A new $60 million prison funded by the Department of Defense has opened to replace the controversial Bagram prison, but the controversy over detention practices appears to continue even while the military heralds a “new era” of openness.
The Detention Facility at Parwan (right next to the Bagram Air Base) was opened to the press recently, and judging by the media coverage this act alone was enough tio warrant positive coverage.
The New York Times gushed that it was “an unprecedented level of access since they were not allowed to enter the old prison, which has been in use since shortly after the American invasion in 2001.” The Washington Post stated it was “an attempt to provide better living conditions and separate committed fighters from those who are ready to re-enter Afghan society.”
However, Al Jazeera’s correspondent James Bays, who was among those who inspected the facilities on Sunday, disputed the rosy talk:
Bagram, unlike its Guantanamo counterpart, was clearly not going to be shut down soon…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.
And while a nice, shiny new facility is presented to the outside world, with some happy talk about improving rights for detainees, the detainees’ ability to adequately defend themselves remains elusive as the policy of military tribunals will be utilized even though Afghanistan has a fully functioning criminal justice system. Under that system, the military assigns a “personal representative” for the detainee; civilian lawyers are not allowed.
A trio of human rights organizations — Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First — weren’t too happy about that, stating:
The Obama administration should revise its detention policies in Afghanistan to make them consistent with international law… US domestic law, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, is currently being used as the basis for the detentions on Afghan soil.
It is inadequate because it fails to recognize that all persons held in Afghanistan are entitled to the legal protection of Afghan domestic law and international human rights law, regardless of whether they are in the physical control of the Afghan government or a foreign government.
Video: Access Restricted on Bagram ‘Tour” — Al Jazeera, November 16, 2009
