Bob in AZ

I seriously doubt if any Gitmo types will be sent to Yemen just now.

For some reason the US Press has missed the story, but right now Yemen and Saudi Arabia are on the verge of a border war. The Saudi’s are using their fine Air Force against camps of Shia (a distinct minority in Yemen) which the Saudi’s believe are controlled by Iran, and who have apparently been moving arms into Saudi Arabia destined for the Shia in the NE. At the same time, the Saudi have apparently infiltrated military and security personnel into Yemen because they are being attacked by Al-Quada of Arabia. They have managed to capture some of the al-Quada who were previously in Pakistan, but last summer moved to Yemen through Oman. So what is current is bombing Shia camps and ground invasions for the purpose of both killing and capturing al-Quada, many of whom are Saudi’s returned from Pakistan.

In late August this got particularly serious from the Saudi point of view when one of the Saudi’s we had returned from Gitmo, and who had been through their re-hab program, tried to blow up the Prince who is head of one of the security services, in charge of the re-hab program, and the half brother of the current King, Abdullah. The Returned-Gitmo-Re-habbed contacted the Prince asking for an appointment to arrange some sort of mass surrender of al-Quada in Yemen for re-hab, and when he got in the Prince’s office, he blew himself up, having secreted the explosives up his rear end. The Prince was lucky — just at the point of the explosion he had reached down to retrieve something under his desk, so while he was hospitalized, he was not all that badly wounded. To say the least, his office was a total mess. But for the Saudi Royals it was very much a close call — and among other things, they totally fault the Yemen Secret Services for this as apparently al-Quada is deeply embedded in that organization and gets major assistance from the Yemen Service. Anyhow, one upshot of this is that the Saudi’s have cut off accepting any additional Gitmo types, and totally oppose any additional ones being sent to Yemen in the near future. They also have increased their air and ground attacks on al-Quada camps in Yemen.

I am rather surprised the US Press has not carried much about all this — in many respects it is the result of the pressure that has been put on the AfPak border regions, forcing many of the Saudi and Arab fighters to leave and try to establish alternative locations in Yemen. But the current disturbances and border wars probably mean neither Saudi Arabia or Yemen will be taking any of out Gitmo types for the forseeable future.

Actually the “public” will not really see them. Essentially they will just be declassified by date, reviewed for content that can be excluded under the Presidential Records Act, and then available either at Bush’s Presidential Library, or through application at the Archives. Whether they are reported or not will depend on whether in 2014 someone is around who goes through the process of accessing them, and if necessary, making a challenge to anything redacted or excluded based on the rules of the Presidential Records Act then in place. Right now, my guess is the National Security Archives folk would assist a Journalist or Scholar who wanted to work these files — but it is really hard to predict how interested Journalists and Scholars will be in the details of Bush Administration History when 2014 comes around. I suppose you can crudely estimate this by counting the number of Journalists and Scholars who are down in Little Rock making a first run through the Clinton Era Presidential Papers.

Nothing in what I wrote could be construed or even misinterpreted to suggest I don’t want anyone to have their habeas corpus hearing, or that I don’t accept the presumption of innocence. The person I was responding to wrote “cleared for years.” “Cleared for years” isn’t true.

The new administration has normalized the status of more detainees in 11 months than the preceding administration did in 5 years. They have plans in accordance with normal international law for another 150 of the 210 remaining, including sending 100 of them to other countries, and trying 40 to 50 of them. Maybe that’s no difference to some observers, because they should have released all 500 detainees, as a rebuke to those government officials who held them uncharged for so long. Others may believe that all 500 should have had normal legal status determined months ago. I sympathize with that viewpoint. To many of us, however, including the not insignificant number who have actually been freed, what has already happened is a pretty big change.

Holder says they will have status plans for the remaining 60 or so by January. Some of them will no doubt follow one of the two paths outlined above. Others will likely be held under the authority the administration claims from the declaration of war. I don’t like this, 8 years later, but if the administration concedes that these are simply prisoners of war, subject to the Geneva convention, which is still a possibility, then that would represent a sea change.

