The Article 32 investigation was called to order at 1249, 11 June 2007.

IO: This hearing is called to order. You may call the next witness.

TC[Maj Erickson]: Sir, the government calls Mr. Amir Alkasey.

CC[Mr. Myers]: I wonder if I might, just before that, reintroduce our documents into evidence.

IO: Sure.

CC[Mr. Myers]: And that would be Defense Exhibits 1 through 50, along with our report submission.

IO: All right. I am going to have this marked as 51, your report.

CC[Mr. Myers]: I think there is already a 51. I think it would be 53.

IO: All right. 53. I will have this marked as 53, your summary of the evidence.

CC[Mr. Myers]: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

IO: Any objection?

TC[Maj Erickson]: No, sir.

IO: I will, for purposes of clarity, we will keep them as Defense Exhibits 1 through 53 although they are all investigative exhibits.

Mr. Alkasey, interpreter, was called as a witness by the prosecution, was sworn, and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Major Erickson:

Q. Mr. Alkasey, could you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record?

A. Amir Alkasey, A-L-K-A-S-E-Y.

Q. Mr. Alkasey, what is your current occupation?

A. Current occupation is project manager for construction company in New York.

Q. And where in New York is that construction company?

A. The job?

Q. Yes.

A. Brooklyn, New York.

Q. Is that where you currently reside?

A. I reside in Queens, Corona, Queens in New York.

Q. And are you originally from New York?

A. No.

Q. Where are you originally from?

A. I was born and lived in Iraq. I am Iraqi by birth.

Q. How long were you in Iraq?

A. I lived in Iraq for about 17 and a half years. By that being back and forth in between.

Q. When did you leave Iraq after that first 17 and a half years you were there?

A. I left late '76, 1976.

Q. Where did you go from there?

A. I went to England and stayed there for nine years.

Q. What did do you in England?

A. I went to school for a couple of years. I studied and then I could not afford to continue my schooling because of tuition. I worked and then I did some scattered courses and automotive and electrical engineer.

Q. Did you ultimately receive a degree?

A. In London I did receive diplomas, yes, but my degree is from this country.

Q. And what are your degrees from this country?

A. I have a degree as mechanical engineer. I have a masters degree in energy management and I have an advance diploma in environmental technology.

Q. Are you fluent in Arabic?

A. Yes. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you speak and write in Arabic?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you ever worked as an interpreter or translator?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Could you tell the IO what your experience has been as an interpreter or translator?

A. I worked for sometimes at the hospital as a social worker assistant. And I use to translate for doctors, surgeons, clinics for patients to consultation, surgery, appointments. I did that many years. And I also worked in a company called HESS translation. That is H-E-S-S. I worked for a year. I did document translation, audio translation, and person-to-person translation. I was also employed as a contractor with a worldwide language resources. I was deployed to Iraq in June of 2005 until the end of January 2006. I worked with the U. S. Coalition Forces as an Arabic linguist. And I also joined the team of prosecution that went to Iraq for six weeks, January and February of this year.

Q. And you remember what your primary responsibility was when you deployed to Iraq with the team in which I was a member of?

A. The last deployment with --

Q. With me?

A. My primary duties was to translate interviews of witnesses or survivor, try to get a statement for the prosecutor.

Q. And, Mr. Alkasey, do you remember exactly where we went when we went to Iraq?

A. Where?

Q. Yeah.

A. We went to Haditha.

Q. And have you ever been to Haditha before?

A. No.

Q. And you said you were originally from Baghdad. Were you familiar with Haditha?

A. Yes. I have not been to Haditha, but I am familiar with most parts of the country of Iraq.

Q. And the Arabic dialect that you spoke in Baghdad, is that the same dialect you encountered in Haditha?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any problems understanding any of the people in Haditha?

A. Not at all.

Q. And based on your understanding, going back and forth and talking with the Haditha residents, did you feel they had a problem understanding you?

A. Not at all.

Q. And Mr. Alkasey, are you Muslim?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Alkasey, I am going to show you what has been marked as Investigative Exhibit number 37, page one of one. Does that document look familiar to you?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And what is that document?

A. It is basically a statement, the witness, that I explained to the witness that the testimony that they are about to give is voluntary. They have to tell the truth. And they are not promised with any reward, and they are not under any threat. It is basically just voluntary and they understood everything and they have to sign the statement in my presence. I was a witness also. I signed it here.

Q. And did this particular document have to do with the actual video tape statement that we took while we were there?

A. Yes.

Q. And did they swear to that statement?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. And what was the nature of that swearing to the statement?

A. Prior to video taping I explained to them the nature of oath, that they have to swear to tell the truth. And when I told them "do you swear," in Arabic -- as an Arabic and as a Muslim in Iraq, when I tell someone "do you swear," technically in Arabic, it means automatically that they swear on my God, my Allah. So I explained to them that you are going to tell the truth. And before the interview they said a couple of times "God willing, we will tell the truth." So they understood the nature of the oath that was administered.

Q. And was that oath administered to them?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Can you explain to the IO the nature of the oath and how it was administered to them?

A. The oath was administered by yourself.

Q. Um-hum?

A. I explained to them to raise their right hand, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  So they did say that they will tell the truth. They repeated after me and they said they will tell the truth.

Q. Now specifically the witness right there on that front page, who is that witness?

A. Nagham Fawwaz Suleiman Rajeb.

Q. And the Arabic writing on that line, that first line, who did that Arabic writing?

A. This is done by the witness.

Q. And then English translation of that name above, who did that?

A. It was my translation.

Q. Now down here on the signature, whose signature was that?

A. The eyewitness was my signature in my handwriting as a witness.

Q. Above that? Signature and sworn to --

A. That is the witness signature.

Q. And did you observe that witness sign that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Let's go to page two of that exhibit. First off, when you say the witness raised their right hand, was there any other physical act that she performed that she didwhen she took that oath? I mean was she sitting – was she was standing?

