The U.S. government has lost eight out of 15 habeas petition cases in which Guantánamo inmates alleged they or witnesses against them were forcibly interrogated, reports ProPublica, in an analysis jointly published with The National Law Journal.

The report by the investigative journalism nonprofit assesses the effect of mistreatment allegations on detainees' lawsuits by looking at 31 published decisions, which resolve the claims of 52 captives who alleged they were wrongfully detained. Fifteen of those published decisions were found to contain allegations of mistreatment, ranging from verbal threats to physical abuse labeled as torture, but because large portions of some of the decisions were redacted, the report notes that there may be other cases in which inmates alleged forcible interrogation.

The judges in these cases rejected government evidence that had been coercively obtained, using forcible interrogations. "Even in the seven cases the government won, the judges didn't endorse aggressive methods," ProPublica reports, noting that in six of those cases, the judge disbelieved the detainees' allegations of mistreatment.

The report continues:

The 15 decisions offer the most detailed accounting to date of how information obtained from the Guantánamo inmates through controversial tactics is standing up in court. They come in cases initiated by detainees seeking release via a writ of habeas corpus, not cherry-picked by prosecutors. Criminal law experts say the judges' opinions help explain why the government has decided not to pursue criminal convictions against some detainees. Such evidence would pose even greater problems in criminal trials, for which requirements of proof are more demanding.

The Obama administration has already said that at least 48 of the remaining 176 prisoners at Guantánamo will be held indefinitely because they're too dangerous to release but can't be prosecuted successfully in military or civilian court. They've said that coercion-tainted evidence is one obstacle.

The report also notes that the government was successful in only one out of fifteen cases in arguing that the taint of government coercion was eliminated by a subsequent change in location, interrogator or circumstance.

In all, 53 habeas cases have been decided, of which the government has lost 37, "most because it couldn't produce enough reliable evidence that the men were al-Qaida or Taliban militants," according to the report. More than 50 habeas suits are still pending.

The report includes two in-depth charts, one documenting "How Judges are Ruling in Cases Where Mistreatment is an Issue" and one containing updated information on all detainees whose lawsuits have been decided by federal judges.

In a just-released ACS Issue Brief, Professor Stephen I. Vladeck (pictured right) looks to one high-profile terrorism case as an "an unvarnished example" of how the federal court system can adeptly handle trying terrorism suspects, providing new evidence in the ongoing debate on whether terrorism cases should be tried by civilian courts or military tribunals.

The case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen convicted of conspiring with al Qaeda to kill President George W. Bush, raised new and hard questions, Vladeck writes in "Trying Terrorism Suspects in Article III Courts: The Lessons of United States v. Abu Ali," but they were questions the civilian criminal justice system is well-equipped to answer.

"[W]here unique national security concerns are implicated, Abu Ali suggests that courts will attempt to reach accommodations that take into account both the government's interest and the fundamental protections to which defendants are entitled, keeping in mind Justice Frankfurter's age-old admonition that ‘the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forced in controversies involving not very nice people,' " writes Vladeck (pictured right), a law professor at American University Washington College of Law.

Abu Ali's case presented the novel question of whether a defendant's Miranda rights were triggered where U.S. officials submitted questions to foreign officers for their use during interrogation. This question, Vladick points out, is not one that applies only in terrorism cases and the court's conclusion that the United States and Saudi Arabia were not engaged in a "joint venture" is applicable to other criminal procedure fact patterns.

Abu Ali also presented the new challenge of incorporating foreign depositions in a U.S. court proceeding. Judge Gerald Bruce Lee used "creativity and flexibility" to craft a method for performing a live, two-way video deposition that transmitted the proceedings to the Alexandria courtroom, during which defense lawyers were present in both Saudi Arabia and Alexandria, Vladeck writes. Lee's innovation showed how technology can help cabin proposed changes to current procedural rules, by adapting within the present framework, Vladeck adds.

Lastly, Abu Ali presented the controversial question of whether the court erred when it allowed the jury access to classified information, while the defendant had access only to a redacted version. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that this "silent witness" procedure was a violation of Abu Ali's right to confront witnesses against him, but it also concluded that the decision was harmless error.

"[T]he real lesson from this aspect of the Abu Ali litigation may just be that mistakes will be made, but the Supreme Court's increasing embrace of harmless error principles heavily mitigates the consequences of those mistakes," Vladeck writes.

Regardless of whether it was misapplied, the harmless error doctrine, like other aspects of the case, "does not turn on the centrality of terrorism and national security concerns in the litigation," he adds.

"Abu Ali reminds us," Vladeck concludes, "that sometimes, the law is set up properly to resolve the tension between the government's interests and the defendant's rights, even if reasonable minds could argue (in this area of law, as in any other) that judges sometimes get it wrong."

Vladeck's Issue Brief is available here.

---

By Barry Eisler, an award-winning author of bestselling thrillers. Eisler spent three years in a covert position with the CIA's Directorate of Operations and has worked as a technology lawyer. Eisler also blogs on torture, civil liberties and the rule of law.

---

As a thriller writer, blogger, and former CIA officer who continues to adhere to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, I've never been so satisfied with one of my novels as I am with Inside Out.

I'm a big believer in the power of fiction to promote ideology, and in fact addressed this subject recently in an essay for NPR on George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. I'm appalled at how effectively the right has been using fiction to promote torture, and conceived of Inside Out in part as a way to fire back: a means of depicting not a cartoon fantasy, but rather the true causes and consequences of torture, consequences that include worsening erosion of our values, increased damage to national security, and the continued degradation of the Constitution itself.

Of course, Inside Out is filled with great characters, edge-of-your-seat action, and steamy sex - it's a thriller, after all. But what sets it apart from most works of the genre is the timeliness and relevance of the story. The ninety-two interrogation videos the CIA confessed last year to destroying, and which form the foundation for the book's plot, are back in the news now, as independent prosecutor John Durham concludes his two-year obstruction of justice investigation. And the other subjects at the heart of Inside Out - torture, ghost detainees, renditions, the real nature of America's Establishment - continue to be the most profound and controversial political issues of the day.

Various interviewers have asked me, "Do you really believe in the ‘oligarchy' you write about?" It's a strange question, suggesting as it does that the oligarchy is in the same category as, say, the Loch Ness Monster or UFOs. In fact, as one of the characters in the book explains, "The oligarchy is right out in the open. It's just a collection of people in business, politics, the military, and the media who recognize their interests are better served by cooperation than they would be by competition." MIT professor and former IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson has written about the oligarchy in the Atlantic; Matt Taibbi has written about it in Rolling Stone. After Enron, the subprime meltdown and bailout, the lax oversight of BP that led to the Gulf oil spill-to name just a few-you'd have to be in fairly significant denial not to notice the oligarchy's insidious presence, if only by its disastrous effects.

I've never written a book that so perfectly synthesizes my interests as a thriller writer and my concerns as a political blogger, or one that draws so heavily not just on my obsession with current events but on my background as a CIA intelligence officer. More than anything else, Inside Out is a reality-based thriller - as demonstrated by the list of sources and the bibliography I include at the end. Its emotional impact doesn't derive from Jack Bauer fantasies, but rather from real people caught up in the real political machinations of the day. For me, the most gripping thrillers are always the ones that hew most closely to reality, the ones that leave you feeling, Good God, this could really be happening! That's the kind of book I set out to write with Inside Out, and the kind of experience I think it delivers. I hope you'll enjoy it, and that it'll open a few eyes to just how much we stand to lose if we continue to abuse the Constitution.

 

---

David Mortlock is the author of a recent article on this topic in the Harvard Law & Policy Review.

---

The United States has yet to settle on a definition of enemy combatant. The Supreme Court spent the past decade determining whether and how detainees could challenge their detention but explicitly avoided the question of whether they could be detained in the first place. The debate has divided not only political rivals, but also, as the New York Times recently detailed, seniors official in the current Administration.

A handful of district and circuit courts have begun to examine the scope of the President's authority to subject enemy combatants to military detention without charges, a jury trial, or any of the other trappings of criminal detention. Some parties have taken the position that the President lacks detention authority in the fight against a terrorist group, while others argue that the President may detain even unwitting supporters of al Qaeda. The courts have reached a number of different conclusions.

