關塔那摩灣是夠糟糕-巴格拉姆更糟糕的是

Friday, November 14th, 2008 星期五， 2008年11月14號

By Daphne Eviatar | Eric Lewis didn’t know much about Ruzatullah’s case when he decided to take it on two years ago. 由達芙妮Eviatar |埃里克劉易斯也不太了解Ruzatullah的情況下，他決定是否對兩年前。 All he knew was that in October 2004, Ruzatullah, an Afghan man in his thirties, was spending a quiet evening at home with his family in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, when US troops forced their way in and searched the place.所有他知道的是，在2004年10月， Ruzatullah ，一名阿富汗男子在他的三十歲，是一個安靜的開支晚上在家裡與家人在賈拉拉巴德，阿富汗，美國軍隊時，強迫其方式和搜查的地方。 The soldiers found no guns or other weapons, but they seized Ruzatullah and his brother Inavatullah (many Afghans have only one name) and took them to the US military base at Bagram.士兵們沒有發現任何槍支或其他武器，但他們抓住Ruzatullah和他的弟弟Inavatullah （許多阿富汗人只能有一個名稱）和帶他們到美軍基地巴格拉姆。 Inavatullah was released 15 days later; Ruzatullah remained at the de facto detention center. Inavatullah被釋放後15天; Ruzatullah仍處於事實上的拘留中心。 When Lewis took the case in 2006, Ruzatullah was still in US custody.當劉易斯的情況下發生在2006年， Ruzatullah仍處於美軍的關押之下。 No charges had been brought against him.沒有收費已對他提出。 His friends and family insisted that he had no connection to terrorists, criminals, or any armed forces.他的朋友和家人堅持說，他沒有任何關係恐怖分子，罪犯，或任何武裝部隊。

A commercial litigator at Baach Robinson and Lewis — a boutique law firm in Washington, DC — Lewis ordinarily represents foreign banks, insurance companies, and governments in fraud and insolvency cases.商業律師在Baach羅賓遜和劉易斯-精品律師事務所在華盛頓特區-劉易斯通常是外資銀行，保險公司和政府的欺詐和破產案件。 He heard about the detainees at Bagram from Tina Monshipour Foster, a former attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), where Lewis had been a board member.他聽到被關押在巴格拉姆從蒂娜Monshipour福斯特，前律師的憲法權利中心（中央控制室），其中劉易斯一直是董事會成員。 Foster’s two-year-old nonprofit, the International Justice Network (IJN), provides legal assistance to victims of human rights abuses, as well as linking advocates around the world.福斯特的2歲的非盈利性的國際司法網（ IJN ），提供法律援助，以侵犯人權的受害者，以及連接主張世界各地。 The problems she described to Lewis — hundreds of detainees held incommunicado and without charges at Bagram for years, unable to contact family or friends or even to see the evidence against them — drew him in.她的問題描述劉易斯-數百名被拘留者隔離，並沒有受到指控在巴格拉姆多年來，無法與家人或朋友或什至看到針對他們的證據-把他英寸

“I remember studying Korematsu in law school and thinking, of course, that it could never happen again,” Lewis says, referring to the landmark case of Korematsu v. United States, in which the US Supreme Court upheld the president’s right to force Japanese Americans into US internment camps during World War II. “我記得學習松在法律學校和思維，當然，這決不可能再次發生， ”劉易斯說，指的是劃時代的情況下Korematsu訴美國，在美國最高法院維持總統的權利部隊日裔美國人進入美國拘留營在第二次世界大戰期間。 “It became clear that [indefinite detention of foreigners by the US government] was the legal issue of our time.” “顯然， [無限期拘留的外國人，美國政府]是法律問題，我們的時間。 ”

On its face, the legal status of the detainees at Bagram, a US-controlled air base leased from the government of Afghanistan, appears to be much like that of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, a US military station leased from Cuba.表面上看，法律地位的被關押在巴格拉姆基地，美空軍基地的控制租用阿富汗政府，似乎就像是囚犯在關塔那摩灣，美國軍方的一份租賃站從古巴。 One would expect the Bagram detainees to benefit from the legal arguments raised on behalf of the Guantánamo inmates, whose due process rights the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, most recently in Boumediene v. Bush.人們會期望巴格拉姆被拘留者能夠受益於法律論點提出的代表關塔那摩囚犯，其正當法律程序的權利，最高法院已多次申明，最近一次是在布什總統布邁丁訴。 But so far, Bagram detainees have not benefited from the precedents that now apply unequivocally to prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.但迄今為止，巴格拉姆被拘留者不受益的先例，現在明確適用囚犯在關塔那摩灣。 Moreover, the Bagram detainees have failed to garner the same level of public attention and outrage — or the stampede of offers for pro bono representation from major commercial law firms [see related article, "Why Firms Say No"].此外，巴格拉姆被拘留者都未能獲得同等程度的公眾關注和憤慨-或踩死的產品，無償的代表主要的商業法律事務所[見相關文章： “為什麼企業說不” ] 。 Foster says she’s asked several law firms for help, but so far none of them besides Baach Robinson have been willing to take on Bagram cases.福斯特說，她問幾個律師事務所的幫助，但迄今沒有人除了Baach羅賓遜已願意承擔巴格拉姆案件。