A. No, she was standing. She stood up, she raised her right hand. And then when prosecutor said the wordingof the oath, I translated to the witness while her righ thand was up and we proceeded from there.

Q. Let's go to page two. What is page two? What is that document entitled?

A. Page two, this is my declaration that I am fluent in the language, in the Arabic language, and that I understood everything they said. And I translated everything to them as accurate as I could. And this is my declaration of the translation of this witness.

Q. And did you also swear under oath?

A. Yes, I did swear under oath, raised my right hand, and I swore to tell the truth and I did and I signed it.

Q. Now in this document it says "I declare under penalty of perjury." Is that penalty of perjury the reason why you told the truth in this declaration that says that you told the truth?

A. My opinion, my penalty of perjury is the fear of God, Allah. When I swore to tell the truth, in the back of my mind, as an Arabic, as Iraqi, as Muslim, I swore by Allah. Even though I may not have said it, I swore to your oath, but it is the fear of Allah that I would not tell lie. That is why I swore. As well as the perjury and the law here in this country applies.

Q. Let's go to page three. Now you see there is a list of people that were present, "persons present"?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognize all of the persons present as those persons present that day that we did that interview?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. Let's go down to the observer. Yusuf Aiad Ahmed, a civilian. Do you remember who that was?

A. Yusuf Aiad Ahmed is a civilian. He is a brother-in-law to the witness.

Q. And was there a reason why the brother-in-law was present for that interview?

A. It is customary that the female in Iraq, a Muslim religious female in Iraq does not go to places without someone, a man, whether her husband, brother, or a cousin or someone has to be with her to accompany her wherever she goes, whether in Iraq or leaving Iraq. So this is customary that the brother-in-law accompanied this witness on this day.

Q. Okay. And that second observer. Do you see that name there, the second observer?

A. Khalid Salmin Rasif Hussayn Al-Anz.

Q. Do you remember him?

A. Yes. He is a lawyer by profession and he is also a distant relative of the witness and the victim, from the same family.

Q. Now I am going to have you go to page five of this exhibit. I want you to read that to yourself and look up at me when you are done.

A. Okay, sir.

Q. Do you remember that exchange?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the purpose of that exchange?

A. The purpose of that exchange is that the witness, she was looking at the photo. We wanted to be sure that she was looking at the right photo. We were referring -- the number we see is a page number but the photos was attached to. So that was the purpose of this exchange. We wanted to make sure that the witness is looking at the right person to identify, the right person, Jasiband Kahtan.

Q. And did you, at any time, tell her who was that in the picture or did she give you the name?

A. Not at all, no. She did herself.

Q. Now before the actual interview started, because as you can see that particular portion of the interview is transcribed so that means that was on video, before we actually went on video, did myself or Captain Garrison discuss any portion or any facts relating to this investigation with her?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. What was discussed before that video tape got turned on?

A. It was discussed the nature of the oath and the testimony that they are about to give has to be the truth to be used in the prosecution.

Q. Mr. Alkasey, I am handing you what has been marked as Investigative Exhibit 36 now. Can you tell the IO what that document -- I'm sorry. Go to the -- I'm sorry. Hold on. Go to the page it says "four of four" and then there are two pages right after that --

A. Okay.

Q. -- that are not numbered?

A. It is the handwritten one?

Q. Exactly, the handwritten one. Does that look familiar to you?

A. Yes.

Q. First off, before I go, are all counsel at that page?

IO: I got it.

TC[Maj Erickson]: Administratively, we will correct the numbering on those two pages, but we didn't put the numbers on that.

Questions by Major Erickson continued:

Q. What does that relate to, the handwritten document?

A. Can you repeat the question?

Q. What does that handwritten document, what does that relate to? What is that?

A. This is basically -- this is a statement that I read, I translated the NCIS report to the witness and I asked for accuracy to see if there was any -- to see if she has any contest to any of the information, that it is accurate, so she can make changes. So when I went line-by-line, paragraph-by-paragraph, the witness decided that certain information is inaccurate. So this is her affidavit. That she understood what I translated from the NCIS report and that she put all of the correction. So this affidavit of Nagham Fawwaz Suleiman Rajeb.

Q. Now, Mr. Alkasey, when did you go over that document with her? Was it before or after?

A. No, no. We did this well after the video tape testimony interview. My recollection, it had been like ten days, twelve days after that.

Q. It wasn't the same day? I mean look at the date again, Mr. Alkasey. You got to be clear on this.

A. 23rd of January.

Q. Now look at the date on Investigative Exhibit 37.

A. 30 January.

Q. So, I mean, as you sit here today, can you recollect when you went over that document with her?

A. We did this -- you mean the signature of the document or the actual --

Q. Going over that NCIS ROI?

A. We did this after the video tape. After we did the video tape interview, I explained to the person with NCIS. I went through it and then she signed the affidavit that she understood and she made the adjustment and the correction to it. So it was after the video tape of the actual testimony.

Q. Now are you sure?

A. Yes, I am sure.

Q. Because I mean earlier you said ten to twelve days?

A. I said to the best of my recollection. But it has been, like, almost six months.

Q. Okay. I am now handing you, Mr. Alkasey, what has been marked as Investigative Exhibit 40. Now does that look familiar to you?

A. Yes, my declaration that I signed. It says the declaration that I signed saying that I am a translator and that I have done translation previously and this is for this witness Ehab Ayad Turki Wagg'a and I signed it on this date.

