the Department of Defense to either: "release or transfer Parhat, or to expeditiously hold a new [military] tribunal."^[9]

Renewed habeas corpus petition

On July 23, 2008, Parhat filed a motion requeting released on parole in the USA, until his habeas corpus petition was completed.^[10] This was opposed, on August 5, 2008, by the U.S. Department of Justice.^[11]

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".^[12] On September 2, 2008, the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia denied the Department of Justice plea, ensuring that there would be no re-hearing for Parhat.^[13]

References