More than 600 prisoners remain at Bagram without being charged; some have been in legal limbo for more than five years. 600多名囚犯在巴格拉姆仍然沒有受到指控，一些已在法律狀態超過五年。 Because the United States calls Afghanistan a battleground in the war on terror, it contends that prisoners held there have no right to challenge their detention.由於美國要求阿富汗戰場在反恐戰爭中，它說，關押有沒有權利挑戰其拘留。 Whether for political or strategic reasons, or merely because of Guantánamo Bay burnout, no more than a handful of detainees held by the US government at Bagram have any legal representation.無論是政治或戰略原因，或者僅僅是因為關塔那摩灣的倦怠，不超過少數關押，美國政府已在巴格拉姆基地的任何法律代表。 Yet their plight reflects a problem that extends far beyond the US air base, and has implications for the United States and the prisoners it holds all over the world.然而，他們的困境反映了一個問題，遠遠超出了美國的空軍基地，並已影響到美國和囚犯它在世界各地。

Of course, Guantánamo detainees weren’t so popular initially, either.當然，關塔那摩被拘留者沒有如此受歡迎最初，無論是。 Neal Katyal is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who represents Salim Hamdan, the personal driver of Osama Bin Laden who was recently convicted of aiding terrorism.奧尼爾Katyal是一個教授喬治敦大學法律中心誰代表薩利姆哈姆丹，個人司機烏薩馬本拉丹最近誰定罪的協助恐怖主義。 Katyal recalls that when he first sought help on the Hamdan case, only one law firm, Perkins Coie, was willing to take it on, out of about 15 that he approached. Katyal回憶，當他第一次尋求幫助的哈姆丹案件中，只有一個律師事務所， Perkins Coie公司，是願意承擔它，在約15 ，他接觸。 “When I filed the case back in 2004, a lot of people were saying we’re fighting for the wrong side,” Katyal says [see "Courting Failure"]. “當我提起的案件早在2004年，很多人說我們是戰鬥的錯誤的一邊” ， Katyal說， [見“求愛失敗” ] 。 That all changed after the Supreme Court decided Rasul v. Bush in June 2004, holding that the federal courts have jurisdiction to review detentions of foreign nationals captured abroad and imprisoned at Guantánamo.這一切都改變之後，最高法院決定拉蘇爾訴布什總統在2004年6月舉行的聯邦法院有管轄權審查拘留的外國公民在國外被捕，並關押在關塔那摩。

But the success of dozens of prominent American lawyers in representing Guantánamo detainees has had an unintended consequence: The US military has stopped sending captured suspects to Guantánamo, whose total prisoner population has dropped to roughly 275.但取得成功的數十名美國著名的律師代表關塔那摩有意想不到的後果：美國軍方已經停止發送抓獲嫌疑人的關塔那摩的囚犯人口總數已經下降到大約275 。 As of April, reports Human Rights First, only about 30 Afghans remain at the installation, compared with some 200 in 2002.截至4月，報告第一人權，只有約30阿富汗人留在安裝相比，有大約200名在2002年。 Instead, thousands of individuals who are suspected of participating in, assisting, or having knowledge of terrorism are now being held elsewhere — an estimated 14,000 in Afghanistan and 25,000 in Iraq.相反，成千上萬的個人誰是涉嫌參與，協助，或有知識的恐怖主義正在舉行的其他地方-1 4000，估計在阿富汗和伊拉克2 5000。 Although some will eventually be transferred to Afghan or Iraqi custody, all are initially detained pursuant to President George Bush’s November 2001 executive order authorizing indefinite detention of anyone who the president has “reason to believe” is or was a member of Al Qaeda or has engaged in or assisted terrorism against the United States.雖然有些人最終將被轉移到阿富汗或伊拉克保管，所有被拘留的最初根據布什總統2001年11月行政命令，授權無限期拘留任何人誰是總統“有理由相信”是或曾經是一名成員或基地組織從事或協助恐怖主義對美國。

The difficulty of challenging detentions authorized by the president may be part of what’s kept many large firms from taking on Bagram cases.困難具有挑戰性的拘留，授權布什總統可能是什麼使許多大型企業採取的巴格拉姆案件。 But as insurgents have increased their attacks on US and NATO forces in Afghanistan in recent months, the idea of representing prisoners suspected of aiding terrorism there may also seem imprudent as a political matter.但是，武裝分子已經增加了它們攻擊美國和北約部隊在阿富汗最近幾個月，想法代表囚犯涉嫌協助恐怖主義也可能似乎輕率作為一個政治問題。 Some lawyers at large law firms deny being deterred by such considerations, but the IJN’s Foster disagrees.一些大的律師在律師事務所被嚇倒否認這種考慮，但IJN的福斯特不敢苟同。 “They are afraid,” says Foster, who left Clifford Chance for CCR in 2004 to help organize pro bono representation for Guantánamo detainees. “他們都害怕，說： ”福斯特，誰離開克利福德機遇， 2004年連續重整，以幫助組織無償代表關塔那摩被拘留者。 “There hasn’t been the public campaign for Bagram yet that we did for Guantánamo.” “有沒有得到公眾的巴格拉姆運動，我們還沒有對關塔那摩。 ”

Political considerations haven’t deterred Baach Robinson, however.政治上的考慮，並沒有嚇倒Baach羅賓遜，但是。 “One advantage of being in a small law firm is you can ignore that pressure to a greater degree,” says Lewis, who’s working on the case with partner Katherine Toomey. “一個好處是在一個小律師事務所是可以忽略的壓力在更大程度上說， ”劉易斯，誰工作的情況下與合作夥伴凱瑟琳Toomey 。 “Most of our clients are abroad. “我們的大多數客戶都在國外。 Frankly, commercial clients abroad are proud to see their lawyers are part of this.坦率地說，商業客戶在國外很高興看到他們的律師都參加了這一點。 I think there’s almost universal revulsion from every part of the political spectrum outside of the United States about the way the United States has been conducting its business abroad.”我認為，幾乎普遍反感的每一個部分政治光譜在美國之外的方式，美國一直在進行其國外業務。 “

The logistics of representing inmates at Bagram adds another substantial hurdle for US lawyers.物流的代表在巴格拉姆監獄又增加了很大的障礙，美國律師。 If representing detainees at Guantánamo seemed a Kafkaesque exercise for the many big-firm lawyers who made the tortuous trek through military obstacles, checkpoints, and security clearances to defend their clients there [See "Justice at Bay," May 2005], it’sa cakewalk compared with representing a client at Bagram.如果代表被關押在關塔那摩似乎Kafkaesque行使的許多大公司的律師誰了曲折的跋涉通過軍事障礙，檢查站，安全許可和維護他們的客戶有[見“司法灣” ， 2005年5月] ，這是一個步態競賽與客戶代表在巴格拉姆基地。

Not only is Afghanistan about 6,000 miles farther away and much more dangerous than Cuba, but the US Department of Defense does not allow detainees at Bagram to meet with lawyers or human rights organizations.這不僅是對阿富汗六零零零英里更遠和更危險的古巴，但美國國防部不允許被關押在巴格拉姆基地，以滿足與律師或人權組織。 No one has access to the prison other than US government officials and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which does not issue public reports.沒有任何人進入監獄以外的其他美國政府官員和國際紅十字委員會，不公開發行的報告。 “For reasons of operational security and military necessity, the number of visitors who can visit detention facilities in a country where US forces are actively engaged in hostilities is necessarily limited,” Lt. Col. Mark Wright, spokesman for the Defense Department, wrote in an e-mail response to questions. “出於業務安全和軍事必要性，遊客人數誰可以訪問拘留設施的國家中美國軍隊積極參與敵對行動必定是有限的， ”中校馬克賴特發言人國防部中寫道電子郵件回答問題。

The US government says that Bagram prisoners have no right to see the charges or evidence against them, or to know why they’re considered a terrorist threat.美國政府說，巴格拉姆犯人沒有權利看到收費或對他們的證據，或者知道為什麼他們視為恐怖主義的威脅。 “Detention of enemy combatants during wartime is not criminal punishment and therefore does not require that individuals be charged or tried in a court of law,” Wright said in an e-mail. “拘留敵方戰鬥人員在戰爭期間沒有刑事處罰，因此並不需要，個人收取或試圖在法庭上的法律， ”賴特說，在一封電子郵件。

According to the few lawyers representing prisoners there at the request of relatives, many Bagram detainees were turned over to US authorities by former enemies or neighbors who wanted to settle an old score or collect a bounty from the US — a contention supported by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International; news reports from the Associated Press, The McClatchy Company newspapers, and Time magazine; and even former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf’s recent memoir, In the Line of Fire.據一些囚犯的代表律師在那裡的親屬的要求，許多巴格拉姆被拘留者被移交給美國當局前敵人或鄰居誰想要解決的老評分或收集懸賞來自美國-一個論點支持人權組織如大赦國際新聞報導的美聯社，麥克拉奇公司的報紙，雜誌和時間; ，甚至前，巴基斯坦總統穆沙拉夫最近的回憶錄，在火線。 Yet those imprisoned have no way to prove-or even to claim-their innocence.然而，這些被囚禁者沒有辦法證明，或什至宣稱，自己是無辜的。

Conditions at the detention center are atrocious, according to lawyers, news reports, and organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the London-based group Reprieve.細則在拘留中心是殘酷的，根據律師，新聞報導，並組織，如人權觀察和總部設在倫敦的組死緩。 Ruzatullah’s habeas petition alleged that Bagram detainees are crowded together in wire-mesh cages without toilets or running water and “are regularly tortured and abused, including being starved, severely beaten, forced into painful, contorted body positions, ‘waterboarded,’ exposed to extremely cold temperatures, and sexually humiliated.” In December 2002, the Pentagon has acknowledged, US soldiers beat two Bagram detainees to death. Ruzatullah的人身保護請願書聲稱，巴格拉姆被拘留者在擁擠的一道篩網籠子裡沒有廁所或自來水和“經常折磨和虐待，包括被餓死，嚴重毆打，被迫進入痛苦的，扭曲的體位， waterboarded ， '暴露到極度寒冷的氣溫，和性羞辱。 “ 2002年12月，五角大樓承認，美軍士兵毆打兩個巴格拉姆被拘留者死亡。 Although officers allegedly involved in the deaths were prosecuted — five were convicted, but none received a sentence of more than three months in prison — the Pentagon vehemently denies accusations of systemic torture or abuse at Bagram.雖然官員涉嫌參與死亡被起訴-5人被定罪，但沒有收到了一句超過3個月的監禁-五角大樓堅決否認指控系統性酷刑或虐待在巴格拉姆基地。 “The conditions at the BTIF [Bagram Theater Internment Facility] meet international standards for care and custody of detained persons,” Wright told The American Lawyer by e-mail. “條件在BTIF [巴格拉姆劇場拘留設施]符合國際標準的照料和監護的被拘留者， ”賴特說，美國的律師通過電子郵件。 “The United States strictly prohibits the abuse of detainees in its custody.” He acknowledged that there are now about 600 detainees at Bagram, although the facility wasn’t built to hold nearly that many. “美國嚴格禁止虐待被拘留者在其保管。 ”他承認，現在有大約600名被關押在巴格拉姆基地，雖然該設施並非建容納近許多。

Detainees at Guantánamo have at least some means of challenging their status as enemy combatants through a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, or CSRT.被關押在關塔那摩至少有一些手段的挑戰其地位的敵方戰鬥人員通過一個戰鬥員身份審查法庭，或CSRT 。 At Bagram, the process is even more circumscribed.在巴格拉姆基地的進程更是限制。 A panel of five US military officers, called an Enemy Combatant Review Board (ECRB), is supposed to review the detainees’ status, usually within 75 days of their capture and every six months thereafter.小組的5名美國軍官，所謂的敵方戰鬥人員審查委員會（ ECRB ），是審查被拘留者的地位，通常在75天的捕捉和其後每六個月。 But sometimes just the commanding officer, instead of a review board, decides the case, as Col. Rose Miller, commander of detention operations at Bagram, confirmed in an affidavit submitted in the Ruzatullah case.但有時僅僅是指揮官，而不是審查委員會，決定的情況下，如玫瑰米勒上校指揮官拘留在巴格拉姆行動證實，在提交的誓章中Ruzatullah案件。 According to Miller, the designation is based on “all reasonably available and relevant information available on the date of the review.” Lewis and Foster say that almost all the evidence used against detainees comes from military personnel involved in their capture and interrogation.據米勒，指定是基於“一切合理使用和有關資料之日起進行審查。 ”劉易斯和福斯特說，幾乎所有的證據用來對付被拘留者來自軍事人員參與其捕獲和審訊。 The detainees themselves typically have no opportunity to speak at, or even attend, the hearing or subsequent reviews.被拘留者本身通常沒有機會發言，甚至參加，聽證會或以後的審查。

“It makes the CSRTs look like the latest thing from the world court of transgalactic justice,” Baach Robinson’s Lewis says. “這使CSRTs看起來像最新的東西從世界transgalactic法院的司法， ” Baach羅賓遜的劉易斯說。 The disparate treatment of detainees at Bagram is justified, the government argues, because Bagram is different.不同的被拘留者待遇的巴格拉姆基地是合理的，政府認為，由於巴格拉姆是不同的。 At Guantánamo, a military base leased from Cuba for more than a century, the United States retains “complete jurisdiction and control,” the US Department of Justice asserted in its motion to dismiss the Ruzatullah case.在關塔那摩軍事基地，古巴租用了一個多世紀，美國保留“完全的管轄和控制” ，美國司法部聲稱在其動議駁回Ruzatullah案件。 Yet the “United States’s use of the Bagram Airfield is ‘a wartime necessity’ subject to a rather typical lease with the host nation,” the Justice Department wrote.然而， “美國使用的巴格拉姆空軍基地是'戰時需要，受到了相當典型的租賃與東道國的國家， ”司法部寫道。 Therefore, “the petitioners have no statutory habeas rights in the United States.”因此， “請願沒有法定的人身權利在美國。 ”

Ruzatullah’s lawyers vigorously disagree. Ruzatullah的律師強烈反對。 “They have a US lease at Bagram that’s similar to Guantánamo,” Lewis says. “他們有一個美國在巴格拉姆租賃是類似關塔那摩， ”劉易斯說。 “It should be treated the same.” Regardless of the particular details of different military leases,Lewis and his colleagues are also trying to establish a broader principle that could apply to the thousands of other prisoners held elsewhere in the world by the United States. “應該一視同仁。 ”不管具體的細節不同的軍事租賃，劉易斯和他的同事們還試圖建立一個更廣泛的原則，可以適用於成千上萬的其他被關押在世界其他地方的美國。 As they put it in their brief to the court opposing dismissal of Ruzatullah’s habeas case: “Freedom from arbitrary executive detention dates to the Magna Carta, is not limited territorially, and is one of the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law.” They also object that enemy combatant determinations don’t meet the demands of the Military Commissions Act (MCA); that such indefinite incarceration violates the Geneva Conventions and US law; and that the MCA is unconstitutional because it does not provide an adequate alternative remedy to habeas corpus.當他們把它放在他們的簡短向法院提出反對解僱Ruzatullah的保護情況： “免於行政拘留任意日期的大憲章，並不局限於領土，是最根本的原則，法治。 “他們還對象敵方戰鬥人員的決定不符合要求的軍事委員會法（馬華） ; ，這種無限期監禁違反了日內瓦公約和美國法律，並認為馬華是違憲的，因為它沒有提供足夠的替代的補救辦法人身保護令。

These may not be easy arguments to win.這些可能不容易的論點勝利。 Traditionally, the government has been allowed to detain prisoners during a war indefinitely.傳統上，政府已經允許扣留戰俘在戰爭下去。 Yet the “war on terror,” which does not conform to any definition of “war” under international law, presents a unique challenge to this principle, Lewis says.然而， “反恐戰爭” ，這不符合任何定義的“戰爭”根據國際法，提出了一種獨特的挑戰這一原則，劉易斯說。 “What happens when you have a war that is unlimited in time and space?” he asks. “後會發生什麼事您有戰爭，是無限的時間和空間？ ”他問。 “When the battlefield is everywhere and it will never end? “當戰場是無處不在，它永遠不會結束？ It’s not a war against a nation-state, it’sa war against a concept.這不是一個戰爭對一個民族國家，這是一個戰爭的一個概念。 The law of war was developed when conflicts were defined in time and space.戰爭法的制定時，衝突的定義在時間和空間。 In the absence of that, you’re talking about detention for a lifetime.”如果沒有這一點，你在談論拘留了一輩子。 “