Q. And you swore that the interpretation that you provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge?

A. Yes, I did. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. Let's go to page two. What is that?

A. This is a statement that the witness, Ehab Ayad Turki Wagg'a, that she signed after I explained to her that the testimony she was about to give is of her free will, voluntary, and that she is not promised with any reward or anything and she would have to tell the truth, the whole truth, and she understood everything and she signed in my presence with other witnesses.

Q. Let's go to page three. And all of those people that are identified in the first part there, were all of those persons present during that interview?

A. The observer, Yusuf Aiad Ahmed. This is -- he is, I believe it was a brother-in-law also. It is a brother-in-law of the witness and she had her infant son, his son, was there.

Q. And do you remember this interview, Mr. Alkasey?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you look at page six of this Investigative Exhibit 40 I want you to go down to the middle of the page where you see the Q there, the middle Q that starts with "okay." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. I want you to read that to yourself and I want you to read that exchange from there to the bottom of the page.

The witness did as directed.

Do you remember that exchange?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain to the IO why she was referring to the houses as house three and four? Well, first off, before we get to that, did you have an opportunity to review the video tape?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did you review that video tape?

A. Yesterday.

Q. And you reviewed the entire video tape?

A. What is that?

Q. You reviewed the entire video tape of that interview?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain to the IO what that exchange was about?

A. During the interview she was referring to Jasib's and Jamal's house -- actually she never mentioned by numbers. I mentioned the numbers for simplicity instead of going back and forth, Jasib, Jamal. So I said, "How does house three work?" Up to this point, she never mentioned it by numbers -- by names up to this exchange.

Q. So up to that exchange -- and I am going to ask this again just for clarification -- did she ever say in Arabic to you and refer to those houses as house three and four?

A. No.

Q. And did you ever refer to them as house three and four to her in Arabic?

A. No.

Q. Who did you refer to them as house three and four to?

A. To yourself and the captain.

Q. Now I asked you in this interview because I said "wait a minute, who is saying house three and house four?" And you said, "She is." And can you explain why the difference today compared to that day when we were there?

A. Okay. Again, in the back of my mind, like when I was translating, I knew house three was Jasib and house four was Jamal. And she was saying -- she was referring to them by name. But again, I was referring to the major by number just to make easy when they take the notes. But she never, again, she never mentioned. I chose to do that just for simplicity. She never mentioned house three and four up to this point.

Q. And you went through that video tape up to that point to make sure?

A. Yes.

Q. Also, Mr. Alkasey, the house three and house four indication by the witness, was that ever done in the scope of that interview? Did she ever refer to those houses as house three or four in that interview?

A. After this discussion?

Q. Yes.

A. After this point?

Q. Yes.

A. After this point, yes, I heard her referring to house three.

Q. How many times did you hear her say house three?

A. At least, to the best of my recollection, at least one time right after this discussion, maybe like a minute or so. She said house three.

Q. And prior to that discussion or even shortly after that discussion, had you told her anything in Arabic with regards to house three or house four?

A. No.

Q. Did you use the words "house three" and "house four" in Arabic to her?

A. No. She was referring to them; Jamal's house, Jasib's house. And I was asking her -- I was using the same name as she was referring to them as. But when I translated, I translated house three and house four. Assuming that you would know what was house three and house four.

Q. And you know what your responsibility is as a translator; right?

A. Right.

Q. And what is that responsibility?

A. What is my responsibility?

Q. I mean, you are suppose to translate everything I say to her exactly?

A. It is true, but again, I chose to do that just to simplify. In order to -- because it is easy for someone like yourself, someone who has taken an oath, easy to get confused with Arabic names Jasib, Jamal. Some of the names are similar. So it would be easier to make a mistake if you use the names. But if you use the number three and four, you know what house three and house four refer to. So that is why when I translated I said "three" and "four" instead of using the names. But with her, I would use the names.

Q. And you don't have any idea of how house three came up in Arabic with her?

A. That I have no idea, no.

Q. But she did refer to one of the houses?

A. She did refer to house three.

Q. After this exchange?

A. Yes.

Q. I am going to hand you Investigative Exhibit number 36. You already got 36. I'm sorry, 35. Do you recognize that?

A. Yes. This is an NCIS report that I translated for the witness.

Q. And on the last page of that exhibit, although it is not nubbed, there is another handwritten document there?

A. Yes. This is after interviewing the witness. She said that she understood and that she gave the oath and everything was correct.

Q. Now did you go over that interview with her prior to the video tape interview?

A. Prior to the video tape, no. We went through this interview after the video tape testimony.

Q. Now if you look on the top line up there, who wrote the name in Arabic there?

A. She wrote the name in Arabic. I translated in English, but I just looked at it and for some reason I made an error in the first name translation.

Q. And what is that error?

A. Here is "Eman." It should have been "Ehab" because it is clearly -- in Arabic you have -- for some reason, I don't know how I did this translation as Eman. But it should have been Ehab.

Q. And when did you first see that error?

A. I saw it yesterday.

Q. And did you retranslate that name?

A. Yes. It should be Ehab, E-H-A-B.

Q. Now before we move on to the next witness, did this witness also swear to tell the truth that day?

A. Yes, she did. And because she did not sign, she just printed her name on the signature line. She did swear, she raised her right hand. I explained to her the importance of the oath and she did swear and she told the truth.

Q. Okay. Mr. Alkasey, I am now handing you Investigative Exhibit number 38. Does that look familiar to you?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is this?

A. This is for the sustainment. The witness Najlah Abdal-razzaq hamed Hameed, was also she swore, she raised her right hand. She swore the statement that she was about to give was the truth, the whole truth. And again, as I explained to her, she is not under any threat and she will not get any reward or she is not promised of anything. And I also expected the importance of telling the truth and she swore and she signed in my presence.