In my article, Definite Detention: The Scope of the President's Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants, I suggest that Congress has authorized the President to subject members of al Qaeda and the Taliban to military detention, whether or not they engage in combat. However, the President may not use military detention for mere supporters or sympathizers of those groups. This membership model could also be used to determine the appropriate time for release. Namely, detainees could be freed when they sever their membership in al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Nonetheless, the debate is far from over. While a number of district courts have adopted this membership model, the D.C. Circuit recently suggested in dicta that an individual could be subjected to military detention merely for supporting the Taliban. The decision indicates that this debate could continue for many years.

---

Susan Herman, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, is the author of a recent article in the online edition of the Harvard Law & Policy Review.

---

When Liz Cheney released an ad charging that attorneys who had defended terrorism suspects were not fit to work in the Department of Justice, individual lawyers and the organized bar reacted with across-the-board outrage. Some, like former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, took the occasion to argue that the same protection and understanding is due the government lawyers who wrote the memos condoning torture by American agents, because the attacks on the lawyers are "all of a piece."

In my essay, The Limits of Advocacy: Lawyers for Terrorists/Lawyers for Torturers, I discuss why the role of the defense attorney and the multi-faceted role of the government lawyer are not equivalent. I also discuss the reasons why we have developed clarity about the role of defense attorneys since the dark days following 9/11: the military lawyers who led the way, the organized bar gradually stepping up to the task of defending the Guantánamo detainees, and the Supreme Court deciding a series of cases making a strong statement about the essentiality of the rule of law and lawyers, even at Guantánamo.

By way of contrast, we have little clarity about our shameful brush with torture - partly because the courts have found a dazzling array of procedural excuses for refusing to hear cases about torture and extraordinary rendition, depriving the victims of their day in court. There is a great deal we do not know about what happened and who was responsible, but there are now few voices calling for accountability. President Obama urges us to just turn the page. I argue that it is a mistake to go forward without first looking back, suggesting that the model of a truth commission might be useful to us.

"Proposals like Sen. Joe Lieberman's to take away a suspect's citizenship put the nation on a dangerous path," writes UC Irvine School of Law Founding Dean Erwin Chemerinsky (pictured) in the Los Angeles Times. Chemerinksy, a frequent ACS participant, took to the pages of the Times amid persistent critiques of the federal response to an attempted bombing in Times Square, including a proposal by Sen. Lieberman to strip terrorism suspects of citizenship.

Chemerinsky writes:

Those who commit terrorist acts can and should be severely punished; stripping them of their citizenship and failing to inform them of their right to remain silent serve no additional purpose.

There is no reason to believe that advising terrorism suspects of their rights obstructs effective law enforcement. Take the case of Faisal Shahzad, accused of placing the car with explosives in Times Square. He spoke to authorities before being given his Miranda warnings, and continued to speak after. In fact, police have demonstrated over decades that they can function effectively even when suspects are advised of their rights. If there is a public safety emergency, current law permits questioning without Miranda warnings. Those determined not to speak will refuse to do so whether or not they have been informed of their rights.

Proposals for depriving Americans of their citizenship or civil liberties ignore the risks of doing so. If individuals accused of terrorism acts can be deprived of their citizenship or their rights, would this extend to defendants such as Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols, who were convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? In fact, why shouldn't all mass murderers be deprived of these rights as well? They too terrorize communities.

The great fear is that when the government has the power to strip some people of basic rights, it cannot be easily limited. Fundamental protections of our democracy are lost, and for no gain. We have seen time and again that terrorists can be successfully prosecuted without stripping them of their rights during the process.

Responding to acts of terrorism with deprivations of civil liberties is a familiar and troubling pattern.

[Image via University of California, Irvine.]

---

By Maj. (Ret.) Eric Montalvo, Esq., Partner at Puckett & Faraj, PC, in Washington, D.C. and former Marine Corps Judge Advocate General (JAG). Eric currently specializes in national security law, military criminal law, and military administrative law. He has handled several Military Commission cases including U.S. v. Al Bahlul, U.S. v. Hawsawi (the alleged 9/11 co-conspirator), and the case of the U.S. v. Jawad, fighting for and securing the release of one of the youngest Guantanamo Bay detainees in 2009.

