The New York Times reports that as Guantanamo has come under increased scrutiny, the detention center at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan is quietly turning into another version of the same problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/in.../26bagram.html

So Guantanamo has become an international embarassment -- and rightly so. And instead of learning that lesson and changing the way we run our "war on terror" prisons, we simply find another place out of the spotlight to keep doing the same old thing -- guaranteeing that the problem will continue.

To repeat once again:

1. It is sleazy and unethical to deliberately place a prison in a "legal limbo" so we do not have to afford the inmates even rudimentary legal protections.

2. It also violates core American values and actively hampers our fight against terror.

3. If a prisoner was captured on the battlefield, the Geneva Convention should apply. Technically we can ignore it for non-signatories, but it has been American tradition to heed the Conventions even when not legally required -- which is the practical *and* moral thing to do. Such POWs should be released when the fighting in Afghanistan ceases, rather than being held for the duration of a vaguely defined "war" on terror.

4. If a prisoner was captured elsewhere, they are entitled to the rights we afford all criminals, even serial killers: To be charged and tried before an impartial court, in a speedy manner and with legal help.

5. Keeping detainee's identities secret serves no practical purpose, but it can easily mask many unsavory purposes. Our detentions should be able to withstand outside scrutiny.

It's really not that difficult.

__________________
Man up.

May I add to your excellent post that, unlike Gitmo, where they`ve been careful not to kill anyone yet, Bagram has a known history of torture and murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_...prisoner_abuse

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

Can I ask you two a question?

During WWII and the Korean War and even Vietnam.....if our military personnel were captured....WHERE were they held? Also.....the other way around: During those same wars if we captured people fighting us on the battlefield, where were they held? And did eithr have access to outside legal counsel and a speedy trial?

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

You're referring to them as prisoners of war. If they are, they're protected by the Geneva Convention. If they are not, then they have the right to due process as accused criminals.

Give them to the Afghans then...hows that sound..they'll figure out in their own special ways which ones may not be a problem and shoot the rest. They've been fighting a war over there for waaay too long to play nice anymore.

anyway....


They are not car thieves they are enemy combatants. A "legalistically" grey term that basically means a pow of no nation.

Holding such people during a war in no way violates core American values.
I can't even see how holding the enemy or even potetnial/suspected enemies hamper our war effort.

There is no "technically" here. They are not soldiers of a signatory of the Convention period. The USA does heed the conventions in the manner you staet today..
But anyway... What you're saying is.

The USA should change International Law unilateraly and apply this new law upon itself alone in order to give a way for someone to release enemy combatants during a war....???

Thats nuts. You don't release in effect soldiers of the enemy during a war no matter what the duration of that war is. The idea of takimg "hostages" in battle went out of style long long ago.

So a member of al Qaeda if caught in say Switzerland and not proven to have done anything(but is proven to be a member of al Qaeda) at the time of capture should be released to continue on his merry way into Europe?

Even if you have no evidence of any crime he has committed he is a member of the group you are ifighting a war with. That alone is grounds for being held for the duration.

They are not car thieves...drug dealers..whatever they are enemy combatants. Soldiers in effect of no nation.

Hey Osama is Bob dead or alive?
It serves a purpose.


Our detentions are scrutinized..you kow that full well as you point to many of their criticisms......


Like I said give them to the Afghans
..or be happy the USA is the one holding them and your outrages are reactions to isolated events. That are not being repeated as a whole.
I bet most of them would much rather be held by the US then their home nations...if those nations of course are not ones that simply love them and let them go like Iran Syria and such.

What do you mean a member of al qaeda? Do you mean just someone who sympathises with their views? Or someone who has actually performed some deed or action that has given material aid?

Surely the first is free speech whilst the second is a crime that can and should be prosecuted, in court, in Switzerland or elsewhere.

If you have no evidence - how do you know?


I think the British experience in N. Ireland is again instructive here. When the British introduced internment (without trial) for `known` republicans, a policy that survived for about 3 or 4 years, two clear lessons emerged.

1. That British intelligence about `known` republicans wasn`t so hot. We ended up arresting old men (who perhaps used to be IRA soldiers) and men who had publically voiced support for the IRA but commited no crime.

2. Recruitment rates for the IRA soared because of the perceived injustice.


That is how holding suspected enemies hampers the war effort.

If all the Al qaeda leaders had got together and had a meeting about how to garner more support in the Arab world, how to get all the angry young men on their side and give their whole movement a boost - Gitmo is what they would have come up with.

Once you have arrested someone you are culpable for their fate. You cannot drop somebody off a tower block and later claim " I didn`t kill him. The pavement did."

The US policies at Bagram, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere and of extraordinary rendition are as reprehensible as the Soviet gulags.

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

Ok then Osama should send a spokesman to preach al Qaeda crap here in the US. He's only a sympathizer after all and has a right to free speech. Lunacy.


Simply Ridiculous.

__________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

I was under the impression that all humans are born with rights, was I wrong.

Yes.