Stephen Abraham

Stephen Abraham
Occupation(s)	Attorney, United States Army Reserve officer
Years active	1981–present
Known for	Criticism of Combatant Status Review Tribunal procedures

Stephen Abraham is an American attorney and an officer in the United States Army Reserve. In June 2007, he became the first officer who had participated in a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to openly criticize its procedures, asserting that the evidence presented failed to satisfy legal standards and that tribunal members were subjected to considerable pressure from higher-ranking officials to designate detainees as enemy combatants. Abraham was assigned to the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants during his service.

Civilian career

Abraham currently manages the Law Offices of Stephen Abraham located in Newport Beach, California.

Military career

Commissioned as an intelligence officer in 1981, Abraham’s military tenure includes both reserve and active duty assignments, with deployments during "Operation Desert Storm" and following the events of 9/11. By June 2007, he held the rank of lieutenant colonel.

Between September 2004 and March 2005, Abraham served with OARDEC, engaging in evidence collection and functioning as a panel member on the Combatant Status Review Tribunals tasked with evaluating detainees at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. These tribunals operated from August 2004 through January 2005, with final approval by then-Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England completed in March 2005.

Abraham's affidavit

In an affidavit submitted in support of a habeas corpus petition for detainee Fawzi al-Odah, Abraham criticized the CSRT process for its reliance on evidence lacking objective reliability and for permitting hearsay that would not be admissible in conventional courts. He characterized the personnel preparing case files as inadequately trained and highlighted intense pressure exerted on tribunal panels to affirm enemy combatant designations:

Whenever a CSRT panel concluded that a detainee was incorrectly classified as an enemy combatant, panel members were compelled to justify their decision to OARDEC leadership, enduring rigorous scrutiny extending up to the Under Secretary of the Navy.

Abraham publicly voiced his objections to the tribunal system after hearing his former superior, Rear Admiral James M. McGarrah, describe it as "fair".

Fawzi al-Odah was among those challenging CSRT procedures that denied detainees access to legal representation and withheld evidence, including classified materials. His case was incorporated into Boumediene v. Bush, which reached the United States Supreme Court in 2007 contesting CSRTs and military commissions authorized by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Motivated by his sister’s association with al-Odah’s legal team, Abraham provided his affidavit despite Department of Defense policies maintaining confidentiality around tribunal officers. Following his submission, the Supreme Court reversed a prior ruling and agreed to review Boumediene v. Bush.

During a CBS News interview, Abraham underscored his sense of civic responsibility:

*I presented nothing less than facts—facts that are verifiable and demand correction.

• I regard my obligations as a citizen with utmost seriousness.*

He revealed that tribunal panels experienced substantial pressure to rule against detainees; when his panel initially determined a detainee was not an enemy combatant, they were instructed to reconvene with supplementary evidence but ultimately reaffirmed their original conclusion.

The Washington Post reported that OARDEC leadership subjected Abraham and other dissenting panel members to intense questioning and mandated expanded hearings following their divergent findings. According to the Boston Globe, senior officials launched investigations into these instances after panels declined to confirm enemy combatant status.

Attorney David Cynamon, representing al-Odah, commended Abraham’s bravery despite concerns about potential repercussions on his military career.

Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler defended OARDEC’s procedures as offering unprecedented protections in wartime but contested Abraham’s portrayal, asserting that he lacked comprehensive understanding of CSRT operations.

Anonymous sources claimed Abraham never raised internal objections—a claim he disputes. After completing his tribunal duties, Abraham was assigned liaison responsibilities with JTF-GTMO teams responsible for compiling detainee allegations. He described these teams as consisting primarily of relatively junior officers with limited intelligence experience.

A second OARDEC official provides testimony

On October 5, 2007, attorneys representing Adel Hassan Hamad, whose case was merged under Boumediene v. Bush, submitted an affidavit from another officer affiliated with OARDEC. Similar to Abraham, this individual—whose identity was withheld—served as both a reservist and a civilian lawyer. He described the training as "minimal" and indicated that "the process lacked clear definition." While Abraham participated in a single Tribunal, this second officer was involved in 49 Tribunals.

Interviews

After submitting his affidavit, Abraham conducted several interviews. He disclosed that the majority of the Tribunal-related work by him and his team took place in Washington, DC, with only three visits made to Guantanamo. Abraham also pointed out that the allegations presented in the Summary of Evidence memos were termed "evidence" but did not satisfy established legal criteria.