| Building a 'Mature' Democracy in Afghanistan |
| Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6396"><span class="small">Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch</span></a> |
| Friday, 09 March 2012 15:42 |
|
Engelhardt writes: "As a mature democracy, we now stand proudly for global indefinite detention, not to speak of the democratic right to send robot assassins to take out those suspected of evil deeds anywhere on Earth. As in any mature democracy, the White House has now taken on many of the traits of a legal system - filling, that is, the roles of prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner."
Building a 'Mature' Democracy in Afghanistan09 March 12
The Times' Alissa Rubin suggests, however, that a major stumbling block remains to any such turnover. She writes: “The challenges to a transfer are enormous, presenting serious security risks both for the Afghan government and American troops. Many of the estimated 3,200 people being detained [in Bagram's prison] cannot be tried under Afghan law because the evidence does not meet the legal standards required to be admitted in Afghan courts. Therefore, those people, including some suspected insurgents believed likely to return to the fight if released, would probably have to be released because Afghanistan has no law that allows for indefinite detention for national security reasons.” Honestly, what kind of a backward country doesn't have a provision for the indefinite detention, on suspicion alone, of prisoners without charges or hope of trial? As a mature democracy, we now stand proudly for global indefinite detention, not to speak of the democratic right to send robot assassins to take out those suspected of evil deeds anywhere on Earth. As in any mature democracy, the White House has now taken on many of the traits of a legal system -- filling, that is, the roles of prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Six months to learn all that (and how to burn Korans, too)? I don't think so. Or how about a really mature plan that, according to an Associated Press report, top Pentagon officials are now mulling over: to put whatever U.S. elite special operations forces remain in Afghanistan after 2014 under CIA control. The reason? Once they are so lodged, even though their missions wouldn't change, they would officially become “spies” and whoever's running Washington then will be able to swear, with complete candor, that no U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan. Even better, the CIA is conveniently run by former Afghan War commander David Petraeus and the U.S. public would no longer have to be informed about “funding or operations” for those non-troops. Now, that's how a mature democracy makes the trains run on time! Had enough? Then try finding your inner khan by checking out “Green on Blue” by the indefatigable Ann Jones, author of War Is Not Over When It's Over, who knows more about Afghanistan than any of us. © 2012 TomDispatch.com
|
| Last Updated on Friday, 09 March 2012 15:44 |




ow primitive the Afghans are! A