Q. And let's go to page two of eleven. And what is that?

A. This is my declaration that the translation that I did was as accurate as it possibly could and I signed it.

Q. Now let's go to page three. And again, all the persons present for that interview. Do you see them there?

A. Yes.

Q. And could you tell us who those two observers were?

A. Okay. Yusuf Aiad Ahmed as a brother-in-law; Khalid Salmin Rasif Hussayn Al-Anzi, that is a relative of the witness, just a relative of the witness.

Q. Do you know if he had a profession or not?

A. Yes, he is a lawyer.

Q. And there was no NCIS ROI statement that was done with Najlah was there? Did you go over an NCIS ROI with her?

A. With this person, I don't recall to the best of my knowledge.

Q. I am handing you Investigative Exhibit 39. Look at the first page of Investigative Exhibit 39. Do you recall this?

A. Yes. This is a statement of Khalaia Samal Aayed Ahmad.

Q. And do you remember him?

A. Yeah. He swore that the testimony he was about to give, again, I explained to him the importance of telling the truth. And again, he is not promised with any reward. He is giving everything voluntarily and of his own freewill. So he understood the nature of the oath, the nature of what he was about to do, and he signed it in my presence.

Q. Now whose handwriting is that up there in the blank?

A. That is his handwriting. He was English literate. So he was able to write his own name.

Q. Do you remember how old he was?

A. I believe this person was, to the best of my recollection, maybe he was high school.

Q. And that is fine?

A. I think he was a high school student.

Q. You don't really remember that well?

A. I don't remember exactly his age but maybe 16, 17, 18.

Q. Mr. Alkasey, I am going to take you to page 17 of this Investigative Exhibit number 39. Could you turn to that page for me, page 17? Before I have you go over that page, do you recall whether or not this witness was sworn in by myself or Captain Garrison that day? Do you just recall as you sit here today, do you remember if he stood up and took the oath?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And do you remember what he did when he did that oath? I mean what was the physical things that he did?

A. He stood up, raised his right hand, as I was telling him to tell the truth on the oath, he raised his right hand.

Q. We are going to go over that in a little bit more after we are done with all of these witnesses. We will go over exactly how that oath was done that day.

A. Okay.

Q. I want you to read on this page, on page 17, I want you to go to the first Q on that page, about a third of the way down where it starts "Did anyone go with you to Uncle Yusuf's house. The first Q that you see on page17? Question, "Did anyone go with you to Uncle Yusuf's house?"

A. Yes.

Q. I want you to read to yourself the reply?

A. Yes. Okay. Hold on.

Q. Now do you remember when he said that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What did that indicate to you?

A. Yes. It means, to me and like I explained it, in our culture, as a Muslim and Iraqi, and when people swear, again, it is automatically the swearing in the name of Allah. And because this person gave the oath and he swore that he would tell the truth, he did not say his mother was with him at the time because he revised himself before he said this. It crossed in his mind that God would punish him if he lie about this. So that is why he indicated here, "to correct myself because I swore" He knew he swore in the back of his head by Allah. That is why he mentioned my mother was with me to be exact.

Q. And can you read that exact quote?

A. He said "No, to be exact, because you know I swore, so my mother was with me."

Q. Now we are going to go over a little bit with regards to the actual oath that was administered to all four of these Iraqi witnesses that we have gone over here today. And who was that oath administered by?

A. By yourself.

Q. And was it just me who administered the oath?

A. Mostly you administered the oath. And one or two occasion, Captain Garrison, with the presence of myself, Lance Corporal Moralo. So there was four people there as well as the witness.

Q. Was that oath similar to the oath you just took here today?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you swear upon a Koran?

A. No.

Q. Did you swear to Allah?

A. In the back of my mind, yes, I did. When I swore, I swore by Allah. Here is just the judicial law, whatever. I do not know what you call it here. But in the back of my mind, I am swearing by Allah as well as to the judicial oath.

TC[Maj Erickson]: Thank you Mr. Alkasey.

IO: Mr. Myers?

CC[Mr. Myers]: Thank you, judge.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Questions by Mr. Myers:

Q. Could I just get some idea of your background in a little more depth? Now have you had any formal training in the art of being a translator or an interpreter?

A. You mean trained in school you mean?

Q. Yes.

A. No, not in school.

Q. Have you had any training in forensic translation, that is to say translations that have an impact on the legal status of the person?

A. No, but I did medical translation in the hospital which is medical terminology. I did HESS translation. It was a court case of somebody and I was given some documents to translate and audio tapes.

Q. So the answer so far as training is concerned is "no"?

A. No. But training I was with the U. S. Army for --

Q. "No" is okay. There is nothing wrong with "no"?

A. No. Okay.

Q. The answer is no; isn't it?

A. Okay.

Q. And when you worked with Blackwater, where were you?

A. Blackwater you say?

Q. Yes.

A. That was in North Carolina.

Q. And what did do you for Blackwater?

A. We were training Kuwaiti swat team. And I translated a training manual from English to Arabic. I translated literature. I translated tactical training, which is all military terminology they use. And plus after I work, I translated for the guys, daily life, shopping, and things like that.

Q. You left Blackwater in 2006?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why?

A. Why?

Q. Yes.

A. Because my resume was posted on the Internet and they saw my resume and they call me to do the translation.

Q. Why did you leave Blackwater?

A. Because the team was only for five weeks. And the training finished and I left. It wasn't a job. It was just short time.

Q. And how did the Marine Corps find you? How did the Marine Corps find you for this mission?

A. Again, once again, my resume is on Monster, Yahoo Hot Jobs, on the Internet. I posted it on USA Jobs, FBI had my resume.

Q. And tell me how you were contacted by the Marine Corps?

A. I wasn't contacted directly by the Marines. I was contacted by an agency, an employment agency in San Diego.

Q. And they said what?

A. They told me they have a job consisting of three phases. It is with the U. S. Marine Corps. It is an investigation job, possibly that I would be going to Iraq as part of the job. And I said, you know, I have no problem with that. And then from there I went through several tests. I was chosen after that.

