Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's Bagram Fly-in: What He Didn't Visit

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 09:56 AM
Original message
Obama's Bagram Fly-in: What He Didn't Visit
Source: Huffington Post

So I guess this war is enough like the Iraq war that President Obama, like his predecessor, can only visit the troops at night, in secret. And the whiff of triumphalism is familiar, too: "we never quit". Really? Lebanon 1984 didn't happen? Vietnam came out differently than we remember?

Still, the most jarring part of the Obama fly-in to Bagram was the part of the base he (apparently) didn't visit: the secret prison we've been running there for years. It's Gitmo on steroids.

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/obamas-bagram-fly-in-what_b_516947.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. Apparently
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah, bummer he didn't visit the terrorist prisoners.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. Um, if it's really a "secret prison" then how does Harry Shearer know about it?
Edited on Mon Mar-29-10 08:38 PM by ClarkUSA
Is this Shearer dude yet another "Obama-Is-Bad-No-Matter-He-Does" HuffPo gadfly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Bagram is the new gitmo.
Indefinite detentions, even bringing non-Afghan nationals in to hold them. Obama expanded it, and there have been accusations of harsh conditions in the prison.

Obama could have at least checked it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. You didn't answer my question. Is it a "secret prison" or not?
Edited on Mon Mar-29-10 08:54 PM by ClarkUSA
Shearer seems to be into obvious hyperbole, which throws the rest of his shrill screed into doubt. Unless there's credible proof from good sources that there is illegal stuff going on, I see no reason why should President Obama visit a "secret prison" that isn't really a secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. How would I know if there is a secret prison within
the known prison?

It is known that various nationalities are taken there an held without charge. The same issue that makes gitmo so offensive is in practice there. THe prison has expanded under Obama, likely because no new people are being taken to gitmo.

There have been accusations of harsh conditions and things approaching torture. I would have looked at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. How does Shearer know, then? So far, there is no credible answer to my simple question.
Edited on Mon Mar-29-10 08:58 PM by ClarkUSA
Why should we believe what he says? You offer no proof of your claims, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The prison has expanded and people are held there
without charge. There have been allegations of abuse. You can look it up if you want.

There is enough that is not secret to warrant attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Repeating the same unproven statements over and over again do not make them true.
Edited on Mon Mar-29-10 09:58 PM by ClarkUSA
I asked for proof of the existence of this "secret prison" and these "allegations of abuse," which I would think an alleged journalist like Harry Shearer would have or a DUer would offer, but there seems to be nothing of the sort. So much for that.

Oh, and there's nothing in the "news" either except for more unproven allegations, some made by men who admit they hadn't been tortured nor can they name anyone who has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Sorry you are incapable of paying attention or conducting easy research.
If you are that ill-informed about Bagram, maybe you should stick to other subjects. I'm not going to do your work for you. Thankfully, it is not my job to educate you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. lol! Sorry you are ignoring my previous reply where I said I found nothing that proves your claims.
Edited on Tue Mar-30-10 09:58 AM by ClarkUSA
It's easy to throw out outraged allegations, as we saw with Eric Cantor last week. Thankfully, it's easy to disprove baseless charges that are spouted simply to score political points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Here you go. I didn't want to waste my time doing your work.
Edited on Tue Mar-30-10 11:01 AM by tekisui
But here it is:

The Bagram detention facility, by now the largest American military prison outside the United States, is not marked on any maps. In fact, its precise location, somewhere on the periphery of the giant air base northeast of the Afghan capital, is classified. It comprises two sand-colored buildings that resemble airplane hangars, surrounded by tall concrete walls and green camouflage tarps. The facility was set up in 2002 as a temporary prison on the grounds of a former Soviet air base.

Today, the two buildings contain large cages, each with the capacity to hold 25 to 30 prisoners. Up to 1,000 detainees can be held at Bagram at any one time. The detainees sleep on mats, and there is one toilet behind a white curtain for each cage. A $60 million extension is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

Unlike Guantanamo, Bagram is located in the middle of the Afghan war zone. But not all the inmates were captured in combat areas. Many terrorism suspects are from other countries and were transported to Bagram for interrogation after being captured. Since the military prison first came into operation, all the detainees there have been classified as "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war, which would make them subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

From the beginning, Bagram was notorious for the brutal forms of torture employed there. Former inmates report incidents of sleep deprivation, beatings and various forms of sexual humiliation. In some cases, an interrogator would place his penis along the face of the detainee while he was being questioned. Other inmates were raped with sticks or threatened with anal sex.

Omar Khadr, a Canadian inmate who was 15 at the time, says military personal used him as a living mop. "Military police poured pine oil on the floor and on me. And then, with me lying on my stomach with my hands and feet cuffed together behind me, the military police dragged me back and forth through the mixture of urine and pine oil on the floor."

(snip)

According to an internal military investigation of the prisoner abuse cases at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which triggered worldwide outrage when it became public in 2004, the practices there were inspired by the treatment of inmates at Bagram.

Hundreds of Innocent Inmates

To this day, there are hardly any photos from inside Bagram, and journalists have never been given access to the detention center. Although exact numbers are unknown, there are believed to be about 600 detainees at Bagram, or close to three times as many as there currently are at Guantanamo. According to an as-yet-unpublished 2009 Pentagon report, 400 of the Bagram inmates are innocent and could be released immediately.

The detainees at Bagram still have no right to an attorney, which means that they have no legal recourse against their imprisonment and no opportunity to testify in their cases. Some have been there for years, without knowing why.

Obama has announced new guidelines for the treatment of the Bagram detainees, which would require that a US military official provide assistance to each detainee -- not as an attorney but as a personal adviser of sorts. This representative could then review evidence and witness testimony for the first time, and could request that a review board examine the case.

Worst Abuse

However attorney Tina Foster feels that the new initiative is just a cosmetic measure. "There is absolutely no difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration's position with respect to Bagram detainees' rights," she says during an interview with SPIEGEL in her office in the New York borough of Queens.

Foster, a petite 34-year-old with dark brown eyes and black hair, took on the cases of Guantanamo detainees as an attorney with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. That was before she discovered that the worst prisoner abuse happened long before the detainees arrived in Guantanamo -- at Bagram.

Since 2005, Foster has worked exclusively with Bagram cases. She has appeared in court to file habeas corpus petitions for three Bagram inmates. Normally, every prisoner is entitled to habeas corpus rights, which would give him the opportunity to petition a US court to investigate the reasons for his arrest.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,650242-2,00.html

Afghanistan's Bagram Air Base Will Be Obama's Guantanamo

Less than a month after signing an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, President Barack Obama has quietly agreed to keep denying the right to trial to hundreds more terror suspects held at a makeshift camp in Afghanistan that human rights lawyers have dubbed "Obama's Guantanamo."

In a single-sentence answer filed with a Washington court, the administration dashed hopes that it would immediately rip up Bush-era policies that have kept more than 600 prisoners in legal limbo and in rudimentary conditions at the Bagram air base, north of Kabul.

Now, human rights groups say they are becoming increasingly concerned that the use of extra-judicial methods in Afghanistan could be extended rather than curtailed under the new U.S. administration. The air base is about to undergo a $60 million expansion that will double its size, meaning it can house five times as as many prisoners as remain at Guantanamo.

Apart from staff at the International Red Cross, human rights groups and journalists have been barred from Bagram, where former prisoners say they were tortured by being shackled to the ceiling of isolation cells and deprived of sleep.


The base became notorious when two Afghan inmates died after the use of such techniques in 2002, and although treatment and conditions have been improved since then, the Red Cross issued a formal complaint to the U.S. government in 2007 about harsh treatment of some prisoners held in isolation for months.

While the majority of the estimated 600 prisoners are believed to be Afghan, an unknown number -- perhaps several dozen -- have been picked up from other countries.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/128273/

Two Afghans, Dilawar and Jullah Habibullah, had been beaten to death by U.S. Army interrogators at the prison in December 2002. I also knew that the use of such beatings, as well as various other forms of torture, had been normalized at Bagram at the very beginning of the Bush administration's long march of pain that led to Guantanamo and then on to Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq as well as foreign torture chambers.

From the 2004 Church Report (written by Naval Inspector General Admiral T. Church), I knew that military interrogators and guards at Bagram had been given next to no relevant training for the mission of detention and interrogation. I knew as well that a secret CIA prison was allegedly located apart from the regular detention cells at Bagram. I knew that military officials had declared that the interrogation techniques at Bagram seemed to work better than those being used at Guantanamo in the same period. And that, after the Supreme Court issued a decision in 2004 to allow prisoners at Guantanamo to challenge their detentions, the prison population at Bagram began to grow.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/06-4

"The White House is considering whether to detain international terrorism suspects at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, senior U.S. officials said, an option that would lead to another prison with the same purpose as Guantanamo Bay, which it has promised to close. The idea, which would require approval by President Obama, already has drawn resistance from within the government. Army Gen. Stanley A. McCrystal, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and other senior officials strongly oppose it, fearing that expansion of the U.S. detention facility at Bagram air base could make the job of stabilizing the country even tougher. That the option of detaining suspects captured outside Afghanistan at Bagram is being contemplated reflects a recognition by the Obama administration that it has few other places to hold and interrogate foreign prisoners without giving them access to the U.S. court system, the officials said. Without a location outside the United States for sending prisoners, the administration must resort to turning the suspects over to foreign governments, bringing them to the U.S. or even killing them."

http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2010/03/us-may-use-bagram-prison-to-hold-terrorism-suspects.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Everything you've offered dates back to things that allegedly occurred under BushCo.
Edited on Tue Mar-30-10 11:56 AM by ClarkUSA
In fact, as of August 2009, the Obama administration has limited detention to 2 weeks, breaking with BushCo Pentagon policy:

In August, the administration restricted the time that detainees could be held at the military jails to two weeks, changing previous Pentagon policy. In the past, the military could obtain extensions.


Furthermore:

While two of the detainees were captured before the Obama administration took office, one was captured in June of this year... All three detainees were later released without charges. None said they had been tortured...In August, the military said that it had begun to give the Red Cross the names of everyone detained, including those held in the Special Operations camps, within two weeks of capture... All three detainees said the hardest part of their detention was that their families did not know whether they were alive.


I have yet to see specific proof of ongoing abuse that has occurred under the Obama Administration.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29bagram.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. There is no proof of abuse under Obama, I didn't claim
there was.

I showed you that Obama doubled the prison. That it is used for indefinite detentions, of Afghans and other nationals (just like gitmo). And, that it's precise location and population is not known. There have been abuse allegations under Obama, but the conditions do seem to be much better for the prisoners.

All these points are important, and shouldn't be ignored. When people claim that Obama is closing gitmo, it is purely location specific. He still claims the right to indefinite detention without charge or habeas corpus. It is currently still being practiced in gitmo, Bagram and will be whenever (if ever) the inmates from gitmo are transferred to Illinois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. You implied it in your earlier posts and didn't deny it until now, after I showed proof there wasn't
Edited on Tue Mar-30-10 01:06 PM by ClarkUSA
There are no "indefinite detentions" either, because the Obama Administration changed BushCo policy in August 2009, as I have proven in my previous reply.

One mo' time:

The Obama administration has limited detention to 2 weeks, breaking with BushCo Pentagon policy:

In August, the administration restricted the time that detainees could be held at the military jails to two weeks, changing previous Pentagon policy. In the past, the military could obtain extensions.


Your claims seem to be specious.

Furthermore:

While two of the detainees were captured before the Obama administration took office, one was captured in June of this year... All three detainees were later released without charges. None said they had been tortured...In August, the military said that it had begun to give the Red Cross the names of everyone detained, including those held in the Special Operations camps, within two weeks of capture... All three detainees said the hardest part of their detention was that their families did not know whether they were alive.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29bagram.html





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-10 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. No, it's not a secret.
'Nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanpalmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
13. Yes he should have gone there
He's knows it's an issue, particularly with people who support him, and he had the opportunity to check it out firsthand and reassure us that there's nothing bad going on there. It was a missed opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. How does Harry know he didnt?
It is secret after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
15. It's an open secret that the rest of the world is back to being *scared shitless* of ...
what the USA may do next. The comfort that they initially felt by the election of Barack Obama gave way to "a sad realization" after the Afghanistan escalation and our President's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize with "a war speech."

Our nation is what the WORLD fears most today. And yes, it is SAD. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. I'm not aware of any polling that states what you claim. Quite the opposite.
Edited on Tue Mar-30-10 09:39 AM by ClarkUSA
In fact, I believe a couple of months ago there was a poll that said the U.S. is the most admired nation in the world.
Every single global poll I conducted since he was inaugurated has shown a high level of approval for the U.S. Also,
most Americans approve of President Obama's Afghan policy as of this month:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1224732/Majority-approve-of-Obama's-Afghan-strategy

I understand that you honestly oppose to President Obama's policies, though. :hi:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
18. Now that's a snarky stretch...
of a critique. Fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
20. Thank you for these threads --
and your attempt to keep it real here. I truly appreciate it! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. You're welcome.
I am ashamed that some many so-called liberals and so-called Democrats have turned into such hawks when we got the majority. It is really sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. Why would he?
Can you name a president that's ever done anything close to what this blog is asking? Since Bagram prison became a point of controversy since 2002, at what point did it become a 'secret' prison? Since when did we start accepting the uninformed blogs of a COMIC as worthy discussion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC