Will Bagram Be President Obama’s Guantanamo?
EmailThe White House declined to comment Tuesday about a letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union asking why President Obama is refusing to make public information about the detainees imprisoned at the US military’s Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt forwarded a reporter to the Pentagon for comment. A spokesman for the Department of Defense told ABC News in a written statement that they responded to the ACLU FOIA request in a letter on July 28, 2009, citing reasons for partially denying the request, due to the need to protect classified information and for reasons of national security.
"We understand that the ACLU has subsequently appealed this decision on August 13th, but it will take some time for the department to review this and respond appropriately," said the DOD spokesman. "The nature of war necessitates that some operational details remain classified. The Department of Defense will continue to be as transparent as possible while keeping in mind that classified information is legally protected from disclosure under FOIA."
In April the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CIA, Pentagon, State Department, and Justice Department for documents related to the detention and treatment of prisoners at Bagram.
“Bagram prisoners reportedly receive an even less robust and meaningful process for challenging their detention and designation as ‘enemy combatants’ than the process afforded prisoners at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (‘Guantanamo’) – a process the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional last year,” wrote Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s national security project. Goodman asserted that “there is renewed public concern that Bagram has become, in effect, the new Guantanamo.”
Goodman tells ABC News that the ACLU believes the US government is “detaining upwards of 600 people” at Bagram. “We know nothing about them, we don’t know who they are or how long they’ve been there. They don’t have any access to counsel, or access to courts.”
Thousands of detainees have been imprisoned at Bagram, and two have died there, she notes. Allegations have been made of prisoner abuse and torture.
"Individuals detained at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility (BTIF) are held pursuant to the law of war," the DOD spokesman continued in a written statement. "There is no question that U.S. and coalition troops are engaged in combat with al Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces in Afghanistan today, as they have been for the past seven years. The laws and customs of war govern the detention of these enemy combatants who continue to engage in hostilities against U.S. and coalition forces. Detainees in U.S. military custody are, however, afforded administrative process consistent with the requirements of the laws and customs of war. To that end in Afghanistan, we have instituted a process called the Unlawful Enemy Combatant Review Board (UECRB), pursuant to which detainees are informed of the basis for their detention and afforded the opportunity to present information to, and to appear in person before the Board. UECRB determinations are based on a preponderance of evidence standard, and final UECRB recommendations are made in closed session by majority vote."
The ACLU sought information about the number of those detained, their names, citizenship, place of capture, length of detention, any information about any legal process afforded those prisoners to challenge their detention, and how they became designated “enemy combatants.”
In a stark contrast to President Obama’s promise of transparency, the Pentagon followed up in a July 28 letter by telling the ACLU that the Obama administration has basic information about the detainees – a 12-page list of individuals held at the Afghan camp as of June 22 — but is not going to share it.
Goodman said the ACLU found that letter “disappointing and surprising” given the fact that similar information about Guantanamo Detainees has been publicly released by the Pentagon. While the Pentagon was forced to disclose that information because of FOIA litigation, it was ultimately released. The Pentagon’s letter denying the release of information about Bagram detainees ”seems to be the same rationale they lost on.”
The CIA responded to the ACLU by saying it could "neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records.”
Goodman said that response was “ludicrous” given the fact that there’s “plenty of public information that acknowledges the Bagram facility and the government’s role there.”
One of the areas of concern is that Bagram is a place where the US military transfers prisoners captures outside of Afghanistan.
In April, Judge John Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that three such prisoners — a Tunisian man and two Yemeni men held without charge at Bagram for more than six years — have the right to have their cases heard in US courts.
Tina Monshipour Foster, executive director of the International Justice Network, which represents the detainees, said that “despite President Obama's rhetoric regarding the closure of Guantanamo, his administration claims the right to use Bagram to imprison people indefinitely and deny them human rights.”
A British human rights group, Reprieve, recently began legal action against the UK governmentto find out more information about two Pakistani men captured in Iraq and rendered to Bagram.
Goodman tells ABC News that this all feels quite similar to the previous administration.
“It seems like an unfortunately excessive secrecy redux,” she says. “It’s very important that the Obama administration release this information. Otherwise the public perception of Bagram as another Guantanamo will only continued to fester and grow without some basic transparency.”
-jpt
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
In answer to the headline, no, but only because Soros-media sycophants won’t allow that to happen.
Posted by: JD | August 18, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
“Will Bagram Be President Obama’s Guantanamo?”
