Obama’s Gitmo?

Wednesday, January 07, 2009 at 8:43 am
Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan (army.mil)

Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan (army.mil)

Almost six years ago, while on a business trip in Thailand, Amin Al Bakri was abducted on his way to the Bangkok airport. For months, his wife and three children at home in Yemen had no idea where he was. Then one day they read in a local newspaper that Bakri, a 39-year-old gem trader, had been seized by United States agents. About six months after his disappearance, they received a postcard, sent via the International Committee of the Red Cross. In it, Bakri explained that he was imprisoned at the United States air base in Bagram, Afghanistan. The family had no idea why.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Bakri was likely held in various secret prisons, known as “black sites,” for interrogation before he landed at Bagram. He was likely abused, humiliated and tortured, as we now know many such prisoners were, and secret United States policies approved by the president and vice-president allowed. But it’s impossible to know for sure, because other than routine Red Cross visits to the prison and two visits over seven years with members of Bakri’s family, no one outside of the US government has been allowed to see or speak with Bakri. Not even his lawyers.

That Bakri has lawyers at all is highly unusual, and is only because his distraught father reached out to the International Justice Network, a nonprofit legal organization that’s been trying to help some of the 600 or more prisoners now being held by US forces at the Bagram air base. Like the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the prison at Bagram is controlled by the United States, although it’s physically located in another country – in this case, Afghanistan. And although the United States claims that most of the prisoners there were seized “on the battlefield” and are therefore being held legitimately, many of the detainees were, like Bakri, seized in other countries and brought to Bagram for detention. (The defense department won’t say how many Bagram detainees have come from other countries.) Lawyers representing the detainees therefore argue that Bagram is essentially the same as Guantanamo – an offshore detention center wholly controlled by the United States and holding prisoners abducted by US agents around the world – and that prisoners there ought to have the same rights as those at Guantanamo.

The Bush administration disagrees. It maintains that the prisoners at Bagram are “enemy combatants” seized in a war, so the United States can detain them indefinitely, without charge or access to lawyers, until hostilities end – whenever that may be. Although the administration has repeatedly lost when it’s made that argument to the Supreme Court about detainees at Gitmo, the Pentagon has insisted that Bagram, because it’s near ongoing conflict, is different. On Wednesday morning, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. will for the first time consider these claims.

The cases of Amin al-Bakri and three other detainees held at Bagram are being argued today before US District Court Judge John Bates, a Vietnam veteran appointed by President Bush just months after the US invasion of Afghanistan. They’re important not just to the fate of the four prisoners – seized in Yemen, Pakistan, Thailand and Tunisia and detained at Bagram without charge for up to six years; they could also determine whether hundreds or even thousands of other prisoners being held indefinitely around the world by the United States military have a right to challenge their detention.

“We’re talking about the exact same situation as Guantanamo,” said Tina Foster, executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the four detainees in conjunction with law clinics from Stanford and Yale law schools. “People are removed from whatever country or jurisdiction they happen to be in and taken to a place for the purpose of evading any legal requirements or obligations.”

Last June, in Boumediene v. US, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States cannot hold detainees at Guantanamo without the right to challenge their detention in a US court. Just because the prison is on foreign soil doesn’t mean the Constitution does not apply. As Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion: “to hold that the political branches may switch the constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, ‘say what the law is’.”

The question before the district court today – and an important question facing the new Obama administration — is whether the same principles will hold true for some 600 men being held at Bagram.

The Bush Justice Department insists they do not. It argues that unlike Guantanamo Bay, Bagram is a temporary air base set up during wartime and that Afghanistan maintains sovereignty. Though Bagram, like Guantanamo, is leased indefinitely for the exclusive use of the US military and a status of forces agreement confirms broad US control over the base and its residents, the government insists Bagram is different. The US hasn’t had the lease for as long; and, “the military base is in an active theater of war where the US military, along with the host nation’s security forces and the troops of some 40 nations, are engaged in daily combat,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in a brief to the court.

But lawyers for the detainees say there’s a big difference between people seized on the battlefield and held temporarily for questioning or turned over to local authorities for prosecution, and people picked up in other countries and sent to a US-controlled prison that happens to be near ongoing hostilities.

“Amin was abducted in Thailand,” says Foster. “But for the US having brought him to Afghanistan, he would have been nowhere near Bagram or Afghanistan. So the argument that they’re holding him in close proximity to ongoing hostilities is a problem of their own making.”

Joseph Margulies, law professor at Northwestern University, agrees. “The United States can choose to house people anywhere,” he said. “They make a choice to move people closer or farther way from the conflict. You wonder whether the law should sanction that kind of manipulation.”

Under the laws of war, says Margulies, “the US has an obligation to move people away from the battlefield after the point of capture. So the US cannot maintain that while there may be boots on the ground in Afghanistan, Bagram airfield is a battleground.”

But if prisoners at Bagram have the right to challenge their detention in US courts just as prisoners at Guantanamo do, does that mean that thousands of suspected Taliban or al Qaeda members being held by the United States as part of the war on terror will have the right to flood American courts with their claims? As the government puts it, to give them all habeas corpus rights “would have a crippling effect on war efforts.”

“Federal courts should not thrust themselves into the extraordinary role of reviewing the military’s conduct of active hostilities overseas,” writes the Justice Department in its brief. That would amount to “second-guessing the military’s determination as to which captured aliens as part of such hostilities should be detained, and in practical effect, superintending the Executive’s conduct in waging a war.”

Legal experts acknowledge that the traditional laws of war don’t easily apply to non-traditional conflicts such as this one, where the US is fighting a terrorist organization or a group of insurgents rather than a government. In World War II, for example, it was clear that the US could hold German or Italian uniformed soldiers until the war was over. But we’re not at war with the government of Afghanistan, and Taliban and al Qaeda warriors don’t wear uniforms and aren’t always recognizable. So what should be done with people the government suspects are warriors, or may have information about terrorists? Can the US lawfully hold them indefinitely, without charge and with no meaningful way to demonstrate their innocence?

“My own view is that if the US is holding somebody subject to its control then that person should have the right to challenge the legality of that detention absent extraordinary circumstances,” said David Cole, law professor at Georgetown University Law School. “Why should it matter whether we’re holding someone in Louisiana, Gitmo or Bagram if they’re being held illegally? Shouldn’t they have some right to question that?”

The question becomes even more important when you consider that since the Supreme Court first decided in 2004 that Guantanamo prisoners have legal rights, the US military has largely stopped sending new prisoners there, sending them to Bagram instead.

Bagram has “become the sort of Yucca mountain storage facility for these human beings,” said Eugene Fidell, an expert on military law and visiting professor at Yale Law School.

In addition to the 600 prisoners at Bagram, the United States is holding more than 15,000 prisoners in Iraq. Which prisoners would have habeas rights would depend on “who they are and the grounds on which they’ve been detained,” said Fidell.

But as the Iraqi government increasingly assumes control of its own country, prisoners being held there by US forces may not be entitled to habeas rights if they are being held on behalf of the Iraqi government, to be eventually tried or released by an Iraqi court.

“That’s a completely different beast,” says Margulies, of Northwestern Law School. In Bagram, the US is holding prisoners for its own interrogation purposes, not for the benefit of the Afghan government. “If you control the location and you are holding people ostensibly forever and not for the benefit of another government, and you’ve decided where to put them, then the writ [of habeas corpus] runs to that location.”

It’s not clear that the US district court hearing the case today – or the US Supreme Court, which may eventually address the issue – will agree. So far, the Supreme Court has only addressed the situation of prisoners at Guantanamo.

Ultimately, it may be the new Obama administration, rather than the courts, that will decide the Bagram question.

“They clearly can decide, like the Bush administration has done with the vast majority of detainees at Guantanamo, to send them home and moot the cases that way,” said Foster, who, along with some of her colleagues, has met with members of the Obama transition team to discuss the situation at Bagram. Or, “they could close down Bagram the same way they’re moving to close down Guantanamo.”

