111 replies to this topic

[Manoka]

He wasn't held in a joint prison. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

He was captured during battle, taken out of Afghanistan, and then charged in the U.S.

 

The Afghans had no involvement in the whole process.

Irek Hamidullin was held in the  Bagram Theater Internment Facility, now known as the Parwan Detention Facility, which has joint control by the U.S. and Afghanistan. He was held in an Afghan prison, first. Where are you getting that the Afghans don't want this and that it's "imperialism"? I can't find references to that anywhere. By every commonly accepted definition of imperialism, this doesn't fit. And considering he was with numerous groups of prisoners brought back to the state's to be tried, and that we have agreements with Afghanistan to do so, I'm not sure why you think this particular case is so special.

 

It's not imperialism in Britain to send their criminals to be tried in the U.S., it's not imperialism in Afghanistan. Certain high profile cases have people often tried in both countries, especially when directed at multiple countries' citizens. The war in Afghanistan is a U.N. sanctioned mission, with multiple countries from around the world involved. It's not really a case of U.S. imperialism.

[the rebel]

He wasn't held in a joint prison. Where are you getting this stuff?

He was captured during battle, taken out of Afghanistan, and then charged in the U.S.

The Afghans had no involvement in the whole process.

It's not imperialism in Britain to send their criminals to be tried in the U.S., it's not imperialism in Afghanistan.

Dropping the imperialism line, for "criminals" to be extradited from the UK to the USA, the said criminals go through our judicial system first.

You basically just saying "no" to each post doesn't disprove anyone's point. Perhaps show us facts off said person going through Afghanistan's system first before being extradited.

[Haflinger]

He wasn't held in a joint prison. Where are you getting this stuff?
 
He was captured during battle, taken out of Afghanistan, and then charged in the U.S.
 
The Afghans had no involvement in the whole process.

Irek Hamidullin was held in the  Bagram Theater Internment Facility, now known as the Parwan Detention Facility, which has joint control by the U.S. and Afghanistan. He was held in an Afghan prison, first. Where are you getting that the Afghans don't want this and that it's "imperialism"? I can't find references to that anywhere. By every commonly accepted definition of imperialism, this doesn't fit. And considering he was with numerous groups of prisoners brought back to the state's to be tried, and that we have agreements with Afghanistan to do so, I'm not sure why you think this particular case is so special.
 
It's not imperialism in Britain to send their criminals to be tried in the U.S., it's not imperialism in Afghanistan. Certain high profile cases have people often tried in both countries, especially when directed at multiple countries' citizens. The war in Afghanistan is a U.N. sanctioned mission, with multiple countries from around the world involved. It's not really a case of U.S. imperialism.

Firstly: There is no war in Afghanistan. That ended (by U.S. law) on December 28, 2014. The U.N. Security Council decision on the matter dates back to 2001 and is aimed at helping set up the then-fledgling post-Taliban Afghan government.

Secondly: If you read the original Washington Post article cited by Wikipedia, you'll find this.

The Obama administration is actively considering the use of a military commission in the United States to try a Russian who was captured fighting with the Taliban several years ago and has been held by the U.S. military at a detention facility near Bagram air base in Afghanistan, former and current U.S. officials said.

Which facility he was held at is not specified. What is specified however is that he was held by the U.S. military. Not jointly by the U.S. and Afghan militaries, but simply held by the U.S. military.
 
Finally: The Bagram Theater Internment Facility, which is where he probably was held, was only recently transferred to Afghan control (and then renamed). In fact, it was at the centre of the dispute between Washington and Kabul over prisoner transfers; gaining control of it was seen as a big win for sovereignty by the Kabul government. It was never a jointly-run prison.
 
Here's a story from 2013 talking about the Bagram prison transfer.

[Manoka]

 

He wasn't held in a joint prison. Where are you getting this stuff?

He was captured during battle, taken out of Afghanistan, and then charged in the U.S.

The Afghans had no involvement in the whole process.

