The US has handed over the prison at Bagram Air Force base to Afghanistan, in the latest in a series of transitions to have the Afghans take control of their own security. The prison transfer was part of a bargain won months ago by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. However, hundreds of prisoners at the facility remain under US control.
The U.S. has since the signing of the March 9 handover agreement gradually handed over responsibility for most of the 3,000 detainees held at the prison. As some may have been released or others brought in, the prison’s current detainee population under U.S. control is not known but is thought to number in the hundreds.
The U.S. recently suspended the transfer of new detainees apparently because of disagreements with Kabul, which has questioned the long-term detention of suspects without charge after their capture.
The U.S. reportedly fears that Afghan authorities may simply let some detainees go, and appears reluctant to turn over all the suspects it holds.
So this is a “handover” without handing over, you know, the prisoners. And the US still resists letting Afghanistan take control of its security, even while Afghanistan marks the event allowing them to take control of their security. This leaves about 600 detainees captured after the agreement in March in limbo. And there are 50 non-Afghans held at the facility that, even if the post-March detainee situation gets dealt with, the US will continue to administer. These include the detainees transferred from other wars and facilities to Bagram, to avoid any habeas corpus writs or disputes around indefinite detention. This pretty much confirms that a subset of the prisoners at Bagram are slated to remain there forever.
Even if they figure all this out, there’s an associated dispute over prisoners captured by US forces. The Afghans want those prisoners turned over to their custody within 72 hours. The US wants to hold them for indeterminately longer. In other words, Afghanistan has higher standards around detention policy and holding detainees without charges than the US.
Meanwhile, a prisoner on a hunger strike at Guantanamo was found dead in his cell, which is the only way those 50 Bagram prisoners will die, under the current standard.
More from the New York Times. This is kind of a metaphor for the entire US engagement in Afghanistan, simultaneously wanting to leave yet unable to let go. And of course, indefinitely detaining prisoners along the way.




11 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The US military routinely kills known enemies, but arbitrarily acts against suspected enemies in two different ways: (1) kills them or (2) captures them and imprisons them indefinitely. (There is a third alternative, a judicial process, but it is hardly ever employed.)
So one wonders how the decision is made whether to kill suspects, or to capture them so that they can be then be imprisoned indefinitely. I imagine that it largely depends on the circumstances and the mind-set of the US person involved at the time. It’s one of the burdens of empire and American Exceptionalism.
Of course bin Laden was easily placed in Category (1).
“. . . to have the Afghans take control of their own security.”
More honest description: “. . . as the US withdraws in defeat.” This policy was bullshit when it was called Vietnamization, and it is bullshit now. It is a euphemism for losing used by people who can’t discuss things honestly.
Saw earlier today or maybe yesterday U.S. guy in charge having a hissy fit over losing control. Can’t find the link though.
With any luck, all 3,000 of the people held in Bagram will be released by “Afghan authorities” as a general amnesty and counterpoint to the violent horror show that US forces delivered to one of the poorest nations on the planet. With a lot of luck, the Afghanis will wrap Bagram in a giant US flag and then burn the place to the fucking ground after the prisoner release.
Why are we there at all?
Because they hate us for our freedoms /s
See, the story is that the US enemies are insurgents fighting against the government the US is helping to conduct a counter-insurgency campaign, and also the US is helping the government get stronger. According to FM 3-24 COIN, “Legitimacy Is the Main Objective” and “The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government.”
Now after ten years nobody can say there is effective governance, especially with Karzai replacing all his primary assistants, and besides there will be a new government soon because Karzai, the “mayor of Kabul,” can’t run for another term. This will happen at the same time that the US military finally pulls out in 2014, declaring victory as in Iraq.
I think that clarifies it.
Empires have to go somewhere to die. Really snazzy ones choose Afghanistan.
Nice one.
US troops – Afghan
Jan 2009 32,000
Sep 2012 68,000 (after drawdown)
(peak: 100,000 in 2011)
budgeted for OEF
FY 2009 $59.5bn
FY 2012 $88.0 (requested)
(peak: $118.6bn in FY2011)
US troop deaths
2008 155
2012 250 (to date)
(peak: 499 in 2010)