There’s good reason to consider the latter course, regardless of the difficult legal questions involved. As Foster observes: “it does not behoove the Obama administration to have Bagram become his Guantanamo.”



R. Blanc
Comment posted January 7, 2009 @ 8:13 am

Bagram may as well be one of those black sites, as far as the American public is concerned.
I'd bet you a dollar to a donut that roughly ten percent of the people could correctly describe what or where Bagram is.
The MSM is again showing its true colors in ignoring this story.

District Court to Hear Detainee Case - The Washington Independent.com | Action Figures Stores
Pingback posted January 7, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

[...] Read More … ) Related Tags: al bakri, bangkok airport, abducted, amin, business [...]

Jeremy Varon
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 11:30 am

Superb piece! As awful as Guantanamo is, it's just one piece of the tragic puzzle. Obama has a lot on his hands – so much damage to undo. This article shows just how much.

Jeremy Varon – WItness Against Torture

Comment posted January 14, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

Bagram may as well be one of those black sites, as far as the American public is concerned.
I'd bet you a dollar to a donut that roughly ten percent of the people could correctly describe what or where Bagram is.
The MSM is again showing its true colors in ignoring this story.Shox Respond
Shox Ride 2 II

Hawaiian style
Comment posted January 15, 2009 @ 3:27 am

Investigate all the locations, close all the locations, prosecute those we can for violation of our and international law.

Publish the whole sorry story so it won't happen again.

Fear is not a reason to emasculate the Constitution. Fear is a reason to protect it.

Comment posted January 15, 2009 @ 11:27 am

Investigate all the locations, close all the locations, prosecute those we can for violation of our and international law.

Publish the whole sorry story so it won't happen again.

Fear is not a reason to emasculate the Constitution. Fear is a reason to protect it.

Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Obama admin to Afghanistan detainees… NO Constitutional rights!
Pingback posted February 20, 2009 @ 11:11 pm

[...] What’s the difference we all ask? Well, the Obama justice department argues that the detainees at Bagram are being held as part of an ongoing military action, and that’s cool because it’s in Afghanistan and not Cuba… or what is considered an overseas war zone. In fact, it has already been called “Obama’s Gitmo”. [...]

More on the Bagram detainee decision « Later On
Pingback posted April 3, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

[...] as I’ve written before, and as Judge John D. Bates confirmed in a groundbreaking ruling yesterday, the situation at Bagram [...]

Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Obama’s Gitmo “plan” is soaring rhetoric, riling his base by using a hodge podge of mistruths
Pingback posted May 21, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

[...] detainees at Bagram are being held as part of an ongoing military action. At that time, I posted a Jan 7, 2009 link to the Washington Independent, calling Bagram Obama’s Gitmo… as the detainees there indeed differed little from the Club Gitmo denizens. “We’re talking [...]

Comment posted May 3, 2010 @ 7:09 am

In his U.S. trademark application, Louboutin explains the inception of the signature red soles:
In 1992 I incorporated the red sole into the design of my shoes. This happened by accident as I felt that the shoes lacked energy so I applied red nail polish to the sole of a shoe. This was such a success that it became a permanent fixture.
our company has been committed to provide customers with the best products,in this puma sneakers shoe world, hesitation can not access to success.The brave men,living and dead,have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract.The world will little note what we say here,but it can never forget what they did here.It is at our feet that Michael Jordan Shoes we acquire our noblest and truest and highest, but there is seldom any money in them.in the past you had little choice for your china wholesale nike shoes shoe,but they are now available in a wide range of colors and styles.If you have any other questions,don't be vacillatingly to contact us. We hope to build mutual benefits and long term business relationships with all customers.

cheap mbt shoes
Comment posted May 8, 2010 @ 7:47 am

Thanks for you share the article.Good!

nike shox
Comment posted May 25, 2010 @ 6:48 am

Good.post.I like it.

mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it.

