One quiet, wintry night last year in the eastern Afghan town of Khost, a young government employee named Ismatullah simply vanished. He had last been seen in the town’s bazaar with a group of friends. Family members scoured Khost’s dust-doused streets for days. Village elders contacted Taliban commanders in the area who were wont to kidnap government workers, but they had never heard of the young man. Even the governor got involved, ordering his police to round up nettlesome criminal gangs that sometimes preyed on young bazaar-goers for ransom.
But the hunt turned up nothing. Spring and summer came and went with no sign of Ismatullah. Then one day, long after the police and village elders had abandoned their search, a courier delivered a neat, handwritten note on Red Cross stationary to the family. In it, Ismatullah informed them that he was in Bagram, an American prison more than 200 miles away. U.S. forces had picked him up while he was on his way home from the bazaar, the terse letter stated, and he didn’t know when he would be freed.
Even though this article by Alissa Rubin appeared in The New York Times last Sunday, I don’t think it got much attention amidst the speculation what President Obama would say on Tuesday. And it certainly wasn’t part of the President’s only reference to the “Afghan people” in his address: “We will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.”
KABUL, Afghanistan — An American military detention camp in Afghanistan is still holding inmates, sometimes for weeks at a time, without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to human rights researchers and former detainees held at the site on the Bagram Air Base.
The site, known to detainees as the black jail, consists of individual windowless concrete cells, each illuminated by a single light bulb glowing 24 hours a day. In interviews, former detainees said that their only human contact was at twice-daily interrogation sessions.
“The black jail was the most dangerous and fearful place,” said Hamidullah, a spare-parts dealer in Kandahar who said he was detained there in June. “They don’t let the I.C.R.C. officials or any other civilians see or communicate with the people they keep there. Because I did not know what time it was, I did not know when to pray.” Read the rest of this entry »
Writing for TomDispatch, Nick Turse reveals the extent of US military and corporate plans and operations for a long-term involvement in Afghanistan:
In recent weeks, President Obama has been contemplating the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. He has also been touting the effects of his policies at home, reporting that this year’s Recovery Act not only saved jobs, but also was “the largest investment in infrastructure since [President Dwight] Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s.” At the same time, another much less publicized U.S.-taxpayer-funded infrastructure boom has been underway. This one in Afghanistan.
While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year — ranging from small-scale power plants to “public latrines” to a meat market — the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-sized sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.
In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion — $834 million of it for construction projects. In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, the Pentagon has spent “roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years” in that country and, “if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation.”
President Obama offered an excellent presentation in Wednesday night’s press conference. He was in command, fluently moving from his opening agenda on swine flu and the economy to questions on foreign policy, the US auto industry, and the financial sector. He even dealt effectively with the puffball question, courtesy of a New York Times correspondent, “What has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?”
Obama said little about foreign policy and security in his initial statement, dealing with the immediate health crisis and the Federal Government’s budget, but the third question put him on the spot over torture: Read the rest of this entry »
By coincidence, as the latest furour over torture escalated, I was writing chapers on the early months of the Bush Administration. That, in part, is why I have been unsettled by the spin, diversions, and outright lies of former Bush officials: the evidence offers no gray area in which to hide. The Bush Administration authorised torture, under the label “enhanced interrogation”, and persisted in that authorisation even though there was no evidence of its effectiveness, let alone its legality or morality.
One of the sources I have been using is the website for the documentary Torturing Democracy. It is invaluable for its interviews, documents, and commentary (and the full documentary is on-line). A few of many notable examples:
Richard Armitage, former special forces officer, Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush Administration: “There is no question in my mind — there’s no question in any reasonable human being, there shouldn’t be, that [waterboarding] is torture.” Read the rest of this entry »
This is good politics. Very good. The Obama Administration pins blame for unacceptable practices on the Bush Administration while finally getting the hook of a criminal showdown for any of those officials. The absolution of “those who carried out their duties relying in good faith” is also the signal that Bush advisors who ordered those activities will not suffer a Truth Commission or judicial hearings.
It’s also good for another troubling reason. There are a series of cases where the Obama Administration is not only holding onto its predecessor’s executive powers but fighting to ensure there are no court hearings on whether those powers are legal. From warrantless surveillance to rendition to unlimited detention, Gitmo-style, at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, the Administration is playing the political game of “Look at the other guys, don’t fret about us.”
OBAMA STATEMENT
The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law. Read the rest of this entry »
Josh Mull points us to this story, which suggests that inmates at the Bagram Internment Facility may soon be able to follow Guantánamo detainees in challenging their detention in US courts:
Although the Supreme Court has ruled that detainees at the US naval base in Cuba have the right to challenge their detention, the government had argued that inmates held at the US air base in Bagram, Afghanistan did not have such a constitutional right.
Judge John Bates, however, ruled the Bagram detainees faced essentially the same situation as the Guantanamo detainees, being held indefinitely without due process.
“Bagram detainees who are not Afghan citizens, who were not captured in Afghanistan, and who have been held for an unreasonable amount of time” may invoke the right to habeas corpus, Bates wrote, referring to the legal right dating back centuries.
If it stands, the ruling could have far-reaching implications for how the US government handles terror suspects and for its operations at Bagram, where about 600 detainees are held.
Within The New York Times report on its Friday interview with President Obama, obscured by the article’s misleading focus on Afghanistan, is a revealing insight into the Obama Administration’s approach on the “War on Terror”: talk the talk, but no walking the walk when it comes to giving back legal rights.
Obama’s answer to the Times reporters was definitive, “We [must] ultimately provide anybody that we’re detaining an opportunity through habeas corpus. to answer to charges.”
In fact, it was too definitive. Before the Times published the article on the interview, “Aides…said Mr. Obama did not mean to suggest that everybody held by American forces would be granted habeas corpus or the right to challenge their detention.”
Anand Gopal writes for TomDispatch:
Even though 
Writing for TomDispatch
President Obama offered an excellent presentation in Wednesday night’s press conference. He was in command, fluently moving from his opening agenda on swine flu and the economy to questions on foreign policy, the US auto industry, and the financial sector. He even dealt effectively with the puffball question, courtesy of a New York Times correspondent, “What has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?”
By coincidence, as the latest furour over torture escalated, I was writing chapers on the early months of the Bush Administration. That, in part, is why I have been unsettled by the spin, diversions, and outright lies of former Bush officials: the evidence offers no gray area in which to hide. The Bush Administration authorised torture, under the label “enhanced interrogation”, and persisted in that authorisation even though there was no evidence of its effectiveness, let alone its legality or morality.
We’ll have full analysis of ![Bagram Theater Internment Facility sally port [via Wikimedia]](http://enduringamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/picture-1-150x150.png "Bagram Theater Internment Facility sally port [via Wikimedia]")
Within 
Entries (RSS)