Wednesday’s news that the Trump Administration was preparing an executive order addressing the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants, coupled with President Trump’s interview comments that “torture works,” has resulted in understandable but premature panic over a potential policy allowing for detainee abuse.
Latest in Detention & Guantanamo
Last week, Ben posted an order by Judge Royce Lamberth of the D.C. District Court granting a request by counsel for Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri to have a copy of the Senate Intelligence Committee's interrogation report held under seal with the court.
The other day, Quinta and I noted that counsel for Abd al Rahim Al-Nashiri had asked the court in his habeas case to have a copy of the Senate Intelligence Committee's interrogation report filed under seal with the court. Yesterday, Judge Royce Lamberth issued an order doing just that:
Speaking of Guantanamo habeas litigation, which one of us was yesterday, there's been an interesting development in the Al-Nashiri habeas case. This particular habeas case out of Guantanamo has been a sleepy one, since all the action in the Abd al Rahim Al-Nashiri matter has been in his military commission trial and related federal court litigation.
Don't look now but we're about to see at least one new Guantanamo habeas merits hearing—tomorrow, in fact.
The Pentagon announced yesterday the transfer of 15 Guantanamo detainees to the United Arab Emirates. Here's the text of the announcement:
I had been looking forward to this very long story in the New Yorker, in part because the title is interesting. "Why Obama Has Failed to Close Guantanamo: Congress is blamed for preventing the President from fulfilling his pledge. But that’s not the whole story."
It’s Wednesday morning and we’re back at Guantanamo Bay for more pre-trial hearings in the case of the five men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks. The previous two days have been closed sessions, but now we’re all assembled for a public session. We begin, as always, by establishing the identity and presence of the prosecution and of the five defendants and their legal teams. Everybody’s here.
The New York Times's latest editorial on Guantanamo is so packed full of confused thinking and weird non-sequiturs that I want to go through its claims and logic (such as it is) line by line.
Published on Monday under the headline, "The Broken Promise of Closing Guantanamo," the editorial begins with the anodyne observation that closing Guantanamo was not a source of controversy between the major party candidates eight years ago: