14,000 Held In Overseas U.S. Prisons

Prisoners From Iraq, Afghanistan Held Beyond Established Laws

(AP)  U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared last March that the extent of arbitrary detention here is "not consistent with provisions of international law governing internment on imperative reasons of security."

Meanwhile, officials of Nouri al-Maliki's 4-month-old Iraqi government say the U.S. detention system violates Iraq's national rights.

At the Justice Ministry, Deputy Minister Busho Ibrahim told the AP it has been "a daily request" that the detainees be brought under Iraqi authority.

The cases of U.S.-detained Iraqis are reviewed by a committee of U.S. military and Iraqi government officials. The panel recommends criminal charges against some, release for others. Almost 18,700 have been released since June 2004, the U.S. command says, not including many more who were held and then freed by local military units and never shipped to major prisons.

Some who were released, no longer considered a threat, later joined or rejoined the insurgency.

The review process is too slow, say U.N. officials. Until they are released, often families do not know where their men are — the prisoners are almost always men — or even whether they are in American hands.

Released prisoner Waleed Abdul Karim, 26, recounted how his guards would wield their absolute authority.

"Tell us about the ones who attack Americans in your neighborhood," he quoted an interrogator as saying, "or I will keep you in prison for another 50 years."

As with others, Karim's confinement may simply have strengthened support for the anti-U.S. resistance. "I will hate Americans for the rest of my life," he said.

As bleak and hidden as the Iraq lockups are, the Afghan situation is even less known. Accounts of abuse and deaths emerged in 2002-2004, but Abu Ghraib-like photos from Bagram exist, none have leaked out. The U.S. military is believed holding about 500 detainees — most Afghans, but also apparently Arabs, Pakistanis and Central Asians.

Guantanamo received its first prisoners from Afghanistan — chained, wearing blacked-out goggles — in January 2002. A total of 770 detainees were sent there. Its population today of Afghans, Arabs and others, stands at 455.

Described as the most dangerous of America's "war on terror" prisoners, only 10 of the Guantanamo inmates have been charged with crimes. Charges are expected against 14 other al Qaeda suspects flown in to Guantanamo from secret prisons on Sept. 4.

Plans for their trials are on hold, however, because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June against the Bush administration's plan for military tribunals.

The court held the tribunals were not authorized by the U.S. Congress and violated the Geneva Conventions by abrogating prisoners' rights. In a sometimes contentious debate, the White House and Congress are trying to agree on a new, acceptable trial plan.

Since the court decision, and after four years of confusing claims that terrorist suspects were so-called "unlawful combatants" unprotected by international law, the Bush administration has taken steps recognizing that the Geneva Conventions' legal and human rights do extend to imprisoned al Qaeda members. At the same time, however, the new White House proposal on tribunals retains such controversial features as denying defendants access to some evidence against them.

The Navy is planning long-term at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This fall it expects to open a new, $30-million maximum-security wing at its prison complex there, a concrete-and-steel structure replacing more temporary camps.

In Iraq, Army jailers are a step ahead. Last month they opened a $60-million, state-of-the-art detention center at Camp Cropper, near Baghdad's airport. The Army oversees about 13,000 prisoners in Iraq at Cropper, Camp Bucca in the southern desert, and Fort Suse in the Kurdish north.

The clandestine jails are now empty, Bush announced, but will remain a future option for CIA detentions.

Louise Arbour, U.N. human rights chief, is urging Bush to abolish the CIA prisons altogether, as ripe for "abusive conduct." The CIA's techniques for extracting information from prisoners still are secret, she noted.

[fredegrar]

By 'indefinitely', I meant 'however long suits us'. That's not necessarily the same as 'forever'. I retract my numeric calculations anyway - when I first read this story there was a quote about 70 - 90 percent of these people being innocent. That paragraph is no longer in the article, so CBS must've been unable to sustantiate it. I'm shocked - unsubstantiated info making it into a CBS news story??

[ronniehm]

Well are we keeping them indefinitely or are we letting them out? It seems to me that if we're letting anyone out, we're doing more than we did during WWII. And if you think we're just picking up people at random, you'd have to think our soldiers are just a bunch of complete idiots, because they're the ones choosing the prisoners, not Bush. And if you think the majority of the people we're fighting aren't terrorists, you must think that lot more American soldiers have died than Iraqi civilians, and that's not true. They're terrorists, with all the "loaded" things that go with that word, like targeting civilians. And I still find it hard to believe that 20% of any cuture but muslims would become terrorists or insurgents. It didn't happen during WWII, and even if it did, we'd still be right.

[fredegrar]

Hi, Ronnie. I did use the phrase, "when they get out." I'm just assuming that eventually people who did nothing except get picked up in a raid will eventually be freed. As far as my 20% is concerned, strictly just a guess - I'm betting it's a conservative number, but I could be way off in either direction. Last I checked, thousands of Americans haven't been falsely incarcerated in their own country by a foreign power in quite a while. I also didn't say they'd all become 'terrorists' - that's a pretty loaded word. I'm sure any of these people who do decide to turn to violence will think of it more as 'resisting the foreign occupier' than terrorism. Some might be goaded into using terrorist tactics (targetting civilians) and some may go a more traditional shoot-soldiers-with-guns route (but most, I hope, will go home and try to get their lives back). I'm not willing to say muslims are more prone to becoming terrorists than anyone else, but throwing people in jail for no good reason and keeping them indefinitely, without any sort of explanation, at the very least doesn't strike me as a good way to 'de-radicalize' folks.

[ronniehm]

Just out of curiousity, fredegrar, how would your 1800 "new problems" harm us if they're already locked up? And, where did you get your 20% figure? From what I can recall, 0% of Americans held hostage by the other side ever became terrorists, and I'm sure they were pretty angry. Do you think muslims are more likely to become terrorists?

[ronniehm]

No doubt people joined the Nazi party during WWII as well.

[fredegrar]

"How many of these people are guilty of terrorism?" I think the article quotes some anonymous source as saying 70 - 90 percent of these people had nothing to do with terrorism or the insugency. So, even using the 70% number, that would be around 9,000 innocent people. If just 20% of these people become so angry at their incarceration that they decided to BECOME terrorists or insugents when they get out... that's 1,800 new 'enemies of the US'. Of course, that would imply that we're locking up more terrorists than we're creating (5,000 properly jailed/1800 new problems - through the 'false incarceration' method, anyway). On the other hand, using less conservative numbers would turn that calculation around pretty quick.

[ronniehm]

"By this logic extended we would therefore genocide Germans during WWII, etc. because "they are doing it too"."

Actually, by this logic, we would have done exactly what we did during WWII, and we certainly did not genocide Germans. By your logic, we would have lost WWII.

[trid2bnrml]

It would be "justice", in my opinion, if Bush and company were able to get the bill through congress that says, among other things, that they can try people without allowing them to see the evidence against them, and then BUSH and COMPANY stood before that very same court, prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity under the same laws they pushed so hard to enact!

Then, when that's all over and the Administration criminals are off to prison, congress needs to repeal those unjust laws and write legislation forbidding anything remotely like that in the future.

Then send each of Bush and company a copy of it in their respective prison cells...

Justice Has Been Served.

[sharncedar]

"So the United States is detaining 14,000 people. The insurgents in Iraq have MURDERED,not detained,far more than 14,000 poeple."

You seem to be saying it is OK therefore to detain these other people. A common argument of the Fox News types is that we can do these new kinds of behaviors such as torture and denying habeous corpus because "they" are doing it too. By this logic extended we would therefore genocide Germans during WWII, etc. because "they are doing it too". Or order hits on mob figures and kill them without trial, or break into burglars houses and steal their stuff, or abuse child abusers in some gross manner. It is a bizarre logic that says that one is allowed to do anything one's deranged enemies might do. Bizarre reprisal logic like this is common in people who are venting or upset; certainly we don't expect it from national leaders who have responsibilities to law and order.

[ronniehm]

"CBS, the 14,000 thank you." -- janem4

Usama sends his regards as well.

[grumpas]

How many of these people are guilty of terrorism? Or are they just victims of an "out of control administration"? People who have had the audacity to question Bush? Bush calls everyone who doesn't agree with him a terrorist! How much longer will it be before we anti-war people start joining them in prisons around the world? How can we possibly try them for anything when the people trying them are as big a criminal's? I posed these questions to my Senator's and Congressman. As yet I haven't gotten an answer. But, I plan on continuing to E Mail them on this subject until I get some kind of an answer.

Posted by Tank611 wrote:
"So the United States is detaining 14,000 people. The insurgents in Iraq have MURDERED,not detained,far more than 14,000 poeple."

And Bush is responsible for the deaths of roughly 45,000 in Iraq.

God knows how many have been tortured due to Bush's "policies".

[tank611]

So the United States is detaining 14,000 people. The insurgents in Iraq have MURDERED,not detained,far more than 14,000 poeple.

[emhawks]

As someone said in a previous post,"...the terrorist is within". Sadly enough, how very true. Bush, Cheney & many in their adm. are terrorists. The sooner they are impeached & made to account for their abuses towards this country & it's people, the better off America will be. They have never wanted to protect America or its' citizens. There is no war on terror. I also believe that in the years ahead, it will be proven that Bush, Cheney & other high ranking gov. officials within the adm., were involved in bringing about 9/11.

The United States doesn't torture people - but the CIA and George Bush's administration and co-conspirators do.

Bush and co need to be investigated and if they are found to have directly or indirectly responsible for torture or human rights violations and even war crimes, then they need to be prosecuted - just as we would expect those guilty of those same crimes to be if they were a foreign national.

[zeekylord]

With so many in OUR prisons here, maybe we could ship some of our prisoners out?

[cowboy3231]

This is a no win senerio.. All the values that America stands for are being violated under the proposition that the END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS .. This will create more terriost.. What ever happened to human rights & values ? Are we becoming that which we hunt ? Americans would do well in researching the Spainish inquisitions & how the King justified it .. Those who do not learn from history are doom to repeat it.. No act of violence has solved any problem..

[alphaa10-2009]

The Bush regime fought humanitarian principles underpinning the Geneva Accords all the way-- it is hardly surprising Bush and co-conspirators might express "problems" with such modern and generally recognized concepts as humane and just treatment of prisoners.

Under Sneaky Gonzales and Ghastly Ashcroft, whose labryrinthine arguments on prisoners and other detention issues seem illogical, if not downright illegal, on their face, Bush took the brute force route once again and characteristically confused it with finesse. Bush handled his "prisoner problem" as he does any other major crisis, including Katrina-- simply deny and/or spin it to death, hoping it will go away.

Problems with Abu Graib? "Hey, we've had plans for months to shut the place down." Problems with secret prisons? "Hey, we've had plans for months to shut the place down." Problems with torture? "Hey, we were planning all along to stop it..."

Even members of the party which still maintains some relationship with Bush is quick to point out Bush speaks for himself. After all, Bush is the bozo who said to assembled members of his party, who protested NSA spying, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a GD*&&^! piece of paper!"

[mac2499-2009]

The actions of the U.S. Goverments on these prisoners will beget nothing more than more violence being perpatrated by terrorist groups. Not only that but it will help create future terrorist. But it seems to me that the people of the United States don't care or don't mind that this will happens by the number of commets posted about this story.

[sharncedar]

Bush and the other fascists will certainly fall; fascism always does as it is abhorrent to something deep within humanity. But as they continue in power longer and longer, their eventual fall becomes greater and greater. Two years ago, Bush and his torture-loving friends could have silently retired into obscurity, in another two years, it will require trials and public repudiation for the underlings. Another four years, it will require trials and public humiliation for the main players so the nation can officially distance itself from this awful behavior to clean up our reputation. It is not really in Bush's interest to cling to power anymore, in that sense. He can still retire into obscurity and slight disapproval, like Nixon, but needs to act soon to avoid scathing humiliation.