Bagram: Is it Obama’s new Guantanamo?

“I think the administration is not talking about Bagram because it is an embarrassing part of their detention policy,” she said.

Obama “has adopted the Bush administration policy which allows the president to maintain a completely lawless enclave any place in the world besides the U.S. and Guantanamo Bay. They’d like the American public to believe they have solved the problem by declaring they are going to close Guantanamo.”

The White House did not respond to msnbc.com’s requests for comment on the Bagram issue.

Decision limited to Guantanamo?
But one critic of the Supreme Court’s decision on Guantanamo, Brookings Institution legal expert Benjamin Wittes, warned last year that the ruling would lead to judges extending habeas rights to military prisoners held by the United States around the globe.

“I didn’t think you could confine it to Guantanamo,” he told msnbc.com. “A lot of people said then that I was being alarmist; I think I was being realistic.”

Other legal experts said Obama’s decision to leave Bagram out of his May 21 speech won’t remove his need to confront the legal problems posed by the site.

“It's unfortunate, because Bagram is certainly going to be the focus of concerns for the administration” in dealing with detainee policy from now on, said Gabor Rona, the International Legal Director of the advocacy group Human Rights First.

Noting that a task force appointed by Obama and headed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder is due to report its proposals for a new detainee policy next month, Rona said, “Whatever recommendations it makes are going to be driven by the present state of affairs at Bagram."

Gathering evidence in a theater of war
Bagram is different from Guantanamo in one important respect: It’s in an active theater of war. 

But the difficulties in gathering evidence and taking depositions “certainly are not insurmountable,” Bates said in his decision. (Bates was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush in 2001.)

But Justice Department lawyers argue that responding to habeas petitions from Bagram detainees would “divert the military’s attention and resources at a critical time for operations in Afghanistan.”

Moreover, they contend, Bates' ruling “encroaches on military judgments about where to detain an individual captured during an ongoing war.”

Under the separation of powers doctrine, they argue, the commander in chief and his generals need broad powers to conduct military operations. Allowing habeas litigation under these circumstances would risk harming the president’s “ability to succeed in armed conflict and to protect United States’ forces.”

But law professor Kal Raustiala, the director of UCLA’s Burkle Center for International Relations, said Bates’ ruling was narrow enough that it would not significantly disrupt military operations.

“Judge Bates ruled on only a handful of individuals, all of whom were brought to Bagram from elsewhere,” he said. “Limited to these cases, the diversion is not that great.”

He said the crucial point is that Bates “is trying to take away the incentive to bring outsiders (those captured outside Afghanistan) to Bagram. He wants to avoid the problem posed by Guantanamo — that the government is incentivized to move individuals there to avoid habeas and other rights.”

If Bagram or other foreign bases are beyond the reach of habeas corpus, “it creates a mechanism for executive tyranny in a world in which it is easy to fly someone in there on a suspicion,” said Raustiala.

The Pakistan problem
With Obama accelerating military operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan — seeing the two as “AfPak,” one unified strategic region — Justice Department lawyers emphasized the problem that Pakistan problem in motions filed with Judge Bates.

Granting habeas rights to those held at Bagram would give “the enemies of the United States an incentive to conduct operations from Pakistan, using it as a safe haven and using the U.S. court system as a tactical weapon,” they said, sketching a scenario in which lawyers would tie up the military in protracted proceedings to determine where and under what circumstances each particular prisoner at Bagram was captured.

“This is the hardest issue for the courts,” observed Raustiala. Obama “wants to be able to capture individuals in Pakistan and bring those individuals to Bagram, and there may be much more of this kind of thing in the next months. And it is hard to articulate a principle that would allow that — and yet be consistent with Bates's decision.”

More from msnbc.com What do you remember? Take our weekly quiz ‘Three Cups of Tea’ advice for Obama Will nuclear fusion fade ... or finally flare? World Cup or world stage? N. Korea on display Afghanistan's dogs of war sniff out mines On Twitter: Breaking news updates | Weird and wild

MORE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

The White House Section Front

Obama: Jobs report is ‘modestly encouraging’ NYT: Wider Pakistan drone use OK'd Obama sees some consensus at job summit Secret Service benches 3 over party crashing Congress worries over Obama's Pakistan plan Obama family lights National Christmas Tree Analysis: Afghanistan pullout date not definite NATO to add 7,000 troops to Afghan effort NYT: Obama to step up Pakistan war White House party crashers won't testify The White House Section Front   Add The White House headlines to your news reader: