U.S. wartime prison network grows into legal vacuum for
14,000
By
Patrick Quinn
Associated Press Writer
09/17/06 "AP" -- --
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - In the few short years
since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the
U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons,
its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the
reach of established law.
Disclosures of torture and long-term arbitrary detentions have
won rebuke from leading voices including the U.N.
secretary-general and the U.S. Supreme Court. But the bitterest
words come from inside the system, the size of several major
U.S. penitentiaries.
''It was hard to believe I'd get out,'' Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad
Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release -
without charge - last month. ''I lived with the Americans for
one year and eight months as if I was living in hell.''
Captured on battlefields, pulled from beds at midnight, grabbed
off streets as suspected insurgents, tens of thousands now have
passed through U.S. detention, the vast majority in Iraq. Many
say they were often interrogated around the clock, then released
months or years later without apology, compensation or any word
on why they were taken.
Defenders of the system say it's an unfortunate necessity in the
battles to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan, and to keep suspected
terrorists out of action.
Every U.S. detainee in Iraq ''is detained because he poses a
security threat to the government of Iraq, the people of Iraq or
coalition forces,'' said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, a
spokesman for U.S.-led military detainee operations in Iraq.
But dozens of ex-detainees, government ministers and lawmakers,
human rights activists, lawyers and scholars in Iraq,
Afghanistan and the United States interviewed by The Associated
Press said the detention system often is unjust and hurts the
war on terror by inflaming anti-Americanism in Iraq and
elsewhere.
Reports of extreme physical and mental abuse, symbolized by the
notorious Abu Ghraib prison photos of 2004, have abated as the
Pentagon has rejected torture-like treatment of the inmates.
Most recently, on Sept. 6, the Pentagon issued a new
interrogation manual banning forced nakedness, hooding, stress
positions and other abusive techniques.
The same day, President Bush said the CIA's secret outposts in
the prison network had been emptied.
Whatever the progress, small or significant, grim realities
persist.
Human rights groups count dozens of detainee deaths for which no
one has been punished or that were never explained. The secret
prisons - unknown in number and location - remain available for
future detainees. The new manual banning torture doesn't cover
CIA interrogators. And thousands of people still languish in a
limbo, deprived of one of common law's oldest rights, habeas
corpus, the right to know why you are imprisoned.
''If you, God forbid, are an innocent Afghan who gets sold down
the river by some warlord rival, you can end up at (Bagram
prison, Afghanistan) and you have absolutely no way of clearing
your name,'' said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch in New York.
The U.S. government has contended it can hold detainees until
the ''war on terror'' ends - as it determines. ''When we get up
to 'forever,' I think it will be tested'' in court, said retired
admiral John D. Hutson, former top lawyer for the U.S. Navy.
In Iraq, the Army oversees about 13,000 prisoners at Camp
Cropper near Baghdad airport, Camp Bucca in the southern desert,
and Fort Suse in the Kurdish north.
Neither prisoners of war nor criminal defendants, they are just
''security detainees'' held ''for imperative reasons of
security,'' said command spokesman Curry, using language from an
annex to a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the U.S.
presence here.
Others say there's no need to hold these thousands outside of
the rules for prisoners of war established by the Geneva
Conventions.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared last March that the
extent of arbitrary detention here is ''not consistent with
provisions of international law governing internment on
imperative reasons of security.''
Meanwhile, officials of Nouri al-Maliki's 4-month-old Iraqi
government say the U.S. detention system violates Iraq's
national rights.
At the Justice Ministry, Deputy Minister Busho Ibrahim told the
AP it has been ''a daily request'' that the detainees be brought
under Iraqi authority.
The cases of U.S.-detained Iraqis are reviewed by a committee of
U.S. military and Iraqi government officials. The panel
recommends criminal charges against some, release for others.
Almost 18,700 have been released since June 2004, the U.S.
command says, not including many more who were held and then
freed by local military units and never shipped to major
prisons.
Some who were released, no longer considered a threat, later
joined or rejoined the insurgency.
The review process is too slow, say U.N. officials. Until they
are released, often families don't know where their men are -
the prisoners are almost always men - or even whether they're in
American hands.
Released prisoner Waleed Abdul Karim, 26, recounted how his
guards would wield their absolute authority.
''Tell us about the ones who attack Americans in your
neighborhood,'' he quoted an interrogator as saying, ''or I will
keep you in prison for another 50 years.''
As with others, Karim's confinement may simply have strengthened
support for the anti-U.S. resistance. ''I will hate Americans
for the rest of my life,'' he said.
As bleak and hidden as the Iraq lockups are, the Afghan
situation is even less known. Accounts of abuse and deaths
emerged in 2002-2004, but Abu Ghraib-like photos from Bagram
exist, none have leaked out. The U.S. military is believed
holding about 500 detainees - most Afghans, but also apparently
Arabs, Pakistanis and Central Asians.
Guantanamo received its first prisoners from Afghanistan -
chained, wearing blacked-out goggles - in January 2002. A total
of 770 detainees were sent there. Its population today of
Afghans, Arabs and others, stands at 455.
Described as the most dangerous of America's ''war on terror''
prisoners, only 10 of the Guantanamo inmates have been charged
with crimes. Charges are expected against 14 other al-Qaida
suspects flown in to Guantanamo from secret prisons on Sept. 4.
Plans for their trials are on hold, however, because of a
Supreme Court ruling in June against the Bush administration's
plan for military tribunals.
The court held the tribunals were not authorized by the U.S.
Congress and violated the Geneva Conventions by abrogating
prisoners' rights. In a sometimes contentious debate, the White
House and Congress are trying to agree on a new, acceptable
trial plan.
Since the court decision, and after four years of confusing
claims that terrorist suspects were so-called ''unlawful
combatants'' unprotected by international law, the Bush
administration has taken steps recognizing that the Geneva
Conventions' legal and human rights do extend to imprisoned
al-Qaida members. At the same time, however, the new White House
proposal on tribunals retains such controversial features as
denying defendants access to some evidence against them.
The Navy is planning long-term at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This
fall it expects to open a new, $30-million maximum-security wing
at its prison complex there, a concrete-and-steel structure
replacing more temporary camps.
In Iraq, Army jailers are a step ahead. Last month they opened a
$60-million, state-of-the-art detention center at Camp Cropper,
near Baghdad's airport. The Army oversees about 13,000 prisoners
in Iraq at Cropper, Camp Bucca in the southern desert, and Fort
Suse in the Kurdish north.
The clandestine jails are now empty, Bush announced, but will
remain a future option for CIA detentions.
Louise Arbour, U.N. human rights chief, is urging Bush to
abolish the CIA prisons altogether, as ripe for ''abusive
conduct.'' The CIA's techniques for extracting information from
prisoners still are secret, she noted.
Copyright © 2006 Santa Barbara News-Press
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.