---

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling in Kiyemba V. Obama (Supreme Court docket 09-581). The D.C. Circuit Court held that the judiciary may not review executive branch decisions regarding when or where to transfer detainees that it is prepared to release from Guantanamo Bay. This case is now informally referred to as "Kiyemba II." Ten current Guantanamo detainees who have been cleared for release object to being returned to their country of national origin out of fear or concern for their safety and well-being.

In Kiyemba I, the Court granted certiorari on the question of "whether a federal court exercising habeas jurisdiction has the power to order the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay "where the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy." In the vacation and remand to the D.C. Circuit Court the Supreme Court held that "no court has yet ruled in this case in light of the new facts, and we decline to be the first to do so."

The Court's ruling creates uncertainty in the system which is already wrought with indecision and indefinite consternation. The Supreme Court has created an exception to the general rule that a court loses jurisdiction where there is no case or controversy and a court's decision will no longer have an impact on plaintiff. The Court has recognized that some questions may involve proceedings that are frequently repetitive, but come to a conclusion prior to the normal life cycle of litigation effectively depriving the Court of jurisdiction. The Court may assume jurisdiction where there was injury that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The classic example of the Court utilizing this exception is in the abortion line cases. These cases present such a circumstance and allow the government to alter the justiciability issue simply by changing the facts in the 9th inning.

One of the ten detainees who brought the suit in Kiyemba II, Algerian national Ahmed Belbacha, was cleared for release over three years ago and has endured over eight years of incarceration in U.S. custody. During his incarceration by the U.S. he was tried in absentia, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years by the Algerian government. He has asserted in filings that he "has been threatened with death by an Islamic terrorist group in Algeria," and the Algerian government views him as a deserter.

If Belbacha had "immigrated" to the United States legally or illegally he could become an "asylum seeker." In lay terms, asylum is legal protection against deportation based on fear of persecution in their home country. Pursuant to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees from 1951, a refugee is a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.

Immigration Judges, albeit within the Department of Justice, adjudicate these issues on a regular basis. What the government cleverly accomplished in the case at hand was to provide facts that seemingly render the questions moot or "unripe." The Court is well aware that there will be more detainees undergoing similar issues and it cannot be that three to five years of political and legal wrangling is an acceptable consequence of avoiding what the Court titles as a non-justiciable issue.

In the meanwhile, detainees such as Belbacha have endured captivity aboard Guantanamo for the last eight years fighting for freedom and the opportunity to enjoy that freedom after they are released. The United States has created a probable death sentence for this man after we have deprived him of eight years of his life and "poured salt on the wound."

The Eight Amendment to the Constitution was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791. It states that "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." It would appear that releasing Belbacha or any similarly situated detainee back "into the wild" without their say or consideration for their welfare in the face of credible concerns of bodily harm and indefinite incarnation directly upon release after eight years of liberty deprivation clearly violates the Eight Amendment. I use the phrase "into the wild" as we are treating people worse than animals who are rehabilitated to reintegrate into the wild.

Our jurisprudence should flatly reject any decisions which accepts, facilitates or perpetuates indefinite detention. We need to adopt a Donald Trump "your fired" method of adjudication. To enable the government to keep shooting closing-moment three-pointers to avoid judicial scrutiny is a contorted manipulation of our judicial system. Does it really take three years for our government to negotiate the transfer of an individual? The Supreme Court must decide the constitutional issues and let Congress and/or the Executive Branch determine how to fix themselves -- not give them unlimited bites at the rotten apple.

[Image via christopher dune.]

The U.S. Supreme Court passed on a chance to hear the second Kiyemba v. Obama, a case involving four of the Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs, detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Denying certiorari this morning, the Court let stand a lower court's decision that federal judges have no authority to review the executive branch's determinations where and when to send detainees cleared for release.

The Court previously granted review in Kiyemba I, in which Uighurs challenged their continued detention at Guantanamo despite being cleared for release. Upon news that the executive branch found countries willing to accept each of the Uighur detainees, however, the Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In Kiyemba II, non-Uighurs who are also slated for release to countries previously announced by the administration also joined the case.

