In a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has
been seeking to force the Pentagon to provide information about all
captives it is holding at its huge prison facility at Bagram Airbase
outside Kabul in Afghanistan, Federal District Judge Barbara Jones of
the Southern District of New York has issued a summary judgement saying
that the government may keep that information secret.
The lingering question is: Why does the US government so adamantly
want to hide information about where captives were first taken into
military custody, their citizenship, the length of their captivity, and
the circumstances under which they were captured?
Says Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National
Security Project, “The military says that they can’t release the
information because it would be a threat to national security, but they
provided that information for the prisoners at Guantanamo.”
And of course, as our leaders informed us repeatedly, those
captives at Guantanamo, who hailed from all over the globe, including
Afghanistan, were allegedly “the worst of the worst”--at least until it
turned out that many of them were wholly innocent of anything. had been
framed and turned in for a bounty, or were mere children when picked up,
like Omar Khadr, the 24-year old Canadian man who just copped a guilty
plea to avoid a sham tribunal before 7 officers and potential life
imprisonment, after being captured at 15, tortured at Bagram, and held
for nine years at Guantanamo (on a charge of killing an American soldier
in battle).
The court ruling keeping the information about the thousands of
prisoners held at Bagram secret may be a victory for the government, but
it is hardly a victory for America’s image in the world, or for the
troops battling in Afghanistan, who will be attacked all the harder by
people induced to fight to the death to avoid capture and consignment to
the hellhole in Bagram (now known as Parwan Prison), which has become
Afghanistan’s Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo rolled into one.
One of the things that concerns the ACLU is that by not even making
public the circumstances under which Bagram detainees were brought into
the prison, it appears likely that the administration is hiding the
reality that many “probably don’t deserve to be there,” says the ACLU’s
Goodman. She explains, “There could be plenty of people sitting there
who were just caught up in house sweeps in Kabul, for instance.”
As well, she says that by withholding information about citizenship
and about the place of initial capture, the government may be hiding the
fact that it is using Bagram as it used to use Guantanamo, as a
so-called “black site” for “rendering,” or bringing, people captured all
around the world.
Making matters worse is a string of continuing reports from people
released from Bagram, including some which are very recent, that it is a
site where torture is routinely applied to prisoners.
Significantly, a second part of the court’s ruling was that the CIA
does not have to confirm or deny whether it too is holding captives at
Bagram. This is a serious blow too to America’s reputation and to
democratic values, since when President Obama, early in his presidency,
signed an executive order outlawing torture by the military, he left
some major loopholes. Most significantly, he applied that order only to
persons captured during “armed conflict.” Since the US doesn’t consider
captives in the loosely-defined “War on Terror” to be legitimate
combatants, that means many of the people held at Bagram may be
considered outside of the president’s ban. The order also says captives
in counterterror operations do not have to be reported to the Red Cross.
Goodman says, "Despite concerns that Bagram has become the new
Guantánamo, the public remains in the dark when it comes to basic facts
about the facility and whom our military is holding in indefinite
military detention there. The public has a right to know how long the
U.S. has kept people locked up in military detention and under what
circumstances. The lack of transparency about these key facts is even
more disturbing considering the possibility that the U.S. will continue
holding and interrogating prisoners at Bagram well into the future.
Unfortunately, today's ruling will allow the government to continue
hiding this vital information."
When the ugly sadistic goings on at Abu Ghraib were exposed, it
caused massive damage to the US, and, according to government statements
at the time, ended up helping recruit more future terrorists. It seems
the Obama adminstration is heading down the same road now at Bagram,
with the blessing of a Judge Jones.