This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS KABUL 005042 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR SA/FO AMBASSADOR QUINN, SA/CT AND SA/A 
NSC FOR AHARRIMAN, KAMEND 
CENTCOM FOR POLAD, CG CFC-A, CG CJTF-76 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR KAWC AF
SUBJECT: EMERGING AFGHAN INTERAGENCY PROCESS TO MANAGE 
TRANSFER OF DETAINEES 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary.  USDOJ and CFC-A representatives 
briefed a delegation of Afghan officials on the 
fundamentals of an interagency process.  The GOA 
officials are to become the working group that will 
decide the form of the process Afghanistan will use to 
receive detainees transferred by the USG.  The group 
warmly welcomed the ideas presented and indicated 
their intent to move forward with the development of 
an interagency process.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The Afghan interagency process for transfer of 
custody of detainees began to take shape at a 6 
December meeting held at the National Security 
Council.  Deputy Attorney General Fazl Ahmad Faqeryar, 
Director of Policy and Oversight at the NSC Engineer 
Mohammed Daoud, General Director of Jails at the 
Ministry of Justice Brigadier General Abdul Salam 
Bakhshi, Deputy Head of Investigation at the National 
Directorate of Security Colonel Abdul Jalil Modafi, 
General Director of the Supreme Court Judiciary 
Administration Abdul Malik Kamavi, Advisor to the 
Minister of Interior Abdul Jabar Sabit, and Brigadier 
General Sayed Khalilullah Attaee, Head Inspector of 
the Education Department at the Ministry of Defense 
were on hand to hear from Bruce Pagel of USDOJ and 
Col. Manuel Supervielle of CFC-A on the fundamentals 
of an interagency process. 
 
¶3.  (SBU)   The meeting took the form of a briefing from 
the DOJ and CFC representatives.  They outlined the 
legal issues that the GOA must resolve, including the 
nature of the conflict and the status of combatants 
captured on the battlefield.  Also covered was the 
prospective role of the legislative and judicial 
branches within the interagency process.  Supervielle 
and Pagel said the Afghan interagency model could 
incorporate agencies of the judicial and legislative 
branch.  Although it would be for the GOA to decide 
based on its legal analysis, including the judiciary 
could undermine judicial independence and create a 
real conflict of interest to the extent the court 
participates in the interagency process. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The DOJ and CFC representatives emphasized to 
the Afghan attendees that the interagency process 
should be a wholly Afghan one.  They stressed that the 
role of the USG in setting up the interagency process 
would be solely advisory.  They also offered to 
arrange briefings led by experts on international law 
to offer additional ideas and options to the GOA.  The 
immediate next step will be for the Afghan working 
group to meet without a US presence to establish their 
own mission statement. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Comment.  The Afghan officials present 
discussed, in Dari, the issues laid before them for 
several minutes during one interlude.  There was no 
immediate consensus on the roles of the executive, 
judicial, and legislative branches, though there was 
agreement that this would be an NSC-coordinated 
effort.  All officials present seemed receptive to the 
concept of developing an interagency process, and no 
one ministry representative appeared to want his 
ministry to dominate the process.  A positive first 
step was taken at the end of the meeting, when the MOD 
and MOJ representatives agreed that the MOU concerning 
renovation of PeC Block 4 and its subsequent operation 
would be signed by 15 December.  End 
comment. 
NEUMANN