wholesale hats
Comment posted June 3, 2010 @ 7:33 am

it goes some way wholesale hatsto reflecting the <a title=”China wholesale store”

href=”http://www.aj-wholesale.com”>China wholesale storetruly revolutionary,

lug nuts
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 9:40 am

Thanks for this interesting post,i like it.lug nuts ,
wheel bolt,
titanium lug nuts

cheap nike shoes
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

cheap Jordan shoes, cheap Nike shoes at http://www.hmsportsmall.com

jordan shoes
Comment posted June 9, 2010 @ 6:50 am

Demonstrate a unique new concept!

lv bags
Comment posted June 26, 2010 @ 7:35 am

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. Big thanks for the useful info

nike air max shoe
Comment posted July 2, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

The defense department won’t say how many

Discount Louis Vuitton
Comment posted August 20, 2010 @ 9:14 am

Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. Big thanks for the useful info

louis vuitton delightful
Comment posted August 20, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it.

chanel handbags online
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 3:18 am

thanks for sharing so useful news

polo ralph lauren
Comment posted September 17, 2010 @ 6:48 am

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. Big thanks for the useful info

gucci outlet
Comment posted September 17, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

For a party whose members seem to delight in deriding Obama and his supporters, yet another amazing lack of self awareness.
I would think that this was some sort of hack, but no one changed the picture of Reagan to a picture of a douchebag. That's a big tell…

Comment posted September 27, 2010 @ 2:51 am

Thank you!

Tibetan Jewelry
Comment posted September 27, 2010 @ 3:03 am

tank you

Fgdf Gfgd
Comment posted October 22, 2010 @ 7:43 am

What does a lesbian wear to her wedding dress?

The number one question I got asked when I told people I was getting married was, “So what are you wearing to the buy wedding dress?” I’m typically not a dress wearing, high heel walking kind of a gal but the idea of shopping for a gown and walking down the aisle in one was exciting to me. I just couldn’t imagine myself in a suit or tux. Years ago when I came out at 18 I attended a formal lesbian fundraiser in Boston. Trying to play the part (or what I thought was the part) I rented a tux and black Paten leather shoes. Off I went with my short, short hair, nose ring and black tux. Not for a moment did I feel comfortable in my own skin. After going through many transformations as a lesbian I now know there is only one way I need to be and that’s my self. And boy did I have fun with my feminine side on our wedding day!

The hardest part was not deciding what to wear but finding a dress to wear! For months I tried on dresses decorated with lace, pearl beading, and flower embroidery and weighing way too much for a night of dancing. Finally I found a dress at Gilda’s Bridal Shop in Fall River, that fit my body perfectly but the hideous flowers had to go. So we removed the flowers and replaced them with beadwork in the folds of the dress and added beadwork to the chest. I loved the dress and more importantly how I felt in it. Feminine but with an edge! Taking a stroll after the ceremony

moncler jackets
Comment posted November 13, 2010 @ 4:22 am

Bakri,such a poor man ,

louis vuitton outlet
Comment posted November 30, 2010 @ 3:40 am

Amin Al Bakri, the man is so innocent.

Comment posted April 13, 2011 @ 7:05 am

We are currently one of the fastest growing shopping destinations for true religion jeans
products true regilion canada. With a singular focus on shopping, we offer shoppers easy-to-use search tools, engaging content and time saving navigation, along with superb customer service and unbeatable product prices,
Supra Footwear ,
Louis Vuitton Bags and
beats by dre all in one place.
In today’s cluttered online world, smart consumers demand simple and easy shopping features that take the stress out of online shopping, lead them straight to the
true religion outlet
they’re seeking, while saving them time and money.

Comment posted April 16, 2011 @ 12:49 am

cheap jordans
Thanks for the posting. Loads of excellent writing here. I wish I had found this site sooner

xie tian
Comment posted July 12, 2011 @ 6:29 am

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.so you also can read my blog.my blog is about Ed Hardy Swim Trunks.Womens Ed Hardy Jeans and some kinds of Ed Hardy Tank Top.welcome to visit.

Comment posted July 20, 2011 @ 11:58 pm


lacoste polo shirt
Comment posted August 6, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

Very significant article for us ,I think the representation of this article is actually superb one. This is my first visit to your site.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.