Q. What tests were you given?

A. Basically English tests over the phone by certified linguists. It was administered from here from base with the presence of the employment agency representative. It was three different tests over three different periods of time. When I passed those, they told me that I would be hired.

Q. What were the three phases that you anticipated facing with respect to this contract?

A. The phases of the job.

Q. Yes.

A. The first phase was suppose to be here in Pendleton. Just to do some training, like counterawareness, antiterrorism classes, things like that. Explaining to us briefly about a job, get our uniform and gear. The second phase they told me that I would be going to Iraq with the prosecution team to interview witnesses. And the third phase would be here for the actual trial.

Q. And so you felt that you were part of the prosecution team, you used that phrase on multiple occasions; is that correct?

A. Yes. I was chosen to be on the prosecution team.

Q. At any time did the prosecution suggest to you that conversations with the defense might be something you would consider?

A. Could you repeat the last part of the question?

Q. Forgive me if it was too complicated. At any time did any person from the prosecution team suggest to you that conversing with the defense might be appropriate?

A. Yes, I was told that, yes. And I know -- they didn't tell me. I knew that.

Q. When did they tell you?

A. To the best of my recollection, it might be the first time I came here.

Q. Really. As soon as you got here they said, get out there and talk to the guys from the defense? Is that what they told you?

A. No, no, that's not.

Q. What did they tell you?

A. Just something like -- we do the training, we talk, it just came in the conversation, you know, that I should be conversing with the defense. They didn't tell me, I knew that.

Q. Knew what?

A. I knew that if I was -- I would read newspaper, watch TV, I knew that if the person for the prosecution team should not be talking to or associated with the defense. I mean, they could associate but they could not talk about the actual case.

Q. So you really felt as though, in this job, that you were, in fact, part of the prosecution to the extent that it would be inappropriate to talk to the defense.

A. I felt that I was doing a job, just translation for the prosecution team. I am not a member of their team because I am not a lawyer. I am not a Marine.

Q. Well, were you part of the team or weren't you? You got me confused now.

A. I am part of the team as a linguist. But I am not a Marine. I am a contractor. I am not a Marine. So as far as I am concerned, I knew, like I explained to you, that I should not be conversing with defense team about the case.

Q. Well, what did they tell you about the case?

A. They didn't tell me much. They just say it was an investigation.

Q. Did they give you any prior documents relating to the case?

A. No. Not at all.

Q. You never read anything about this case before you went to Iraq?

A. They did not give me documents, no.

Q. What did they do?

A. Again, they told me that it is an investigation case of three Marines. There was an incident that took place in Haditha and they are going to interview witnesses. That's it, you know.

Q. And you went to Haditha not having any idea at all what the substance of the case was about?

A. In here, like I explained, I have vague idea. They told me about the three Marines, they were charged with a murder, but I didn't know the details. In Iraq when we went to Haditha and before the interview, then they briefed me.

Q. All right. Let's talk about that for a moment. Was there anybody else who was capable of translating besides yourself with you and Major Erickson.

A. No.

Q. Only yourself?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you, at any time prior to the time that these individuals who have just been named, prior to the time that these individuals gave their testimony, did you speak with any of those individuals?

A. Not at all. Never see them before.

Q. And did you at any time know whether these individuals were willing to come testify or unwilling to come and testify?

A. Did I know, no.

Q. What did you do in Iraq while you were waiting for these people to testify? Did you have conversations with anybody about what was going on?

A. With anybody like who?

Q. Well, like Major Erickson for example?

A. Sometimes like we talk. Sometimes we talk about the case. Like he read to me, as we go along, he read to me about the case as we go along. But other than that, I didn't talk to anybody else.

Q. So it is fair to say then that in so far as what you knew about the case came from representations made to you by the prosecutor?

A. Basically --

Q. That would require a "yes" or "no" answer?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Now did you read any documents relating to this case that were generated by the NCIS?

A. No.

Q. Did you read any documents relating to this case that were generated by any other of the persons who investigated this matter, whether they be Army or Marine Corps?

A. No.

Q. So the only knowledge base you had was from Major Erickson and his prosecution team?

A. But before the actual interview I did, like I explained, he briefed me on the case and I read some of the documents.

Q. You did read some of the documents?

A. At the time, yeah.

Q. Which ones did you read?

A. Just something, I don't recall exactly which one but I read something briefly about the case.

Q. And it gave the Iraqi witnesses version of the facts; right?

A. I don't recall. I don't recall. No, witnesses, no. It was nothing to do about witnesses. I did not read -- I only arrived with the case of what they had. But there was no witnesses.

Q. No not witness statements, but did you read some documentation from the NCIS that was documentation had done before?

A. No, not from NCIS. The only time I read the NCIS report is after the video tape testimony that the witness gave, I went with NCIS documents, I went with them. I read it, I translated to them, that is when they signed the affidavit, that they understood and they made some correction to it.

Q. By "NCIS documents" you mean the documents that you have just seen before?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any reports generated or done by the NCIS before these interviews?

A. No, sir.

Q. How long were you in Iraq?

A. Five and a half weeks, maybe.

Q. Okay. Five and a half weeks starting when?

A. We went to Iraq, actually January -- maybe January 8^th or 9th. We left -- about four weeks. We left around the first week of February, end of first week of February, and went to Kuwait. So it was about four weeks.

Q. So it was about 28 days.

A. More or less, yes.

Q. These interviews took two days?

A. It took more than that. It took over the period of time. They were not available all at the same time to conduct the interview in two days.

Q. Well, are these dates wrong on when these interviews were done?

A. No.

Q. Well, these dates suggest 23 and 24 January?

A. They are not wrong. But to the best of my recollection, it became something where they came on one day, another people came on another day, so it might have been two days. It might have been in three or four days. Again, to the best of my recollection I thought it was maybe three or four days.

Q. Fine. And I am not going to debate two days versus three days with you. But my inquiry is: From January the 8th to January 23rd, what did you do with yourself?

A. Basically, again, he briefed me on the case, the nature of the case.

Q. So you got briefed for 15 days before you became the unbiased interpreter of what these people were going to say?

A. No, no, not everyday.

Q. That didn't happen?

A. Not everyday. Some days I had nothing to do. I mean, they would meet, him and the captain or the commander; but I had time to myself. I would go to the gym, take a walk.

Q. And when you finished these oral testimonies, who did the actual typing of the document; do you recall?

A. I believe the office, they did. The lance corporal or somebody in the office.

Q. So what they typed is what you spoke on the video tape?

A. Exactly.

Q. Now is it fair to say that when the IO reads the videotape he is going to hear a lot of interchange, by that, I mean, conversation between you and these witnesses that is not translated?

A. I did not read the statement that was typewritten so I cannot answer the question. If I listen to the tape again and you give me the document then I can tell you "yes" or "no." But whatever is translated, I don't know what is typewritten.

Q. You didn't authenticate this document and you are the interpreter? I am talking about all four documents that have already been given to you in evidence. You didn't read what the court reporter typed; is that what you are telling us? Is that a "yes" or "no"?

A. No. Okay.

Q. Okay, yes?

A. No.

Q. You didn't read them?

A. No.

Q. So these documents aren't in the least wise authenticated by you because you don't know what is even in them, do you?

A. I don't have the answer because, again, like you said something what is on that tape may not correspond what is on that paper. So I couldn't tell you yes or no.

Q. Well, let me just go through a few specific things and ask you if you recall. Do you recall that this young fellow, Khalaia, I think you said he was 16 --

A. Yes, 16 or 17.

Q. -- describe this murder allegation in the following terms: "In a span of less than a minute, under a minute, we had four shots. Pop, pop, pop, like this. It was like one shot, then silence for four or five seconds and then the second shot." Do you recall if he described the shots that he heard that way? Hearing four shots separated by five to ten seconds each?

A. To the best of my recollection, I can not say "yes" or "no." Probably, I would say "yes" that he did say that.

Q. Now is it also true that Nagham, forgive me if I have these names wrong. It is not meant to offend anyone. It is just my ignorance -- that Nagham said "one weapon was taken out of each house" referring to three and four. Didn't she say that?

A. Who Nagham, that you are talking about?

Q. Nagham Fawwaz Suleiman?

A. Nagham?

Q. Yes, Nagham?

A. Yes, that is what she was saying.

Q. And didn't Ehab say "one of the Marines had a suitcase, Katan suitcase, that had his hygiene kit, shaving kit, and his clothing inside a suitcase and he told us to remain seated here and the four Marines had left the house with the suitcase"?

A. Yes, I remember.

CC[Mr. Myers]: Can I have your indulgence for just a moment?

IO: Sure.

Questions by Mr. Myers continued:

Q. Did anyone, at any time to your knowledge, tell these witnesses not to speak to each other while they were in the midst of doing this testimony?

A. Talking about between witnesses?

Q. Yes.

A. Most of the time it was one witness at a time they would come into the room. So there were no two witnesses at the same time to be talking to each other. Even when they had the civilian accompanying them, basically was just sitting there, not conversing or telling or coaching the witness to what to say.

CC[Mr. Myers]: Thank you. Nothing further.

IO: I want to clear up a couple of things.

Major Erickson, would you give Mr. Alkasey exhibits 38 and 39 of your copies?

TC[Maj Erickson]: Yes, sir. Doing as instructed.

EXAMINATION BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER

Questions by the investigating officer:

Q. Mr. Alkasey, in the first page of the transcripts in 38on and the first page of 39 there is an observer identified and it looks like the same person but the spelling of the name is different. Is that just a typo on the spelling of the name or is it two different people that were in that room.

A. Are you talking exhibit 38?

Q. If you look at 38 you see how it is H-Y-S-S-A-Y-N when you look at the name of the observer?

A. I'm lost, sir. Exhibit 38, what page of 38?

Q. If you go to the third page.

A. The third page.

Q. And "observer" do you see that name of the observer. It says "persons present"?

A. I am confused here because the third page on exhibit38 --

Q. The page looks like this.

A. Sorry.

Q. Here, just take my page. Do you see the name of the observer.

A. The second observer.

Q. The second observer, yes.

A. Yeah.

Q. Now I would like you to turn to that page in exhibit 39.

A. In exhibit 39.

Q. The exact same page in exhibit 39. Is that the same person or is that a typo on the name or is that two different people?

A. It is the same person but the way it is spelled is different.

Q. It is just a typo in the spelling?

A. Yeah. I would translate it the way it sounds but I suppose the military have a certain sound they may have.

Q. So for all of these interviews it was the same two people. It was Yusuf and it was Khalid that were either present, either both of them or one of them that was present for each of these four interviews?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And my understanding is that Khalid was an attorney but also a relative?

A. Yes. He was an attorney and distant relative.

Q. What does "distant relative' mean?

A. It could be second, third, cousin. But in Iraq, they always refer to as "my cousin." But it may mean second, third, fourth cousin. The same tribe, they would call it's my cousin.

Q. And Yusuf was the uncle. When I use the term "uncle" does that mean the brother of the father?

A. Yusuf was brother-in-law.

Q. Brother-in-law, okay. And Yusuf was present for the female interviews --

A. Yes.

Q. -- but for the young man he was not present?

A. Well, the young man --

Q. It lists only the attorney.

A. I don't -- to the best of my recollection, I don't remember. But if I was to look at the documents probably.

Q. My question is: You said that an observer needed to be present because of a female. Why would an observer need to be present for a young man testifying?

