Posted on 9 April, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
The Associated Press reported yesterday
on the existence of “classified detention sites” being run by the Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan, where detainees are held for “weeks” in secret for the purposes of interrogation. Daphne Eviatar, a senior associate at Human Rights First, recently interviewed several former detainees who had been held at these facilities. Eviatar said her monitoring group does not believe the JSOC facility is using the full range of Bush-era interrogation techniques, but she said there’s “a disturbing pattern of using fear and humiliation to soften up the suspects before interrogation”. Detainees are said to be “forced to strip naked, and kept in solitary confinement in windowless, often cold cells with lights on 24 hours a day.”
Despite the sensational headline this is essentially old news; the government has never never denied the existence of these temporary holding facilities where they hold detainees for up to 14 days before releasing them or transferring them to the Parwan Detention facility. And the treatment of the detainees is in accordance with the Army Field Manual, including its notorious ‘Appendix M’.
The ICRC has earlier said that since August 2009 they are being notified – as a matter of policy – of detained people in Afghanistan by the US authorities within 14 days of their arrest. The UN has commented upon this practice, saying that there is ‘no legal justification for this two-week period of secret detention.’ Under international law the US can only hold persons in unacknowledged detention for the purposes of interrogation for one week.
According to article 70 of the Third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are to be documented, and their whereabouts and health conditions made available to family members and to the country of origin of the prisoner within one week. Article 106 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (governing the treatment of civilians) establishes virtually identical procedures for the documentation and disclosure of information concerning civilian detainees.
The AP article now suggests that detainees might be held in these temporary detention sites for a period of up to 9 weeks. It is unclear at what time these detainees have access to the ICRC.
After the first two weeks, the first extension is for three weeks, for reasons including “producing good tactical intel” to “too sick to move,” according to a U.S. official familiar with the procedure. The next possible extension is for an additional month, adding up to a total of roughly nine weeks in temporary detention before battlefield interrogators have to appeal to the executive, either the defense secretary or the president himself, for another extension. The military has never pushed for that for any detainee, according to a
former senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity
to discuss classified matters.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Detention | Leave a comment »
Posted on 20 March, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
As reported on the Afghanistan Analysts Network
After our arrest we were first taken to Tor Jail, or the Black Jail. It was terrible. They didn’t treat us like humans at all. They didn’t allow us to sleep. There was nothing to cover ourselves with. They insulted the Quran. Whenever we were taken to the bathroom, they left the door open. We never knew when it was time to pray or which direction we should face. We never saw sunlight. We were treated rudely during interrogation. Some people were also beaten, but that didn’t happen to me.
After 33 days in the Black Jail I was transferred to the big jail. Here we were visited by ICRC, which was good even though they had no authority. They brought letters, but they didn’t tell the press about us or about the circumstances we were in. The Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) didn’t come to the prison, maybe they were not allowed in. About a month before my release they came, but they were so young. What could they do?
Filed under: Afghanistan, Detention, Torture | 4 Comments »
Posted on 27 January, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
In 2010 the US-led coalition arrested 6,223 Afghans, the largest number on record said
Vice Admiral Robert Harward, head of US detention operations in Afghanistan. About 5,000 were let go within days, often after tribal elders vowed to keep them out of trouble. About 1,200 — who had the most damning evidence against them — were sent to the new $60 million US Parwan detention facility. A quarter of them were released within months without a trial. At the Parwan detention facility 119 inmates have been detained for more than two years, about 80 of whom Harward said the United States intends to keep indefinitely because they are third-country nationals or Al Qaeda affiliates deemed a serious security threat outside Afghanistan.
300 detainees have been freed until now by the review boards. Meanwhile, nearly 300 others were referred for trial by Afghan courts, including a special onsite court where Afghan judges, prosecutors, and forensic experts are mentored by Americans.
Thirty-six such trials been held here since June and all but two ended in convictions. US officials hope these trials will largely replace the review board hearings next year. So far, 17 detainees who have left the facility have been rearrested, Harward said, and at least one has been killed by the Taliban.
At Pul-e-Charkhi, a prison outside Kabul that houses some 5,000 inmates, including about 1,400 suspected suicide bombers, Taliban fighters, and other “national security’’ threats, prison officials have no authority to release detainees, as the Americans do.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Detention | 1 Comment »
Posted on 16 December, 2010 by Mathias Vermeulen
] Australia’s new Afghan detainee transfer policy may violate international human rights laws
, Amnesty International warned Tuesday. The new detainee management system, announced
Tuesday by Australian Minister of Defence Stephen Smith, provides for the systematic transfer of “high risk” detainees to US forces and “low risk” detainees to Afghan forces. According to AI Asia-Pacific director Sam Zarifi, the new policy puts detainees at risk of torture and mistreatment at the hands of the National Directorate of Security (NDS), which has been previously linked to human rights abuses.
“By handing over detainees to the NDS, where they are at risk of torture or other ill-treatment, Australia could be in violation of its international obligations to protect individuals from such treatment,” Zarifi said. Until August of this year, any detainees apprehended by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) had been the responsibility of Dutch forces that, according to AI, had “safeguards” in place to assure detainees would not be mistreated.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Australia, Diplomatic assurances | Leave a comment »
Posted on 13 December, 2010 by Mathias Vermeulen
A group of academics, journalists and NGO workers (including Ahmed Rashid, Nir Rosen, Joshua Faust, Anatol Lieven) have published an open letter to President Barack Obama
appealing to him to support direct negotiations with the Taliban leadership.
The Taliban’s leadership has indicated its willingness to negotiate, and it is in our interests to talk to them. In fact, the Taliban are primarily concerned about the future of Afghanistan and not – contrary to what some may think — a broader global Islamic jihad. Their links with Al-Qaeda – which is not, in any case, in Afghanistan any more — are weak. We need to at least try to seriously explore the possibility of a political settlement in which the Taliban are part of the Afghan political system.”
Filed under: Afghanistan | 1 Comment »
Posted on 1 November, 2010 by Mathias Vermeulen
The Guardian reports
that the US army now has information on 800,000 people, while another database
developed by the country’s interior ministry has records on 250,000
It is the sort of operation that would horrify civil liberties campaigners in the west, but there has been little public debate in Afghanistan. Kitted out with handheld devices that contain a camera to scan eyes and an electronic pad to take fingerprints, US soldiers have been collecting huge amounts of biometric data, with little oversight from the Afghan government.
The US hopes that Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, can be persuaded to set up a much more ambitious national biometric ID system that would hold information on every Afghan citizen from the age of 16.
Although such a move would potentially be bad news for people’s privacy, it would unquestionably make life harder for insurgents.
“It allows us to understand population shifts and movements, who wasn’t there before and who might be a potential threat just because they are new to that area,” said Craig Osborne, the colonel in charge of Task Force Biometrics.
Already the technology, which was originally introduced in US bases in the Balkans in the early 2000s, is helping to catch dozens of wanted suspects a week. Information collected in the field is checked against a central database containing hundreds of thousands of fingerprints found by US army forensics labs on materials touched by insurgents: weapons, sticky tape from homemade bombs, and even receipts for wire transfers of money used to pay for the rebel cause.
Hundreds of suspects have been identified and detained through such methods, according to data released by the US military last month.
The biometric survey is seen as an essential tool for implementing one of the key principles of counterinsurgency theory: that the population needs to be separated from insurgents.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Data protection | Leave a comment »
Posted on 30 October, 2010 by Mathias Vermeulen
] The US District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a request
Monday for documents regarding the detention and treatment of prisoners being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Judge Barbara Jones granted summary judgment for the government, denying the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) access to the documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The ACLU had sought documents with information on “detainees’ citizenships, dates of capture, length of detention at Bagram, locations of capture and circumstances of capture.” The court held that the government is not required to confirm the existence nor nonexistence of such documents because of the potential harm to national security. ACLU staff attorney Melissa Goodman criticized
The public has a right to know how long the U.S. has kept people locked up in military detention and under what circumstances. The lack of transparency about these key facts is even more disturbing considering the possibility that the U.S. will continue holding and interrogating prisoners at Bagram well into the future. Unfortunately, today’s ruling will allow the government to continue hiding this vital information.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Detention, Secrecy | Leave a comment »