Freedom! Democracy! Long-term incarceration!
U.S. Planning Big New Prison in Afghanistan
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is moving forward with plans to build a new, 40-acre detention complex on the main American military base in Afghanistan, officials said, in a stark acknowledgment that the United States is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come...
Military personnel who know both Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site, 40 miles north of Kabul, as far more spartan. Bagram prisoners have fewer privileges, less ability to contest their detention and no access to lawyers.
Some detainees have been held without charge for more than five years, officials said. As of April, about 10 juveniles were being held at Bagram, according to a recent American report to a United Nations committee.
Does it get any better than that? Indefinite incarceration without charge. Minimal recourse to appeal. No access to lawyers. Child prisoners. All across Canada, members of the Blogging Tories are moaning in ecstasy and lighting up a cigarette afterwards. And pay no attention to that sudden run on tube socks.
13 comments:
If it goes at the same pace as their "reconstruction" efforts, it won't be finished for another six years. Even then, it will probably have parts of the enclosure and a few gates missing. And the electric fences will only work for a few hours a day.
"Indefinite detention without charge" was a phrase that chilled my blood in Spring 2001. Of course, at the time, it was in reference to the Malaysian government and their main tool against opposition activists: the Internal Security Act.
What's Malay for "Homeland"? ;)
Just think, we can send anyone for rendition over there away from accountability, human rights and all that nasty stuff!
Refresh my memory: does this prison come under "spreading democracy" or "fighting terrorism"?
Remember kids, if you don't think building gulags or wiping your ass with a combination of the Magna Carta, the US Bill of Rights or the Charter is a good idea, then you hate freedom and love the Taliban - who, incidenctly, love to build gulags and wipe their asses with any document demanding due process and respect for the rule of law.
Oh and Gen. Dallaire was clearly wrong and should be ridiculed.
yeah, sarcasm...
So much ignorance, so little time. The prison is a part of the reconstruction effort. How the hell do you secure the countryfor reconstuction (necessary when the terrorists you love so much target even Medicines sans Frontieres).
Of course, the other option is to take no prisoners, but then that goes against the Laws of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions. Heaven forbid, anyone on any side there want to try and do this the just and lawful way... Oh wait a minute! The prison is an attempt at that!
Yay! I'm so proud to be an American!
Of course, the other option is to take no prisoners, but then that goes against the Laws of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions.
AM, are you serious? Would you like to explain how anything the US military has done with prisoners in Iraq or Afghanistan -- like sending prisoners to secret, indefinite confinement, for example -- shows any regard for the Geneva Conventions?
Were you absent from class for the last six fucking years, when the US administration was explaining how the Geneva Conventions don't apply to their prisoners?
Seriously, this is a really stupid way to defend building this prison. Really, really stupid.
red tory said: If it goes at the same pace as their "reconstruction" efforts, it won't be finished for another six years.
I think you are wrong here Red. It's a prison, lots of experience, practically their specialty. Be up in no time (probably over budget, though).
So, we have an advocate for the "take no prisoners" notion. Any other comments on the knee-jerk emotive side?
the knee-jerk emotive side
In my book, that still beats the indefinite incarceration without charge, minimal recourse to appeal, no access to lawyers, child prisoners side.
If the Americans run this prison according to the Geneva Conventions (or any other international law), then all's well and good. I still don't see a single reason to believe they will do so, though.
What reason do you see? What makes you trust the Americans with big, remote, inaccessible prisons, after all that's come out in the last five years?
They announced it in advance for one. Rendition prisons just kind of appear after existing for a while. Second, a prison indicates that they will take prisoners, and so it is a step towards the Conventions, not away.
After Friday's bombing in the Arghandab involving a 13 yr old boy, I wonder if we are not wasting our time with the conventions...
Post a Comment