Of course not. The media (JPT excepted) has not and will not cover this as it blatantly illustrates the hypocrisy of The One. As in everything else this adminstration does, the media will provide cover and defense.
Posted by: tjp612 | August 18, 2009, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm
No no. It will be at Bagram, sure. And Obama will follow Bush’s policy to the letter. That’s true. But it will be called “Camp Snugglebunnies” and everybody will be cool with it.
Posted by: mesquito | August 18, 2009, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
So right wingers agree with the Bagram policy but want to see Obama roasted for it?
Posted by: Ryan C | August 18, 2009, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
For a long time now I have been saying that Bagram is identical to Gitmo, and that the legal arguments advaned in it’s defense by the Obama administration are identical to those of Bush about Gitmo. How many newspapers have mentioned this editorially?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | August 18, 2009, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
Last time I checked Guantanamo was Obama’s Guantanamo.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | August 18, 2009, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
I agree with the Bagram policy and want it understood that it is identical to Bush’s. As for those who roasted Bush, I’ll leave it to them to explain why they are not roasting Obama. Should be fun.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | August 18, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
Right-wing nation: Mr. Gallup advises us today that conservatives now out number liberals in each and every state–fifty out of fifty.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | August 18, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
Yep, the intelligent underachiever won’t demonetize President Bush’s policies, yet.
Posted by: Reflect09 | August 18, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
So right wingers agree with the Bagram policy but want to see Obama roasted for it?
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 18, 2009 2:31:26 PM
Basically the answer is yes. Questions arise as to Obama’s understanding of basic logic as well as the exercise of foreign affairs in the following points
1) Location – what is the difference between Bagram or Guanantamo or Camp Bucca?
2) Jurisdiction – in any and all of these, if not US military, then what authority applies – local govt?, World Court – UN??, US civilian justice?
3) What is the logic of any jurisdictional and constitutional differences – except of course when prisoners are US citizens (e.g. Taliban John, Dirty Bomber) or are brought to the US (Blind Sheikh etc)
4) What exactly are the new rules, the transparency offered regarding indefinite detention, rules of tribunal, and rendition to other countries (regardless of their known treatment of political prisoners)?
Ryan, how do you like the Afghan / Pakistan war so far under Obama?
Civilian deaths, Afghan and Pakistan side deals with Taliban and with sharia oppression, European “war fatigue”, surge in American and coalition deaths, soaring costs of combat and support, and of course the messy business of dealing with detainees?
Still the good war?
I hope so because we can’t have ANOTHER case of sunshine soldiers – we need to take it to the insurgency and defeat it – no “exit strategy” without THAT.
Posted by: robertb | August 18, 2009, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
Oh my! This Obama guy is worse than Bush. He is a facist, now MSNBC will have to hate him too!
Posted by: Stanjones | August 18, 2009, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
Any prison run by the US military is just another GITMO. Any prison run by a foreign government is a CIA black operation. That leaves the US Correctional system or free them. I say give them to their host countries and wash our hands.
Posted by: KR | August 18, 2009, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm
robertb: “1) Location – what is the difference between Bagram or Guanantamo or Camp Bucca? ”
This is the fundamental issue – Bagram is in a theater of ongoing operations and is NOT a permanent installation (the grounds are not under perpetual US control). Guantanamo is permanently under US control. There is a huge difference between temporary war camps, and a prison specifically sited to hold detainess outside of any review by the other branches of government for the remainder of their natural lives.
That said, I regularly donate to the ACLU and do support their efforts in this regard. The holding of detainees in this fashion may be necessary, but it is necessary for the stability of our government that the Executive branch’s power is continuously checked and balanced by the other branches regardless of who sits in the oval office. I don’t appreciate their false equivlicancy to Bush accusations, but they should use all tools available to ensure the Whitehouse takes the right,
Constitutional course not the easy one.
Posted by: jhw539 | August 18, 2009, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
The difference is the media. Barack will not be called for whatever he does.
Hey Media…start counting the homeless, a lot of people loss their homes. Start counting the dead from the war.
Posted by: alvin | August 18, 2009, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
Obama should be roasted for his double standard on GITMO vs Bagram…not for simply refusing to release info to the ACLU on Bagram (which in my opinion is the correct policy). If anything, I’d like the media to start roasting the ACLU like they should have been doing for years to this traitorous organization.
Posted by: Mike in Costa Mesa | August 18, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
“That said, I regularly donate to the ACLU and do support their efforts in this regard…”
Shocker.
Posted by: tjp612 | August 18, 2009, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
First, I don’t think the president can be blamed for every little tactical issue. I agree with Alvin that Bagram is a temporary holding facility and shouldn’t be judged as a prison. Having been in the military and served in Vietnam, I can tell you that U.S. soldiers don’t torture. Of course, there are exceptions, but perpetrators, if found, are investigaterd and punished. One other point is holding detainees and not being able to prove that they are combatants. That is a military training/policy problem in my opinion. If you grab someone while on patrol, you better be able to prove he was shooting at you or whatever he was doing. At least have a witness. Then, keep good records and protect evidence.
Posted by: JP | August 18, 2009, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
Wow–don’t those distinctions offered up by jwh539 just grab at your gut? Got me right in the squadron patch, I tell ya…
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | August 18, 2009, 3:32 pm 3:32 pm
ACLU American Civil Liberties Union. They need to stick to Americans here in the states and let our military run the war. It is still called war isn’t it? Get the media out of there, the human rights idiots and let the baddest military win and shut the heck up. Just because we had a few children play war games with Iraqi prisoners doesn’t mean the military is corrupt. ACLU, keep your nose where it doesn’t belong. Obama, don’t give them anything.
Posted by: lfrichar | August 18, 2009, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
“The White House declined to comment Tuesday about a letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union asking why President Obama is refusing to make public information about the detainees imprisoned at the US military’s Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.”
I breathlessly wait for Keith Olbermann to denounce Obama as “The Worst Person in the World!”
Posted by: Slick Barry | August 18, 2009, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
Hmmm… Where was the ACLU on flag at white house dot gov? Barely a peep…
Posted by: MIA | August 18, 2009, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm
I have a feeling that any prison in Afghanistan was built long before Pres. Obama came to power and probably was initiated during Pres. Bush’s years of flawed governing. So it follows that it should be Bush/Chaney & Co.’s prison and these people should be held responsible for it. Let us hope that we move away from that country and bring our military home before it turns into the debacle of quicksand that Vietnam did –oops, I mean Iraq.
Posted by: clever bob | August 18, 2009, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
“Let us hope that we move away from that country and bring our military home before it turns into the debacle of quicksand that Vietnam did –oops, I mean Iraq.”
Tell Barry. He is sending more soldiers.
Posted by: Anon | August 18, 2009, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm
“Right-wing nation: Mr. Gallup advises us today that conservatives now out number liberals in each and every state–fifty out of fifty.”
Too bad that result is nothing new and too bad the Republican Party is no longer into conservatism.
Posted by: J | August 18, 2009, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
“This is the fundamental issue – Bagram is in a theater of ongoing operations and is NOT a permanent installation (the grounds are not under perpetual US control).”
Too bad for the guys that get held there then. Scores will be settled by the Afghani screws who have good reason to hate Taliban jihadis. Those prisoners are safer in the US. But maybe then, that’s the idea…
Posted by: Roller | August 18, 2009, 3:56 pm 3:56 pm
Just a quick reminder for those talking about Guantanamo being on US grounds:
We had German POW camps on mainland US soil during WWII, scattered throughout several states. It is not in any way unprecedented that people picked up in war zones would be held on US soil throughout hostilities.
Posted by: MayBee | August 18, 2009, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
WHY DO LIBERALS THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING!! THIS IS AN ON GOING WAR/COMBAT ZONE. AND THE ACLU NEEDS TO STAY THE H#$% OUT OF THIS. iT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES”
Posted by: MJ | August 18, 2009, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
WHY DO LIBERALS THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING!! THIS IS AN ON GOING WAR/COMBAT ZONE. AND THE ACLU NEEDS TO STAY THE H#$% OUT OF THIS. iT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES”
MJ,
Settle down. Obama is keeping Bush’s policies on secrecy.
Posted by: Anon | August 18, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
robertb: “1) Location – what is the difference between Bagram or Guanantamo or Camp Bucca? ”
This is the fundamental issue – Bagram is in a theater of ongoing operations and is NOT a permanent installation
Posted by: jhw539 | Aug 18, 2009 3:03:02 PM
But detainees are being brought outside of the “theater of operations” into Bagram. The article specifically mentions some of these instances so your point is a bit moot.
It doesn’t mention this happening in the past 7 months but the closing of secret CIA facilities announced by Obama and the ongoing need to detain and interrogate terror prisoners somewhere begs the question.
