ACLU Sends Defense Department Letter Requesting Information About Bagram Detainees
ACLU Sends Defense Department Letter Requesting Information About Bagram Detainees
Yesterday the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent a letter to the Department of Defense asking them to reconsider releasing information — such as “a list of names, citizenship, length of detention, [and] capture location” — about detainees held at the detention facility at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. The ACLU explains its decision to request the information on its “Blog of Rights“:
Today, we sent a letter to the Department of Defense (DOD), asking them to reconsider their refusal to turn over information about the detention facility at Bagram in Afghanistan. The request is connected to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request we filed earlier this year with the Departments of Defense, Justice and State and the CIA for documents related to the detention and treatment of prisoners at Bagram. [...]
There is concern that Bagram has become, in effect, another Guantánamo – except with many more prisoners, less due process, no access to lawyers or courts and reportedly worse conditions. Although the nation is embroiled in an intense public debate about U.S. policy pertaining to the detention and treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, Americans remain in the dark about even the most basic facts about Bagram. And, as long as the Bagram prison is shrouded in secrecy, there is no way to know the truth or begin to address the problems that exist there.
There is no doubt that the Obama Administration has done much to reverse the Bush Administration’s disastrous record on civil liberties. Immediately after coming into office, Obama issued executive orders mandating the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture.
Yet civil liberties advocates continue to warn that the same “legal black hole” that existed thanks to the Bush Administration’s policies in Guantanamo Bay has continued to exist in the Bagram detention center. As Tina Foster of the International Justice Center told NPR recently, the policies in Bagram seem to imply that “individuals captured by the United States anywhere in the world can be taken into custody and held indefinitely without charge, so long as they’re not brought to Guantanamo.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow, the perfect place to send Karl.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:22 pmYes, Mr. President, we know you’re trying, but the world is still watching us…Please Do the right thing!
August 14th, 2009 at 4:24 pmThe more things change, the more they stay the same:
A Lebanese contractor named Raymond Azar says he’s the first known victim of rendition under President Obama. Azar alleges that he was coerced into confessing to bribing a contract officer after being seized and tortured by armed federal agents in Afghanistan.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/13/alleged_obama_era_rendition_victim_accuses
August 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pmThe US should immediately and unconditionally end its criminal imperial occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The US should stop its murder of Pakistanis with its drone/missile strikes. (Imagine our outrage if China or Canada were firing missile strikes into small towns in rural Idaho…).
The US should end its stupid fruitless vile “war on drugs.” The US should immediately decriminalize the use, possession, sale and cultivation of all plant-based drugs, such as marijuana, opium and cocaine. Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs back in 2002 and by 2007, drug use had dropped in half. So we can gather from this that about half of all illegal drug use is because drugs are illegal…
The US should stop building seven new military bases in Columbia in South America. The US should abandon its three military bases in Columbia. End US imperialism around the third world.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pmThe US should stop building seven new military bases in Columbia in South America…er, Jimmy, that would be Colombia, SA or Columbia, SC..??
August 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pmPresident Obama continues to disappoint me over and over again….I’m losing patience…
August 14th, 2009 at 4:31 pmMe too, Dixie, but President McIIIrd would have me blowing my effing brains out.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:42 pmHe has lived down to my expectations…
I never expected much. I knew (since the Bankruptcy Bill of ‘06) that he was a trustworthy, loyal, acquiescent, wholly-owned subsidiary of the military/security/intelligence/banker Corporats. (Did anyone REALLY think the Owners of the country would let somebody get elected who wasn’t entirely loyal to the hegemonic corporate state? Really? No. REALLY?)
August 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pmO/T but this just in! (dramatic music….).
Some guy just appeared on FOX complaining about receiving an unsolicited e-mail from David Axelrod/White House.
Major Garret then reports that someone else got a POP-UP!!!!–Whilst on som e website as he was using AOL!!!!
Garret tells us that FOC is totally on top of this story and has filed a FOIA request already.
Followed by some “analysis” about how all this may be an invasion of privacy and a way to steal data!
