Though it hasn't been much talked about, the administration appears to be moving along with plans to release/transfer many--and perhaps most--Gitmo detainees back to their home countries. That's a good thing.
But it's worth having some safeguards. After all, some detainees are being "transfered" only to be, again, held without charges and in some cases abused. In fact, I've heard the administration is pushing Afghanistan to change its constitution, which inconveniently doesn't allow prisoners to be held indefinitely without trial.
So some checks on the moves would be a good thing. If for example a prisoner has been cleared but faces likely abuse on "transfering" him to his home country, why not work to send him elsewhere? Having a judge to poke around and evaluate a prisoner's claims could certainly help make something like that happen.
Of course, surprise, the administration isn't down with that scenario. The White House is arguing that the Graham/Levin ammendment blocks detainees from going to court and challenging transfers (as some have done until now). The administration's position is that they have the power to move whomever they want wherever they want whenever they want --a notion the U.S.-endorsed anti-torture treaty doesn't exactly look kindly on.
It's hashed out--in an 800 word kinda way--in an op-ed I just did for the Washington Post.
Eric, when I did a piece for the Post's Op-Ed last year they asked me to do an online chat as well. Though it left my typing fingers a little sore for a couple of days I thought it a worthwhile experience. If they ask you to do one, you should.
Posted by: Zathras | March 07, 2006 at 01:17 PM