Human Rights First Gives Obama a B, overall, in Foreign Policy

Human Rights First's Communications Director Sharon Kelly contributed to a Foreign Policy piece that collected grades for President Obama's performance over a range of issues. Below is her excerpt from the article.

Grade: B

On interrogation policy: A.

President Barack Obama took swift and decisive action by shutting down the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program and mothballing secret prisons on his second full day in office. In August, his Task Force on Interrogations seconded that strong step by deciding that the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.
These actions allowed the United Sates to begin to rebuild the respect that is so essential to successfully meeting the complex challenges that we as a nation face. Achieving energy security, protecting the environment, combating global terrorism, quelling insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq -- these are all issues that require collaboration with allies and a strategy to win goodwill around the world. As Gen. Charles Krulak and Gen. Joseph Hoar -- commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999 and commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994, respectively -- recently wrote: "If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most."

An A on interrogation is important for the whole report card.

On Guantánamo: B or incomplete.

Obama was off to a strong start when he announced last January that Guantánamo Bay's prison would close within a year. The administration has less than three months to go and Members of Congress and the public are still anxiously awaiting a plan specifying what will happen to the detainees housed there.

In its defense, the administration inherited a real mess and has since confronted a concerted campaign of fear mongering led by former Vice President Dick Cheney. In the face of real logistical issues and made-up scare tactics, Obama's recent comments at the United Nations reaffirming his commitment to swiftly close the facility were encouraging.

There's no reason for delay. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Gen. David Petraeus, and other experts have stated that Guantánamo's existence has undermined our national security interests. The most comprehensive study of terrorism cases prosecuted in U.S. courts demonstrates that our justice system is up to the job of prosecuting these complex cases -- at least 195 terrorists have been convicted since the September 11 attacks. The American Correctional Association has declared that Americans have nothing to fear from terrorists incarcerated in U.S. prisons.

If the administration's plan puts faith in our strong institutions, this grade could be raised to an A. Opting for unlimited detention without charge would undermine the progress made so far.

On Afghanistan: B- or incomplete.

More needs to be done to guarantee that -- when United States forces pick up someone in Afghanistan and detain him as a possible security threat -- there are mechanisms in place to challenge that detention. Until this happens, U.S. detention policies will be at odds with its counterinsurgency goals in Afghanistan: we'll be spending money on schools and roads to win over the population and then undermining our investment by holding people unfairly.

The Obama administration has made some improvements. In September, the Pentagon announced new procedures for the 600 detainees being held in Bagram and Gen. Stanley McChrystal unveiled reforms for both U.S. and Afghan prisons that focus on rehabilitation and skills training aimed at preventing the radicalization of prisoners. He announced that the "desired endstate" for all detention operations -- including Bagram -- would be the transfer of those responsibilities to the Afghan government once it has the capacity to run these systems in accordance with international and national law.

The devil is in the details. Even under the new procedures, which are similar to the discredited combatant status review tribunals in Guantánamo, there are concerns about detainees' ability to review and challenge the evidence against them and produce their own evidence, including witnesses, without the assistance of legal representation. Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether the reforms will resolve the underlying problems of arbitrary and indefinite detention. More can be done to prevent mistaken captures, gather evidence during capture (to promote fair criminal prosecutions in Afghan courts) and increase the capacity of the Afghan authorities to take responsibility for detention and prosecution.

Hidden Justice in Afghanistan

Check out this piece in the AfPak Channel of Foreign Policy written by Human Rights First's Sahr MuhammedAlly, who speaks of the recent Bagram reforms and next steps.

Sahr has conducted comprehensive research and interviews with former Bagram detainees in two separate missions. In this opinion piece, Sahr discusses further steps the U.S. government can take to address the broad range of problems associated with detentions in Afghanistan to avoid arbitrary detention and reverse the trend of decreasing support to U.S. military operations there.

Read her commentary! Read more about detentions in Afghanistan here, including Human Rights First's Arbitrary Justice report.

WaPo editorial on Bagram: Yes But...

The Washington Post ran an editorial today on Bagram that is worth a read – giving credit to the Obama Administration for the changes to the detainee review process there, tempering with valid criticism:

But the administration inexcusably continues to resist necessary reforms for
those detainees -- among the longest held -- who were captured beyond the Afghan
battlefield. It also leaves open the possibility of future renditions to Bagram
of terrorist suspects captured outside Afghanistan. On this front, the new
proposal risks duplicating the lawlessness that came to mar the detentions at
the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

One minor point: the editorial states that "These protections go considerably further than what is required for enemy combatants by the Geneva Conventions – and appropriately so." This assessment is correct but misleading because detainees in Afghanistan are not "enemy combatants" and the Geneva Conventions are not the only measure of what is required in an armed conflict that is not between two States. Domestic and human rights law are also baseline standards that govern detention decisions and review mechanisms.

The changes in detainee review procedures appear to be an improvement from the current regime which has resulted in indefinite and arbitrary detention. But detainees must be provided legal representation so that they have a fair opportunity to challenge their detention. The Obama Administration must end the practice of capturing individuals outside Afghanistan and bringing them to Bagram for detention. Detainees captured outside of Afghanistan and brought to Bagram should be repatriated to their home countries for release or, where evidence exists, transferred for prosecution in either U.S. federal courts or in their home countries. Read more on Human Rights First’s work on the issue.

General Says Many Bagram Detainees Not a Threat

Maj. Gen. Doug Stone issued a report that calls for the release of as many as 400 detainees from the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan. Read the story in NPR, which quotes HRF's Sahr MuhammedAlly, who has received a briefing from the general on his report:

'I think Gen. Stone's recommendations focus a lot on how to process people
out of Bagram sooner,' she says. MuhammedAlly says Stone also urges reforms to
the detention system 'to reduce chances they will join up with the insurgency by
offering skills training programs and rehabilitation programs.'