It's not imperialism in Britain to send their criminals to be tried in the U.S., it's not imperialism in Afghanistan.

Dropping the imperialism line, for "criminals" to be extradited from the UK to the USA, the said criminals go through our judicial system first.

You basically just saying "no" to each post doesn't disprove anyone's point. Perhaps show us facts off said person going through Afghanistan's system first before being extradited.

Well, the accusation leveled was that it was imperialism, I believe that there would need to be proof to the claim, rather than a counter claim. It's a pretty hefty claim to assert imperialism, particularly considering how the U.S. was founded in large part in response against it, so, I would imagine the accuser would like to provide evidence which, I have yet to see any Afghanistan objections. 

 

I also provided ample evidence this entire time, sources, definitions, treaties, links to said treaties, U.N. agreements etc. so, no I have been the one providing evidence instead of baseless allegations of imperialism. 

 

 

But, if an overwhelming lack of evidence isn't enough to convince you that you might be wrong, evidence to the contrary, might. 

 

"4.   The United States reaffirms that it is to transfer Afghan nationals detained by U.S. forces at the Detention Facility in Parwan (DFIP) to Afghanistan according to the provisions of this MoU."- According to the agreement, Afghanistan is to have control over Afghan Nationals. However, the U.S. will be allowed to have control over non-Afghan nationals, which includes around 3 dozen to 50 individuals. [1][2] Because he is not an Afghan national, he falls under U.S. Jurisdiction, as per their agreement. 

 

This is a list of all the prisoner's, but since he is known by his fake name, you can find better information, in these places. [1][2][3 "He was captured after the attack in 2009 and held for five years before his transfer from Parwan prison near Bagram, Afghanistan. "

[Manoka]

 

He wasn't held in a joint prison. Where are you getting this stuff?
 
He was captured during battle, taken out of Afghanistan, and then charged in the U.S.
 
The Afghans had no involvement in the whole process.

Irek Hamidullin was held in the  Bagram Theater Internment Facility, now known as the Parwan Detention Facility, which has joint control by the U.S. and Afghanistan. He was held in an Afghan prison, first. Where are you getting that the Afghans don't want this and that it's "imperialism"? I can't find references to that anywhere. By every commonly accepted definition of imperialism, this doesn't fit. And considering he was with numerous groups of prisoners brought back to the state's to be tried, and that we have agreements with Afghanistan to do so, I'm not sure why you think this particular case is so special.
 
It's not imperialism in Britain to send their criminals to be tried in the U.S., it's not imperialism in Afghanistan. Certain high profile cases have people often tried in both countries, especially when directed at multiple countries' citizens. The war in Afghanistan is a U.N. sanctioned mission, with multiple countries from around the world involved. It's not really a case of U.S. imperialism.

Firstly: There is no war in Afghanistan. That ended (by U.S. law) on December 28, 2014. The U.N. Security Council decision on the matter dates back to 2001 and is aimed at helping set up the then-fledgling post-Taliban Afghan government.

Secondly: If you read the original Washington Post article cited by Wikipedia, you'll find this.

>>>>The Obama administration is actively considering the use of a military commission in the United States to try a Russian who was captured fighting with the Taliban several years ago and has been held by the U.S. military at a detention facility near Bagram air base in Afghanistan, former and current U.S. officials said.

Which facility he was held at is not specified. What is specified however is that he was held by the U.S. military. Not jointly by the U.S. and Afghan militaries, but simply held by the U.S. military.
 
Finally: The Bagram Theater Internment Facility, which is where he probably was held, was only recently transferred to Afghan control (and then renamed). In fact, it was at the centre of the dispute between Washington and Kabul over prisoner transfers; gaining control of it was seen as a big win for sovereignty by the Kabul government. It was never a jointly-run prison.
 
Here's a story from 2013 talking about the Bagram prison transfer.

 

This is a list of all the prisoner's, but since he is known by his fake name, you can find better information, in these places. [1][2][3 "He was captured after the attack in 2009 and held for five years before his transfer from Parwan prison near Bagram, Afghanistan. " He was captured during the war in, 2009, but was transferred in 2013, after the prison became joint controlled by the U.S. and Afghanistan. 

 

" A further clause provides for a committee, made up of the Afghan defense minister and the commander of the American military in Afghanistan, to decide jointly on releases." [1][2][3] The U.S. held approximately 50 prisoners, there, and provides logistical support, meaning it's ran and operated by both U.S. and Afghan members. 

 

 

As for, him not being on the Bagram detention facility? You're just grasping at straws. As compared to the other detention facility at Bagram airport base? In the first three sources, it makes references to him being held there, specifically. In case you didn't know, I suppose? I want to know the honest truth Haf, and if you really thought he was being held at some other detention facility in the area despite specifically making reference to it, or like, wut?

[the rebel]

@Manoka: I don't give a shit what you and Haf have been arguing about, as it wasn't relevant to my question. I just asked for proof (which you hadn't yet to provide upon my request) that the US would have the right to extradite without going through Afghanistan's judicial system first like every other normal extradition treaty ever written.

As for your proof: having the jurisdiction over looking after foreign POW's is different to having the jurisdiction to extradite said POW's from the country they were caught.

Care to provide any proof that:

The person in question went through Afghanistan's judicial process.

Or that,

Afghanistan explicitly allows the USA to remove POW's from Afghanistan without judicial process.

[Haflinger]

No, they don't. Please read more about the Afghanistan-U.S. prisoner dispute and get back to me.

 

Seriously, do you know why the Bagram prison was transferred from U.S. to Afghan control?

[Manoka]

@Manoka: I don't give a shit what you and Haf have been arguing about, as it wasn't relevant to my question. I just asked for proof (which you hadn't yet to provide upon my request) that the US would have the right to extradite without going through Afghanistan's judicial system first like every other normal extradition treaty ever written.

As for your proof: having the jurisdiction over looking after foreign POW's is different to having the jurisdiction to extradite said POW's from the country they were caught.

Care to provide any proof that:

The person in question went through Afghanistan's judicial process.

Or that,

Afghanistan explicitly allows the USA to remove POW's from Afghanistan without judicial process.

The U.S. has joint panel control over the prisoner's, meaning they are members who get to decide whether or not prisoner's can go to the U.S. or different prisons. They decide, together, this isn't a decision that's made without Afghanistan's input, and there's never any indication that it was. I've already showed you the treaties, the memorandum's, the documents detailing the involvement and agreements, the one's that left the U.S. with limited control over the prison's and a number of the prisoner's. 

[Manoka]

No, they don't. Please read more about the Afghanistan-U.S. prisoner dispute and get back to me.

 

Seriously, do you know why the Bagram prison was transferred from U.S. to Afghan control?

No, who don't? Don't what?

 

They have members working together in the prison, shared prison commons between the two countries, over 50 prisoner's in U.S. custody were there. Task Force 435 still provides training, logistics, and even direct support for the prison. The U.S. and Afghanistan work together, all the time. 

 

The reason the prison was transferred over was to aid the Afghanistan government's control over the country and prepare them for the U.S. withdrawal of their forces. 

[the rebel]

@Manoka: I don't give a shit what you and Haf have been arguing about, as it wasn't relevant to my question. I just asked for proof (which you hadn't yet to provide upon my request) that the US would have the right to extradite without going through Afghanistan's judicial system first like every other normal extradition treaty ever written.

As for your proof: having the jurisdiction over looking after foreign POW's is different to having the jurisdiction to extradite said POW's from the country they were caught.

Care to provide any proof that:

The person in question went through Afghanistan's judicial process.

Or that,

Afghanistan explicitly allows the USA to remove POW's from Afghanistan without judicial process.

The U.S. has joint panel control over the prisoner's, meaning they are members who get to decide whether or not prisoner's can go to the U.S. or different prisons. They decide, together, this isn't a decision that's made without Afghanistan's input, and there's never any indication that it was. I've already showed you the treaties, the memorandum's, the documents detailing the involvement and agreements, the one's that left the U.S. with limited control over the prison's and a number of the prisoner's. 

 

Source?

[Manoka]

 

@Manoka: I don't give a shit what you and Haf have been arguing about, as it wasn't relevant to my question. I just asked for proof (which you hadn't yet to provide upon my request) that the US would have the right to extradite without going through Afghanistan's judicial system first like every other normal extradition treaty ever written.

As for your proof: having the jurisdiction over looking after foreign POW's is different to having the jurisdiction to extradite said POW's from the country they were caught.

Care to provide any proof that:

The person in question went through Afghanistan's judicial process.

Or that,

Afghanistan explicitly allows the USA to remove POW's from Afghanistan without judicial process.

The U.S. has joint panel control over the prisoner's, meaning they are members who get to decide whether or not prisoner's can go to the U.S. or different prisons. They decide, together, this isn't a decision that's made without Afghanistan's input, and there's never any indication that it was. I've already showed you the treaties, the memorandum's, the documents detailing the involvement and agreements, the one's that left the U.S. with limited control over the prison's and a number of the prisoner's. 

 

Source?

Well, I've already provided sources, but, the U.S. has joint combined operations with Afghanistan. "A further clause provides for a committee, made up of the Afghan defense minister and the commander of the American military in Afghanistan, to decide jointly on releases" [1]

 

Specifically, the U.S. has control over foreign detainees, which Afghanistan actually refuses to have control over. [2] "The Afghan authorities have said they will not continue to hold any foreign detainees." "The United States reaffirms that it is to transfer Afghan nationals detained by U.S. forces at the Detention Facility in Parwan (DFIP) to Afghanistan according to the provisions of this MoU." Because Irek is a foreign national, he's under complete U.S. control. However, they still maintain joint control over the facility, and the U.S. provides both logistics and financial resources to the prison. Particularly, they work with Task Force [url=https://en.wikipedia...k_Force_435]435[/ur]

 

As for the actual Memorandum, here it is. 

"b)    the new Afghan Commander at the DFIP is to work with the United States to ensure the orderly processing and transfer of detainees within the DFIP and to other detention facilities and prisons in Afghanistan, and to continue to build the capacity of the DFIP to provide a secure and humane environment;"

 

" Afghanistan affirms that it is to consult with the United States before the release, including release prior to indictment, of the transferred detainees, and, if the United States provides its assessment that continued detention is necessary to prevent the detainee from engaging in or facilitating terrorist activity, Afghanistan is to consider favorably such assessment."

[Manoka]

The definition of what you consider imperialist in any case is what I have a problem with, it's too vague. 

 

When the U.S. invaded Germany in WWII and ignored the local sovereignty of the government, was that "imperialism"? After all, a foreign power did consider it's power more important. Or perhaps every known U.N. war, and even international agreements about human rights, which many countries have never upheld. After all, your definition is " imposing one's one laws inside the territory of another sovereign state". You didn't even say a country had to do it. 

 

And, if it is Imperialism, is it then inherently bad? What make imperialism bad is that a dictator, or an emperor, takes over a foreign country and hurts the innocent people. If they are not doing that, is it really so bad? You can change the definition to that and believe it to your death ,but it doesn't really fit in line with what actual Empire's have done, or really have any value.

[the rebel]

Well, I've already provided sources, but, the U.S. has joint combined operations with Afghanistan. "A further clause provides for a committee, made up of the Afghan defense minister and the commander of the American military in Afghanistan, to decide jointly on releases" [1]

 

Specifically, the U.S. has control over foreign detainees, which Afghanistan actually refuses to have control over. [2] "The Afghan authorities have said they will not continue to hold any foreign detainees." "The United States reaffirms that it is to transfer Afghan nationals detained by U.S. forces at the Detention Facility in Parwan (DFIP) to Afghanistan according to the provisions of this MoU." Because Irek is a foreign national, he's under complete U.S. control. However, they still maintain joint control over the facility, and the U.S. provides both logistics and financial resources to the prison. Particularly, they work with Task Force [url=https://en.wikipedia...k_Force_435]435[/ur]

 

As for the actual Memorandum, here it is. 

"b)    the new Afghan Commander at the DFIP is to work with the United States to ensure the orderly processing and transfer of detainees within the DFIP and to other detention facilities and prisons in Afghanistan, and to continue to build the capacity of the DFIP to provide a secure and humane environment;"

 

" Afghanistan affirms that it is to consult with the United States before the release, including release prior to indictment, of the transferred detainees, and, if the United States provides its assessment that continued detention is necessary to prevent the detainee from engaging in or facilitating terrorist activity, Afghanistan is to consider favorably such assessment."

 

Where are the sources that answers my question, sources that don't answer the questions are redundant.

For ease here it is again:

 

Care to provide any proof that:

The person in question went through Afghanistan's judicial process.

Or that,

Afghanistan explicitly allows the USA to remove POW's from Afghanistan without judicial process.

 

 

None of what you posted addresses what I asked. I'm starting to think you can't answer.

[Manoka]

Well, I've already provided sources, but, the U.S. has joint combined operations with Afghanistan. "A further clause provides for a committee, made up of the Afghan defense minister and the commander of the American military in Afghanistan, to decide jointly on releases" [1]

 

Specifically, the U.S. has control over foreign detainees, which Afghanistan actually refuses to have control over. [2] "The Afghan authorities have said they will not continue to hold any foreign detainees." "The United States reaffirms that it is to transfer Afghan nationals detained by U.S. forces at the Detention Facility in Parwan (DFIP) to Afghanistan according to the provisions of this MoU." Because Irek is a foreign national, he's under complete U.S. control. However, they still maintain joint control over the facility, and the U.S. provides both logistics and financial resources to the prison. Particularly, they work with Task Force [url=https://en.wikipedia...k_Force_435]435[/ur]

 

As for the actual Memorandum, here it is. 

"b)    the new Afghan Commander at the DFIP is to work with the United States to ensure the orderly processing and transfer of detainees within the DFIP and to other detention facilities and prisons in Afghanistan, and to continue to build the capacity of the DFIP to provide a secure and humane environment;"

 

" Afghanistan affirms that it is to consult with the United States before the release, including release prior to indictment, of the transferred detainees, and, if the United States provides its assessment that continued detention is necessary to prevent the detainee from engaging in or facilitating terrorist activity, Afghanistan is to consider favorably such assessment."

 

Where are the sources that answers my question, sources that don't answer the questions are redundant.

For ease here it is again:

 

>>Care to provide any proof that:

The person in question went through Afghanistan's judicial process.

Or that,

Afghanistan explicitly allows the USA to remove POW's from Afghanistan without judicial process.

 

 

None of what you posted addresses what I asked. I'm starting to think you can't answer.

 

Neither of those two things are relevant. Afghanistan doesn't handle foreign terrorists, that's under the U.S.'s jurisdiction, as per their agreement. The U.S. can handle these particular POW's, and does, based on the memorandum both signed. That's why he was taken and tried in the U.S. It's specific to these individuals, in that facility.

[Haflinger]

What's more, you're discussing the current procedure that the U.S. and Afghanistan have worked out for dealing with prisoners.

 

Not the procedure that was in place at the time the guy who's the subject of this whole thread was captured. At that time, Bagram was a U.S. military prison. It has since been transferred to primarily Afghan control, with the U.S. supporting the Afghans. But that wasn't the case then, and that fact (along with other Afghan prisoners taken by the U.S., including some the U.S. released over protests by the Afghan government) was the cause of a lot of friction between Washington and Kabul.

 

The fact that you seem to be completely unaware of this ongoing diplomatic dispute over the prisoners is a problem. It's like if someone was talking about the problems in eastern Ukraine now but didn't know anything about this other place called Crimea, and it makes it hard to talk to you about it because you don't know about something which is basic knowledge for people who read news stories about Afghanistan.

[Manoka]

What's more, you're discussing the current procedure that the U.S. and Afghanistan have worked out for dealing with prisoners.

 

Not the procedure that was in place at the time the guy who's the subject of this whole thread was captured. At that time, Bagram was a U.S. military prison. It has since been transferred to primarily Afghan control, with the U.S. supporting the Afghans. But that wasn't the case then, and that fact (along with other Afghan prisoners taken by the U.S., including some the U.S. released over protests by the Afghan government) was the cause of a lot of friction between Washington and Kabul.

 

The fact that you seem to be completely unaware of this ongoing diplomatic dispute over the prisoners is a problem. It's like if someone was talking about the problems in eastern Ukraine now but didn't know anything about this other place called Crimea, and it makes it hard to talk to you about it because you don't know about something which is basic knowledge for people who read news stories about Afghanistan.

He was transferred to U.S. control in 2013, during the timeframe after the deal was done, but was captured in 2009, before it. I've even shown you this specifically and shown you the transition and everything, I've sourced it, but you don't think I know about it?

 

I realize that Afghanistan wants to transition to local control, so does the U.S., we don't want to be in Afghanistan forever, it's expensive to maintain logistics there. The only long term goal is to transfer control over to the local governments, it's what we've been doing for ages. I gave you some pretty detailed information about what happened during this time, even a raw list of prisoners, and how he was eventually transferred over to a U.S. prison, and then tried in the U.S. There's no reason to assume that, given the dozens of other prisoner's transferred to U.S. control by their joint agreements, of which his name was on the list, that for some reason they didn't want this guy to be. The Afghanistan government and the U.S. cooperate with each other regularly, the U.S. actively supports their ability to try prisoners, even giving them their own facilities.

[the rebel]

The fact that you seem to be completely unaware

 

You should already realise that facts and sources that state differently to his sources are consistently ignored by him, when his sources are vaguely relevant that he can twist to support his claims is considerd to be gods gospel.

 

A perfect example woud be those questions I asked which if he could answer with a source it would support his argument irrefutably, but since there isn't any or can't find any, the questions become "irrelevant" to the topic.

Edited by the rebel, 18 August 2015 - 02:11 PM.

[Manoka]

The fact that you seem to be completely unaware

 

You should already realise that facts and sources that state differently to his sources are consistently ignored by him, when his sources are vaguely relevant that he can twist to support his claims is considerd to be gods gospel.

 

A perfect example woud be those questions I asked which if he could answer with a source it would support his argument irrefutably, but since there isn't any or can't find any, the questions become "irrelevant" to the topic.

The U.S., by Afghanistan, was given control over those prisoners. Nothing can be more clear than that. You're asking questions about ignoring Afghan law, but the thing is, the U.S. never superseded their laws, they're working with Afghanistan to handle where the prisoner's go.

 

The ruling has been pretty clear, the U.S. handles foreign nationals, and Afghanistan handles Afghan nationals. Afghanistan doesn't want to get involved in international businesses, so they defer to the U.S. on that.

 

 

Your question was "Afghanistan explicitly allows the USA to remove POW's from Afghanistan without judicial process."

 

They did go through the Afghan legal system, it is a part of their system to defer to the U.S. in these instances, and this is codified in the memorandum, I have linked to you twice. They never went through the Judicial system, as in these individuals were not tried in Afghan courts, although Afghanistan did assist in the capture and detainment of these individuals, who violated international law.

 

 

If you can't think of it any other way, the Afghan response to this situation, the judicial system in this case, is to use the U.S.

[the rebel]

Manoka not understanding his own sources since 1999.

[Manoka]

Manoka not understanding his own sources since 1999.

Alright, what am I getting wrong?

 

Some of my sources oppose having the prison at all, other sources talk about the corrupt jailers at one point, but none of that is relevant to my point, which is that all of the sources agree on the same things, that these individuals are transferred in to U.S. control by Afghanistan, that it is a joint run prison, and so on.