US Resolves to Clean Up Its Illegal Detention at Parwan
While it is good news that the Administration is finally going to do something about the non-Afghan detainees at Bagram, the WaPo sure lets its anonymous Administration sources put the best spin on the move.
It is not, apparently, a response to our closest ally finding us in potential violation of the Geneva Convention. It is not the fact that Congress just required the Administration to give detainees the kind of due process it has been refusing (which the WaPo doesn’t even mention). Nope! It is, according to the WaPo, because the Administration has decided to enact orderly transfers now.
The Obama administration is considering the repatriation of most, if not all, of the non-Afghan detainees held at the main American-run prison in Afghanistan, an effort to oversee their transfer before U.S. officials relinquish control of the facility, according to administration officials.
The foreign prisoners, who number close to 50, were in some cases picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan and in others detained in third countries and taken to the prison by the CIA, according to U.S. and foreign officials.
With the U.S. government planning to hand over control of the prison, American officials believe that Afghan authorities are unlikely to have any interest in either continuing to hold the foreigners or in putting them on trial. By beginning the repatriation process soon, officials believe they can negotiate transfers with the detainees’ home countries, arrange for post-transfer monitoring, and secure diplomatic assurances that detainees will not be abused when they return home.
That said, the WaPo includes a rather amusing summary of anonymous officials insisting that our hand is not being forced by things like Yunus Rahmatullah’s successful habeas petition in the UK.
Administration officials said they are willing to transfer Rahmatullah, but do not want the basis of such a move to be a foreign court ruling.
And it includes a number of pieces of evidence to suggest these detainees weren’t a threat in the first place.
A small number of detainees [out of 50] may be deemed to pose a terrorist threat, requiring their continued detention or close supervision by their home country if released from the Afghan prison, officials said. Additionally, a number of them are Yemeni, complicating their possible repatriation.
[snip]
The foreign detainees include two Yemenis and one Tunisian who attempted to secure their release by filing for writs of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in Washington in 2009. All three claimed they were captured outside Afghanistan, held at secret CIA prisons overseas, before being transferred to the detention center in Bagram.
Judge John D. Bates ruled that these non-Afghan prisoners had the right to pursue habeas cases; however, the federal court of appeals overturned that decision in 2010.
A U.S. official said the three men were among those who could be repatriated.
So before we start the process of giving detainees actual, meaningful review of their detention, we’re going to first repatriate a bunch who we’ve known not to pose a threat.
Whatever. I guess if we have to allow the Administration to engage in these fictions to get out of the illegal detention business, I’ll take it.
This reminds me all too much of the shell games that the Bush administration played with prisoners. I am glad these folks are being released, but I fear it is just one more move in the on-going battle by our government to avoid accountability for its actions over the last 10 years.
@William Ockham: I was going to say that too. But I was too busy laughing at WaPo for regurgitating this spin.
When reading the Obama Memos piece last night, I noted to myself that none of the material described in the piece ever referred to any interest on Obama’s part to these pesky Foreign Policy, Justice or National Security issues.
Had they been included, what’s the likelihood that they too would have demonstrated that Team Obama insisted that politics trumped principles?
Please check only a single box below:
Agree ___
Disagree ___
Let’s Discuss ___
And it most definitely does not, repeat not have anything to do with the fact that disappearances are a per se violation of the Convention against Torture, and it totally completely does not have anything at all to do with the ICC’s recent ruling challenging impunity for heads of state:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200205/related%20cases/icc02050109/court%20records/chambers/ptci/139?lan=en-GB
Tangentially related, the ACLU describes the sparse information they’ve managed to squeeze out of the CIA via FOIA related to 11 (12?) previously mostly unknown CIA OIG torture and detention program investigations:
The Internal Investigations on Abuse the CIA Doesn’t Want Anyone to See
The DOJ provided a “draft Vaughn index” (26 page PDF) of these CIA OIG investigation reports, but all of them were withheld in full.
The 11 (12?) different CIA OIG investigation report subjects are:
1. 12 page 31 March 2004 Secret CIA OIG investigation report of alleged mistreatment of a detainee.
2. 70 page 20 July 2006 Secret CIA OIG investigation report of the death of ‘Abid Hamid Mahawish Al-Mahalawi’. One of the exemptions claimed ((b)(7)(a)) is that it contains information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is subject to an ongoing investigation.
3. 32 page 29 October 2003 Top Secret CIA OIG investigation report of interrogation techniques at a detention facility.
4. 108 page 16 July 2007 Top Secret CIA OIG investigation report of treatment of a detainee.
5. 27 page 2 August 2007 Secret CIA OIG investigation report of abuse of detainees.
6. 104 page 13 December 2005 Secret CIA OIG investigation report of the nonregistration of detainees.
7. 74 page 27 April 2005 Secret CIA OIG investigation report of the treatment of a detainee. One of the exemptions claimed ((b)(7)(a)) is that it contains information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is subject to an ongoing investigation.
8. 98 page 3 November 2005 Secret CIA OIG investigation report of the death of Manadal Al-Jamaidi. One of the exemptions claimed ((b)(7)(a)) is that it contains information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is subject to an ongoing investigation.
9. 58 page 14 June 2006 Top Secret CIA OIG investigation report on overseas CIA detention facilities.
10. 20 page 26 June 2002 Top Secret CIA OIG investigation report which evaluates CIA counterterrorism operations.
11. 53 page 3 June 2009 Top Secret CIA OIG investigation report which evaluates CIA counterterrorism operations.
12. 31 page 29 January 2008 Secret CIA OIG investigation memo written to the Director of the CIA by the then Senior Councillor concerning certain aspects of the operations of the Office of the Inspector General.
@MadDog: I would note that there appear to be no CIA OIG investigation reports on the topic of the CIA’s torture and detention programs after June 2009. Nothing for 2010, and nothing for 2011.
The result of “looking forward, not backward”? Or the result of the crippling of the CIA’s OIG? Maybe both.
@MadDog: Good list. Thanks for compiling it. Hopefully it will be put to good uses.
Bob in AZ
Big YAWN let me know when someone other the driver/janitor GOES to JAIL.
Thanks for the update:)
@MadDog:
According to the US government’s recently filed brief (34 page PDF) in the ongoing legal battle in regard to these totally withheld CIA OIG reports, Tony West argues that one of the exemptions used to withhold Report 12 quoted above is because (from page 28 of the brief):
My question is what detainee or foreign government had involvement into the investigation of the CIA’s own OIG?
And a correction by me is required. Note that this particular “investigation” was not performed by the CIA’s OIG. Instead, it was the “
witch-huntinvestigation” of the CIA’s OIG instigated by then CIA Director Mikey Hayden.In the US government’s latest brief, it is referred to as the “Deitz Memorandum” and is included in redacted form in that brief as Appendix D beginning on page 54.
@MadDog: While the draft Vaughn index has some interesting information, the supporting declaration of the CIA’s Martha Lutz (93 page PDF) has more detail about these withheld CIA OIG investigation reports beginning on page 6.
For example, from page 8:
Or another example from page 7:
@MadDog: I would also note that both DOJ’s Tony West’s brief (page 24) and the CIA’s Martha Lutz’s declaration (page 27) state that only 2 of the totally withheld CIA OIG reports (Report No. 7 & 8) are being withheld under exemption “(b)(7)(a) because they contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is subject to an ongoing investigation”.
But what about Report No. 2:
The DOJ Tony West brief that states that only Reports No. 7 & 8 are the focus of pending DOJ investigations was filed on January 10, 2012.
Does this mean that the Prosecutor John Durham investigation has concluded on the Al-Mahalawi death? If so, what happened?
“and secure diplomatic assurances that detainees will not be abused when they return home.” Right, because that’s our job.