US military jails 'black holes', say US lawyers for Afghan

US human rights lawyers charged Sunday that US military prisons are "legal black holes" and the force is detaining journalists to "shut people up" about activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A vast detention camp planned for the main US base in Afghanistan will be a "second Guantanamo" where laws do not apply, they said at a press conference about an Afghan reporter in US military custody without charge for nine months.

The US military is holding Jawad Ahmad, who has worked with Canadian Television (CTV), at its detention facility at Bagram north of Kabul on allegations he is an "unlawful enemy combatant."

Ahmad is among 650 people being held at Bagram without trial, US-based International Justice Network executive director Tina Monshipour Foster told reporters.

"Many people in Afghanistan and in Iraq that have been targeted for detention are local journalists covering the conflict in their own country," said another prominent US human rights lawyer, Barbara J. Olshansky.

"When the United States detains reporters, photographers, camera operators and holds them for long period without charge for any offence and without trials and without any evidence, we know that part of the goal is to just shut people up," she said.

The intention was to "make sure that the people of those countries and the United States do not know what is going on," she alleged.

Olshansky said she was concerned a new prison being planned for the US Bagram Air Base would be similar to a US prison camp set up at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in late 2001 for suspects in its "war on terror".

"We will be attacking the use of Bagram as a legal black hole, as a second Guantanamo, as a place where no laws apply," she told the media briefing.

"I think it is very clear that the reason that the United States chose to build it inside the Air Base is that they did not like the independent decisions that would have come out of the Afghan judiciary."

Afghanistan Human Rights Organisation chairman Lal Gul Lal said mainly US forces in the country had carried out scores of illegal detentions, in which people were held for years without charge.

"They must be compensated," he said.

Original here

Please wait, your request is processed... Iraqi Prime Minister Backs Obama Troop Exit Plan

A spokesman for al-Maliki has said the Prime Minister's comments were "mistranslated", but Der Spiegel is standing by its story:

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

The New York Times reports that US Embassy Officials contacted Maliki's office to "explain" how the Prime Minister's comments were being interpreted:

The interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki's office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

"The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it," he said.

The Washington Post confirms that the tepid retraction came after a call from Embassy officials:

The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel "misinterpreted and mistranslated" followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.
Original here

Please wait, your request is processed... Iraqi Prime Minister Backs Obama Troop Exit Plan

A spokesman for al-Maliki has said the Prime Minister's comments were "mistranslated", but Der Spiegel is standing by its story:

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

The New York Times reports that US Embassy Officials contacted Maliki's office to "explain" how the Prime Minister's comments were being interpreted:

The interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki's office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

"The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it," he said.

The Washington Post confirms that the tepid retraction came after a call from Embassy officials:

The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel "misinterpreted and mistranslated" followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.
Original here