Opinion ID: 1364239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Reliability of the al-Suri Diary

Text: Although under Al-Bihani and Awad hearsay evidence is always admissible in Guantanamo habeas proceedings, such evidence must be accorded weight only in proportion to its reliability. See Al-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 879 ([T]he question a habeas court must ask when presented with hearsay is not whether it is admissibleit is always admissiblebut what probative weight to ascribe to whatever indicia of reliability it exhibits). Barhoumi contends that the al-Suri diary is unreliable and that the district court therefore clearly erred in considering it. In pressing this argument, Barhoumi leans heavily on Parhat. Although we agree with Barhoumi that Parhat sets the guideposts for our inquiry into the reliability of the hearsay diary evidence, we disagree with his characterization of that case and with his assertion that Parhat dictates that the al-Suri diary is inherently unreliable. In Parhat, we reviewed a CSRT determination that the petitioner, a Chinese citizen of Uighur ethnicity, qualified as an enemy combatant because he was affiliated with a Uighur independence group associated with al-Qaida and the Taliban. The Tribunal's conclusion rested almost entirely on hearsay statements contained in four classified intelligence documents one from the State Department and three from the Department of Defenseregarding activities allegedly undertaken by the independence group. Although the CSRT procedures allowed for consideration of hearsay evidence, the intelligence documents relied on by the CSRT merely described activities as having `reportedly' occurred, [and] as being `said to' or `reported to' have happened. Parhat, 532 F.3d at 846. The documents did not state who `reported' or `said' or `suspected' those things. Nor [did] they provide any of the underlying reporting upon which the documents' bottom-line assertions [were] founded. Id. at 846-47. Explaining that these deficiencies precluded both the Tribunal and the court from assessing the reliability of the assertions made in those documents, we set aside the CSRT's enemy combatant determination, thus rejecting the government's contention that it can prevail by submitting documents that read as if they were indictments or civil complaints, and that simply assert as facts the elements required to prove that a detainee falls within the definition of enemy combatant. Id. at 850. According to Barhoumi, the al-Suri diary, like the intelligence reports at issue in Parhat, lacks sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the district court's decision to rely on it. But the problem with the intelligence reports at issue in Parhat was that they failed to provide any of the underlying reporting upon which the documents' bottom-line assertions are founded, thus inhibiting our ability to evaluate the reliability of those assertions. Id. at 846-47. Here, the diary, more than 65 pages of detailed observations recorded by a self-professed associate of both Zubaydah and Barhoumi, is the underlying reporting on which the government's assertions are founded. Thus, unlike the situation we faced in Parhat, here we are able to assess the reliability of [the] evidence ourselves by evaluating the diary's internal coherence as well as its consistency with uncontested record evidence, including Barhoumi's own statements and the circumstances of his capture. Id. at 848. Conducting that assessment, which was not possible in Parhat, we conclude that the al-Suri diary contains sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the district court's reliance on it. To begin with, Barhoumi acknowledges that the diary was recovered in the [redacted]. This provides independent verification of al-Suri's diary entry, just a few days before their capture, that Zubaydah and Barhoumi were staying in the same Pakistan guesthouse, which, again, Barhoumi himself acknowledges. It also reduces any concern that the diary is a government fabrication. Further reinforcing its reliability, the diary refers accurately and in great detail to verifiable real-world events. For example, the diary paints a detailed portrait of the battle of Tora Bora, which al-Suri correctly reports as having taken place in December 2001. Al-Suri also makes reference to several key players in the war: he alludes to injuries sustained by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri when fleeing Tora Bora at bin Laden's behest; Mohamed Atta's role as an airplane hero in the September 11, 2001, attacks; Mullah Omar's efforts to reconstitute the Taliban in the wake of the U.S. invasion; and the assumption of the presidency by Hamid Karzai, whom al-Suri refers to as a carbon copy of the former King Zhahir Shah. Of course, we recognize that al-Suri could have discovered this information from readily available news sources. Our only point is that al-Suri's lengthy and highly detailed descriptions of real-world persons, places, and events tend to enhance the credibility of the diary as a whole. Furthermore, although it is true, as Barhoumi emphasizes, that the government has provided no information about al-Suri, the diary itself suggests that al-Suri possessed first-hand knowledge of Zubaydah and his organization. Al-Suri refers to himself as a Permanent member of Zubaydah's militia who, like Barhoumi, had trained at the Khaldan camp. Al-Suri also demonstrates a