U.S. "Black Jails" Still Operating in Afghanistan and Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 11:17:34 AM EST
Tags: Bagram (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The New York Times reports on two "black jails" still being operated by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. It has interviewed several released detainees whose accounts are similar. They had no access to the Red Cross. One is a special unit at Bagram:

The site consists of individual windowless concrete cells, each lighted by a single light bulb glowing 24 hours a day, where detainees said that their only contact with another human being was at twice-daily interrogation sessions.

The jail’s operation highlights a tension between President Obama’s goal to improve detention conditions that had drawn condemnation under the Bush administration and his desire to give military commanders leeway to operate. ...While Mr. Obama signed an order to eliminate so-called black sites run by the Central Intelligence Agency in January, that order did not apply to this jail, which is run by military Special Operations forces.

The other is at Balad Air Base in Iraq. An Obama Adminisration official says Obama's orders to close the black hole sites applied to those run by the CIA, not military Special Operations forces, and there are no plans to close these jails.

< The Tim Tebow Memorial Saturday College Football Thread | Russian Train Crash Caused by Bomb >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

U.S. "Black Jails" Still Operating in Afghanistan and Iraq | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

President Equivocate... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Dadler on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 11:20:44 AM EST

...strikes again. And again, and again, and again.

Since being denied (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by jondee on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 12:12:19 PM EST

the all-out invasion of Cuba that the unhinged Joint Chiefs wanted in the early sixties, when, in the last forty + years, has ANY American president ever stood up and said no to whatever the Pentagon and CIA said they required?


: He hired McChrystal (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 12:23:02 PM EST

So certain techniques never troubled him.

: Well, we do not know for sure how much (none / 0) (#7)
by KeysDan on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 03:18:39 PM EST

fortitude any had, but we do know that when a president does try to stand up to the CIA or Military, they run into trouble. A case study is George H.W.Bush, who seemed to want to avoid hostilities with Panama, particularly with his old asset from his CIA days. But, soon he was labeled a "wimp", which was aided and abetted by the press. The next thing we knew, "Operation Just Cause" was put into place and we invaded Panama in December 1989, just before the Carter-negotiated treaty was to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the US to Panama. Conflicting reasons were given for the invasion, but President Bush seemed to focus (as did his UN Ambassador Pickering) on the slapping of a serviceman's wife. Noriega rode around Panama City for several days in an old Plymouth, making calls from a Dairy Queen for asylum at the Vatican Embassy, which was granted However, he did give up after the Eminences could not take the high volume rock and roll music aimed at their sleeping rooms. Bush was no longer a wimp, and went on to bigger and better wars.

He can thread the needle, Can't he? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by BrassTacks on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 02:29:35 AM EST

I'd love to see him stop being wishy washy and man up to something instead of always trying to go down the middle to avoid criticism. The reality is, he just irritates everyone with his equivocating.


While none of what I will (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 12:35:15 PM EST

type will or can be considered an observance of basic human rights, I seriously doubt that anyone being held has been beaten since President Obama took over. Of course recordings of beatings that prisoners can hear would be considered a useful tool and that tactic is probably not considered illegal by this administration, and sleep deprivation and isolation are of course completely on the table. I am told though that even the black sites have double oversight when it comes to enforcing this administrations rules. Who watches the watchers? I dunno

Plus ça change, (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Zorba on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 12:35:52 PM EST

Plus c'est la même chose.

: My Sentiments Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by The Maven on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 02:54:19 PM EST

(although I was going to say it as "meet the new administration, same as the old administration"). Pretty much everything Obama has done as regards detainee policies at Guantanamo, Bagram and elsewhere has been as severe disappointment, though it becomes less surprising by the day. From extensions for possibly shutting down Gitmo (maybe by 2011?), to selective access to actual criminal trials in regular courts, to reserving the right to indefinite detention without trial, to continued reliance on the abhorrent state secrets privilege to shut down entire cases rather then merely shield individual pieces of evidence, etc., etc.
There has been distressingly little evidence of actual change, just some occasional talk of it with the hope that no one bothers to check later to see whether there was genuine follow-through.

William F Buckley (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by kidneystones on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 04:39:38 PM EST

Pointed out during the Viet Nam debate that children are burned to death in all wars. That was certainly the case when 'good Dem' Harry Truman sanctioned the fire-bombing of Japanese cities from March, 1945. Something like 81 square kilometers of densely-populated urban areas burned to a crisp. There's an instructive NHK documentary on the fire-creation strategy employed by the USAF and on the new 'miracle' weapon: burning gelatin tested and employed against the civilian population of Japan.

While loathe to cite Buckley, I fear he makes the only point that matters: war is by definition inhumane. Better and more efficient interrogation/torture techniques might make Dems now responsible for the abduction of suspects sleep better at night. The same cannot likely be said of those picked-up or their families.

We all need to have a very clear idea of why we're willing to subject ourselves and the Afghan people to this sort of inhumanity. I'm willing to listen to the arguments. But if we do not have a clear set of realistic goals with identifiable benefits that can be achieved, then we need to ask ourselves just why we're setting the region and ourselves alight.

Unbelieveably the bots at Orange (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 06:12:23 PM EST

Would like to attempt to paint this as some sort of military coup. I just can't believe it. Does anybody there read Greenwald ever? Have they paid absolutely no attention to anything militarily concerning Obama? And they simply can't wait to blame this on soldiers gone rogue. There is NOTHING rogue going on. This is Obama policy. And lefties wonder why a majority of the military are nauseated by them. It is because soldiers are easy scapegoats to liberals, who often do it shamelessly when they can't deal with certain realities.


The Cruelest Lie (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by kidneystones on Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 09:56:26 PM EST

Interesting, isn't it? How gullible Dems are! Just spent a bit reviewing some of my essays from April, 2008, before I pulled the pin on my support for the current gang and crossed over to the other side.

I'd much, much prefer candor over any other virtue. Recall how much some Dems made of Obama's opposition to the Iraq invasion? Now, we have the same guy making a new set of promises about another war.

The biting irony is that troops that actually make it out of Iraq this year or next look to be heading straight back to fight the same enemy in Afghanistan in an open-ended battle, without the requested number of troops or resources.

That's change you can believe in.

I'll be posting slightly more regularly on my own site and on the Twitter @kidneystones_, that's kidneystones with an '_'.


Candor is all that anyone will (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 08:08:02 AM EST

REALLY have at the end of any day. I never overly worried about Obama worship. It was an interesting phenom and sometimes even a funny one. It is hard for me to stomach today though the blind denial, blaming this on the troops or a rogue military or a rogue CIA, or that these detainees are a bunch of liars (though everything they claim outside of the beatings is legal), while at the same time people are so proud that they don't read Greenwald. How is such willful ignorance ever useful? I think I did realize yesterday and today though that because of what a political junkie I am, and because I have a hard time dealing with certain realities in the combat zones and have a spouse right in the middle of the whole deal.....I seem to be one of a very few who didn't lie to myself about what the writing on the wall was as well as being willing to talk about it. BTD always surprised me with his candor as well when discussing Preventive Detention. God knows I respect that candor a lot more today too.


You have your (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 05:37:40 PM EST

own blog? Can you post a link on your profile here?


we had to disable that feature (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 11:11:07 PM EST

due to spammers registering to use it for their websites. Sorry.


: A quick apology, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by kidneystones on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 11:30:39 PM EST

I noted that one of my comments on the 'We had them at Tora-Bora thread was deleted. I'm an immense fan of what you're doing here, but can sometimes be a bit rude, I know.
I'm not convinced, frankly, that the sensible people who post here get much of a hearing from the decision-makers in Washington and elsewhere.
I do my best to keep my more strident critiques off this site. I'm convinced, however, that this administration is repeating (to my horror) virtually every bad decision we saw from the previous administration. I think you're far more socially liberal than I am, but I respect and admire your intelligence, commitment and passion.
My not be enough to be in good-standing, but I'll take the content of TL over that of any other site this side of Duncan Black, and that includes Digby, who I respect.