Afghan Judicial Panel Refuses To Accept Indefinite Detention Law While Federal Court Allows It To Continue Under U.S. Law

In the last decade, the United States has increasingly become a symbol of hypocrisy as a nation that has violated many international principles that it helped create after 9-11.  That record was reinforced this week after the Afghan government (not exactly the paragon of civil liberties) refused to adopt indefinite detention rules pushed by the Obama Administration. Of course, President Obama has continued the indefinite detention of the Bush Administration and the operation of the Guantanamo Bay facility over the objections of civil libertarians. We recently saw the death of a detainee who was found years ago not to be a national security risk and never proven to be guilty of a single crime. Yet, in its effort to create a “new Democracy” in the Afghanistan, the Obama Administration was insisting that it replicate our own indefinite detention rules. In the meantime, a federal court has stayed a prior court order that enjoined the provision on indefinite detention under the Obama Administration’s 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

A judicial panel ruled that administrative detention runs counter to the country’s laws. Yet the Obama Administration said that unless the country adopted this authoritarian measure, it may not turn over prisoners to Afghan officials. We are still holding more than 600 Afghans.

The death of Adnan Latif, a Yemeni, has become the latest symbol of our abusive policy of detention. As early as 2004, the military determined that he should be released but never told his lawyers until years later. In 2010 a federal court ordered his release. He would never live to see freedom.

Source: Guardian

111 thoughts on “Afghan Judicial Panel Refuses To Accept Indefinite Detention Law While Federal Court Allows It To Continue Under U.S. Law”

  1. Raff,

    I thank you but I cannot accept praise which is not mine…. I think AP. Posted this….

    I’ll take credit on the two headed pelican….


    “But last year, a divided three-judge panel for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated that ruling. Citing inconsistencies in Mr. Latif’s account, the two judges in the majority, Janice Rogers Brown and Karen LeCraft Henderson, also said the report was entitled to “a presumption of regularity.”

    The ruling drew a sharp dissent from the third judge on the panel, David Tatel, who also focused on the flaws of the report. He faulted his colleagues for giving nearly conclusive weight to a sketchy report “produced in the fog of war,” saying their standard effectively required judges to accept as true virtually whatever the government claims, severely undermining a 2008 Supreme Court ruling granting the detainees habeas corpus rights.

    In June, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Mr. Latif’s case without comment. Judges Kennedy and Tatel were both appointed by President Bill Clinton. Judge Henderson was appointed by President George Bush, and Judge Brown by President George W. Bush.”

  3. Defense Attorney David Remes’ statement Sept. 11, 2012:

    “Yesterday, the press reported that a Yemeni detainee at Guantánamo had died. The detainee was our client, Adnan Latif, ISN 156, whom we represented since 2004. Slightly built and gentle, he was a father and husband. He was a talented poet, and was devoutly religious. He never posed a threat to the United States, and he never should have been brought to Guantánamo.

    The military has not stated a cause of death. However Adnan died, it was Guantánamo that killed him. His death is a reminder of the human cost of the government’s Guantánamo detention policy and underscores the urgency of releasing detainees the government does not intend to prosecute.”

    Read more here:

  4. Mespo, lots of people are saying that whereas they expected Trayvon Martin to act like a reasonable kid, he viciously attacked George Zimmerman instead. We don’t know that, do we, unless we take George’s story — without cross-examination — as truth. That is all I am saying about the detainees who are in Guantanamo (and Latif, who is no longer) who have not been convicted of any crimes. Plenty of people will say that they have done wrong. We just shouldn’t let our whole nation degenerate into that kind of tyranny, even if we think it’s justified.

    Yes, the world by in large believes we should have long ago closed down Guantanamo. Besides which, Obama specifically said he intended to do it within a year of his election if I am not mistaken.

    It is so obvious that it has to happen. I have not indulged in all the research; perhaps I “should” but my kid tells me to stop “shoulding” all over myself. I rely upon several sources to let me off doing all the exquisite research to back up my position, but I know it’s there. I will cite several personal conversations with a Yemeni-born American analyst/journalist, Munir Y. al-Mawari, internationally recognized as an Arab speaking pro-US pro-Israel independent journalist, wherein he emphasized that one of the main problems the US has in its diplomacy efforts throughout South Asia and the Middle East is that it has not yet shut down Guantanamo. We’re just messing up our own credibility by this unresolved and seemingly worsening debacle in the land of freedom. I don’t think WE can afford it, much less the unlucky prisoners, the good, the bad and the ugly.

  5. mespo,

    “The DOD “recommended” his release and the Administration declined that recommendation based largely on its collective judgment that he would show up again on some battlefield. Two appellate level judges disagreed with one district court judge. Seven Supreme Court justices denied cert effectively agreeing with the two DC Circuit Court judges. Even in a numbers game Latif loses.”

    Do you trust every judgment/decision/ruling made by US Presidents and their Administrations and the Supreme Court? Do you think two Presidents and their Administrations could have had political reasons for declining the recommendations made to them?

Comments are closed.