A. It is a culture. In the middle east, a woman cannot do or go anywhere unless she has to have someone accompanying her.

Q. I understand that testimony?

A. This is because she is sitting with men, the major, the prosecution team and myself, we all men. She is the only female.

Q. I appreciate that, sir. But my question is why was there an observer present for the young man that testified?

A. Why was he present or not present?

Q. Well, there is an observer present for the young man's interview as well.

A. Okay, sir.

Q. Why is there an observer for that? It is not cultural, why is there an observer?

A. For the young man maybe because he was the uncle that came with him. It had nothing to do with culture. The young man could have done it by himself. But his uncle chose to be with him. But for the female, it was a cultural thing.

Q. The four witnesses that were interviewed that you participated in, did you know that they were all Muslim?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you ask them or did you just assume that they were Muslim?

A. I didn't ask them but from the name indicates, plus the geographical area where they live at, so it is Muslim.

Q. And is this description of the oath that you described, is it your belief that an oath is an oath to Allah or is it a universal teaching within the Muslim religion?

A. Yes. Like I said, as Iraqi as Muslim, in our culture when you ask someone do you swear to tell me something, automatically, I know to swear by Allah. I don't have to tell them to swear by Allah or by the Koran.

Q. Is that consistent no matter what their version of Muslim faith is Sunni or Shiite?

A. Yes, it is consistent, yeah. Shiite, Sunni, the same.

Q. Do you know what religion these woman and this young man were, what version of Muslim.

A. They are Muslim, but I would believe the sect from that region would be Sunni, but they are Muslim.

Q. In the Iraq culture, is there an equivalent type of oath given when someone has to give testimony in a judicial proceeding in Iraq?

A. There is a proper saying that if a person -- if a person you know that he witness, he saw what happened, you don't need to make him swear on something, on the book or the holy book. You just tell him to swear or you just start questioning him unless you have a suspicion about the witness that you are about to hear from him. If you have suspicion, then you make him swear by the name of Allah or on the name of Koran.

Q. Now is that even for those that don't practice Muslim faith in Iraq? I mean, there are Kurds and Christians?

A. That goes for Allah mostly.

Q. And you keep saying "Allah." I'm just curious. In Iraq is there another type of oath that is given to someone who is not of Muslim faith who is going to testify?

A. Well, they are Christian. I don't know about Christian but I believe when you say "Christian" also you swear in the back of their head they will swear by Allah – I mean by God, by God, whichever.

Q. Do you have any family or relatives still residing in Iraq?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Have they been affected by the Marine's presence in Iraq?

A. Have they been affected? I mean, just like the general populous. Not by the actual -- by the terrorist's act, yeah, by the terrorism that is going on in Iraq, yes.

Q. I guess, let me probably be more specific. Have any of your relatives or family that have resided in Iraq had negative experiences with Marines?

A. No. I tell my mother there is a base where we live, she always praise them and they are polite and nice and helpful.

Q. And the interview -- and I'm not going to pronounce this name correctly. I'm with Mr. Myers on this -- It's W-A-G-G-L-A, the 24-year-old woman?

A. Waggla, yeah.

Q. What was the level of her education? It doesn't say in the transcript.

A. That is the one who printed her name?

Q. She is 24-years-old?

A. Maybe just like elementary school. I didn't ask her, but I don't know. But I would assume that she might have regular elementary school because most people in those parts of Iraq, villages and farmers, they don't like the female to continue their education. They take them out of school early and they marry them at early ages.

Q. So the young man had exposure in English you do not believe that she understood English.

A. Yes. He was a high school kid, yes.

Q. You said that he understood some English. I was wondering did this 24-year-old woman, did she understand any English?

A. The woman, no. They probably understood one word here, one world there, because they see the American troops always in the city so they pick up words here and there.

Q. I guess what I am trying to get at is there is an exchange that you had during the direct that you spoke in Arabic to her and she was describing houses by names and then you turned in English and spoke to Major Erickson by numbers --

A. Correct.

Q. -- and you don't know how she understood that there was a house number three. And my question is: Did she have a rudimentary understanding of English where she could have listened to what you were saying and know what you're talking about?

A. I understand what you are saying. But I doubt that is the case because I came in -- I know from my experience, first, when I went to England, when someone talk English in front of me I would tell them to please speak slowly. The way we were talking like the way I am talking to you, today I am as fast. So they would not understand, you know, what we say.

Q. And from your experience of observing the women who testified, were they reluctant or were they fearful when they were coming in to be interviewed and video taped.

A. No, no. They were -- they felt that they wanted more time. They wanted to tell everything in their heart. They wanted to say it because I sense they want justice in a way. And I know they had some hatred. They had -- they didn't have much faith but they said what is in their hearts.

Q. And did any of the observers provide any kind of encouragement that you noticed to these witnesses to tell things or expand upon their statements?

A. No, they didn't tell them.

Q. When they were present as an observer, where would they sit in relation to the witness, the uncle and this attorney?

A. The witness here, the observer would be sitting, like, sit next to each other. They would not sit close to the woman, they would be like one seat apart, you know. But they would sit next to her.

Q. I guess my question wasn't -- so they would be next to her but they wouldn't necessarily be in the line of sight; like you and I are talking, they wouldn't be sitting right behind you so the witness could see them.

A. No. The witness would be sitting here in one line, I would be sitting this way facing the witness, and the prosecutor sitting this way.

Q. Where are the observers, behind the prosecutors?

A. The observer are on this line. They are not facing the actual witness.

Q. Okay. Were you aware during these interviews if the witnesses, the observer, or this attorney limited the questions that could be asked in any way?