So. get ready for this nonsense to be all over FOX.
Now back to the program already in Think Progress.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pmGW says – Hehehe…just one more of my little super secrets from my superior decidering…I made secret torture places everywhere in the world…Obama will never find them all…they are loyal to me, the secret dictator…Dick thought they would be good ideas…and lookey there, they are…why my loyal subjects are torturing the crap out of those bad guys…Obama don’t even know it…cause it’s a secret…right Dick.
Dick says – I need more blood from fresh puppies and kittens.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:45 pmBEN: These are not the droids your looking for.
TROOPER: This is not the change we’re looking for.
BEN: He can go about his business.
TROOPER: You can go about your business.
BEN: (to Progressives) Move along.
TROOPER: Move along. Move along.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:45 pmO/T: caught a few seconds of Wolf Blitzer on CNN where he replayed the Montana town hall meeting question from the NRA clown to President Obama about paying for the health care reform. Wolf didn’t bother to play Obama’s good reply; no, he just said that President Obama answered the question. Then Wolf went directly into a post-meeting interview with said NRA clown. Nice slanting of your so-called “news reporting,” huh Wolf. CNN mostly takes the side of the Republicans, the corporatist pigs and the obstructionists.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:51 pmAn unfortunate side-effect of the Bush administration’s foreign tactics is that it’s like building Rome – it’s not going to happen immediately that everything is repealed. It’s likely this isn’t the only detention center being run by the military, and it will take many more months, if not years, to get rid of them all and free the prisoners inside them.
And it’s not entirely because of Obama – it’s because of Congress. Yes, Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay closed, but remember the brouhaha that resulted from it? How no one wanted terrorists being let free from Cuba and allowed to wander the streets of Main Street USA? It took months of wrangling to actually get the closing officially approved – and that was one prison on American soil. Who knows what will happen with these others?
I don’t think it needs to be said, that the balance of power has shifted since election day. Congress has gained more power than they had under Bush, and they and their constituents will use it to obstruct Obama is the feel it necessary, regardless of party (re: health care, anyone?), whether to prevent knowledge of complacency regarding these prisons or just to make it hard for Obama to get any work done. And DoD doesn’t want to lose the power it was given under Bush, which was nearly unlimited. As a result Obama’s hands are tied significantly on this issue.
Bottom line: some more prisons will probably be closed. But at a snail’s rate. :/
August 14th, 2009 at 4:52 pmNot to mention that many of the more egregious acts reported by Gitmo detainees were said to have occured in air bases in Afghanistan before they were transported to Gitmo.
Admittedly, the President has a lot on his plate. Unfortunately, when feces are spread around, it takes years of concentrated work to clean the remains out.
But as long as we operate these clandestine bases, the smell of feces is still present.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:02 pmLovely headache, this Bagram business. Almost as good as Gitmo.
It would be nice if we could see a day when any prisoner we took would either be treated with due regard for the host country’s law or in accord with the Geneva Conventions. I’m not gonna hold my breath though (except when practicing for an upcoming waterboarding session).
August 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pmI am a little surprised that people are upset at Obama for not being more transparent regarding the Bagram prison. I realize it’s not being advertised much on the evening news, but we are fighting a war overseas.
While I am not completely sure, I believe the Bagram prison is a military prison. If I was the supreme commander of the US military, I am not sure I would want a lot of details floating around about who is and is not being detained there, legally or not.
I personally would recommend Obama create the worlds largest prison camp, and arrest absolutely everyone in Afghanistan. Incarcerate the entire indigenous population. If that were the tactic I was using to attempt to quell the violence and capture the Taliban, I sure wouldn’t want anyone to know.
While I have not personally been to Afghanistan, I understand there is no modern infrastructure. Arresting the population would really make them angry, until they found out they were going to get to use modern plumbing and have access to electricity.
