of a provision of the 2012 Detentions MoU, prohibiting the United States from operating prisons on Afghan soil. Since 2010, the U.S. has repeatedly expressed its intention to transfer TCNs back to their home countries. 27 Yet the process has dragged on for years, with very little progress made, leaving detainees and their families completely uncertain as to when or whether they will ever be released or their cases decided. U.S. failure to craft a clear policy regarding TCN repatriations, as well as poor diplomatic relations with and political instability in home countries have all obscured and complicated an already opaque and cumbersome process. With the U.S. withdrawal of combat forces on the horizon, and the handover of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities now complete, the continued detention of TCNs raises the specter of another Guantanamo Bay on Afghan soil. TCNs, some of whom have already been recommended for release by the detention review system described below, are falling into a dangerous legal and political limbo—similar to that of many Guantanamo detainees. Afghan officials have insisted they will not permit the U.S. to operate detention centers on Afghan soil. 28 But the United States continues to have control and custody over TCNs in the DFIP, outside of the jurisdiction of any courts and law, and with no certainty as to when such detention power will end. 29 c) Due process for detainees Since 2009 DRBs, administrative boards staffed entirely by U.S. military officers, regularly review the status of Afghan and TCN detainees. 30 A detainee’s status is first reviewed within 60 days of his transfer to DFIP, after which DRB hearings are held every six months. 31 Detainees are not permitted access to independent legal counsel. Instead, they are assigned a “personal representative” (PR), a non-legally trained member of the U.S. military who is supposed to represent the detainee’s best interest before the DRB. 32 DRB hearings are open to the detainee only when unclassified evidence is presented. In this portion of the hearing, detainees may be present and call witnesses, question called witnesses, make 27 “US to transfer Bagram detainees”, Al-Jazeera English, 27 April, 2010, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2010/04/20104278111295558.html; Peter Finn and Julie Tate, “Administration looking into repatriating non-Afghan detainees at U.S.-run prison”, 24 January, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/administration-looking-intorepatriating-nonafghan-detainees-at-us-run-prison/2012/01/23/gIQAzsvsLQ_story.html/. 28 Rod Nordland, “Issues Linger as Afghans Take Control of a Prison”, The New York Times, 10 September, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/world/asia/parwan-prison-at-bagram-transferred-to-afghans-at-leastformally.html?_r=0 . 29 Kevin Sieff, “In Afghanistan, a second Guantanamo,” Washington Post, 4 August, 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-04/world/41067331_1_detention-center-afghanistanguantanamo-bay. 30 Department of Defense internal policy memorandums, http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/bagram20100514/02bagrampolicy_1-8_20090422.pdf, p. 8. The review system was in place for Afghan detainees until the handover of detention authority to Afghanistan. 31 Ibid., p.7. 32 Department of Defense internal policy memorandums, http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/bagram20100514/07bagrampolicy_30-92.pdf, ps.9-10. 13