Among the most promising plaintiffs to join Kiyemba II was Ahmed Belbacha, according to reports. Belbacha, who the executive branch says it will release to his native Algeria, alleges that his life was threatened by terrorists there. He also contends that the Algerian military considers him a desserter, and he was tried and convictied in absentia for terrorism-related charges carrying a 20-year sentence. "Caught between domestic terror groups and a government that has already decreed a harsh sanction for him, Mr. Belbacha cannot safely return to Algeria," his attorneys told a district court earlier this month.  

The Supreme Court's denial of cert. leaves in tact the D.C. Circuit's ruling in favor of executive prerogative. In the words of SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston, the cert. denial "marked a significant victory for the federal government."

[Image via ken mccown.]

 

Pushback continues over conservatives' attacks on Department of Justice attorneys who represented military detainees accused of terrorism before entering government service. The New York Times "Room for Debate Blog" includes comment from across the political spectrum supportive and critical of the attacks. In a post dubbed "Aiding the Enemy," National Review Legal Affairs Editor Andrew C. McCarthy took aim at lawyers who represented detainees accused of terrorism, writing, "Members of any other profession or institution would be indicted for coming to the enemy's aid during wartime. Lawyers not only demand immunity from the ordinary duties of citizenship, but they insist that you admire them, or, at the very least, regard them as above criticism for volunteering their services to those trying to kill Americans."

McCarthy's post triggered a sharp rebuke from George Washington University law school professor Orin Kerr, a former recipient of a prestigious Federalist Society award. On the conservative legal theory blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, Kerr blasted McCarthy's arguments as "ridiculous."

Taking on McCarthy's "basic argument that lawyers who represented detainees ‘aided the enemy in wartime,' and should normally be guilty of treason," Kerr wrote:

If that's true, isn't the federal judiciary, and aren't the Justices of the Supreme Court, also guilty of treason? In fact, aren't the judges the kingpins of this treasonous plot to "hurt the war effort"? After all, lawyers only make arguments to judges. It doesn't actually help detainees to make argument courts reject. It's up to the judges to rule one way or the other. If the lawyers are aiding the enemy, they're only minor players: It's the judges, and especially the Justices, who are the real guilty parties, as they're the ones that actually help the detainees by ruling in their favor. Does McCarthy think the Justices of the Supreme Court are guilty of aiding the enemy, and that (if we treat them like everybody else) they should be "indicted for coming to the enemy's aid during wartime"?

As noted by The New York Times, the controversy, which has been fueled by Sen. Charles Grassley's demands that Attorney General Eric Holder (above, left) release names and information of DOJ attorneys who have represented detained terrorism suspects, and Liz Cheney's group Keep American Safe, which produced an inflammatory YouTube video referring to the DOJ attorneys as the "Al Qaeda Seven," has revealed a split among conservatives. 

Richard A. Epstein, a University of Chicago law school professor and as The Times described him, "a revered figure among many members" of the Federalist Society, told the newspaper, "There's something truly bizarre about this. Liz Cheney is a former student of mine - I don't know what moves her on this thing."

Epstein and Kerr aren't the only conservatives questioning the tactics. As noted earlier this week, another prominent conservative, former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr signed a letter calling the attacks on the DOJ attorneys "shameful." The Times also reported that Peter Keisler, former Acting Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration, also signed that letter. And as reported by Main Justice, Holder's predecessor, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal slammed the attacks on the DOJ attorneys as "shoddy and dangerous."

See previous posts on the matter here and here. 

 

---

By Jonathan Manes, Legal Fellow, ACLU National Security Project

---

Most of the opposition to U.S. detention policy since 9/11 has focused on the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay. But for nearly as long, the United States has been operating a prison in Afghanistan that has been, in many ways, Guantánamo's uglier twin. Stories of abuse and mistreatment at the Bagram facility have been all too common. At least two detainees were killed by guards at Bagram, the consequence of repeated beatings and shackling in stress positions.