The case that Bagram detainees should have habeas corpus rights might be easier to make on behalf of non-Afghan prisoners who were captured outside of Afghanistan and then sent to Bagram.該案件的巴格拉姆被拘留者應該有人身權利可能更容易讓代表非阿富汗戰俘被抓獲誰在阿富汗境外，然後傳送到巴格拉姆。 The United States can’t counter that such detainees are merely being held on the battlefield for the duration of hostilities.美國不能對付這種僅僅是被拘留者被關押在戰場上的持續的敵對行動。

Take the case of Fadi Al Maqaleh, whom Tina Foster represents in a habeas petition in federal court in Washington, DC Foster met Al Maqaleh’s father in Yemen in 2006.採取的情況下棣基地Maqaleh ，其中蒂娜福斯特代表的人身保護令申請在聯邦法院在華盛頓會見了福斯特基地Maqaleh的父親在也門在2006年。 He knew only that his 25-year-old son had disappeared from his home in Sana’a, Yemen, until the International Committee of the Red Cross delivered a letter from Al Maqaleh in 2003.他只知道，他25歲的兒子失踪了，他的家在也門薩那，直到國際紅十字委員會遞交了一封信從Al Maqaleh在2003年。 The letter informed Al Maqaleh’s father that his son was in US custody.信中告知基地Maqaleh的父親，他的兒子是美國關押。 Any details that might have explained how Al Maqaleh ended up at Bagram were redacted.任何細節可能解釋了如何鋁上漲Maqaleh在巴格拉姆被抹黑。 Al Maqaleh’s father insists that his son has never been an enemy or combatant of any kind against the United States.鋁Maqaleh的父親堅持認為，他的兒子從來沒有敵人或戰鬥人員任何形式的針對美國的。 Yet neither he nor his son’s lawyer is allowed to visit his son, and no one outside the US government is allowed to see the evidence against Al Maqaleh.然而，無論他本人還是他的兒子的律師被允許訪問他的兒子，沒有人在美國以外的政府是允許看到的證據對基地Maqaleh 。 The Justice Department has moved to dismiss the habeas case Foster filed on his behalf on the same grounds that it cited in seeking to dismiss the Ruzatullah case: The federal courts, the department maintains, have no jurisdiction to rule on habeas petitions of aliens captured abroad and detained outside the US據悉，司法部已經移到駁回人身保護令申請案件福斯特以他的名義同樣的理由，它引用在尋求駁回Ruzatullah案件：聯邦法院，該部堅持，沒有管轄權的裁決申請人身保護令外國人在國外被捕和被拘留在美國以外的

The presence of non-Afghan detainees such as Al Maqaleh at Bagram, Foster insists, makes it clear that the government is not merely using the prison as a battlefield detention center for local suspects.存在的非阿富汗被拘留者，如鋁Maqaleh在巴格拉姆基地，培養堅持，清楚地表明，政府不僅利用監獄作為一個戰場拘留中心為當地嫌疑人。 “Bagram is functioning exactly the same way as Gitmo is functioning,” she says. “巴格拉姆基地的運作完全一樣Gitmo運作， ”她說。 “They’re using it as a prison because it is close to a zone of active combat. “他們是利用它作為一所監獄，因為它是接近區積極打擊。 That makes it look more like a normal battlefield detention situation.這使得它看起來更像一個正常的戰場拘留的情況。 But that is really camouflage for a law-free zone that the US can use as cover to bring people from anywhere in the world.”但是，這確實是偽裝的一項法律，自由區，美國可以使用作為掩護，使人們從世界上任何地方。 “

On June 19, 2007, eight months after Lewis and his colleagues filed a habeas petition in the DC federal court on his behalf, Ruzatullah, without ever having been charged with a crime, was transferred from Bagram to a special national security wing within an old Afghan prison called Policharky. 6月19日， 2007年， 8個月後劉易斯和他的同事們提出了保護申請在DC聯邦法院以他的名義， Ruzatullah ，但從來沒有被指控犯罪的，移交巴格拉姆一個特別的國家安全機翼內的老阿富汗監獄的所謂Policharky 。 A portion of the prison known as the Afghan National Detention Facility, also designated Block D, is being used to detain suspected terrorists previously held at Bagram or Guantánamo Bay, according to the Defense Department.部分監獄被稱為阿富汗國民拘留所，還指定D棟，正在被用來關押恐怖分子嫌疑人曾在巴格拉姆關押或關塔那摩灣，根據國防部。 More than 400 such prisoners have been transferred there. 400多名犯人等已轉移存在。

Lawyers representing Afghan prisoners, such as Lewis and Foster (legal clinics at Stanford and Yale law schools are also helping Foster’s organization on several more habeas cases) believe the military is transferring some prisoners to Policharky in order to escape American judicial scrutiny.律師代表阿富汗戰俘，如劉易斯和福斯特（法律診所在斯坦福大學和耶魯法學院也有助於培養的組織在若干情況下更多的人身保護令）認為，軍隊是一些犯人轉移到Policharky為了逃避美國的司法審查。 Indeed, in July the Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss Ruzatullah’s habeas petition as moot.事實上，在7月，司法部提出了一項動議，罷免Ruzatullah的人身保護令申請的意義。 The US government said he was now in Afghan custody and no longer under US control.美國政府說，他現在在阿富汗保管和不再受美國的控制。

His lawyers disputed that, arguing that Block D, opened in April 2007, is in fact controlled by the US military.他的律師否認了這一觀點，認為D棟，開闢於2007年4月，實際上是由美國軍方。 A US Department of State official responsible for US-run programs to improve the Afghan justice system confirmed that while his team advises Afghan officials on their prison and criminal justice systems, Block D is “strictly within the province of the Department of Defense.” Other lawyers who represent detainees at Policharky — some transferred there from Guantánamo — say their clients describe a US-controlled prison.美國國務院負責美中運行程序，以改善阿富汗司法系統證實，他的團隊，而阿富汗官員建議對監獄和刑事司法系統， D棟是“嚴格按照省的國防部。 ”其他律師代表誰被關押在Policharky -移交有一些從關塔那摩-說，他們的客戶描述了美國控制的監獄。 “My client said to me, ‘The guards who bring us our food are in US uniforms, the guards who take us to recreation time are in US uniforms,’” says Kent Spriggs, a Tallahassee-based lawyer who recently gave up his employment litigation practice to focus on representing Guantánamo detainees, some of whom are now imprisoned at Policharky. “我的委託人對我說， '看守誰給我們帶來我們的食物是在美國制服，警衛誰帶我們去娛樂的時間是在美國的制服， ”肯特斯普里格斯說，一個塔拉哈西的律師最近誰放棄了就業機會訴訟實踐中把重點放在代表囚犯，其中一些人現在關押在Policharky 。

One advantage of Policharky, however, is that prisoners there have been allowed to meet with relatives and lawyers.的一大優勢Policharky然而，這犯人有被允許會見親屬和律師。 In January, Foster met with Ruzatullah for the first time.今年1月，福斯特會見了Ruzatullah首次。 Under the watchful eye of prison guards, she was able to communicate with her client, a lanky man with bright green eyes and a soft-spoken demeanor, through a tiny hole in a Plexiglas partition.根據監視獄警，她能夠與她溝通客戶端，一個瘦長的男子明亮的綠色眼睛和說話溫柔的風度，通過一個微小的孔在有機玻璃分割。

Ruzatullah told Foster that about a month earlier, he had received a trial of sorts in the prison. Ruzatullah告訴福斯特，大約一個月前，他收到了各類審判在監獄中。 Although no witnesses and minimal evidence were presented, Afghan judges presided over the proceeding, and Ruzatullah himself was able to attend.雖然沒有最低限度的證人和證據提出，阿富汗法官主持訴訟，並Ruzatullah本人能夠出席。 Representing Ruzatullah was Shabeer, an Afghan lawyer from The International Legal Foundation (ILF), a nonprofit organization based in New York.代表Ruzatullah是Shabeer ，阿富汗律師從國際法律基金會（ ILF ），一個非盈利組織，總部設在紐約。 However, neither Ruzatullah nor his attorney had more than a few days’ notice of the proceeding, according to Foster and Shabeer.然而，無論Ruzatullah他的律師也超過了幾天的通知程序，根據福斯特和Shabeer 。 (Because Shabeer does not speak English, his notes about the case were translated and provided to The American Lawyer by ILF director Natalie Rea.) （由於Shabeer不會說英語，他注意到有關案件被翻譯並提供給美國律師ILF主任納塔莉雷）。

A panel of Afghan judges read a statement charging that Ruzatullah had aided terrorists.小組的阿富汗法官宣讀了一份聲明，指控Ruzatullah已資助恐怖分子。 The only “evidence” presented, according to Shabeer’s notes, was that his captors had found names of “government enemies” in Ruzatullah’s diary; his mobile phone number was in the possession of other suspects who had been killed by coalition and Afghan forces; Ruzatullah had graduated from a university that many antigovernment suspects have attended; and he had been living in a refugee camp believed to serve as a base for government enemies.唯一的“證據” ，提出以Shabeer根據的說明是，他發現了綁架者姓名， “政府的敵人”在Ruzatullah的日記，他的手機號碼是擁有的其他嫌疑人誰被打死的聯軍和阿富汗安全部隊; Ruzatullah畢業於一所大學，許多反政府嫌疑人出席;和他一直生活在一個難民營認為，作為一個基礎，政府的敵人。 The judges, who acted also as prosecutors, did not present any witnesses or sworn statements to support the charges, according to Foster and Shabeer.法官，誰也擔任檢察官，沒有提出任何證人或宣誓聲明，以支持這些指控，根據福斯特和Shabeer 。 During the proceeding, Shabeer objected that there was no evidence to support the claims; the names in the diary had not been written by Ruzatullah; and many who had attended the same university or lived in the refugee camp were neither terrorists nor enemies of the Afghan or US government.在程序中， Shabeer反對，認為沒有證據支持的索賠;的名字在這本日記沒有寫的Ruzatullah ;和許多誰也出席了同一所大學或住在難民營既不是敵人，也沒有恐怖分子的阿富汗或美國政府。 Ruzatullah himself also denied the charges at the trial, he told Foster during their meeting. Ruzatullah本人也否認這些指控在審判中，他告訴福斯特在其會議。 Two days after the trial, as he told Foster, Ruzatullah was informed that he had been convicted and sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison.兩天後的審判，因為他告訴福斯特， Ruzatullah被告知，他已被定罪並被判三年半徒刑。 Because he had already spent almost that much time in detention, however, he had only a month left in his sentence.因為他已經花了很多時間在拘留，但他每月只留在他的刑期。 Ruzatullah was released last spring. Ruzatullah被釋放去年春天。 “They convicted him on the say-so of the US government without any supporting evidence,” says Foster, who was bewildered by the news. “他們定罪了他的發言權美國政府在沒有任何支持性證據， ”福斯特說，誰被大惑不解的消息。 “On the one hand, he got out of prison. “一方面，他離開了監獄。 But he got a criminal conviction based on nothing.” After Foster learned of Ruzatullah’s release, she and Lewis withdrew his habeas petition.但他有刑事定罪的基礎上一無所有。 “福斯特的經驗教訓後的Ruzatullah釋放，她和劉易斯撤回了他的人身保護請願書。 (Another client of theirs, Ruhollah, named on the same habeas petition, was similarly transferred to Policharky on July 30; the Justice Department has moved to dismiss his petition.) （另一個他們的客戶，何，命名為同一保護請願書，也同樣轉移到Policharky 7月30日，美國司法部已駁回他的請求。）