This post is mostly snark, but the best snark contains grains of truth
August 14th, 2009 at 5:05 pm#7,
Thanks for that reminder…
August 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pmI appreciate the observation of the subtleties of Obama’s position and all that BUT…
every report I;ve ever gotten wind of about Gitmo and Bagram and Abu Ghraib says that the majority of prisoners appear to have been thrown into jail without any reasonable evidence, and then left to rot.
In the case of Bagram plenty of prisoners were simply ’shopped’ by tribal rivals for reward money.
A festering wound doesn’t get any better if you just let it fester.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pmOval12345678 aka James K. Sayre says:
The US should end its stupid fruitless vile “war on drugs.” The US should immediately decriminalize the use, possession, sale and cultivation of all plant-based drugs, such as marijuana, opium and cocaine. Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs back in 2002 and by 2007, drug use had dropped in half. So we can gather from this that about half of all illegal drug use is because drugs are illegal…
Or you could, y’know, stop using drugs.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:44 pmobama hasn’t done NEARLY enough to close down guantanamo and virtually nothing at all to deal with the huge problem that bagram represents…
i spent the better part of last year in kabul, just down the road from bagram, and was astounded at the magnitude of the u.s. presence there, now being rendered, for all practical purposes, permanent thanks to a massive construction project that is putting up barracks and offices and greatly expanding the capacity of the detention center…
add this to the support the obama administration has given to the bush administration policy of holding detainees indefinitely without being charged and the lack of any effort at holding those who have perpetrated such policies and the torture-based interrogation practices carried out on those detainees accountable, and we have a presidential administration just as bad as the previous one…
August 14th, 2009 at 5:51 pmAnd, yes, I DO take it personally
Note to self: September 1st, send ACLU that pledge and make automatic payments for dues. I AM a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
August 14th, 2009 at 7:35 pmWiley at #22, me, too.
Profmarcus, nice to see you.
I hope that the ACLU gets the requested info soon. The issue of indefinite detention has to be resolved. There should be no question that it is wrong, immoral, illegal and unConstitutional.
August 15th, 2009 at 12:43 amJane E. Schneider
Would you tell me just what Constitution you are talking about.
August 15th, 2009 at 2:57 amThe people in the dentention center are not US citizens there fore they do not have any right to our Constitutional rights of the US.
They were captured in a war zone commiting acts of war againest American and Allie troops therefore they are under different rules then you or I are. Our Constitution only gives citizens of the US rights it does not carry over into other contries.
If you don’t believe then go to another country and see what happens when you commit a crime that isn’t a crime here. You are under their law not the US and all your Constitutional rights don’t mean a thing to them.
Outlaw284 says:
You are a brainwashed idiot who never has any idea what you are talking about. READ the bill of rights yourself MORON. It does not SAY citizens it says PERSONS. Now when you travel you do not take the bill of rights with you but IF you are wielding the power OF the US you are constrained BY our constitution where ever you are. Now those who WERE picked up as soldiers are not subject to the criminal justice system but rather the Geneva convention. However many detainees were NOT picked up ON a battlefield OR comitting any acts of ANY kind but were SOLD to us by the Afghan warlords. Simply put you are a moron who is spewing propaganda and parading astonishing ignorance
August 15th, 2009 at 3:57 amEugeneDebs
August 15th, 2009 at 2:04 pmAnd you can prove that they were sold to the US and that they never did anything to the US.
“Now when you travel you do not take the bill of rights with you but IF you are wielding the power OF the US you are constrained BY our constitution where ever you are.”
The Constitution is what decideds how the troops conduct themselves in a war and if you had any idea of what you were talking about then you would know that.
Congress is the one that sets the ” RULES OF ENGAGEMENT” and if you had ever learned to read anything but your liiberal dribble then you would know that.
Since we are talking about troops and POW’s the rules of engagement are what our troops have to abid by.
And if you had ever read the Geneva convention then you would know it governs how POW’s and civilians are to be treated in a war and doesn’t give them any of the rights that you liberals are crying that they have.
So before you start talking about what someone knows or doesn’t know you should read up on what you are talking about.
