Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Appeals Court Rules Against Bagram Detainees
WASHINGTON - Detainees at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their imprisonment the way detainees in Guantanamo Bay have, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
Watchtowers are seen along the perimeter fence of Bagram prison, located inside Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul. Detainees at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their imprisonment the way detainees in Guantanamo Bay have, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. (AFP/File/Massoud Hossaini) The United States is holding the detainees at the military prison on Afghan territory through a cooperative arrangement with Afghanistan, three appeals court judges said in a unanimous decision turning aside the request of a Tunisian and two Yemeni prisoners.
The jurisdiction of the U.S. courts does not extend to foreigners held at Bagram in the Afghan theater of war, added the judges, who said a U.S. district judge should have thrown out the detainees' petitions.
"While we cannot say that extending our constitutional protections to the detainees would be in any way disruptive of that relationship" with the Afghan government, "neither can we say with certainty what the reaction of the Afghan government would be," said the opinion written by Judge David Sentelle.
The petitions to the U.S. court system by the three men sought the same right to challenge their indefinite detention that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, won in the U.S. Supreme Court.
During appeals court arguments in January, the other two appeals judges in the case, Harry Edwards and David Tatel, seemed to struggle with the problem of whether they could craft a narrowly constructed opinion that would affect only the three men and not lay the groundwork for opening up the judicial branch of government to many other detainee cases now and in the future.
Friday's decision spelled out that issue and referred back to January's argument.
"The court engaged in an extended dialog with counsel for the petitioners in which we repeatedly sought some limiting principle that would distinguish Bagram from any other military installation. Counsel was able to produce no such distinction," the ruling noted.
Sentelle wrote that the three detainees "seem to be arguing that the fact of United States control of Bagram under the lease of the military base is sufficient ... we reject this extreme understanding."
Under that interpretation, noncitizens held in any U.S. military facility in the world arguably could challenge their detention, said the appeals court opinion.
Sentelle, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. Edwards was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, and Tatel by President Bill Clinton.
- Posted in
12 Comments so far
Show AllSentelle, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. Edwards was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, and Tatel by President Bill Clinton.
Imperialism and war are truly bi-partisan affairs.
I'm sorry people, but this is hilarious! Where do you find these judges? If I recall these are three people kidnapped, from Africa, tortured and held for years now in Afghanistans biggest US base, Bagram. This decision says that despite the fact that the US is in total control of the base, that is not sufficient to give basic legal rights. because...wait for it...doing so *might* be "disruptive to the relationship between America and the government it installed in Afghanistan.!!! What kind of government are you supporting there that doesn't like basic legal norms?
It is as if the judges are saying "sorry chaps! we'd give you your rights, but it might upset our puppet government, and besides...If we give you your day in court, we'd have to give that right to everyone!! "
judges -"we repeatedly sought some limiting principle that would distinguish Bagram from any other military installation."
why? to better help create new legal "black holes" for Obama? Is that what judges do now in America?
What court wouldn't want to "limit the principle" of habeus corpus, eh???
So added to the great works of the great legal minds of history you have this gem: having your day in court is good, as long as the torture prison is based on land stolen from an island nation with which you have bad relations *Cuba*. Otherwise let them rot in the tower, especialy if the prisoners can't prove that their having their day in court won't disrupt relations with the locals in the country to which the prisoners have been "rendered".
Take the rest of the day off, your honours!!! You've done enough damage to the legal tradition already.
Reminds me of that TV commercial that tells the female viewer that "It (the product) won't insult your intelligence". The judges condescending, patronizing tone reminds me of my employer who plasters memos on the wall telling us which of our behaviors we will change to suit them (with little or no explanation of the whys and wherefores). Finally, at the bottom, is the threat of punishment should we not comply and what that penalty will be.
The god damn capitalists are taking over. Or are they fascists?
I wish to hell people would WAKE UP to this reign of shit before it's too late.
Personally, I have had my fill.
But, for people to WAKE UP, they have to be hit hard in the wallet or in their civil rights. The big bruisers know this as well and the remedy which is to take just a little at a time. A little here, a little there. Tell them it's for their own good or the good of the country(the economy is in a slump; national security; our interests abroad, etc., etc.).
And when the bruisers see that you are catching on to their tricks, they will ask you if you are a true patriot or a traitor. Someone said that militaristic patriotism is the "last refuge of scoundrels" and I believe 'em.
Or else, they will toss in a non-class issue into the mix to take the attention off THEM and keep us peons squabbling among ourselves.
"Oh, but now you sound like a conspiracy theorist. You are charging the elites with looking out for their class interests." "You must be a headcase."
You have put it so well. You make the truth so obvious. This COULD be hilarious, if it was part of a satirical movie like "Brazil", for example. But given that this IS reality, I dont know whether to laugh or cry.
If it has fat, ignorant people waddling around it, it is de facto part of america
From the article: "Under that interpretation, noncitizens held in any U.S. military facility in the world arguably could challenge their detention, said the appeals court opinion."
God forbid that noncitizens would have any legal rights when they are in the clutches of the sadist interrogators at military torture chambers. And how about the logic of these reactionary judges who claim as "extreme" the notion that people who are not Amerikkkan citizens could "challenge their detention"?
These judges must have graduated from the Joseph Stalin School of Law at Hitler University.
More likely these judges must have graduated from the School of the Americas.
Habeas corpus is a human right dating back to the 12th century. It applies to everyone, US citizen or not. This is a basic moral stance. Only lawless tyrannies declare the right to throw people in jail, hold them indefinietely and incommunicado, torture them, refuse to present charges or to allow them to present a defense. The prisoner can be secretly killed at any time. This is the kind of tyranny that the better of our imperfect founding fathers sought to prevent with the Bill of Rights.
If people are not eligible for habeas corpus because they are enemy combatants, then they are covered by The Geneva Conventions article 27 which applies to prisoners of war. That also prohibits torture and requires respectful treatment.
If we do not have a declared war, then there can be no enemy combatants. So prisoners are all entitled to habeas corpus.
I am not a lawyer, but right is right. Anyone who says differently is a reprehensible piece of ____. I do not care about their education or position.
Joe
First they came for "them..............."
What this article does not touch is that Bagram is holding many Afghans.
And Afghanistan has a law that only Afghans can detain Afghans.
"laws, not men"
I heard that someplace. Where was it again......?
The Afghans attacked another large base today.
Not only does the USA do evil but it is too corrupt to competently do evil. But,anyway, evil always fails in the end.