The Other Guantanamo: Afghanistan begins Internment

In March, the United States and Afghanistan completed negotiations to begin turning over control of Afghan prisoners to the government of Afghanistan. On Monday, Afghan institutions could start ruling on the internment of its own citizens. The image above is from a Taliban prisoner release in 2010.

The fact that the government appears to be embracing the United States policy of detaining people without trial is a cruel legacy.

“The use of the US system of detention without trial by the Afghan government is probably the most important consequence of the handover of Bagram. Yet it has been introduced with virtually no discussion, whether in parliament or the media. The Afghan government has appeared reluctant to discuss the issue: even as the new Afghan institutions were being established to detain Afghans without trial at Bagram, President Karzai’s spokesman told AAN they were against the practice. Kate Clark details what is now happening at Bagram, reveals unpublished documentation and questions whether the Afghan state has actually gained sovereignty over its detained citizens and whether the US has really relinquished any control.”

“The US was concerned about the possible release of some of those it deems the most dangerous people in custody, particularly as the 3000 odd people currently held by the US without trial might be considered illegally incarcerated under Afghan law. Hence the Afghan and US negotiators took recourse to the Laws of Armed Conflict. Both the Bagram MoU and the MoU on Special Operations, which was signed a month later (text and analysis are here), cite the 1977 Second Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (APII) as the legal basis for detention without trial. APII acknowledges that when a state is fighting a war, it may deprive its citizens of ‘their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict.’”

“If the Board recommends release, the case file is passed back to the Committee. However, the decision to release any detainee is made by the Bagram Transfer Commission, which is comprised of five ministers, under the chairmanship of the minister of defence. But even they cannot act independently. They must consult the US before releasing anyone, including those being sent for trial. The Bagram MoU says that if the US believes a particular individual remains a security threat, ‘Afghanistan is to consider favourably such assessment.’ This may be diplomatic language for a veto.”

Click here to read the full article.

Tags: bagram,

The Strategic Partnership | Documents, Analysis, Action

President Barack Obama and President Hamid Karzai emerge from their meeting before signing a strategic partnership agreement at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 2, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Linked below are some of the documents released by the White House.

The Agreement covers a ten-year period with a comprehensive commitment to aid, economy, education, justice and war. However, because it is a framework, there is a lack of detail on all these matters.

One thing is clear.

The commitment to military aid and building-up the security forces is guaranteed. The commitment to aid, education and justice is a pledge to ask Congress to appropriate the funds.

Kate Clark, Afghanistan Analysts Network offers this

“4) This is not a status of forces agreement - or ‘Bilateral Security Agreement’ as it is termed in the Strategic Partnership Agreement. That should come, the Agreement says, in a year’s time. This is by far the more important issue, as the US needs its forces to continue to enjoy immunity from the Afghan justice system for any crimes they commit on Afghan soil. Sorting out this issue has been made more urgent after many Afghans, including parliamentarians, demanded that those responsible for the Panjway killing spree and the Quran burning at Bagram had to be tried in Afghan courts. Whether or not a status of forces agreement is signed will ultimately decide whether US forces can stay or, as in Iraq, go.

5) However, as it stands, Afghanistan agrees to provide US forces with continued access to and use of Afghan facilities to the end of 2014 and beyond (as it may be agreed in the ‘Bilateral Security Agreement’) for the purposes of, ‘combating al-Qaeda and its affiliates, training the ANSF and other mutually determined missions to advance shared security interests.’ Or as Obama put it in his speech: there will be ‘two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training.’ The aim, he says, is to destroy al-Qaida, not to build a country in America’s image. It seems then that the mission is not about nation building. Yet this is completely at odds with most of the Strategic Partnership Agreement which does very much focus on nation building and with an agenda which looks, despite its repeated commitments to internationally accepted norms, not much as that of the Afghan government in practice.”

Official Documents:

Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement | Public Version

White House Fact Sheet on the Agreement

President’s Address to the Nation from Afghanistan


AFSC Response:

Newsletter: What will lead to a just and lasting peace in Afghanistan?

Our strategy is to challenge the media message with a public letter campaign, please help us. Click on the link to be directed to the action center.

Letter to the Editor

“After the President's speech Tuesday night, some might be under the impression that the war in Afghanistan is ending. On the contrary.

The plan that Mr. Obama announced just relies upon different military solutions, rather than peaceful alternatives for the Afghan people.

Under this plan Afghanistan will become a major non-NATO ally, subjecting the people of Afghanistan to yet another military alliance and continuing the last three decades of war and instability. The peace building necessary for a sovereign and stable Afghanistan cannot be carried out by the generals meeting later this month in Chicago for the NATO Summit.

Instead, we need to support a regional solution that doesn’t rely on force. Afghans don't want more wars and bigger armies. They want a settlement that heals a nation, instead of arming it. And so do many Americans.”

Daughter of War | A Poem by Zahra

Mural Image: Hidden Children from Windows and Mirrors
Artists: Guilford College Community and Hannah Swenson, Courtney Mandeville and Layth Awartani

Daughter of War

I am a daughter of war.
When I was born,

The war was going on.
The sky was dark.
The houses were broken.
The weather was dusty.
The trees were seared.

There was no plant,
No awake human,
No tears in the eyes left.

The streets were covered
By dead human bodies;
The blood was like a river
In the street, house and everywhere.

I didn’t consider failure.
I was full of hope;
I could see

Green places, a blue sky,
Smiles on everyone’s face, tall buildings,
A book in my hand,

Sitting under the tree,
Studying with my parents and siblings,
In my dreams.

But

War never gave this chance.
War took my parents from us.
War took my book

And gave me burqa;
They put me in the jail of burqa.
War forbade me from going outside.

War changed my beautiful land
To the worst place in the world.
War changed our smiles to tears.

War made our dreams
Of going to school,
Freedom of speech,
To be just a dream.

But

I will try.
I will stand for my right.
I will break the silence.
I will show my power.
And I will bring peace
In my country once again.

I promised.

There will be no more war;
I will make my dreams come true.

Once again,
My homeland will be like heaven
And my people will be happy.

By Zahra

Zahra lives in a Taliban-controlled province in Afghanistan. She is the daughter of uneducated farmers who place great value on education for their children in the face of community and extended family disapproval. She is one of nine children able to pursue an education due to the ongoing support of her parents.

This poem is from the Afghan Women's Writing Project. To tell one's story is a human right.

There is no way to peace – peace is the way

This was A.J. Muste’s simple statement of his convictions.

A.J. Muste was a pacifist, anti-war activist and a leader of the labor and civil rights movements whose personal integrity won him a rare universal respect.

The image below, created by the artist Kalil Bendid on 26 May 2009, speaks to me about the extension of war in Afghanistan.

Targeted Killings Follow ‘Rigorous Standards’ | US Official

Yesterday, the Obama administration offered its first extensive explanation of how American officials decide when to use drones to kill people — a tactic that the government often treats as a classified secret even though it is widely known around the world.

What is must disturbing is the idea that international law progresses through violations.

“Yes, in full accordance with the law — and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives — the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific Al Qaeda terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones,”
- John O. Brennan, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser

“If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries… International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal moulds. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy.”
-Colonel Daniel Reisner, former head Israeli Defense Force Legal Dept

“We’re not in Kindergarten on this anymore: we’ve been doing this [targeted killings] since 2001, and there’ a well-established protocol.”
- Bruce Riedel, former CIA official

Lawfare

"John Brennan’s speech yesterday was important for at least three reasons: (1) it marked the first official White House acknowledgment that “the United States Government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qa’ida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones”; (2) it provided a robust defense not only of the legality of targeted killing, but also of the morality, wisdom, and humanity of the practice; and (3) it provided significant detail about the government’s processes and standards for deciding whom to kill – including a general discussion of the “very high bar” the government imposes on itself in analyzing intelligence to avoid mistakes and the loss of innocent life. (The speech did not state which agencies are involved in targeted killing, and most notably did not say a word about the CIA.)"

Drone Necessary – Not Vengence

“President Barack Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser used the anniversary of the Osama bin Laden’s killing to mount a broad public defense of the ethics and efficacy of military drones.

The drone programs, which have been widely reported but rarely discussed by administration officials, were acknowledged by Obama during a Google chat in January in what many national security observers believe was an accidental moment of candor.

But John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, expanded at great length in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, calling the drones an integral part of prevention”

Additional Resources:

US Targeted Killings and International Law (Human Right Watch)

Special Shout-Out:

The international drone summit last weekend was a truly inspiring meeting of activists sharing information, analysis and strategies to stop the proliferation of drones and targeted killing as US policy. Look for details in upcoming posts.

Afghan Youth Protest Against Warlords

Afghans have lived with the violence of failed ‘peace processes’ for decades.

This inspiring clip shows people seeking accountability - in visible ways - from the cycles of violence. Beginning with foreign financial support to groups that fought the Soviets to the same groups fighting themselves and then fighting the Taliban.

As partners in the US attack after 9/11 they again became allies, given amnesty, and allowed into the government. Here is an excerpt from an earlier article.

Afghan Youth Target Former Warlords Ahead Of Contentious Holiday

“A new Afghan youth group is making waves in Kabul with an unprecedented campaign against the country's former warlords.

Members of the Afghan Freedom-Loving Youth Group swept through the streets of Kabul this week, putting up hundreds of posters and spraying graffiti messages critical of the strongmen, many of whom still wield significant influence on the country's political affairs.

While Afghan security forces swiftly removed the derogatory placards and signs, the campaign adds fuel to rising public scrutiny of regional despots who once waged war against the ruling Taliban as leaders of the mujahedin.
Years later, they are viewed as enemies by some and even as war criminals by Human Rights Watch and Afghanistan's own Independent Human Rights Commission. But to their supporters, they have risen to hero status, with some carving out legitimate -- and often high-ranking -- roles within the government.”

To read the article click here.

Additional Resources: Transitional Justice, AREU, 30-Years of Conflict.

A Commitment to Poetry | Afghan Women

A nice profile in the New York Times.

“Like many of the rural members of Mirman Baheer, a women’s literary society based in Kabul, the girl calls whenever she can, typically in secret. She reads her poems aloud to Amail, who transcribes them line by line. To conceal her poetry writing from her family, the girl relies on a pen name, Meena Muska. (Meena means “love” in the Pashto language; muska means “smile.”)

Meena lost her fiancé last year, when a land mine exploded. According to Pashtun tradition, she must marry one of his brothers, which she doesn’t want to do. She doesn’t dare protest directly, but reciting poetry to Amail allows her to speak out against her lot. When I asked how old she was, Meena responded in a proverb: “I am like a tulip in the desert. I die before I open, and the waves of desert breeze blow my petals away.” She wasn’t sure of her age but thought she was 17. “Because I am a girl, no one knows my birthday,” she said.”

Read the full article here.

Click here for more poems on Afghanistan 101.