On Friday, the US Justice Department, Barack Obama’s Justice Department, told a federal court that it shouldn’t consider the legal challenges of prisoners held at Bagram Prison near Kabul and under US control:
In a short legal filing, Justice Department lawyers said they planned to maintain the Bush administration’s claim that the roughly 600 prisoners held in Afghaninstan have no right to contest their detention in the courts. “The Government adheres to its previously articulated position,” the attorneys said.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that war-on-terror prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have the right to file court petitions because the U.S. has “de facto sovereignty” over the base, located on land leased from Cuba.
However, the Justice Department has argued that prisoners in Afghanistan, held at the Bagram Airbase outside Kabul, lack recourse to the courts because the U.S. does not have similar control over that region.
“Bagram is in a theater of war where the United States is engaged in active hostilities,” so extending those legal rights to the prisoners would be “impracticable,” Justice Department lawyers argued in a brief filed last November. They also argued that the habeas petitions are barred by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a law Obama vocally opposed. [more]
How large does the area of de facto sovereignty have to be? Big as Bagram? Bigger?
How big is a “theater of war” that isn’t a war on a nation but on an activity, i.e. terrorism? Very, very big?
How difficult would it be, or should I say “impracticable”, for the US to set up a system for holding hearings in or around Bagram?
How long can the US hold prisoners in places like Bagram without hearings? Till the war on terror is over?
NB: The US is now handing over thousands of its prisoners to Iraq according to a security agreement that took effect on January 1st. Do they remember or care that Iraq is known to torture and mistreat its prisoners?
Articles 10 and 12 of The Geneva Convention govern the “transferrability” of prisoners of Afghanistan and Iraq. Prisoners can only be transferrred between countries that are both signatories of the Convention. The Republic of Afghanistan is not a signatory. Prisoners cannot be transferred by an occupying authority into the hands of the country it occupies. Iraq is occupied.
Back to Afghanistan. When Canadian forces take prisoners, should they turn them over to the US when it’s widely known the Americans torture their prisoners?
I remember watching a movie that began with an trip into an Morrocan prison where infidels had languished for so long the bony hands of skeletons were clamped to the mouldering walls.
Please write to me if you have answers.
The word “Guantanamo” serves as shorthand among some Afghans for all the reasons they hate foreign troops, but the impending closing of the notorious prison has gotten surprisingly little attention in this country.
Nothing changed with last month’s U.S. presidential order to close Guantanamo, many people here say, because another prison inspires even greater fear: Bagram.
Even a man who could be expected to feel the most joy about Guantanamo closing, a former detainee who spent more than six years in the camp, quickly turns the conversation to the detention facility north of Kabul, inside the U.S. military base at Bagram. [more]