"Worse than Gitmo:" ACLU Asks for Documents on Bagram Prison, Where the US Still Holds 600 Prisoners

[Orwellian_Ghost]

"Worse than Gitmo:" ACLU Asks for Documents on Bagram Prison, Where the US Still Holds 600 Prisoners

The Obama administration argues that the prisoners at Bagram—some who have been there 6 years—do not have habeas corpus rights. That’s not looking backwards. It is current policy.

By Jeremy Scahill

As the Obama administration faces mounting pressure to appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate torture and other crimes ordered by senior Bush administration officials and implemented by CIA operatives and contractors, the ACLU is opening up another front in the battle for transparency. But this one is not exclusively aimed at the Bush era. Today, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking to make public records on the US-run prison at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The group is seeking documents from the Departments of Defense, Justice and State and the CIA.

As the ACLU states, “the U.S. government is detaining more than 600 individuals at Bagram, including not only Afghan citizens captured in Afghanistan but also an unknown number of foreign nationals captured thousands of miles from Afghanistan and brought to Bagram. Some of these prisoners have been detained for as long as six years without access to counsel, and only recently have been permitted any contact with their families. At least two Bagram prisoners have died while in U.S. custody, and Army investigators concluded that the deaths were homicides.”

The Obama administration has refused to grant habeas corpus rights to prisoners at Bagram, but a federal judge recently ruled that three prisoners can challenge their detention in U.S. courts. The Obama administration, in continuing a Bush-era policy, is appealing the ruling. According to the ACLU, “The prisoners, who were captured outside of Afghanistan and are not Afghan citizens, have been held there for more than six years without charge or access to counsel:”

“The U.S. government’s detention of hundreds of prisoners at Bagram has been shrouded in complete secrecy. Bagram houses far more prisoners than Guantánamo, in reportedly worse conditions and with an even less meaningful process for challenging their detention, yet very little information about the Bagram facility or the prisoners held there has been made public,” said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “Without transparency, we can’t be sure that we’re doing the right thing – or even holding the right people – at Bagram.”

This is a very important case to monitor, particularly because it is an area where Obama’s administration has allied itself squarely with that of the Bush administration. This is not “looking backwards” at all, it is looking at the present and it ain't Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld running this sick, unconstitutional show.

http://rebelreports.com/post/99466705/worse-than-gitmo-aclu-asks-for-documents-on-bagram

[TBF]

1. Did you see this re Gitmo? *sigh*

Court Of Appeals Rules Detainees Are Not “Persons” in Guantánamo Torture Suit

Court Agrees with Obama Administration that Detainees Still Have No Constitutional Right Not to Be Tortured

April 24, 2009 Washington, D.C. – In a suit brought by British men imprisoned for two years at Guantanamo, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today reaffirmed its previous ruling that Guantanamo detainees lack the fundamental constitutional right not to be tortured and are not “persons” under a U.S. statute protecting religious freedom.

Last summer, the Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider its previous decision in Rasul v. Rumsfeld, in light of the High Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which recognized the constitutional right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. The plaintiffs urged the Court of Appeals to follow the clear logic of the Boumediene decision and to recognize both the constitutional rights of the detainees to humane and just treatment and the fact that, under any definition of the word, they are “persons” entitled to religious freedom and dignity as required by law.

“We’re not surprised by the Court’s ruling, but we are disappointed. The Court failed to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene and ignored its own prior decisions holding that habeas corpus is not analytically distinct from other fundamental constitutional rights,” said Eric L. Lewis, of the Washington, DC law firm of Baach Robinson & Lewis, which is lead counsel for the four men in their lawsuit. “If you get habeas, you should get the other fundamental rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution."

Read it all here: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Appeals_court_rules_Gitmo_detainees_are_0424.html

[chill_wind]

2. K & R. "This is a very important case to monitor".

eom

[slipslidingaway]

3. knr - Also posted some additional links in this thread FWIW...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5522841&mesg_id=5522841

[lostnotforgotten]

4. If True - One More Very Bad Reflection On The Obama Administration

eom

[TBF]

5. I would imagine they'll reject the FOIA request to start with. We'll see where

it goes from there.

[mmonk]

6. Yes, when I heard Bagram would be exempt, I'm not sure

how serious we are about stopping torture camps.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

7. The reality and the rhetoric are very different

So far it's been more about PR and less about justice.

[maryf]

8. And how many more are there

we don't know about...

[maryf]

9. Kick

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours