Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Unveils Extended Bagram Prison
Journalists have been allowed to inspect refurbished facilities at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, the largest US military hub in the region and home to a controversial prison.
A U.S. soldier talks to reporters in a cell block at a new detention centre at the U.S. Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul November 15, 2009. The new prison was built at a cost of $60 million and will replace an existing one located on the same base. (REUTERS/Jonathon Burch) Al
Jazeera's correspondent James Bays, who was among those who inspected
the facilities on Sunday, said Bagram, unlike its Guantanamo
counterpart, was clearly not going to be shut down soon.
"The new prison wing cost some $60 million to build ... and is meant to be part of a new era of openness and transparency," Bays said.
"But we were not shown the detainees. Human-rights lawyers say that, while the environment for the prisoners may be changing, their legal situation is not ... not having been charged. Nor has any civilian lawyer ever been allowed inside."
Bays said the extended prison could hold up to 1,000 detainees, but was at present holding around 700 inmates, including 30 foreign prisoners.
Detainees 'beaten'
Omar Dighayes, a former detainee at Bagram and Guantanamo Bay, said the Bagram prison resembled a concentration camp.
"People were beaten, dragged, tortured in it. There were high places where guards stood with guns. It was a hard, difficult place," he told Al Jazeera.
But he said he doubts the newly refurbished Bagram prison will improve conditions for its detainees, one of which includes his brother-in-law, whom Dighayes says was recently "badly beaten" inside Bagram.
"I don't think it's the facilities which make the difference, it's the treatment of people inside.
"Everybody who worked in Bagram - from the American side - will tell you that the things I'm describing did happen. People from the military intelligence [and] people from the FBI have spoken about the barbaric treatment at this facility."
But General Mark Martins, who runs detention operations at the airbase, said the US military was improving its treatment of detainees and had learnt many lessons since occupying the country in 2001.
"Detention, if not done properly, can actually harm the effort. We are a learning organisation ... we believe transparency is certainly going to help the effort, and increase the credibility of the whole process," Martins said.
'Guantanamo's evil twin'
However, Clara Gutteridge, an investigator of secret prisons and renditions from the human rights organisation, Reprieve, said Bagram is seen as "Guantanamo's lesser-known evil twin".
"All this talk about transparency, and the US government still won't release a simple list of names of prisoners who are in Bagram," she told Al Jazeera.
"None of them have had access to a lawyer ... and that just seems very unfair.
"We at Reprieve see this as the next big fight after Guantanamo Bay.
"But one thing that the US government is saying is that Afghan prisoners in Afghanistan have less rights than any other prisoner which just seems absurd."
Bagram Air Field is the largest US military hub in Afghanistan and is home to about 24,000 military personnel and civilian contractors.
Tens of millions of dollars continue to be spent on expanding and upgrading facilities - turning Bagram into a town spread over about 5,000 acres.
Base expansion
The air field part of the complex is already handling 400 tonnes of cargo and 1,000 passengers daily, according to Air Force spokesman Captain David Faggard.
It is continuing to grow to keep up with the requirements of an escalating war and troop increases.
Among new options being considered in Washington is regional commander General Stanley McChrystal's request to bring an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan.But even with current troop levels - 65,000 US troops and about 40,000 from allied countries - Bagram already is bursting at the seams, our correspondent reported.
Plans are under way to build a new, $22m passenger terminal and a cargo yard costing $9m. To increase cargo capacity, a parking ramp supporting the world's largest aircraft is to be completed in early 2010.
Bagram was previously a major Soviet base during Moscow's 1979-89 occupation of Afghanistan, providing air support to Soviet and Afghan forces fighting the mujahidin.
Bagram lies in Parwan, a relatively quiet province. The Taliban is not believed to have a significant presence in the province.
But the base is susceptible to rocket and mortar attacks. In 2009, the Taliban launched more than a dozen attacks on the base, killing four and wounding at least 12, according to Colonel Mike Brady, a military spokesman.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
- Posted in
49 Comments so far
Show AllI was hoping for a shiny new prison for Christmas!
Yeah, yeah. Talk about China's black jails.
BEIJING – President Barack Obama pointedly nudged China on Monday
to stop censoring Internet access, (like the US does)
Hum 9:01 Source for censoring of USA internet ?
According to the NYT's, there will, at this new facility, be review boards where prisoners will have the right and opportunity to challenge their internment and present evidence of their innocence.
This flatly contradicts the artice's assertion that the prisoner's legal status is to remain unchanged. Not true.
This place was a torture and murder camp under bush. No torture now. Wow-
This is a step forward. In my eyes though, probably every prisoner is a patriot defending his country; they should be realeased to a one. Our troops return for Christmas-to a one...
I believe the same review board was available at Gitmo.
It was totally unjust.
The members and agenda of the board create justice or injustice.
Hi glenn ford, yes, Administrative Review Boards, but in secret, Bagram's proceedings will be under bright lights, openly, front page news as they already are, today NYT's for example.
But even at GB over 100 prisoners were repatriated, 14 recommened for released. Some let go.
Under Obomba, I think we will see a better process. Why not? A show! We let some poor innocent bastard loose then Trumpet our Righteousness on Fox, in church; Look, we didn't kill this guy! As Hell-Fire's 500 miles away slam into the homes of people whose Hearts an Minds we are winning over.
"Hi glenn ford, yes, Administrative Review Boards, but in secret, Bagram's proceedings will be under bright lights, openly, front page news as they already are, today NYT's for example."
BS.
Mike, more informed than usual, go!
The trials at Bagram won't be something we'll be highly informed about. Anyone who thinks and pretends otherwise is dreaming until there's actual proof that they're right. As it is, we don't have a precedent for believing that the trials will be reported to the public in highly informative ways. What we have precedent for is that we'll be told a [little] while a LOT is kept from us. Unlike you, I won't baselessly speculate that we'll get good coverage of the trials.
The article says they have no right to a lawyer, a civilian lawyer, which is the only kind suitable if it's to be in respect of detainee rights.
And there's torture. The article refers to or quotes a former detainee of Guant. Bay and Bagram, and he says his brother or bro.-in-law was very recently beaten, badly, f.e. Count on torture continuing.
Mike Corbeil a beating! One? Singular..... Hello. Anyone home? Sure sounds like the murder, waterboarding and systematic torture Hellhole it was for 6 years under bush with hundreds, a thousand+ victims.
I deleted it yesterday, but...You ARE an intellectual casualty, I am sorry. I don't read your mewling nothingness. I said yesterday let's avoid each other BECAUSE you were being a creep. But no. Don't READ my posts if they incite you to rudeness. What a concept! Go far away! "BS," is schoolyard AGGRESSION. You are in a classroom. Learn something.
Please don't post at me.
I don't read yours. Try that.
Any last word in, cool, be a big man, then how about we survive apart, huh, could ya?
You're the idiot. You claim the NYT is like Gospel Truth when it's served more as a propaganda device than it has for good purposes. It's a corporate news media, not an independent and ethical one.
You claim there's no more torture. A detainee being brutally beaten is better than waterboarding, according to your view of this, then. It's not my view and it's not your moronic love of the NYT that'll persuade me that I'm mistaken. You're like a lot of "leftists", who constantly try to pretend that Bush was worse than Obama, but you have no proof to back up your claims. The NYT grotesquely lied in the past, many enough times, and you want to pretend that it's now a reliable news media? Sometimes bad actors stop acting badly and adopt good actions, instead. I'm not expecting this of the corporate news media.
NYT and others will have reported that Obama is backing away from sending more troops. Meanwhile, he's continuing military expansionism in Afghanistan and hasn't given up the projects for the huge U.S. embassies in Afghanistan and Islamabad, Pakistan, all of which will require more troops. The bases are not being expanded to make quarters for other than U.S. forces and it's not the Afghan war and drug lord army that'll be put in charge of security for the embassies. This means that the war is not planned for an end soon and the U.S. already doesn't have enough forces there, which again leads to base expansion and security for the embassies requiring more troops, to be sent.
But keep on cheerleading based on the unreliable NYT, if this is what tickles your fancy.
Shhhhhwooo!
Finally, they fixed the problem.
Yes, now the torturers don't have to work in medieval-like cells; they have modern ones today.
Viewed movie " Boy in Striped Pajamas" last night.
Nazis showed a propaganda movie about how much the Jews were enjoying their camp.
"Boy in striped pajamas" is a fake story, on multiple levels. Didn't you know? Nothing like it ever happened, nor could happen: "...the Auschwitz death camp was surrounded by electric fences, making any attempts to crawl in through a hole impossible." - Rabbi Benjamin Blech.
What happened was worse - the Germans for miles around the camp knew of it from the stench of burning bodies. Just like US citizens in half a try know of the atrocities committed by the US military world-wide.
Try "The grey zone" instead for a story of German concentration camps - closer to historical facts.
I am sure much of the movie is total fiction, though the movie did have an electified fence.
My point was the Nazis produced propaganda films showing how pleasant the camps were for the Jews, I would guess such films were produced in real life.
I was drawing an analogy to the Bagram PR.
Your explanation for why "Boy in striped pajamas" couldn't have happened doesn't explain why it couldn't. The Nazi regime had its state-run media and maybe, theoretically or hypothetically (whatever), it saw to the filming of phony concentration camp detainees dressed in pajamas and having a good time. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. did this today, but I guess you're probably right about the Nazi regime not having done this; just that your explanation isn't sufficient.
Re. "What happened was worse - the Germans for miles around the camp knew of it from the stench of burning bodies". That's what you say and what our governments say, and it's what U.S. troops on U.S. bases in Afghanistan say what's happening there, today; well, the stench of burning human [and] animal carcasses, plus tires and a lot of other things that are toxic when burned. But just because our governments say the Germans smelled the stench of burning bodies for miles around and U.S. troops today are being poisoned with what's burned in the huge fire pits on U.S. bases in Afghanistan doesn't mean that there was really all that much burning of bodies in Nazi concentration camps. There were mass burials, for we have photographic proof of this, from what I've seen of few such pictures anyway. But the only version of what actually went on for mass gassing, f.e., is from our governments and we know that they constantly lie to us about their enemies. We have Jews who survived the concentration camps who claim there were mass gassings, but the argument I've read about this is that they couldn't have been witness, for no detainee witnesses would've been allowed to live; and that leaves that what they repeat is apparently based on rumors that happened to have been credible at the time, given the treatment in those concentration camps.
Like President Ahmadinejad validly argues, if the Holocaust really happened, then let's have the proof of this, s.v.p. We're never given proof; we're only ordered to believe, or that if we don't, then we better shut up about our disbelief, if we don't want to be demonized and sentenced to prison for simply and sometimes honestly not believing our governments' versions of history.
It seems, according to Wade Frazier at www.ahealedplanet.net, that some revisionists have been very good at fooling people into believing that the Holocaust didn't happen and he explains how this was done. They mostly told truths, including important ones, and slipped in a couple of or few lies that readers believing the rest was true, since it was the same thing as non-revisionists have long said, well, there was a strong chance that the revisionist part, the lies, was also true.
The Bush-Cheney administration tried to lie in that manner, and even the Obama administration does, though less clearly than the former did. They both treat real and sincere 9-11 truthers, people seeking and demanding the truth, the full truth about 9-11, as terrorists, which is flagrant fascism and is not entirely the same, but is still enough like punishing people who claim that the Holocaust didn't happen. The latter shouldn't be punished; instead, proof that the Holocaust did happen should be provided to the public, after which, everyone would know that people continuing to be revisionists are foolish. Otoh, 9-11 happened, but the "official story" is extremely bogus and Bush, Cheney and the CIA all criminally obstructed the 9-11 Commission inquiry, of which the final report has been denounced by several of the members of that commission. And that's only a small sampling of all of the results of research conducted by many experts and non-experts into the 9-11 attacks. All of the truthers want and demand for a new inquiry, a fully honest and thorough one this time, but the Bush admin. denied this, as also does Bush admin. II, i.e., Obama et al.
Believing versions of history as [ordered] or dictated by our governments is not something most informed and alert people of real conscience will accept to do without real proof and enough of it. Nevertheless, while I (and over 99% of humans today or ever) don't personally know that the Holocaust really happened, I (speaking for myself, alone) accept that people say it did and will choose to support the argument of President Ahmadinejad, for it's a totally sane and fair perspective that he provided in an interview with Der Spiegel, I think among others. He simply asked for the proof to be provided, if the Holocaust really happened, for if it did, then there ought to be real proof of this history. And he excellently ties the topic in with its use, even if somewhat subtle, by people pretending that Holocaust history somehow justifies the extreme crimes of Israel against the Palestinians of today; when if the Holocaust really happened, then the opposite of what Palestine has been subjected to for 60 or more years now would be the experience, if people honestly and intelligently refer to the Holocaust history whenever talking of the Israel-Palestine conflict and, therefore, explicitly or inherently, all of the extreme crimes of Israel, along with the U.S. and European backers, against Palestine. He doesn't put it in quite those words, but close enough and they'll do for my words in support of Palestine and President Ahmadinejad's stated perspective(s) when he's [drilled] on whether he believes Holocaust history, or not.
Give us PROOF, is what the governments ought to do, ethically and legally. Otherwise, we're stuck with only more dictatorship, [again]; and it'd be welcome to not have dictatorship on absolutely [all] issues or topics.
Real dictatorships are better. They don't have to lie to the public about them living under dictatorship, or not, and there are dictatorships that make western so-called democracies appear to be what they are, sick jokes, LIES. Only fascists, dictators, tyrants, ... could sentence people to prison just because of communicating their disbelief in Holocaust history; only dictators, ... [and] morons. Some people honestly bisbelieve in that history and that they do and communicate this doesn't really cause any harm to anyone or society; certainly no extraordinary harm, only hurting some feelings. We don't put people in prison just because of hurting others' [feelings]; NOT in a just and sane society! But the U.S. and other western so-called democracies are LIES and don't have just and sane societies, well, governments anyway (and corporate media).
Anyway, Holocaust of WW II, needing to specify that, for it wasn't the first and hasn't been the last holocaust, and the U.S. and Europe have committed far worse holocausts than the one the Nazis committed; well, it's past. Meanwhile, the GWoT wars and other wars, even if the latter are much more covert and through proxies, are happening today, including with concentration camps "provided" by the USA et al.
