Obama denies terror suspects right to trial
Human rights groups shocked by refusal to reverse Bush policy in Afghanistan
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Less than a month after signing an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, President Barack Obama has quietly agreed to keep denying the right to trial to hundreds more terror suspects held at a makeshift camp in Afghanistan that human rights lawyers have dubbed “Obama’s Guantanamo”.
In a single-sentence answer filed with a Washington court, the administration dashed hopes that it would immediately rip up Bush-era policies that have kept more than 600 prisoners in legal limbo and in rudimentary conditions at the Bagram air base, north of Kabul.
Now, human rights groups say they are becoming increasingly concerned that the use of extra-judicial methods in Afghanistan could be extended rather than curtailed under the new US administration. The air base is about to undergo a $60m (£42m) expansion that will double its size, meaning it can house five times as many prisoners as remain at Guantanamo.
Apart from staff at the International Red Cross, human rights groups and journalists have been barred from Bagram, where former prisoners say they were tortured by being shackled to the ceiling of isolation cells and deprived of sleep.
The base became notorious when two Afghan inmates died after the use of such techniques in 2002, and although treatment and conditions have been improved since then, the Red Cross issued a formal complaint to the US government in 2007 about harsh treatment of some prisoners held in isolation for months.
While the majority of the estimated 600 prisoners are believed to be Afghan, an unknown number – perhaps several dozen – have been picked up from other countries.
One of the detainees who passed through the Afghan prison was Binyam Mohamed, the British resident who is expected to return to the UK this week after his release from Guantanamo Bay. Mr Mohamed’s lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, head of a legal charity called Reprieve, called President Obama’s strategy “the Bagram bait and switch”, where the administration was trumpeting the closure of a camp housing 242 prisoners, while scaling up the Bagram base to house 1,100 more.
“Guantanamo Bay was a diversionary tactic in the ‘War on Terror’,” said the lawyer. “Totting up the prisoners around the world – held by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, the prison ships and Diego Garcia, or held by US proxies in Jordan, Egypt and Morocco – the numbers dwarf Guantanamo. There are still perhaps as many as 18,000 people in legal black holes. Mr Obama should perhaps be offered more than a month to get the American house in order. However, this early sally from the administration underlines another message: it is far too early for human rights advocates to stand on the USS Abraham Lincoln and announce, ‘Mission Accomplished’.”
Four non-Afghan detainees at Bagram are fighting a legal case in Washington to be given the same access to the US court system that was granted to the inmates of Guantanamo Bay by a controversial Supreme Court decision last year. The Bush administration was fighting their claim.
Two days into his presidency, Mr Obama promised to shut Guantanamo within a year in an effort to restore America’s moral standing in the world and to prosecute the struggle against terrorism “in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals”. But on the same day, the judge in the Bagram case said that the order “indicated significant changes to the government’s approach to the detention, and review of detention, of individuals currently held at Guantanamo Bay” and that “a different approach could impact the court’s analysis of certain issues central to the resolution” of the Bagram cases as well. Judge John Bates asked the new administration if it wanted to “refine” its stance.
The response, filed by the Department of Justice late on Friday, came as a crushing blow to human rights campaigners. “Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position,” it said.
Tina Foster, executive director of the International Justice Network, the New York human rights organisation representing the detainees, warned last night that “by leaving Bagram open, the administration turns the closure of Guantanamo into essentially a hollow and symbolic gesture”.
She said: “Without reconsidering the underlying policy, which has led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the indefinite detention of hundreds of people all these years, then we are simply returning to the status quo. The exact same thing that had the world up in arms has been going on at Bagram since even before Guantanamo.
“People have been tortured to the point that they have died; it is a rallying cry for those who oppose the US actions in Afghanistan; it is not strategic for the US; and, more importantly, holding people indefinitely, regardless of who they are and regardless of the facts, is completely inconsistent with everything we stand for as a country.”
The Department of Justice would only say that the legal briefs in the Washington case “speak for themselves”. It says Bagram is a special case because, unlike Guantanamo, it is sited within a theatre of war.
Mr Obama has pushed out the wider questions about the US policy on detaining terror suspects and supporters of the Taliban in Afghanistan until the summer, ordering a review that will take six months to complete.
The administration is weighing the likely increase in prisoners from an expanded fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, against the international perception that it is embedding extra-judicial detention into its policies for years to come.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
While I still support duprocess the fact that these barbaric Muslims now cry foul after torrmenting their own in the name of Islam just doesn't impress me.
http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
You agree that eltesoroag's statement is bigoted but feel that many Muslims are bigoted as well. And also it seems that you consider Muslim beliefs to be "superstitions".
Do you also feel that the bigotry of one person or group justifies the bigotry of another? If so, I cannot agree with you.
Yes and yes are the answers to your questions.
For example, many Muslims refuse to let their daughters marry a non-muslim - that is bigotry.
And all religions are based on superstition, defined as "belief in the supernatural". For instance, in Islam, everything that happens or exists is descibed as the "Will of Allah". But does this also apply to the existance of Israel or Guantanamo Bay?
Just my opinion, of course, but how do you answer those criticisms?
We also have to make SURE that people are not tortured and/or held in legal limbo. That too is our duty, especially when people are held by us or on our behalf. Otherwise it's a worse system than Sharia and than assorted repressive banana republics where there is arbitrary detention without proper trial.
What is always interesting to note is his nomination to Chief Of Staff - Rahm Emmanuel. After working for Clinton, this guy made his millions being an investment banker, then later sat on the Board of Freddie Mac where in this time, the company was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities. He then resigned in 2001 after being slated by the OFHEO. He also sided with the Hawks in supporting the action in Iraq.
They kept all of this quiet.
So why is their so much surprise that (after 'overlooking' his Chief of Staff's involvement in the mismanaged financial sector etc) Obama isn't different to all of the other Presidents who did their little dirty deals out of the public spotlight.? Could the Messiah not be the Messiah??!
Be interesting to note whether the 'ass kissing' other newspaper outlets (once mentioned above) mention anything of [impartial] interest on these matters. I suspect not.
Many felt that Obama could never match up to the wind-storm of expectation puffed up by the press.
Now the disappointment begins.
I only hope is that his disappointments receive as much coverage as we had to suffer during his battle to be chosen by his party and reach the White House.
time to wake up and accept the reality.
For all those who are surprised its not really that shocking, the American people have been conned by this majestic illusionist. His only change is to manipulate words and please the sheepish people, while continuing with all the same policies. Lets not forget its not him whos in charge. Do you honestly believe that a black man could have won elections on his own in America?
He had unprecedented financial support, an opposition that lacked all credibility, and yet somehow he won!!!
Is it really that surprising?
Now that his true colours are showing, we need to ask ourselves, what will his legacy be?
I predict Iran, Afghanistan, Russia and Pakistan. He's going to be a busy man, now all he needs is another 9/11 to get people on side. But this time it has to be bigger, as ambitions are growing, and time is runnign out.
Watch this space....
Does anyone else see any parallels between the current economy,the skillful tabloid media spins and our beloved Obama with the weimar republic--->nazi takeover??
The whole Obama thing was a total scam from the beginning, and I really find it perplexing how easily people fell for it, and still do. People were getting so suspicious of Bush they needed someone people would love, admire and put their trust back in so they dredged up this 'Messiah'. It's time the people of this world stopped being suckers and started peaceful none cooperation to this New World Order of banking elites.
I suggest people buy Alex Jone's new film The Obama Deception on March 15 or watch it on You Tube, etc.
For alternative global news sources check out www.infowars.com
Time to have a radical review for US interference in countries like Afghnaistan and to interview who will be best suited to safeguard US interests in the region and to replace Karzai.
It is a shame that this place is being used and abused by different international security agencies from Americans to Indians to Pakistanis to Saudis to Israelis to British to Iranians to Russians to Chinese.
With so many different agendas from different countries, I can see this war being dragged as long as there are Afghanis receiving weapons to defend the interests of their tribal areas and not submitting to the will of foreigners.
In times of economical crisis, this wasted $billions can be used for good use to protect more British and US workers instead of letting intelligence agencies dictating to naive politicians that this is a worth cause that will protect our security?????!!!!!!!!
I can seee why defense industry and security industry are so keen to see this wart continue like its counterpart in Iraq because the benefits are immense. Furthmoere if I was the head of a security agency, it will be an opportunity that I will grab with borht hands to increase my manpower, my budget and my empire to invest in search of those dangerous men, in their pursuit of "War on Terror" to justify more lobbying for more Taxpaper's money if we want to get rid of this Islamist boggey Man.
I am sure there are those that can see beyond this gimmick and are starting to smell a rat like they did at the time in Iraq but old habits die hard.
If the ocmmunist ennemy is no more there to condition the people about the danger that e are facing, let us create a new one and give publicity to those Islamist hardliners Bogeymen so that people take our word for the mergence of this new threat.
HERE ARE SOME STATISTICS TO MAKE YOU THINK WHETHER THE GIMMICK WAR ON TERROR IS A REAL THREAT.
About 30,780 Americans die each year in gun-related deaths i.e. 30,780 x 8 = 246,240 deaths under gun-toting Bush Administration (see: http://www.gun-control-network.org/G
About 15,000 Americans die each year from opiate drug-related causes i.e. 15,000 x 8 = 120,000 deaths under Bush, and substantially due to Bush restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from about 5% of world share in 2001 pre-invasion to a current 93% of world market share. About 100,000 people die world-wide each year from opiate drug-related causes (see: http://www.unodc.org/ ).
THE ARROGANCE OF THE US DECISION MAKERS IS THEIR OWN DOWNFALL! THE GUN-HOO CULTURE IS NOT THE WAY FORWARD TO WIN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE AFGHANIS.
But it is America that Obama leads, not Ronald Reagan's fantasy shining city on a hill.
America is an imperial power with a vast network of intelligence agencies, secret police, military officials, corporate war profiteers, and powerful, ruthless old families much resembling the Borgias of Italy centuries ago.
You cannot just reverse what these groups believe is in their interests. If you try, you put yourself at risk.
America's establishment can ruin you and even eliminate you.
There are the examples of Clinton who became the center of sleazy scandal, going down in history as a shabby failure, and Kennedy who died trying to fight some very powerful interests. His brother too.
I firmly believe Obama's basic instincts are not bent towards this sort of overseas criminal behavior - something not typically true of American presidents, men like Bush or Nixon or Johnson being quite comfortable with it - but he is not in a position to change America's excesses.
What we get with Obama is an intelligent and decent man who will make at least some decisions in light of broader interests. I'm afraid that is the most we can hope for.
Those who wished for more were hoping for what cannot be.
We are on the edge of the precipice in this country. The US drips out that it regards us as the Achilles heel of the alliance due to our policies on some of our multi-cultural elements. How can we be both a prosecutor of this war, and a dreamy liberal lefty administration at the same time? Some-one has to come clean, and the fact that Obama has shifted so quickly scares the hell out of me as to just what he saw in that ethereal mist he looked into.
My biggest concern in this is not anything to do with the war on terror, it is the impact it is having on us in the UK. Read the Abolition of Freedom Act 2009, produced by The Convention on Modern Liberty, supported I believe by the Independent. You will see in there all the ingredients for what we in the UK will be in 30 years if this is not stopped. V for Vengeance will have nothing in it. The terrorists will have won, and you will not like it, if you live here.
I have figured it out, and I am several steps beyond you, my friend. You are obviously stuck in the hole of "why are we doing this to those poor little middle eastern people"? Get your head out of it, and start to smell what the nasty big boys are up to. That is why I advocate more openness on what Obama actually saw to make him change so much. Even if it was with an M1 pointed at his head!!
We are no longer free in this country, there is no freedom, our every move is monitored, what we watch, which sites we visit, when we step out of the door, where we shop, what toilet paper we use, etc.
The 'big boys' as you refer to them seek total control. What do you make of the rfid chips?
And here we are embracing the ID cards, and worrying about not being allowed to take pics of the boys in blue!
I don't understand how you claim to be informed and yet believe in Obama, and his rubbish about change and hope.
What change are you talking about, its the same people, just different masks. I think your still a couple of yards behind, my frind.
So, I may not all seen all that you claim to have, although I did sit in front of B-Special "pigs" in my homeland of Northern Ireland in 1969 in order to defend our freedoms against an intenal UK governemnt sponsored autocracy. Have you done anything like that? Pigs are armoured cars with Browning high calibe machine-guns, by the way. And that was in the United Kingdom!! And they did open fire!
But what I will not give way on is the crass hypocricy of people like you that take advantage of that lack of written constitution to try to drive forward some form of hidden agenda. What are you up to, Benjamin, or should it be Binyamin?
Here is the man who when touting for voted promised 'Change'. He promised to close down Guantanamo , put an end to torture.
He's renaged on his promise and has turned out to be just a typical career politician. No better than those who presided before him.
Just like Bliar he's turned out to be a hypocrite and a liar. No doubt in league with the arms companies.
Many of President Obama's hopes for affecting change are facing headlong resistance from his advisers. They belong to generations of Washington old timers who fashioned the political machine to meet the diverse interests - of whom the US public are NOT one, and certainly world public opinion is last on the list of significant players.
So, many of what the former President George W. Bush instituted will remain in force! And the reputation visited upon the people of the US by the various administrations will continue to haunt them - although, if they new the facts, they, like any others, would be revolted and disgusted.
Another cup of coffee will bring one more to one's senses and accept that the incline is unlikely to 'change' into ascendancy by an insignificant election!
Guantanamo WAS the notirious site, along with Abu Ghraib. Along
with what I read as a real intent to overturn Bush Regime terror
policy - there was a high P/R value in striking down torture, Gitmo,
and blackOps rendition, instantly when Obama took office.
Which he did. I supported his primary opponent Hillary Clinton,
and found his claims of new-politician & clean campaigning, to
be demonstrably false. However, the speed of these moves to
overturn Bush's Gestapo policy (Hillary would have as well), show
that it is a core Obama value IMO.
Now Then. Making that move to close Gitmo, has turned into a
big quagmire over here. WTF exactly, do you do now to process
untried detainees that the last guy threw the key away on?
It is a mess, one that must be faced, thoughtfully by a nation
looking to get democracy back after the embarrassment of the
last 8 years,
My guess is that Gitmo has caused a pause. Obama's people
will need some time to address the other prisons with a sound
process that cancels Bush, but also makes sure it's not letting
lunatics out to plot a new gihad attack.
writers on here. I would like to recruit a couple of you, as collaborators
for a brand new world-issues forum site. Have a look / jump onboard
at;
www.Balkingpoints.com
-
What did you guys think was going to happen?
PULL!
KERBLAM!
Why the silence now?
Two leg wiretapping bad, four leg wiretapping good?