the geneva convention in bagram

In the months following the transition of the detention facility at Bagram airbase from American hands to Afghani, interviews conducted by the Afghan Analysts Network (AAN) of ex-detainees have suggested that very few significant changes have been made within the prison. The U.S. still appears to be in an administrative role and retains the authority to interrogate prisoners —  allegations which, if true, undermine Afghan sovereignty. Further reports claim the existence of a U.S. controlled site known as Tor Jail where prisoners are held for interrogation and are allegedly subjected to arbitrary sleep deprivation before transfer to Bagram. The method by which the Defense Department has responded to these allegations has indicated a distinct shift in how the U.S. justifies state practice and shows an implicit growing concern for international law.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale told AAN that the U.S. has “a number of locations which are classified for obvious security reasons, for transiting and screening (which, as you know, is recognized and specifically mentioned by Geneva), but they are not undisclosed or ‘secret’.”  Breasseale’s appeal to the Geneva Conventions marks an anomaly in U.S. rhetoric when accused of illegality in its treatment of prisoners and the existence of classified sites. Rather than being dismissed as non-applicable, the administration has employed the Convention itself to justify the existence of Tor Jail by insisting it is merely a place for transiting and screening prisoners - a claim negated by the ex-detainee accounts.

A decade ago executive powers in Washington maintained - falsely - that the detainees of Guantanamo Bay were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Bush’s rationale was pursuant to the authority granted by Congress to use all “necessary and appropriate force,” and is a far cry from today’s justification.

The interviews within the AAN report, however, expose today’s justification as a mere legal shield to hide the very conduct which the Conventions themselves prohibit. The reports include one particularly exposing ex-detainee interview; “There was a camera on my face and […] whenever I closed my eyes, they would come very fast.” Such an account satisfies definitions of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” punishments under both the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Both documents bear American signatures. Yet, despite all of this American ink, the signatory has yet to accept the necessary international jurisdiction and hence all possible accountability for alleged violations. Regardless, a lack of legal liability does not negate the existence of these alleged crimes nor the guilt which they accompany.

The United State’s distinctive immunity is not a permanent one. A Defense Department spokesman has made a case pursuant to the Geneva Convention. This is an implicit recognition that there is a compelling need to begin justifying state practice in reference to the foundations of international human rights law. Breasseale’s justification is evidence of a trajectory towards a world where the concept of international justice encompasses the world’s leading powers.