Yah, if we consider in 20, or more likely, more years in the future soon. The article speaks of U.S. bases, expanding, and other current articles write about this expansionism even more, but one I skimmed over during the past week or so also reminded readers of the HUGE U.S. embassassies planned for Afghanistan, and Islamabad, i.e., Pakistan. Those will require plenty of U.S. and, I suppose, NATO forces, and private "security" mercenaries. For Afghanistan, I guess we'll soon be withdrawing, in maybe 50 years; unless wonderful changes happen in December 2012, which is not I'm expecting to happen. In a soon 50 years, or if we're lucky, in a very soon 20 to 30 years, the U.S. et al may withdraw from Afghanistan; maybe. Otherwise, expect a little longer.
And I guess the Federal Reserve will need to keep making a lot more fictional money to keep the racket wars going. I don't know how all of the cost works out, but with the economic crisis, I expect the government is getting a lot less for tax dollars; and the government is going to need a way to pay troops and officers, the MIC, etcetera. I don't know the financial details about how they can keep such expensive wars going.
But if we put aside a possible financial, funding failure maybe putting a curb on continuing the wars, then as per above; maybe withdrawal in a soon 20, 30, ... 50 years, or a little longer. Century 22?
As I understand it, Bagram was a facility originally constructed by the Soviets. The fact that it is being expanded and upgraded by the United States (like the Green Zone in Baghdad) at considerable expense by the Obama administration is disquieting, to say the least.
Clearly, the Petraeus/McChrystal/Gates counterinsurgency strategy for waging an endless "low intensity" war on global terrorism through use of drones, detainee warehousing, and a network of hardened traditional US military bases in this chaotic region of the world still has political legs in some bipartisan quarters. The latest issue of Newsweek devotes its cover and a whole sickening section to a nostalgic "if only" look back at how the US could have won the war in Vietnam if only we had fine tuned the Phoenix Program targeted assassination scheme a little better, and if only Congress had kept the flow of money and air support for the south Vietnamese government going after the American ground combat role had been phased out. Dream on.
This is a dangerous, wishful, and fanciful revisionist history. As the great film "Battle of Algiers" illustrates, hell yes - in the short term - raw militarism, torture, and concentrated hi tech police state tactics can disrupt a popular nationalist uprising. Long term however, it is a self defeating strategy. Renovating Bagram prison in Afghanistan, and making the conditions there marginally more humane, transparent and compliant with international human rights standards, is still a purely cosmetic, largely illusory form of progress.
Bill from Saginaw
Who owns Newsweek? And you're right about it's article being sickening, while I'll add eerie, but not an inexplicable kind of eeriness.
You're also evidently right about the McChrystal and Petraeus vein seeming to not be over yet. There is more reason to see this than only the expansion of U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, which nevertheless is a telling sign in itself. The other reality that I'm thinking of is about the huge U.S. embassies that are to be built in Afghanistan and Islamabad, Pakistan. MORE troops will clearly be required and the Obama admin. most surely knows this. So do the JCS members.
Why is the US holding prisoners in Iraq, and not the Iraqi Government?
because we do not trust the Iraqi Government
"But General Mark Martins, who runs detention operations at the airbase, said the US military was improving its treatment of detainees and had learnt many lessons since occupying the country in 2001."
Duhhh, gee guys, I just looked in da book and it sez we ain't supposed to beat people!
Yes, there is definite bipartisan collusion in this continous perpetuation of the Gulag State. The latest coming from Dick Durbin who wants to imprison the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo at a prison in Illinois for obvious political and economic purposes. Unfortunately the remaining 200 "detainees" were not released during the Bush administration and are now subject to political exploitation from both parties .The very idea that these politicians want to use people whether innocent or guilty for political fodder is appalling. Dick Durbin is no doubt trying to exploit the sentiment of the public from the latest shooting at Ft. Hood to advance this continous 9/11 atmosphere - and yet saying it will boost the economy. Great. Just when you've heard it all from democrats there is another with something more asinine.
Now you know why it is taking so long to close Guantanamo!!
They needed a new place to rendition to before the closure.
Now we have a place for all those GWOT prisoners from around the world -- that is far from US legal prying eyes.
You won't have to worry about Baghram prisoners being tried in NY.
I guess this is more 'Change We Can Believe In (tm)' from Brand Obama.
Would someone please tell me what, if anything, since Obama was proclaimed the new Great Hope has actually changed?
Secret prisons? Still there.
Two illegal occupations? Still there.
Billions of dollars wasted on bogus bailouts? Still there.
Abductions and torture? Still there.
Protecting American war criminals? Still there.
Exploding jobless numbers? Still there.
Collapsing economy? Still there.
Denial of Climate Change? Still there.
Corporations running rampant? Still there.
Obama is just Bush with a tan and a bad wig...
teacher, teacher, teacher I know one thing, Obomber is going easy on medical cannabis, and I think theres one more but I can not remember it.
define 'illegal occupation'?
There've been changes, but none that can really be considered good.
"Two illegal occupations? Still there."
Three, now. Obama has pretty much added Pakistan as another country the U.S. is occupying. The occupation isn't quite identical, but with all of the U.S. military presence and the huge U.S. (militarised) embassy planned for Islamabad, I think we can consider it another country occupied by the U.S.
And you're right about the other matters, but one or more of the others deserve a little more said than only "Still there"; like, "Still there and increasing", or "Still there and increased", f.e. It applies to costs for war, but Obama also increased the bailouts to the banksters a LOT, too; doubling, or more, what Bush Jr's admin. had given.
The Bush admin. lies are "still there" and Obama et al added more, plenty more; being quite generous with the lying and very skimpy with truth(s).
Just to throw up the bullshit flag
you do relies that Afghanistan is where the attaks on OUR nation were planned? That after the attacks were carried out the goverment of Afghanistan continued to harbor Osama Ben Laden, and that Mulla Omar said, and I quote;
The BBC's Pashto service has interviewed Taleban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar.
The BBC asked the questions through a Taleban intermediary over satellite phone. He passed them on to the Taleban leader through a hand-held radio and then attached the phone's receiver to the radio for Mullah Omar's answers.
The following is the transcript of the interview
What do you think of the current situation in Afghanistan?
You (the BBC) and American puppet radios have created concern. But the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1657368.stm
now, isnt that odd? They attack us, we go to war to defend the freedoms you enjoy on this board and others like it and you call the war illegal, and unjust.
What have you done to make things better for that matter? Have you done anything other than post and blog? There are hundreds of Non Government Agencies that work in Afghanistan to make life better for Afghans. I can name a few for you. HALO Trust, they demine areas mined by the Soviets and Taliban to turn mine fields in to farm fields. Mercy Corp, they do everything from Agricultural help to Medical help and they take donations. Why don't you do something instead of just complaining. If nothing else donate to the International Red Cross Red Crescent and throw some money at it American style
Nice piece of propaganda of deceit you pulled out of BBC's hat there, pal.
Osama Bin Ladin DENIED responsibility for the 9-11 attacks and the U.S. has NOT indicted him for those attacks. Check with the FBI website page for OBL and you'll see a couple of indictments for attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa during the Clinton admin., but NOTHING about 9-11. Unlike yourself, a journalist who was attentive to facts checked and finding this oddity he asked the FBI about the reason. The FBI agent or officer said that OBL has not been charged for the 9-11 attacks.
Bush Jr was asked about what he was doing to capture OBL some years after 9-11, because it was known that the U.S. was successful. Bush replied in saying, besides other things, that he doesn't care where OBL is and that going after him is not really part of the program. He didn't say the latter, but said he didn't care where OBL was, anyway we can be certain Bush still doesn't care where OBL is, or that Bush ever did. Anyway, saying he didn't care about where OBL was is the same thing as saying that the mission is not about finding and arresting or killing him, that OBL could simply left to live freely.
The Taliban had offered to hand over OBL prior to Oct. 7, 2001, a fact that simply has been extremely underreported or not reported at all in corporate news media. The Taliban initially hesitated, because, as they said, if they were to hand him over, then it'd have to be on the condition that OBL would get a fair trial according to international law; although I did read an article over the past few months in which the author said the Taliban demanded trial according to Sharia Law. All I had previously read, however, said international law was the condition.
The Bush admin. REJECTED the Taliban's offer.
Flight 77 evidently, with a lot of evidence for hits, did NOT hit the Pentagon and people who claim that it did never provide actual proof for this; instead, only pointing to clips from video cameras on Pentagon property that do NOT show an airplane of any kind, so much less a LARGE plane like 77 was. All evidence indicates that NO plane hit there. Well-known Major Doug Rokke has clearly stated that NO plane hit the Pentagon. Retired Lt Col Robert M. Bowman said, and well explained, that NO plane hit the Pentagon. Other U.S. military officers, all retired, I suppose, say no plane hit there. Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst for 27 years, didn't say in an interview with possibly TheRealNews.com or another media, alternative, that no plane hit, but didn't say that a plane hit, only saying "whatever hit" the Pentagon, meaning that he's not prepared to claim that 77 or any other plane hit there. Both he and Robert Bowman, and maybe also Doug Rokke, emphasised that the Pentagon is a [heavily] defendended, protected location against aerial attacks, too.
Flight 77 went somewhere, but only insiders know where; and any surviving passengers, if any were allowed to survive, live. It clearly didn't hit the Pentagon though.
That's a small sampling of everything 9-11 research and talks have produced and the now former commissioners of the 9-11 Commission inquiry, several of them anyway, have strongly and strongly enough denounced the final report, while some of them blasted because of all of the (criminal) obstructions from Bush, Cheney and the CIA, all of who criminally, unconstitutionally impeded the work of these commissioners.
BBC is a propaganda of deception machine. It does some truthful reporting, but not on the most critical issues that have any relationship to the "interests" of the corporatocracies ruling the political "leaderships" of the U.S., Canada, Britain, and so on.
OBL personally denied responsibility, so whoever the BBC dug up to pretend to speak for OBL was lying, if the person was claiming to speak for OBL.
You can let us know when you stop believing lies and propaganda of deceit, especially when holding such beliefs without any critically objective study. Otherwise, you remind of the story of the East Germans who believed the lying Nazi leadership when it claimed that the Jews in Poland or simply Poland attacked East Germany or Germany with the Reichstag Fire, which was committed by the Nazi regime in order to try to fool the population into believing the act was committed by Poland, instead. It was the method used to fool the population into supporting invasion of that country by the Nazi forces.
Hmmm, a little deja-vu.
ever been to Afghanistan?
I have
Twice
So you follow up your initial propaganda of lies that's now been well exposed for being a lie with another effort to try to deceive readers, eh.
How many times do you need to fail before you stop, because you'll never get an inch with me. "ever been to Afghanistan?" is the sort of question that only a liar, charlatan, con-artist, or careless person would ask, for the question is really and clearly IRRELEVANT; it definitely doesn't relate to your first post of propaganda of deceit. Afghanistan is related to the war, alright, it's where the war (of aggression, supreme international crime) was launched, for OIL and geostrategic politics, for geopolitical power and economics, i.e., RACKET; but that definitely and clearly does and can not justify the war and all of the murdering that the U.S. and NATO, and their supporters like yourself, are all guilty of committing there (and now in Pakistan). And the Taliban didn't abuse human rights more than the U.S. always has done, for the U.S. has been far worse. So oppression by the Taliban also can't be used to justify war there.
And what have you tried or done twice? To perform critically objective study? And you failed both times, so now you just push propaganda of deceit, with all of your slippery ways; slippery like a slug? I'd say freswater eel, but I like them.
I am a Soldier
There are at least two levels at which a war is "legal". One is national. According to a US Supreme Court ruling of 1990 the Congressional funding of a specific war is the equivalent of a Congressional declaration of war, hence for "domestic" arguments the war in Afghanistan is legal until such time that Congress withholds funding for that war. The second level in international. Since I am not a scholar I do not know whether the war in Afghanistan is or is not legal. I believe however that the UN charter allows each member state to defend itself unilaterally. Does that apply to what goes on in Afghanistan? I don't think it does today.
There was also a time in the far distant past when the Pope ruled on the legality of wars and when his ruling had to be obeyed at the risk of being excommunicated..
It's better to honourably be dishonourably excommunicated than it is to dishonourably accept dishonourably granted honors.
Does the US Supreme Court have the constitutional authority to decide whether Congress funding a war constitutes congressional authorization of the war, or not? I don't know if the court legitimately has this authority, but if it does, then its ruling technically is as you say; but it's a superficial view, for the situation at hand, every time, must be first examined. Afghanistan did not attack the USA. The Taliban did not attack the USA. So, the USA never had any ethical or legal right to war on the Taliban and Afghanistan, leaving that the congressional authorisation granted following the 9-11 attacks was, therefore, null and void before it was even signed. The Congress has never had any authority for authorising wars on governments and populations that had not attacked the USA. The Congress has never been given authority to be criminal, not even out of criminal negligence.
The U.S. and surely every country that is member of the UN has the right to defend itself unilaterally when others don't want to provide support in this defence. However, this is certainly not authorized against innocent parties or governments. It's only allowed against the attackers and NO state attacked the USA.
What the Congress has done with its continuous funding of the wars, including more funding than requested by the Bush-Cheney admin., is to make itself a criminal leader of these criminal wars. No Supreme Court can possibly have any ethical authority for authorizing the Congress to be criminal and rogue, or to usurp the Constitution. Otherwise, the court would be unconstitutional in its rulings and this would make the court another enemy of the country, the U.S.A.. This obviously would be illegal of the court to do.
Most or all real enemies of the U.S. are WITHIN, but we certainly don't need more of them.
Sometimes courts have to re-examine the Constitution in order to re-interpret it for proper understanding when considering it for a particular context, case, question, issue (whatever), and this is good, when it's honestly done for truly good purpose(s). So as stated, above, if the court is right that the Congress authorising funding of war constitutes authorisation of the war, then the court's right and it technically makes sense; but this must be carefully reevaluated for proper understanding in every individual case.
But the Congress (wrongly, out of criminal negligence) authorised recourse to war in or on Afghanistan following 9-11, so the court ruling you referred to is not relevant regarding this war, which has always been against the Taliban (and Afghanistan). It technically is relevant regarding the war on Iraq, but we've always known or been certainly able to know that even the congressional authorisation of Oct. 2002 was criminally negligent, at best, for there was absolutely no basis for this authorisation at all. The whole threat of recourse to war and the conditions the congressional authorisation was based upon clearly was about HEGEMONY, hypocrisy, state gangsterism by the U.S., and so on. It clearly was not about the U.S. being policeman of the world, which would be an unconstitutional path for the U.S. to adopt, and would've been absolutely hegemonious, hypocritical, ..., anyway. It was all about hegemony, etcetera, and nothing else. That was obvious, so the Congress, out of criminal negligence, at best, authorised the war in a manner that was a usurpation of the Constitution; even if the authorisation became null and void [before] the official launch of the war in March 2003.
NO part of the U.S. government has the right to USURP the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Any members of the government who act in ways that are against the Constitution minimally are criminally negligent and criminal negligence is not something courts should whitewash or dismiss as if no criminality was involved. Accidents happen and we must recognise this, but the Congress is the highest political body of the country and did NOT accidentally act; it minimally was criminally negligent and has a whole lot of blood on its hands, the hands of all members who signed the rogue authorisation for recourse to war on Iraq, that is. That bogus authorisation became null and void with Saddam Hussein complying with the UN weapons inspections, which can technically save Congress' ass, but the Congress minimally was criminally negligent to pass the authorisation to begin with.
Voters are also to blame, but most don't have the level of education most politicians gained, on paper anyway, so we can and should place more responsibility on the latter.
The GWoT wars, like all U.S. military operations globally, are AGGRESSION and this is always unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal. NO Supreme Court ruling can usurp the Constitution in this regard. The court can kick and bitch all it wants, but it cannot legally usurp the, or be complicit in the usurpation of the Constitution. In the court ruling you referred to, I guess we have complicity; the court acting with Congress in the usurpation of the Constitution.
That's definitely illegal and unethical, both. It makes them both enemies from WITHIN.
This is for edits to the third paragraph of my above post, which I wanted to edit, but dodo abnsmith had to make editing impossible with his pointless and infantile post.
The paragraph:
"Bush Jr was asked about what he was doing to capture OBL some years after 9-11, because it was known that the U.S. was successful. Bush replied in saying, besides other things, that he doesn't care where OBL is and that going after him is not really part of the program. He didn't say the latter, but said he didn't care where OBL was, anyway we can be certain Bush still doesn't care where OBL is, or that Bush ever did. Anyway, saying he didn't care about where OBL was is the same thing as saying that the mission is not about finding and arresting or killing him, that OBL could simply left to live freely."
The edited paragraph (changes shown with []'s):
Bush Jr was asked about what he was doing to capture OBL some years after 9-11, because it was known that the U.S. was [un]successful. Bush replied in saying, besides other things, that he doesn't care where OBL is and that going after him is not really part of the program. He didn't say the latter, but said he didn't care where OBL was, [and] we can be certain Bush still doesn't care where OBL is, or that [he ever did care]. Anyway, saying he didn't care about where OBL was is the same thing as saying that the mission is not about finding and arresting or killing him; that OBL could simply left to live freely. [I vaguely recall having read that Bush actually did say that OBL "should be free", but this may've been just some "alternative" propagandist. Bush having said he didn't know where OBL was and didn't care, however, now this was caught on video recordings from one or more news media reporters with camera people present at the time.]
Thanks, Mike C, and thanks to CD for including Conspiracy Theorists in this forum. While your post is lengthy, it just scratches the surface of the questions thinking observers have about 9/11.
Probably everyone on this site has viewed the documentary film, "Loose Change 9/11"; now that is full of questions!
J. E. McNeil, of the Center on Conscience and War, had also stated that every Arab nation had offered to bring OBL to trial after 9/11, but the previous administration had refused their offers. It was much easier to start a war, that's now in its ninth year.
The other major site I visit, Daily Kos, bans posts on CT, and the diarists in turn are banned. Like the assassinations of JFK, available to view on Youtube, and of RFK, good citizens are just expected to go along with the gag that whitewash commissions spew and not ask serious questions.
You're right about the post only scratching the surface, but this is stated in the post, where it says that it's only a small or tiny sampling.
"Loose Change: Final Cut" is worth viewing, but I wouldn't recommend only viewing it. The two documentary films by or thanks to (and with) members of 9-11 Families are to definitely recommend. Their first film is, "9/11: Press for Truth", while I forget the title of the second one, but it's available at topdocumentaryfilms.com or freedocumentaries.org, both of which usually link to videos at Google. There's also the Italian-made "Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11", which provides some interesting interviews with Europeans, and repeated interviews with one or more Americans. It was screened in the European Parliament; although most members of the body made sure to not show their faces there for this screening.
The "Loose Change" (LC) team has additionally provided a copy of a very important interview they did with Barry Jennings about his experience at WTC 7 the morning of 9-11 and this is something I think everyone should view. The video is entitled, "Barry Jennings Uncut" and the copy I viewed was still recently posted at 911blogger.com, for I think it was posted in 2008, but I didn't learn of it until a month or so ago, there. Barry Jennings had initially permitted the LC team to include the interview in the full documentary, but later retracted this authorisation on the basis of fearing he'd lose his job. He was with the NYC Housing Authority and while on his way to work the morning of 9-11, he was told to head over to WTC 7 to man the OEC or OCE (emergency center office, anyway). He got there I believe before either of the planes hit the WTC towers, or minutes after the first one did, and when he finally made it up to the emergency center office, it was barren; everyone had scrammed, leaving coffee cups, donuts, etc., behind. Some minutes later, he was told to get out of WTC 7 and as he and another man he was with were heading down and made it to the 6th floor a violent explosion occurred [beneath] them, blowing them back, but not unconscious. They got up after getting hold of their senses and headed back up to try to find another way down and out, etcetera. He gives the whole story of the journey to get out of WTC 7, but when they got down to the lobby, the firefighters that were helping to get out of the building told them to not look down; because they were needing to walk over peoples' bodies. The whole lobby was destroyed and evidently enough people killed there; apparently while both towers 1 and 2 were [still standing]. They got out around 1 p.m., so it took hours to get out.
And the destruction was on the north side of WTC 7, which apparently was not the side facing towers 1 and 2. (I've heard of bouncing balls, but not concrete blocks.)
The LC team [respected] his retraction for years, but eventually decided that this interview really could no longer be withheld from the public; because of the great importance of the account. And I definitely believe that he was wholly truthful and that the LC team was right about the need for us to view and listen to this interview. We should hope that Barry Jennings' job is secure, but I don't think that it can be legitimately used as a basis to keep this greatly important interview from the public domain. We have wars of supreme international criminality murdering millions of people, destroying countries, radiologically poisoning those populations and foreign troops, etcetera, going on!. In such an extremely critical context, I don't think a person's job security should be treated as a basis for keeping the public unaware of critically relevant and important testimonies about the events used to launch these wars of aggression.
I have read about Arab countries having "offered to bring OBL to trial", as you said, however he was in Afghanistan and the Taliban could've handed him over, and offered to do so; therefore, Arab nations didn't need to bother to do either the capturing or "handing over". Their support, however, was still good and important, if it wasn't just another stage act anyway.
CD has had some anti-9-11 "conspiracy theory" articles by goofy writers who did a poor job of trying to discredit the real and competent 9-11 researchers and truth spokespeople, including the retired U.S. military officers named in my first post in this particular thread; among many enough others. But huh, lousy articles; pitiful efforts for trying to discredit others. For as long as I can recall, CD has always allowed reader posts supporting and also "pushing" findings of 9-11 research, truth work. And this is actually good enough; it provides opportunities for incompetent people to post articles that are pitiful attempts at trying to discredit 9-11 truth work and for readers to blow such articles apart. It has frustrated some readers, including myself, but it's actually okay. It makes for a fine combination that hides nothing from readers, in the end. Readers thereby get to read from people on opposing sides of the 9-11 aisle.
Wrong location, so am moving the post to where it belongs.
What do you suppose the Afghani people think of this?
Did anyone ask them permission?
Will the Afghanis be allowed to build a similar facility in Chicago?
every prisoner i've read about who has been at both says Bagram was worse than gitmo. and of course they have no legal rights, and no lawyer can see them.
this is one of the reasons i argue against closing gitmo.
the other is that we are holding 40,000 to 60,000 in other jails- maybe no one will ever know how many, or who they are- many prisons are secret, and we can't get good counts of the ones who have been "rendered" to Morocco or Egypt or wherever
these innocent prisoners must never be forgotten. if the u.s. can run a gulag this big without a whisper of complaint from the western world, no one will be safe from arbitrary arrest and disappearance.
"and of course they have no legal rights"
Please correct me if I am wrong. It is my opinion that the Bill of Rights does not say anywhere "for US citizens only" and "only valid within the legal boundaries of the USA". If I am correct, then all prisoners of our Federal Government held in the Bagram prison and elsewhere have the right of habeas corpus which means they must be brought within the legal boundaries of the USA and there our Government must explain to a judge why these persons are held captive.
I BELIEVE that a Court saw its way out oft that already buy ruling said people are not considered "persons"
Cameras will be banned so no tortures will occur.
Unlike in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Topeka is not endangered, and no imminent threat looms....bush is torturing housecats and puppies in Texas; so WHY torture? OhBomba ain't dumb. Do it it's known, and the downsides!
So drone over, bomb, bribe, rape and kill; but no waterboarding....awwe, big disappointment but we go on. We just bomb extra families to even up for it.