EugeneDebs
August 15th, 2009 at 2:10 pmOne other point you made my case for me with what you said to. I said that they don’t have any of the rights of our Constitution and you made that point. You said “IF you are wielding the power OF the US you are constrained BY our constitution where ever you are.”
Funny how you didn’t say that they get the rights or that they are constrained by our constitution. SO you made my point for me. Which was that they don’t have the rights that our Constutition grants us.
That probibly hurt.
They’re terrorist, who cares except sappy liberals.
Note to self, renew my NRA membership.
August 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pmOutlaw264 sez:…
The Geneva Conventions don’t allow us to treat POWs any old way we want to; there are strict rules about not torturing POWs; allowing them contact with their families via a neutral party, such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent; and on and on. The regulations regarding our obligations and those of other signatories are fairly comprehensive. Our Congress ratified the Geneva Convention as a treaty binding the US; effectively, it’s part of our law.
For good or ill, the previous administration chose to ignore the Conventions, to the dismay of a number of citizens, including some, such as myself, in the veteran community. I think it has become clearer and clearer with the passage of time that the wiser course would have been to deal with all the prisoners we took as POWs. We could still have done interrogations, non-abusively, and gathered information which would have allowed us to determine who was a fighter, warrior, soldier and who was a criminal, and more importantly, who is potentially a war criminal. Mind you, I’m referring to people who have been captured in combat or in association with an attack made on our troops or in similar circumstances. People like Khalid Sheik Mohammed should have never been in that system; he should have been brought directly to the US and charged in the justice system as a mass murderer, or as one who participated in a conspiracy which resulted in mass murder.
The Constitution does NOT prescribe rules of war, beyond giving the power to declare war to the Congress and assigning the President as commander-in-chief (CIC). The CIC or his designate prescribes the rules of engagement (ROE). Generally, the staff of each service determines it’s own ROE for the area theatre or operating unit in conjunction with concurence from DOD at the Secretarial level, with input as needed from the CIC.
20. profmarcus sez:… I appreciate your position, sir, and would be interested in hearing more about your observations of the situation in Kabul and Afghanistan. I would point out, however, that under the Geneva Convention, with which I hope we are now back in compliance, that anyone we detain as a POW can be held indefinitely. There is no charge to be made, unless the person is suspected of being a war criminal. If the person is simply a combatant, we are within our right as a signatory to hold the person until the cessation of hostilities or, before such cessation, to release the combatant if we so desire (for any reason). Given that the people we are in combat against are non-state combatants, they can potentially be held for a very long time. While that may seem unjustly punative, it isn’t an issue of crime and punishment; further, their detention as a combatant is not supposed to legitimate treating them as a criminal.
August 15th, 2009 at 7:12 pm29. Virtual Pebble says: ————-
Outlaw264 sez:…
Sorry, Outlaw. That’s actually supposed to be outlaw284, instead of outlaw264, isn’t it?
You’re still wrong about most everything you post on the TP threads. Even if you were correct, you’d get marked down for grammar and bad attitude. Just sayin’, dude.
August 15th, 2009 at 11:31 pm28. conservativeguy sez:…
Most of them are just foot soldiers in an insurgency, conguy. They don’t have the training or education to be really proper terrorists, even of the low level sort that made that run on Mumbai (Bombay) a few months ago. No matter though; they’re our prisoners and should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention at the moment. If and when this mess in Afghanistan more or less comes to an end, they can either be released or charged as war criminals or whatever. There is no particularly good reason to violate our own sense of fairness or the Conventions with regard to most of the prisoners. They ain’t alQaeda; they do need to be locked up until that organization isn’t capable of recruiting them…
What? You don’t have a Life Membership? Shame, conguy, shame.
August 15th, 2009 at 11:41 pmConservativePUNK.
You are too stupid to be wasting the oxygen a higher lifeform could be using. You do nothing here but tell stupid lies and show how astonishingly ignorant you are. It really is time for you to do the only decent thing left for you and go kill yourself. Take that gun you love so much into the next room and do the right thing
August 17th, 2009 at 11:42 am