Just out from the ACLU: a redacted list naming 645 detainees held by the U.S. at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan. ACLU filed a suit in September to get the names as well as stuff they don’t have (yet) — “records relating to the rules and agreements that govern the facility and documents pertaining to the conditions of confinement and status review process afforded prisoners,” according to a just-released statement.
Peruse the list here. Attorney Melissa Goodman says in the statement:
“Releasing the names of those held at Bagram is an important step toward transparency and accountability at the secretive Bagram prison, but it is just a first step. Hundreds of people have languished at Bagram for years in horrid and abusive conditions, without even being told why they’re detained or given a fair chance to argue for release. The information the government continues to withhold, however, is just as vital as the names of prisoners. Full transparency and accountability about Bagram requires disclosing how long these people have been imprisoned, where they are from and whether they were captured far from any battlefield or in other countries far from Afghanistan.“The public has long been kept in the dark about what goes on at Bagram. It is time to shine a bright light on the secretive prison.”
In a recent move I was surprised to see, the Afghan government reached an agreement with the U.S. military command to turn over Bagram to Afghan control over the next several months. The plan is to transition from U.S. military control to Afghan Defense Ministry control to, eventually (and open-endedly as of now) Afghan Justice Ministry control. That gets the U.S. out of the Bagram business, obviously, and forecloses on the option of the U.S. operating an Afghan Guantanamo. But it’s not clear what it means for the detainees themselves. The Afghan rule of law is not exactly robust. While the U.S. is getting out of Bagram, the 645 detainees there as of September probably won’t be as lucky.



14 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
wow — now to get the redacted unredacted
The deal to transfer authority is a veiled attempt to remove the spotlight on the torture activities that have been utilized at Bagram.
When all is said and done: What percentage of the Bush/Cheny war crimes will finally be exposed—10%? 5% 1%?
And though a year ago it might have been unthinkable, we have to ask: Will it be higher or lower than the percentage of war crimes the Obama administration is charged with?
American imperialism: What do you really know about?
For example, what do you know about the history of American involvement in, say, Haiti?
Thinly veiled at that…! 8-(
I hope that there aren’t people being held in Bagram who don’t deserve to be, and I’m afraid that there probably are.
Not veiled at all. Quickest and least emotional way to get rid of it.
Why, yes, georgewalton , I know all about our involvement in, say, Haiti (props to Willy Mays)
Haiti was an island off the coast of Norway until 1511 when corporate raiders from the USA swooped in. In a false-flag operation they claimed to be Swedish inspectors looking for suspicious religions. Instead they took it in tow and brought it a secret location next to their corporate tax-haven headquarters in the Dominican Republic.
That was great work by the ACLU. Thanks for reporting this Spencer.
As for the Bagram turnover, it doesn’t address the Special Ops black site prison there. Nor does it address the ongoing issue of widespread torture by Afghan security forces. I should have an article up at Truthout on the Bagram situation and Afghan torture this weekend (also covering terrible state of Afghan women).
why do you think that we would keep a black site prison near a place we’re trying to get away from?
What makes you think the U.S. is trying to get away from Bagram? The shift in management is for some time in the future, no date given. And when it happens, won’t CIA or DIA have more run of the place, interrogation wise, with no DoD or other oversight?
Besides, saves money on taxi fare from one site to the other ;-)
when Spencer writes “within months” I figure that it means less than 18.
and I would guess that we would pull even the “contract employees” the hell out of there.
I usually overestimate the intelligence of our government, but I can’t bring myself to think that they’re going to continue to pull the same shit with prisoners any place that any one of us has ever heard of.
This could have interesting implications for the Bagram legal challenges making their way up to SCOTUS …
Why? They’ve done that at Gitmo. Besides, the whole point of my Army Field Manual articles is to point out that much of what they did is now codified in Appendix M of that manual, and Gitmo officials confirmed to me they are interrogating under Appendix M.
Jeff, is the black site at Bagram not a JSOC operation — ie, likely very much under McChrystal’s protection? I’m assuming that Obama and the DoD are not giving up the capacity to run such places any more than they’re giving up renditions or GTMO North or, in fact, torture.
Thank you for this report, Spencer, and sorry I’m late to notice it. You may know that a scandal has been bubbling up in Canada over the transfer of prisoners our forces take there to the Afghan authorities without proper oversight. Although we have other cases where active complicity in violations of international law are even more likely, the prisoner-transfer scandal is the one that has had sudden traction with the public — to deal with it, Harper prorogued Parliament just before New Year’s, which has turned out to be a huge mistake for him — for the first time, people are visibly angry at the lies and cover-ups and stonewalling.