What started this was Rumsfeld’s decision that these people were categoryless, with no fingerhold in the law, domestic or international. Flowing from that decision was a policy of not really bothering to develop cases — there was no need, since you could keep them forever. It’s a hell of a compost heap that the Bush people dumped on the kitchen table, just as Holder was unloading his groceries. There are certainly some rotting vegetables in among the compost worms and the fresh tomatoes. I agree that you need to sort them with all due speed. I’m unwilling to abide the Bush doctrine of “dump them all in the yard at Guantanamo and let God sort the innocent from the guilty.” But a temporary status of “shit left over from the previous tenants” isn’t as abominable to me as it seems to be to others. Maybe that makes me heartless. At some point, my patience will wear through, but with Holder saying we’re 40 days from final determinations, I’m willing to hear the plan before I start shouting.

Three months ago, the congress was still almost unanimous in trying to keep every single one of them. There’s no question that bringing them to the village of Thomson was initially quite politically risky. They took the risk. It would take approximately one major incident to blow away all the progress, and have voters clamoring that we should have kept them all locked up forever. So they’ve moved very slowly. They’ve waited to bring people in line, silence some of the snipers.

Lincoln could have issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1861. He didn’t. Is that to his shame? Perhaps. But by 1864, many abolitionists might still begrudge him a few things, but they recognized the difficulty of the situation, and recognized at the very least the strength of the argument that things had been gained by waiting till public opinion advanced.

But Lincoln won the war and freed the slaves. Obama hasn’t normalized the detainees yet. At this point, I’m an irritated abolitionist who wishes he’d move faster and awaits conclusive proof that he’ll do the things I think he needs to. But I don’t think he’s “a fraud” … “as capable as any number of lawyers in any lowly municipal court” “worthless” “a pissant”. Those are the insults I thought unwarranted, the things I’m writing against.

If you really believe me to be some idiot unwilling to do research, never having taken time to think about these issues, ultimately, I guess it doesn’t matter much, since you have no idea who I am, and I no idea who you are. I write in good faith, having done far more to try to think this through than most of our fellow voters.

I think you’re reacting as if I was somewhere entirely different on these questions, rather than someone who basically agrees with you on the principles, but has more patience for the torpid pace of political change, the frequent need to throw a bone to critics to keep them from going into outright revolt. In my experience, politicians are sometimes wise to move slowly; other times, they miss the main chance. I don’t think you’re a fool for asking that core principles be upheld, boldly and loudly. But I also don’t think Obama is a fool and a fraud for not having done so. I’m not yet sure which policy would be most productive in the long run.

I am unable to determine if this is what you actually believe, or perhaps it is another case of:

“I did write extremely sloppily when I said that some of the compromises were insurance. I meant “insurance against” literally, but naturally you and most readers would interpret it metaphorically, as if I meant “protection against””

or

“And when I put the sentence about Constitutionalism right after that graph, without much explanation, it was particularly bad writing. You’re right, it came out as nonsense,…”

or

“Maybe I’m not a very good writer.”

I’ll presume the words mean what they say.

I can provide some links concerning this issue which help address:

- Whether a person who has done nothing is innocent, or only innocent after a verdict of innocent.

- Or as you state:”They’ve only had habeas corpus hearings (and I don’t know that they’ve all had those). ” Hint: if not why might that be?
(No habeus for the innocent?)

- You state:”My understanding is there are men, many of whom are likely to be innocent, who’ve never had their day in court when they might be cleared.”. No day in court? Should that happen?

- You do indeed report some good news: “But Obama is actually bringing them to the US. Plans are being made for trials. It isn’t enough. I don’t think it’s enough. I’m not at all satisfied with what Obama has done. But it’s dramatically different than what was done a year and two years ago.”

- The impact of which is tempered by the preceding two sentences: “If I’m wrong about that, I do apologize, because it’s tough to keep up with everything. My real job has nothing to do with any of this.” So you are rather certain of the good news?

The trouble with providing links is that it deprives one of the opportunity to do the research. It is possible, there is a considerable amount of information on these issues available for the diligent seeker.

The fear is present that should the links be provided that perhaps this would happen:

“Thanks for thinking about and engaging with what I wrote. I try to listen to different points of view, but I don’t have time to wade through the muck of “people who everyone at the law school described as professors weren’t really professors.” When you see that sort of swamp, you walk around.”

So, yes indeed, the box to write in is small; we must all do the best we can in such a small space.
After all, that is what thousands of undoubtedly innocent men, boys, perhaps even women and children are still doing all over the world.

“But it’s dramatically different than what was done a year and two years ago.”
-

I don’t think he sees the Constitution as the important driving force in American history that others do. In his view, the precedents themselves aren’t as important as the political forces that give rise to them.

Well that is certainly the hallmark of a “Constitutional scholar”. What a joke.