familiarity with Zubaydah's activitiesnot just his comings and goings, but also more intimate details such as where he sleeps and when he shaves. Indeed, the circumstances of the diary's recovery[redacted]reinforces the conclusion that al-Suri knew both Zubaydah and Barhoumi, thus enhancing the credibility of his depiction of Barhoumi's role in Zubaydah's organization. Barhoumi's own statements further buttress the diary's reliability. As noted above, Barhoumi admitted to being trained in mine diffusion; the diary refers to him as an explosives expert. Barhoumi admitted to training at the Khaldan camp; the diary refers to him as one of the trainers at Khaldun. The al-Suri diary is therefore a far cry from the bare assertions deemed unreliable in Parhat, 532 F.3d at 847, as it possesses both endogenous and exogenous indicia of reliability. Challenging this conclusion, Barhoumi argues that because the government chose to present the al-Suri diary as part of a raw intelligence report, Parhat compels us to conclude that it `lack[s] sufficient indicia of the statements' reliability' to be reliable. Appellant's Br. 28-29 (quoting Parhat, 532 F.3d at 836). But nothing in Parhat establishes a per se rule that information contained in an intelligence report is inherently unreliable. Indeed, in Parhat we clarified that we do not suggest that hearsay evidence is never reliable only that it must be presented in a form, or with sufficient additional information, that permits ... [the] court to assess its reliability. 532 F.3d at 849. We also acknowledged that an intelligence report's reliability can be assessed by comparison to exogenous informationso long as such information is, in fact, available. Id. at 848. Even though the al-Suri diary is contained in an intelligence report, it represents a discrete piece of physical evidence, and the nature and reliability of that evidence is not altered just because it bears the label intelligence. Barhoumi also challenges the reliability of the al-Suri diary by pointing to alleged inconsistencies with [redacted]'s diary. As noted above, we have not relied on [redacted]'s diary to accept the district court's conclusion that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that Barhoumi was part of Zubaydah's organization. Nevertheless, we cannot disregard Barhoumi's claim of inconsistency, as any significant discrepancy between the diaries could serve to undermine the credibility of al-Suri's diary as a whole. The primary inconsistency identified by Barhoumi relates to the diaries' passages concerning Barhoumi's alleged return from Tora Bora. The district court concluded that both diaries tell essentially the same story: that Barhoumi returned from Tora Bora and reported that 300 brothers engaged in battle there. The court made this assumption even though the relevant portion of [redacted]'s diary referred simply to a brother as arriving from Tora Bora, while al-Suri cited Ubaydah as making that trip. Barhoumi complains that the government's assertion that the two diaries refer to the same person is pure speculation because [redacted] provides neither a name nor any other identifying information for the `brother.' Reply Br. 10. Reinforcing this argument, Barhoumi points out that, as the district court recognized, these diary entries are dated roughly three weeks apart: [redacted]'s is dated January 30, 2002; Al-Suri's is dated February 21, 2002. We agree with Barhoumi that three weeks is too large a mismatch to support the district court's conclusion that the diary entries depict the same event. That said, al-Suri's diary includes another description of a brother arriving from Tora Bora that is more in line with [redacted]'s entry. Dated February 4, 2002, the al-Suri diary entry reports that [a]fter breakfast, our brother Sulman al-Najdi (who came from Tora Bora) told us about a battle he witnessed. Recounting the battle, al-Najdi reported that the bombardment was accompanied with malicious attacks by the spiteful, the hypocrite and the collaborator Shi'a and the tribe of ((Hadrat 'Ali)) who still is causing worries to the Taliban in Jalalabad. This report is similar to [redacted]'s, dated just five days earlier, which recounts that the brother who came from Tora Bora described the betrayal of some tribes and apostate commanders, such as (Hadrat Ali), may God afflict him with what he deserves. In other words, both and al-Suri seem to recount the same story about a brother who arrived from Tora Bora and detailed the perceived betrayal suffered there at the hands of a hostile tribeand that brother is not Barhoumi. Under this interpretation, then, the date discrepancy between [redacted] the and al-Suri entries describing the 300 fighters who remained at Tora Bora does nothing to undermine the reliability of al-Suri's account; the dates differ simply because, as Barhoumi himself suggests, the reports stem from different sources. Only the alSuri diary refers to Barhoumi as arriving from Tora Bora, and [redacted]'s diary contains nothing that contradicts that account. Barhoumi's remaining challenge to the reliability of the al-Suri diary is somewhat more troubling. He argues that the government's refusal to make available a facsimile of the al-Suri diary in its original Arabic or to provide any information as to the qualifications or motives of its translator raises further doubts as to its reliability. In support, Barhoumi cites to a line of cases concerning the language conduit rule, which holds that except in unusual circumstances, an interpreter is no more than a language conduit and therefore his translation does not create an additional level of hearsay. United States v. Martinez-Gaytan, 213 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Some courts have carved out a narrow exception to this rule where the particular facts of a case cast significant doubt upon the accuracy of a translated confession. United States v. Vidacak, 553 F.3d 344, 352 (4th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Contending that this is just such a case, Barhoumi suggests that the same underlying reliability concerns that cause some courts to deem a translation to be hearsay means that the translation of al-Suri's diary is unreliable. We disagree. As an initial matter, we note that the language conduit rule pertains to the question whether a translation, usually of a party-opponent's statements, creates an additional level of hearsay and is thus inadmissible unless the translator testifies in court. Here, however, we have already crossed that bridge: the al-Suri diary is unquestionably hearsay, but nonetheless admissible as a matter of law pursuant to Al-Bihani and Awad. The question in this case, then, is not a binary oneadmissibility vs. inadmissibilitybut rather concerns the degree of reliability exhibited by the diary. Although we accept that the additional layer of hearsay added by the diary's translation renders it somewhat less reliable than it otherwise would be (particularly if the government had provided information regarding its translation), we nonetheless reject Barhoumi's contention that the district court therefore clearly erred in relying on the diary. The only translation deficiencies alleged by Barhoumi spring from translator notations appearing in the section of the diary discussing Ubaydah Al-Jaza'iri's description of his flight from Tora Bora. One such notation states as follows: (TN: The following subparagraph presents text from the page numbered 56 by the Author. The page is undated, but seems to be a continuation of the entry begun on 21 February in subparagraph (ZZ) above.). In part because these notations reflect some uncertainty as to whether the passage in question comes immediately after the report that Ubaydah arrived from Tora Bora, Barhoumi contends that there is no indication whatsoever in the al-Suri Diary that the person describing the battle [in the subsequent passage] was `Ubaydah,' nor that the person providing the report participated in the battle. Reply Br. 13; see also Oral Arg. Tr. at 39-40 (suggesting that gaps in the diaries cast doubt on the Tora Bora account). But we need not accept the government's assertion that Barhoumi fought at Tora Bora to sustain the district court's conclusion that Barhoumi was part of Zubaydah's militia; as Barhoumi himself concedes, it is sufficient for the government to show that he was part of an associated force engaged in hostilities against U.S. or coalition forces. See Al-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 872 (explaining that under the part of criterion, the President can lawfully detain an individual who was part of ... Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, although it seems clear to us that the person describing the battle in al-Suri's diary was in fact Ubaydah, any lack of clarity on that score is immaterial. More generally, we reject Barhoumi's suggestion that the translator's forthrightness regarding uncertainties surrounding the date of particular diary entries somehow taints the reliability of the diary as a whole. If our analysis of the district court's decision rested on al-Suri writing a particular passage on a particular date, the absence of a date on that page of the diary might well have significance. But al-Suri's statement that Barhoumi is a Permanent member of Zubaydah's militia is inculpatory regardless of the date on which that statement was made, and Barhoumi gives us little reason to suspectnor does he even arguethat the translator erred in translating this portion of the diary. Indeed, Barhoumi's only argument regarding the membership list passage is that the district court erred in concluding that he is the Ubaydah Al-Jaza'iri referred to in that entryan argument we reject above. We understand Barhoumi's frustration about the government's steadfast refusal to provide any information regarding al-Suri or the circumstances surrounding the translation of his diary. Ultimately, however, our charge is to determine whether, based on the entirety of the evidence, the district court clearly erred in relying on the diarynot whether we would have accorded it different weight had we been sitting as trier of fact. See Awad, at 12 (considering whether the district court, in light of all of the evidence, made an erroneous finding that [the detainee] was `part of al Qaeda). The diary was recovered in the [redacted]; its author displays first-hand knowledge of both Zubaydah and Barhoumi, as well as the operations of Zubaydah's militia; and the diary bears numerous consistencies with Barhoumi's own uncontested testimony and verifiable real-world events. Given this, and notwithstanding some of the legitimate concerns raised by Barhoumi, we cannot say that we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed by the district court in relying on the al-Suri diary. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (internal quotation marks omitted).