A. Can you just repeat it again?

Q. Did anyone other than the Marine who was asking the questions, did anyone else interject that that is an area that you can't question about or limit and say we are done, we want to leave and not answer questions?

A. Nobody other than prosecutor asking questions, nobody was whether the civilian or the lawyer, no.

IO: Let's take a brief recess and then when we come back I will give counsel an opportunity follow up. Ten minutes. Take a ten-minute recess.

The Article 32 investigation recessed at 1358, 11 June 2007.

The Article 32 investigation was called to order at 1407,11 June 2007.

IO: This hearing is called to order. Major Erickson, you may continue with the examination.

TC[Maj Erickson]: Aye, aye, sir.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Major Erickson:

Q. Mr. Alkasey, during cross-examination Mr. Myers asked you some questions with regards to your declaration. If you could please turn -- well, I got one right here, Investigative Exhibit 40, page one, to just make it easy. If you look at that declaration?

A. Okay.

Q. Now in your own words, what did you interpret that declaration to be when you filled it out and signed it and had it notarized?

A. I would interpret this declaration that I have had extensive experience in translation from Arabic to English, English to Arabic. I translated to different dialects as well as to my Iraqi dialect of which I am fluent, 100%. Plus, especially when I was in Iraq, when I was with the U. S. Forces, I have been more than 500 interrogation sessions. I have done so many translations in seven month that in addition to the translation that I did with HESS, I feel myself that I am qualified and I have excessive experience. I am a member of American Translation Association. I don't think I would need training or go to school for anything in translation.

Q. But specifically that declaration says that you did what?

A. "I did translation to the best of my knowledge and that I was personally present at the time of the translation when the video interview took place and everything I translated was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of what the witness said.

Q. So are you testifying today that the authentication of Mr. Myers was talking about was the authentication of the actual video interview?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And not the court reporter transcribed paper that you see in front of you today? Because you testified earlier, that behind that -- turn the page?

A. I did. This is my actual translation on video.

Q. Okay.

A. I did translation. This is accurate. That is why I signed this declaration because what I translate is as accurate as what I could be.

Q. That has to do with the video is what I'm trying to get at?

A. What's that?

Q. Does that have to do with the video, the actual video?

A. No. I don't think -- my opinion is the actual translation itself is all that matters. I know it is on video so what is on video, what was done in present is the same thing. I don't think it would be any discrepancy.

TC[Maj Erickson]: I am just confusing myself and I will stop this line of questioning?

IO: Major Erickson, I think I know what you are trying to do. It think it is pretty clear.

Questions by the investigating officer continued:

Q. Mr. Alkasey, you signed this document because you translated what occurred during the interview correctly; right?

A. Right.

Q. You did not sign this document because you reviewed the transcript and read it while watching the video tape to say that the transcript is accurate?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. So you’re not saying the transcript is accurate, you are saying that your translation is accurate?

A. Yes. That's why I explained it.

IO: I think we got it. Let's move on.

TC[Maj Erickson]: That's even better, sir.

Questions by Major Erickson continued:

Q. Have you ever testified in court before, Mr. Alkasey?

A. Before, no.

Q. This is your first time testifying in this kind of situation?

A. This kind of situation. I did close room with district attorney and some federal agent about somebody who committed a fraud. I was a witness and I testified.

Q. But is this the first time you have testified in an arena --

A. This is my first time in such a place with many people.

Q. And I am going to -- are you a little nervous?

A. I was but I am trying to relax.

Q. Now, kind of clear up the air on this two days of interviews. We were over there for over four weeks. Is that the only thing that we did was do two days of interviews of these four witnesses?

A. No, we did more than that.

Q. We did a lot of interviews?

A. Yes.

Q. About how many did we do?

A. Seventeen, eighteen. Its' between seventeen to twenty. To the best of my recollection, I would say the average about eighteen, seventeen, eighteen.

Q. And that took place over that period of time?

A. Over that period of time, yes.

Q. Do you remember what the primary mission was when we were going over there or did I not brief you of that?

A. Yes, you did.

Q. And what was the primary mission?

A. To interview a witness who give testimony written and on tape.

Q. And did it have anything to do with Haditha or did it have something to do with another case that was going on at the time in Fallujah?

A. No.

Q. You don't remember the Fallujah portion of the mission?

A. Something to do with NCIS probably or --

Q. That's okay. If you don't remember, that's fine.

A. I don't remember.

Q. Now the IO asked you about Khalaia, the boy, the interview, and I think it is Investigative Exhibit 40 that you have in front of you there or is it 39? I'm sorry, it's 39?

A. 39, yeah.

Q. And look to the "persons present" page again on page three. And you look at the observer. There is only one observer listed on that page?

A. It is myself.

Q. The observer?

A. Khalid Salmin Rasif Hussayn Al-Anzi.

Q. Okay. So that person, who was that person again?

A. Khalid Salmin was a distant relative as well as he is a lawyer by profession.

Q. So at the boy's interview the only other person present besides our team was the lawyer Rasif?

A. That is who it was, yes.

TC[Maj Erickson]: That is all I got, sir.

CC[Mr. Myers]: Very briefly if I might.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

Questions by Mr. Myers:

Q. This lawyer, Mr. Rasif is that how I would address him?

A. Yes. Khalid Salmin Rasif.

Q. Mr. Rasif, was he also the lawyer to the families that we now commonly refer to as the families of house one and two?

A. Was he the lawyer for the family?

Q. Yes.

A. To my understanding he was representing the family after the incident that had happened. And he, from what he said, he convened with the mayor, with the coalition forces in that area and he was taking the case upon himself to present it to the U. S. Coalition Forces to try to get justice and compensation.

Q. And I understand all of those things.

A. Okay.