Ruzatullah is only one of dozens of prisoners in Block D who have undergone similar quasi-legal proceedings. Ruzatullah只有一個幾十名戰俘在D棟誰經歷了類似的準司法程序。 Human Rights First reports that trials for prisoners at Block D began in October 2007, and by April, 65 prisoners had been convicted and 17 acquitted.人權第一報告說，審判囚犯D棟於2007年10月和4月， 65名囚犯被定罪， 17人無罪釋放。 No family members or members of the press have been allowed to observe the trials.沒有家庭成員或成員的新聞已獲准觀察試驗。 Sahr MuhammedAlly of the Law & Security program of Human Rights First is one of the few Americans outside of the military who has been permitted to witness any of them.薩赫爾MuhammedAlly的法律和安全計劃的人權首先是少數美國人以外的軍事誰已允許證人任何人。 She confirms that no evidence was presented in the two proceedings she observed, but simply a statement of the charges.她證實，沒有證據表明，提出的兩個訴訟她指出，只是一份聲明中指控。 Based on that, “the prisoners were sentenced to eight and ten years, respectively,” she says.在此基礎上， “囚犯被判處8和10年來，分別， ”她說。 Although they had lawyers provided by the ILF, there was little that the attorneys could do for their clients.雖然他們的律師所提供的ILF ，很少有律師認為這樣做可以為他們的客戶。

“Defense counsel during hearings were asking, ‘Where is the evidence? “辯護律師在聽證會問， '在哪裡的證據？ Where are the witnesses?’” recalls MuhammedAlly.在哪裡證人？ “回顧MuhammedAlly 。 “Judges would say, ‘Why would the Americans lie? “法官會說， '為什麼美國人何在？ Why would the coalition forces lie?’”為什麼會聯軍謊言？ “

The Defense Department has assisted Afghan authorities “in conducting the trials in a fair manner, and we have insisted that lawyers be provided for the accused to ensure that these proceedings are done in a manner consistent with fundamental guarantees of due process,” Defense spokesman Wright wrote in an e-mail.美國國防部已協助阿富汗當局“進行審判以公平的方式，我們堅持認為，律師提供的被告，以確保這些程序都是在符合基本保障的正當程序， ”國防部發言人賴特寫在一封電子郵件。 “The US has provided information to the Afghan authorities where appropriate and necessary to provide information on the circumstances that led to detention by US forces.” “美國已提供的信息，阿富汗當局在適當和必要提供的情況，導致拘留的美國部隊。 ”

As more detainees are transferred to Block D at Policharky, new prisoners continue to arrive at Bagram from around the world.隨著越來越多的被拘留者被轉移到D棟在Policharky ，新犯人繼續抵達巴格拉姆來自世界各地的。 Acknowledging that the current facility isn’t nearly large enough to hold the more than 600 detainees there, the Defense Department is now building a new facility on the base to house more prisoners.認識到當前的設施幾乎是沒有足夠大的召開600多名囚犯，美國國防部目前正在建設一個新工廠的基礎上，容納更多的囚犯。 Whether more lawyers will be willing to represent these new prisoners, though, remains unclear.是否有更多的律師願意代表這些新的囚犯，但仍不清楚。

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have said that if elected president, they will close the prison at Guantánamo Bay.這奧巴馬和麥凱恩說，如果當選總統，他們將關閉該監獄在關塔那摩灣。 If that happens, many prisoners will likely be shifted to centers where the right to challenge their detention is far less certain.如果出現這種情況，許多犯人可能會轉移到中心，在那裡的權利，他們被拘留的挑戰是遠遠低於一些。 For many, that will be in Afghanistan.對於許多人來說，這將是在阿富汗。 “Afghanistan is the critical next frontier of trying to push the law to establish that there’s an irreducible minimum on actions of US officials,” Lewis says. “阿富汗是重要的下一個前沿領域的努力推動法律的規定，有一個最低的束縛行動的美國官員稱， ”劉易斯說。 He insists: “Wherever they go, torture, indefinite detention, humiliation — these are not things US officials can do.” Not even in Bagram.他堅持： “只要他們去，酷刑，無限期拘留，屈辱-這不是美國官員的事情可以做。 ”即使在巴格拉姆基地。

Have Your Say: Guantánamo Bay was bad enough — Bagram is worse 你說：關塔那摩灣是夠糟糕-巴格拉姆更糟糕的是
Please read our請仔細閱讀我們的 posting guidelines before posting張貼在發布前的指導方針 . 。
Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here你可以討論這份報告在這裡 . 。

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL引用網址

Related News 相關新聞

This entry was posted on Friday, November 14th, 2008 at 7:09 pm and is filed under本條目被張貼在週五， 08年十一月14日在下午7時09分，並提交下 Contributions & Guests捐款＆客人 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the您可以按照任何反應，這個項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. You can飼料。您可以 leave a response留下一個反應 , or或 trackback引用 from your own site.從您自己的網站。

TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS 頭條新聞討論	LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS 最新消息討論	LATEST FORUM TOPICS 最新論壇主題
Scientology lambasted 科學抨擊 Prescription Drugs Kill 300 Percent More Americans than Illegal Drugs 處方藥物殺死百分之300多的美國人比非法毒品 9/11 Cultwatch in Dumfries 9 / 11 Cultwatch在鄧弗里斯 Lendman: The Wages of Sin Lendman ：工資單 Constitutional Dead Letters 憲法一紙空文 Britain’s Digital Surveillance: Hiding from Her Majesty’s “Black Boxes” 英國的數字監控：隱藏從陛下的“黑盒子” Close Gitmo and End Unconstitutional Military Commissions Now 關閉Gitmo和結束違憲軍事委員會現在 Surveillance Overload 監控超載 The Asian Brown Cloud: Global Climate Chaos and Tropical Glaciers 亞洲褐雲：全球氣候混亂和熱帶冰川 Dissident "threat" at all time high, despite MI5 “huge effort.” 持不同政見者“威脅”在任何時候都高，儘管軍情五處“巨大的努力。 ” US, Allies, Torture Kids in Iraqi Prisons 美國的盟友，酷刑孩子們在伊拉克監獄 ID card costs rise amid security concerns ID卡費用峰巒安全問題 European Union summit in Brussels: The EU prepares for Obama 歐洲聯盟首腦會議在布魯塞爾：歐盟準備奧巴馬 Bush Spy Revelations Anticipated When Obama Is Sworn In 布什預計間諜披露時，奧巴馬宣誓就職	Sovereign American Citizen 美國公民主權 commented on: 評論： Constitutional Dead Letters 憲法一紙空文 Comment on IIA The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States... 就國際投資協定的前10個憲法修正案批准的國家... Continue Reading & Reply 繼續閱讀及回复 Mick Meaney 米克米尼 commented on: 評論： The Asian Brown Cloud: Global Climate Chaos and Tropical Glaciers 亞洲褐雲：全球氣候混亂和熱帶冰川 Thanks colonos 謝謝colonos Continue Reading & Reply 繼續閱讀及回复 Maximus V 馬克西穆斯V commented on: 評論： 9/11 Cultwatch in Dumfries 9 / 11 Cultwatch在鄧弗里斯 Good, we all want a proper new investigation into the 911 mass murder - including “creepy&# 8221;... 好，我們都希望一個適當的新調查的911大屠殺-包括“恐怖＆＃ 8 221; . .. Continue Reading & Reply 繼續閱讀及回复 Jim 吉姆 commented on: 評論： Jim Rogers Urges People to Sell US Dollar Holdings 吉姆羅傑斯敦促人們出售美元控股 Jacob, You must be a member of wall street or the Federal Reserve. 雅各，你必須有一個成員華爾街或美國聯邦儲備委員會。 Just keep your fiat... 只要保持您的菲亞特... Continue Reading & Reply 繼續閱讀及回复

ADVERTISEMENTS廣告		SITE MAPS網站地圖
Web Desing & Hosting UK , USA, Europe網頁設計與託管英國，美國，歐洲 WOWEB - Web Design WOWEB -網頁設計 FAST GATEWAY - Web Hosting快速通道-虛擬主機 INFOTX - Web Hosting Guides and Resources INFOTX -W eb託管和資源指南 ASHLEY GUEST HOUSE - Morecambe Guest House阿什利招待所-莫克姆招待所 Skin up marijuana cannabis weed forum皮膚了大麻，大麻草論壇	Linux Web Hosting Linux的虛擬主機 Never Be Lied To Again!絕不會騙了！ Subliminal Secrets Exposed潛意識的秘密接觸 Holographic Creation: Your Own Reality全息創造：你自己的現實 Masonic Secrets Revealed共濟會秘密透露 What You Aren't Supposed To Know你不應該知道 Conspiracy DVDs Cheap DVDs陰謀DVD光盤便宜的DVD Debt Consolidation債務	7/7 7 / 7 Activism News能動新聞 Afghanistan阿富汗 Alternative-Energy替代能源 Art藝術 Barack Obama奧巴馬 BBC英國廣播公司 Big-Brother大兄弟 Bilderberg彼爾德伯格 Biometrics生物識別技術 Bush布什 CCTV中央電視台 Censorship檢查 CIA美國中央情報局 Climate-Change氣候變化 Cover-Up掩蓋 Cults邪教 Culture文化 Database-State數據庫的國家 David-Hicks大衛希克斯 David-Ray-Griffin大衛射線格里芬 Debt債務 Democrats民主黨 Demos演示 Drugs藥品 Education教育 Entertainment娛樂 Environmental News環境新聞 EU歐盟 False-Flag假旗 FBI美國聯邦調查局 Fraud詐騙 Free-Speech自由言論 Freemasons濟 G8八國集團 Global-News全球新聞 Global-News全球新聞 Globalization全球化 Guantanamo關塔那摩 Health-News健康新聞 History ID-Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel John McCain Law Marches Media News MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons New World Order NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police-State Political News Propaganda Reviews RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Science & Technology News Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spy Spying Stephen-Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony-Blair Torture TV UK-News UN USA- USA-News Video視頻 Voting war War & Terrorism News Warfare White-House Wolfowitz World_News Yahoo 2003 - 2005 Archives \| 2005 - 2007 Archives \| 2007 - 2008 Archives \| Current Archives \| Past Version

Guantánamo Bay was bad enough — Bagram is worse關塔那摩灣是夠糟糕-巴格拉姆更糟糕的是