SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In President Obama's first week in office, he pledged to close down
Guantanamo within a year.
The year's been up for two months now, and Guantanamo still remains
open.
Making matters worse, it looks like the Obama Administration may
simply move Guantanamo to Afghanistan.
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the "White
House is considering whether to detain international terrorism suspects
at [Bagram Air Base] in Afghanistan, an option that would lead to
another prison with the same purpose as Guantanamo Bay."
And that purpose is to hold suspects indefinitely, without ever
granting them any due process rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that suspects held at Guantanamo have due
process rights because Guantanamo is effectively U.S. property. But the
Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it, says that
this court decision does not apply to Bagram Air Base.
Last September, Obama's Justice Department told a lower court that
"when it comes to military facilities, unlike Guantanamo, that are truly
abroad-particularly those halfway across the globe in an active war
zone-courts in the United States exceed their role by second-guessing
the political branches about the reach of habeas jurisdiction."
Until the Court resolves that question, Obama can ship detainees from
Guantanamo - or anywhere else in the world - to Bagram Air Base and
hold them there for years at a time.
It's against international law, but that hasn't stopped a President
before.
So it looks like make Guantanamo may soon be Spanish for Bagram, and
both will translate into human rights violations.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
In President Obama's first week in office, he pledged to close down
Guantanamo within a year.
The year's been up for two months now, and Guantanamo still remains
open.
Making matters worse, it looks like the Obama Administration may
simply move Guantanamo to Afghanistan.
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the "White
House is considering whether to detain international terrorism suspects
at [Bagram Air Base] in Afghanistan, an option that would lead to
another prison with the same purpose as Guantanamo Bay."
And that purpose is to hold suspects indefinitely, without ever
granting them any due process rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that suspects held at Guantanamo have due
process rights because Guantanamo is effectively U.S. property. But the
Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it, says that
this court decision does not apply to Bagram Air Base.
Last September, Obama's Justice Department told a lower court that
"when it comes to military facilities, unlike Guantanamo, that are truly
abroad-particularly those halfway across the globe in an active war
zone-courts in the United States exceed their role by second-guessing
the political branches about the reach of habeas jurisdiction."
Until the Court resolves that question, Obama can ship detainees from
Guantanamo - or anywhere else in the world - to Bagram Air Base and
hold them there for years at a time.
It's against international law, but that hasn't stopped a President
before.
So it looks like make Guantanamo may soon be Spanish for Bagram, and
both will translate into human rights violations.
In President Obama's first week in office, he pledged to close down
Guantanamo within a year.
The year's been up for two months now, and Guantanamo still remains
open.
Making matters worse, it looks like the Obama Administration may
simply move Guantanamo to Afghanistan.
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the "White
House is considering whether to detain international terrorism suspects
at [Bagram Air Base] in Afghanistan, an option that would lead to
another prison with the same purpose as Guantanamo Bay."
And that purpose is to hold suspects indefinitely, without ever
granting them any due process rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that suspects held at Guantanamo have due
process rights because Guantanamo is effectively U.S. property. But the
Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it, says that
this court decision does not apply to Bagram Air Base.
Last September, Obama's Justice Department told a lower court that
"when it comes to military facilities, unlike Guantanamo, that are truly
abroad-particularly those halfway across the globe in an active war
zone-courts in the United States exceed their role by second-guessing
the political branches about the reach of habeas jurisdiction."
Until the Court resolves that question, Obama can ship detainees from
Guantanamo - or anywhere else in the world - to Bagram Air Base and
hold them there for years at a time.
It's against international law, but that hasn't stopped a President
before.
So it looks like make Guantanamo may soon be Spanish for Bagram, and
both will translate into human rights violations.