Unlike prisoners at Guantánamo, however, whose habeas rights were restored by the Supreme Court in 2008, Bagram prisoners have never had a meaningful and adequate process to challenge their detention. Yet many Bagram prisoners have been held for years, without charge, without access to courts, without access to lawyers, and without even being told why they are being held. And according to official government investigations, reports by nongovernmental organizations, and interviews with former Bagram detainees and their families, many of the detainees at Bagram have never engaged in or been a part of groups engaged in hostilities against the United States. Many were instead originally picked up in the course of night raids, neighborhood sweeps, and cordon-and-search operations. Others were picked up by military forces acting on the basis of flimsy intelligence like anonymous tips from local rivals or business competitors. The risk that people at Bagram are erroneously detained is very high. It is therefore crucial that the people detained there have prompt access to a court or, at the very least, a fair, independent and impartial tribunal that can order their release. Just as with people held at Guantánamo, those imprisoned at Bagram must not be falsely imprisoned for years without charge.

Last week the ACLU filed habeas petitions on behalf of four people detained at Bagram. One petition is on behalf of two brothers: a 24-year-old Afghan who, until his capture by U.S. forces nearly 20 months ago, served as a translator for the U.S. military for four years, and a 25-year-old customer service representative for an Afghan Internet service provider, who has been imprisoned for nearly two years. The second petition is on behalf of a 61-year-old Afghan government employee, and his 27-year-old nephew, who have been imprisoned at Bagram for more than one year after U.S. forces seized them from their homes. Even though they have already been locked up at Bagram for well over a year (and for some, almost two), the government has never informed our clients of the reasons why they are being detained. Neither do our clients' families have any idea why their relatives are in prison. In fact, it was months after our clients' arrest before their families learned what had become of them.

The ACLU joins other dedicated lawyers, coordinated by the International Justice Network, who have also filed habeas petitions on behalf of other Bagram detainees. Last year, the D.C. District Court confirmed that at least some Bagram detainees have the right to petition for habeas corpus. That decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The ACLU has filed this habeas petition because it believes that the government must release our clients -- and others like them -- or else prove why they can be held in military detention. If the government does not have the authority to detain them militarily, they must be released or charged criminally under Afghan or U.S. law. Because the military's internal process for reviewing the detention of people held at Bagram is inadequate under both the Constitution and applicable international law, we are asking a court to vindicate our clients' habeas corpus rights by stepping in to review their detention.

Up until recently, the review process at Bagram was little more than a rubber stamp: detainees were not told why they were held, let alone given an opportunity to challenge their detention. The current Detainee Review Board ("DRB") policy, instituted by the Obama administration toward the end of last year, is an improvement over the prior process that existed at Bagram, but remains inadequate and unlawful. Among other defects, the DRBs are not independent or impartial -- they are composed of military officers who are not insulated in any way from the command hierarchy or other improper influences. Instead of looking only at the evidence, they are liable to be looking over their shoulders, worried that ordering the release of detainees will land them in hot water with their superiors or hinder their career progress. The DRBs also fail to afford the detainee the right to access counsel. There is therefore nobody who can stand between the detainee and the military, in order to ensure that they are treated fairly. The "personal representatives" that are assigned to detainees under the DRB process are nonlawyer military personnel responsible to the chain of command. In fact, personal representatives are appointed and removed by the same person who chooses the members of the DRB panel itself. Unlike lawyers, the "personal representatives" owe no duty of confidentiality to their "clients," and are not bound to advocate zealously on their behalf. To make matters worse, detainees are not given access to all of the evidence against them and the DRBs are not obligated to provide the detainee with evidence in the government's possession that tends to show the detainee's innocence. Furthermore, nothing in the DRB policy prevents the military from relying on testimony procured using torture or other cruel, inhumane, and degrading forms of coercion.

This isn't good enough. The current system of detention at Bagram is contrary to the Constitution and international law, and offends bedrock American principles of freedom and due process. The Obama administration should do the right thing not only at Guantánamo -- which should long since have been a distant memory -- but also at Bagram, where the indefinite detention of people without habeas rights or charge offends American values and undermines the United States' moral standing in Afghanistan and beyond.

[Image via takomabibelot.]