And that question is :
How and where will Obama deal with the US need for indefinite detention, interrogation and regional rendition, whether specifically with prisoners in Afghanistan or worldwide?
POWs, even irregular insurgents, are a whole different question by the way than Al Qaeda and other international operatives. One is a matter to be dealt with ultimately with proper constituted local authorities (after successful counterinsurgency!!!) and the other is a prerogative of US intelligence operations with the assistance of other friendly governments
Posted by: robertb | August 18, 2009, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
Anon | Aug 18, 2009 4:13:15 PM Settle down. Obama is keeping Bush’s policies on secrecy. +++++He also kept Bushies wiretapping policies in place too.
Posted by: Boxcar | August 18, 2009, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
How can anyone be surprised? Don’t all politicians believe in the cardinal rule, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Posted by: Mike M. | August 18, 2009, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
the players may change but the name of the game is still the same.
Posted by: mental floss | August 18, 2009, 5:59 pm 5:59 pm
“Transparency is highly overrated.”
- Barack Obama
Posted by: drjohn | August 18, 2009, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm
What were obamas reasons for wanting to close Gitmo in the first place?
Looks like it was his first OTJ training drill.
Posted by: DK | August 18, 2009, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm
“Transparency is highly overrated.” is especially true when you’re the one under the microscope.
Posted by: deanbob | August 18, 2009, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm
German POWs are just a shade different than terrorists. I believe I remember that a high percentage of German prisoners wanted very much to remain in America.
Posted by: deanbob | August 18, 2009, 6:59 pm 6:59 pm
Right-Wing Nation: GOP now leads Dems on generic congressional ballot, 43-38.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | August 18, 2009, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
“German POWs are just a shade different than terrorists. I believe I remember that a high percentage of German prisoners wanted very much to remain in America.”
deanbob, I think you’ve hit on something. Remember when Pelosi likened the protestors to Nazis? Well, they really were! Those protestors were those old POWs still bitter about losing the war. They are protesting a Democratic president because FDR was Democrat too.
Posted by: Klaus | August 18, 2009, 8:54 pm 8:54 pm
Well sadly the “war” isn’t going well….Obama’s failed foreign policies is getting more and more of our young soldiers slaughtered in Afghanistan despite both Biden’s and Hiliary’s warning his policies were stupid.
Posted by: PotatoeGater22 | August 18, 2009, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
What do you expect when you have a community organizer trying to play president.
With zero combat experience, zero military experience, virtualy zero executive experience,the enemy must be shaken in their boots/sandals.
barack paint himself into a corner with some dumb self-rightous decisions and now we are all paying for it.
Posted by: Reality2009 | August 18, 2009, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm
Bush vindicated.
Now who is the war criminal libs?
Posted by: jack | August 18, 2009, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
Cindy Sheehan is coming after Obama in Martha’s Vineyard.
Obama’s media will probably ignore it.
Double standard.
Posted by: max | August 18, 2009, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm
But Afghanistan is the “good war”.
And Obama is the anti-war president.
Posted by: larry | August 18, 2009, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
The CIA responded to the ACLU by saying it could “neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records.”
Above is statement of Criminal International Agency to hide their crimes from Indonesia during Suharto to Iran in 1953.
Posted by: Khondakar Mowla | August 18, 2009, 11:45 pm 11:45 pm
deanbob wrote: “”German POWs are just a shade different than terrorists. I believe I remember that a high percentage of German prisoners wanted very much to remain in America.”
If high is 0.3%, that is significant. But the vast majority wanted to go home. Additionally, I’ve met former German POWs and they were not happy with their treatment in the USA, although they never claimed any real abuse.
Posted by: The_Mick | August 18, 2009, 11:56 pm 11:56 pm
==============================
As Obama is transformed from a naive junior senator to a President, he’s realizing how right George Bush was.
==============================
Posted by: N Waffff | August 19, 2009, 12:42 am 12:42 am
Obama is clearly showing his inexperience. People clearly voted for change, however, the change we are receiving is nothing. Our Country is now worse off than it was during the Bush Administration. What happened to “transparency”? Apparently, people were fooled by a charismatic speaker who had nothing to offer but teleprompter.
Posted by: beechjetwife | August 19, 2009, 1:47 am 1:47 am
I become increasinly concerned when I read articles such as these. This isn’t what I voted for.
This garbage just strengthens my view that every elected official serving in DC needs to be removed……..
Posted by: dk | August 19, 2009, 2:41 am 2:41 am
I become increasinly concerned when I read articles such as these. This isn’t what I voted for.
I am sorry, but those like you who voted for CHANGE are receiving nothing but corruption. Obama had many fooled. We can only learn from our mistakes.
Posted by: beechjetwife | August 19, 2009, 2:58 am 2:58 am
AMERICAN civil liberties union. This group of lawers has no business getting involved in this subject and the Pentagon was correct to answer any questioning by this group in the manner they did. Further the FOIA request should be denied by the courts because it is obvious that NO administration can run a war with lawers telling them haw our military should conduct themselves. There are International organizations a plenty to do this and the ACLU has no place in this matter.
Posted by: pbaz | August 19, 2009, 5:05 am 5:05 am
“Remember when Pelosi likened the protestors to Nazis?”
Pelosi actually said, “I think they are AstroTurf — you be the judge, carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.”
Posted by: Pitt Knicker | August 19, 2009, 5:57 am 5:57 am
I am sorry, but those like you who voted for CHANGE are receiving nothing but corruption. Obama had many fooled. We can only learn from our mistakes.
Posted by: beechjetwife | Aug 19, 2009 2:58:15 AM
_______________________________________
so what are the rest of you who didn’t vote for Obama complaining about? If what you say is true you got exactly what you did vote for, and what we had in 8 years of the Bush Administration. You should all be dancin in the streets!!!
Posted by: dk | August 19, 2009, 7:05 am 7:05 am
“I become increasinly concerned when I read articles such as these. This isn’t what I voted for.”
There is no policy in this story that Obama didn’t make clear 4 months ago.
You’ve just been giving him a pass until now. Just like you would have if President McCain adopted all of Bush’s detention policies and expanded some of them, I’m sure.
Posted by: Dan Q. | August 19, 2009, 7:38 am 7:38 am
I think the ACLU has done more harm to our country and they need to be abolished.
Posted by: Tim | August 19, 2009, 8:41 am 8:41 am
A Code Pink standin for Cindy Sheehan was on a radio talk show and she said that our presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq was causing more terrorism, i.e., there is no “good” war against Al Qaeda. She decried that Sheehan and the “movement” had lost traction even though the wars are generally unpopular but intimated WE will get the message from continued “resistance” on the ground in those countries.
Excuse me, one can be opposed to the wars as not productive or a misuse of our resources. BUT what is going on NOW and most of the past 7 years in Central Asia has not been “insurgents” reclaiming their countries.
Just think for 5 seconds, if America was occupied and you were an “insurgent” ready to take back the country, would you blow up fellow American civilians hundreds at a time, as happened yesterday AGAIN in Baghdad, to make a point, and what point would that be???
Posted by: robertb | August 19, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
Lets ask a couple of the ACLU lawyers if they would like to spend a little time with our troops in Afghanistan. The sad part would be that even if they went and saw the horrible truth about the “terrorists” they would still be pursuing their agenda. The agenda being the destruction of our constitution.
Posted by: afloatinasea | August 20, 2009, 9:00 am 9:00 am
I remember the days when the ACLU stood up for “the little guy”. Now, it’s anyone who can hurt the United States and everything that is great about our past. The ACLU is nothing more than an organization controlled by the ex-Nazi, George Soros. He did recently empower the mid-west chapter with 20 million dollars. One more thing… being Jewish, the ACLU is embarrassing every time a spokesperson for the organization is Jewish. As a Jew, I’m proud of the country’s non-Jewish heritage and principles.
Posted by: Bruce987 | August 20, 2009, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm
Can any of folks read.
This article has little to do with the “war” and everything to do with our policy of detaining “enemy combatants” in this case.
This is less troublesome then detaining “enemy non-combatants” with no due process.
THe ACLU is correct for being vigilant in the defense of the Bill of Rights. If the Obama administration believes in this failed policy, now they have to defend it in the light of day.
Finally, the sentence “I think the ACLU has done more harm to our country and they need to be abolished.” is simply the dumbest ever constructed.
Posted by: James Scott | August 21, 2009, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm
President Obama is finding that the situation is a little more complicated than he thought. The promises are quite a bit harder to fulfill! This prison camp sounds just as harsh as Guantanamo. Who do people think that we are fighting against? These guys are terrorists. They are not patriots or rebels they are terrorists. I don’t know. Of course we should treat all people with respect but until you are in the shoes of those involved in the conflict you should be slow to judge.
The History Man
http://wwwhistoryman.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Charlie Bell | August 27, 2009, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm