How Due Process Works at Camp Bucca

The Washington Post has a four-page article today on the detainees at American prisons in Iraq. While conditions may have improved from the days of Abu Ghraib abuses, the likelihood of receiving due process apparently has not.

Here's one example: Talib Mohammed Farkhan, who was held for 15 months before being told the reasons for his detention. He learned them at his first hearing. Here's what happened:

[He]shuffled into Hearing Room 3 to hear his U.S. captors explain the allegations against him for the first time.

Farkhan, a Shiite Muslim, appeared to follow along as the American officers said he had been detained for membership in the Mahdi Army, the anti-American Shiite militia. But he looked totally baffled when they also accused him of working with al-Qaeda in Iraq, the extremist Sunni Muslim group that kills Americans and Shiites.

"I don't understand how that could be possible," said a visibly flustered Farkhan, a welder from the southern city of Iskandariyah, who denied all the accusations. "They are Sunni. I am Shia."


The hearing officers (non-lawyers) had this response:

Yet the three U.S. servicemen before him, a panel of non-lawyers convened as part of a new quasi-judicial process to review each detainee's case every six months, did not need to decide whether Farkhan had violated the law. Their task was to decide whether he posed an "imperative security threat" to the U.S.-led coalition or the Iraqi people. And they concluded that credible evidence, which they would not describe to Farkhan or a Washington Post correspondent allowed to view the 19-minute hearing, suggested that he probably did.

"I'm not looking at whether they are guilty or innocent," said Air Force Maj. Jeff Ghiglieri, the president of the review board that convened in May. "We're trying to determine as best we can whether they will do bad things if we release them." Minutes later, the panel unanimously voted to detain Farkhan for another six months.

It appears that the men will be released once the U.S. turns the prisons over to the Iraqis.

But the recently approved U.S.-Iraqi security agreement will soon require the American military to release the 16,000 Iraqi detainees -- the vast majority of them held in this southern desert prison -- or refer them to the nation's courts. As the U.S. military detention system here begins to come under Iraqi control, a complicated joint effort is underway to determine which of the men are safe to release and which may be insurgents.

"Most of the people they detain are innocent," said Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi.

More than 100,000 have been detained in U.S. run overseas detention centers. That's 100 times more than at Guantanamo. Instead of due process, they get this:

100 times as many prisoners have been held at Camp Bucca and other Iraqi sites with far fewer legal rights and no oversight by the American court system. The Iraqis are not charged with crimes, permitted to see the evidence against them or provided lawyers.

But the Iraqi captives are now offered religious, academic and vocational classes. They are permitted to meet with relatives in person or long distance via videoconferencing equipment. The detainees at Camp Bucca, many of whom like to read Agatha Christie mysteries and watch Jackie Chan movies, have their own choir, intramural soccer league and a workshop to produce stuffed animals called Bucca Bears.

The U.S. military believes this treatment will overcome the negative perception of Americans:

"This used to be a jihadi university that was just breeding more terrorists," said Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone, who ran the detention system until this summer. "Now we are engaging the detainees and using detainee operations to teach the Iraqis here and improve their perception of Americans."

I doubt that's going to happen. As one released prisoner who has nothing but praise for the treatment he received and the skills he learned while incarcerated at Bucca, says:

"Even if they turn the place into a paradise," he said, "it is still a prison full of innocent men."

The Post reporters visited Camp Bucca and Camp Cropper. More than 300 juveniles are among the prisoners held at Cropper. The last part of the article details a 16 year old's hearing:

Saleh, who was captured in Baghdad in August 2007, denied he had done anything wrong. When he left the room, Le Moyne said: "He could benefit from more evaluation. I don't think he's a member of an international terrorist group; I think he's a stupid kid." Although Saleh qualified for amnesty under an Iraqi law passed earlier this year, the panel voted to hold him for six more months of detention.

The point repeated over and over is that the panel doesn't try to figure out if someone is guilty or innocent. I'm still not sure what it is trying to assess and how holding innocent men for years can be considered justifiable under any standard, let alone one from a nation that is founded on principles of due process.

< NY Commission Recommends White Males to Replace Chief Judge | Montana Judge Okays Doctor-Assisted Suicide >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What it comes down to is (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 08:05:34 AM EST
    any healthy male between 16 to 50 will not be released until we leave even if he is innocent, because now he's probably really mad as soon as his sadness passes and he gets a life back.  If he is released he will tell everyone what happened to him and he may think that attacking U.S. forces is a good thing.  This is military fairness. It is right up there with having to deploy to Iraq or go to jail even though Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and probably even Powell lied.  When the Democrats voted to continue funding the Iraq War they became puppeteers of delivery this misery too.

    Depressing, discouraging and stupid. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    Just one of the many foulups in this nightmare exercise in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    What's the message here?

    You can't fix stupid.

    teaching democracy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jen M on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    by example

    yes indeedy, (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    it's that whole "bringing democracy to the world" thing in action.

    in defense of the military, they have been asked to assume responsibilities that they are not trained for, and are not part of their primary mission. it's no surprise that they aren't doing them particularly well.

    it all comes down to the failure of the bush administration to competently plan for this operation, once they'd conned congress into authorizing it.

    just another in the staggering display of ineptitude by bush and his cronies.

    This settkes it for me (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    "Most of the people they detain are innocent," said Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi.

    How simple is this? (none / 0) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 03:49:39 PM EST
    What is the downside keeping them incarcerated?


    What is the downside in following basic law?

    Infinitesimal, but not zero

    Case closed.

    not quite. (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    What is the downside keeping them incarcerated? None.

    in fact, the downside includes, in part, giving foreign fighters a cause. they now have a rallying point for their version of "jihad".

    the deaths and wounds, to american & iraqui soldiers, and iraqui civilians, resulting from these foreign fighter's activities, certainly belies your assertion of no downside.

    Oh, c'mon now... (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 05:38:37 PM EST
    Maybe I didn't stick my tongue in my cheek far enough, but your using logic and reason in the context of this discussion is clearly unfair, and out of bounds.....lol

    Referee!....two demerits for my opponent.

    i know you were being tongue in cheek, (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:26:34 AM EST
    it just opened a wonderful door to slap jim with.

    thank you.


    What you don't believe (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:02:29 AM EST
    that all of these people are innocent and deserve a Perry Mason and a full up US criminal justice system trial, complete with appeals all the way to the SC?

    I am shocked.

    Yes, shocked.

    You obviously haven't read our Constitution. You know, the part that includes the rest of the world under it...



    They aren't covered?? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    Then where's the beef?

    I see that you have drank deep of the (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:26:12 PM EST
    kool aid and watched the propaganda closely.


    Rounding up folks and locking them up
    without a reason,