Obama’s Window of Opportunity Turned Out to Be a Shuttered Gate--Self-shuttered, Actually

“Goldstone Slams Human Rights Council for Ignoring Hamas”

http://www.forward.com/articles/116987/

By Jack Khoury and Barak Ravid (Haaretz)

“South African jurist Richard Goldstone, who headed a UN investigation commission into the conduct of Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas during Israel’s offensive in Gaza last winter, criticized on Friday the United Nations Human Rights Council’s decision to endorse the report his commission had compiled.

The council on Friday endorsed the report which accused both Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas of committing war crimes during their December-January conflict in Gaza.

Goldstone told the Swiss newspaper Le Temps before the vote that the wording of the resolution was unfortunate because it included only censure of Israel. He voiced hope that the Human Rights Council would alter the wording of the draft.

In a special session Friday, 25 of the Human Rights Council’s members voted in favor of the resolution that chastised Israel for failing to cooperate with the UN mission led by Goldstone. Another 6 voted against and 11 abstained.

The resolution agreed in Geneva simply calls for the UN General Assembly to consider the Goldstone report and for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to report back to the Human Rights Council on Israel’s adherence to it.

The report calls for the UN Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court if the Israelis or Palestinians fail to investigate the alleged abuses themselves.

The countries that voted against the report included the U.S., Italy, Holland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Ukraine.

China, Russia, Egypt, India, Jordan, Pakistan, South Africa, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ghana, Indonesia, Djibouti, Liberia, Qatar, Senegal, Brazil, Mauritius, Nicaragua and Nigeria voted in favor of the report.

The abstaining countries included: Bosnia, Burkina-Faso, Cameron, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Belgium, South Korea, Slovenia and Uruguay. Madagascar and Kyrgyzstan were not present during the vote.

“This resolution goes far beyond even the initial scope of the Goldstone Report into a discussion of elements that should be resolved in the context of permanent status negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis,” US envoy to the UN Douglas Griffiths said, when explaining why his country was voting against the document.

The US has said the report was unfair towards Israel, something Goldstone repeatedly denied, noting he investigated all sides of the conflict.

France called on Friday to delay the UN Human Rights Council vote in Geneva regarding the adoption of the Goldstone Gaza Report by half an hour in a last-minute attempt to lobby allies to reject the report’s findings.

The French delegates joined Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent diplomatic attempts to lobby European counterparts, including Holland, Spain and Denmark, to back Israel’s rejection of the report’s findings. Officials from Adalah - the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel - said the French representative in Geneva asked to postpone the vote minutes before the council adjourned for a break.

Days before the vote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to lobby diplomatic support to back Israel’s objection of the report which accuses Israel of war crimes.”

"China, Russia, Egypt, India, Jordan, Pakistan, South Africa, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ghana, Indonesia, Djibouti, Liberia, Qatar, Senegal, Brazil, Mauritius, Nicaragua and Nigeria voted in favor of the report."

This should tell us all we need to know about the report.

I am not sure that Obama believes in the "Palestinian narrative" as much as he doesn't care about the Jewish one.

The man is an opportunist, which is why I didn't vote for him.

You thought he was great because as your student he told you what you wanted to hear. After all these years, didn't you learn that students are apt to do that, tell their teachers what they want to hear?

Gullible, thy name is Marty Peretz.

"Good-bye hope for peace. I now declare the window of opportunity that had seemed to open in the late 1980s" Please, it died years ago when Barak offered up everything short of unconditional surrender and the Palestinians still rejected it.

"Along with myriad other reasons, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas can now argue persuasively that they enjoy broad international support for wiping out Israel altogether." Argue to whom? And what freaking hope do they have against Israel? And argue persuasively? C'mon, that is horseshit. At worst, some left wing knuckleheads in Europe will carry signs around. I am rather astounded that some people view this as some kind of event, it is the same old b.s. from the UN as before and will have the same kind of nothing impact. Literally the only people who are benefiting from the report are the people who got paid to produce it and to print it. In 6 months most copies will be in recycling bins to produce new pulp for new crap.

As far as I am concerned, Israel should just say screw it and expand the settlements, let the Palestinians have their victory of paper and Israel will attain the only victory where it counts, on the ground. The greatest enemy the Palestinians have ever had has been their own leadership, so I see no reason not to let the Palestinians be made aware of it. If Israel is going to be treated like a pariah, then they might as well act like one (imagine if they really acted like one, in 6 months the UN would be passing resolutions praising Israel)

As to the UN, who really gives a fig what they say? The only reason I like the UN is because it generates a lot of income for NYC and the surrounding area.

Obama will have to be Harry Houdini to get out of this, if he wants to. Other allies of the US besides Israel will draw their conclusions. Neither does this auger well for him in 2012. Other Democratic politicians will have to distance themselves from him on foreign policy and Israel. Senator Bob Menendez from NJ has already begun to do so. If the Republicans miraculously mature and present a credible candidate like Mitt Romney, they would have a good shot at the White House.

There are at least 100 potential crises that could happen between now and 2012 that would affect Obama's chances for good or ill, and the economy, health, Afghanistan, and terrorist attacks come a heck of a long way before the Middle East.

So much for the unclenched fist/extended hand fantasy. Time to read The Prince, President Obama.

It's always safe to predict that Marty will predict what God would have predicted if He was Marty.

And I predict in turn this is interchangable with the other way around.

And now I'll really go out on a limb and predict the peanut gallery predicts the same:

"As far as I am concerned, Israel should just say screw it and expand the settlements, let the Palestinians have their victory of paper and Israel will attain the only victory where it counts, on the ground."

See what I mean?

And trust me: I prdicted this even before Blackton read JD's, uh, mind and, uh, thought of it.

; o )

gw

Thanks for the repeat of Rubin's excellent post.

Rubin makes clear what a box the progression of the report encases Obama in.

As Blackton and Peretz himself say, Israel will survive.

And as Irony says it seems too portentous right now to see in this particular issue, (different from it being folded into an overall critique of Obama’s foreign policy as Krauthammer did in his recent Wriston Lecture--a different proposition altogether) Obama's potential electoral doom or even foreboding.

But it will be fascinating to see the American position over time as the report moves along and to see whether Obama’s foreign policy implodes, merely limps along, or to be hoped but unlikely in my view, has successes.

Digression:

Hey bl462 I followed your reference to Skip James.

Are you some version of a bluesman?

I agree with ironyroad. If the economy recovers, people get their free healthcare, the military is back home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and everyone is happily buying stuff, Obama could send bombers to drop 2 ton bombs on Tel Aviv and still get elected and possibly win another Peace Nobel.

It's a mad new world, where anything is possible. Practically everything and anything.

Some big ifs, however . . .

Hey basman,

I'm a Litvak version... I'm so glad that you liked the Skip James quote - what a poet! That lyric, "I ain't gonna cry no more/Because down this road every traveler must go" - I think of it every time someone close to me goes down that road.

I didn't really appreciate what I was listening to when I was younger, but I was lucky enough to hear T-Bone Walker, James Cotton, and John Lee Hooker live in smoky bars.

Though I got into jazz and classical later, I never lost my awe or appreciation for the genius of these musicians and the power of their lyrics. How can anyone listen to the Yardbirds massacring Smokestack Lightnin' once you've been spoiled by Howlin' Wolf?

I'm glad that I'm lucky enough to live at a time when you can not only hear these guys on CD, but also hear geniuses like Leadbelly, Big Bill Broonzy, Otis Spann and Koko Taylor; folks I never got to see live and couldn't get on LP where I grew up.

Yea, it's too early to talk about 2012. There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip....

Here we ahave another one of the autodidacts little rants.

As I predicted loony Walton attacked Blackton, a better man and infinitely more interesting poster whom he hates. This is because Walton like every resentful fart can's stand someone who makes him look so small.

Walton is the form "natural depravity" takes in the 21st century. (Read Melville's Billy Budd to see what I mean.)

PS to basman,

Even when I could sing, on my best day, I was at least three orders of magnitude lower in talent than any of the Yardbirds, so I shouldn't really characterize myself as a "bluesman". I'm not worthy!

"It's a mad new world, where anything is possible. Practically everything and anything."

gw:

So?

As long as some folks in here can carefully distinguish between all the Good Things and all the Bad Things, the rest of us will always have a reference point from which to react to Obama's invasion of Israel.

Would some of you even go so far as to link this to the first final solution? In other words, in addition to being a Muslim sympathizer [if not an outright Iranian mole] is Obama also a Nazi?

george

The depraved autodidact George Walton is desperate for attention.

Hey bl462, back atcha'

My father was a Litvak, from Vilkomeer, my mother from Warsaw. I was born in Canada.

I came to the blues when my eldest daughter turned 13, 21 years ago.

Strange to say I came to the blues through jazz: usually it’s the other way around, I think.

But I had just bought a new stereo and my first blues record was Alligator’s double disc 20th Anniversary Collection. One listen and I was hooked. I was especially blown away by Son Seals’s Going Back Home. I kept playing it over and over. (I met him and saw him play at the Kingston Mines or Blues Etc. in the early nineties when I went to the Chicago Blues Festival. Sadly he was pretty spent even then and then he came to Toronto to play after he had lost a leg to Diabetes.)

I then bought every record I could find by everyone anthologized, and the whole thing mushroomed from there. I read every book I could find, subscribed to Living Blues, took, for a number years, virtually annual trips down to Memphis, where I followed the triangle from Memphis to Clarksdale to Oxford. I remember even getting my wife to come with me once, she was being gracious and patient, and we went to towns like Tutwiler, Greenwood, Greenville, Cleveland, Moorehead—“where the Southern cross the Dog"—Helena Arkansas, and Jackson too, found, if I’m remembering, Charlie Patton’s grave, went with some trepidation to a few jukes, and I rifled through every record store I could find. We even parked outside Parchman like a couple of fools, till some very angry, uniformed guy told us to get the hell gone. I went to a bunch of Blues festivals all over the States and in Canada too, and to one in Bishopstock, England near Exeter: a lot of just tremendous times, music, people and stories.

Toronto used to be a great blues town and with a couple of running buddies I used to hit the clubs every chance I got. And once in a while my wife would join me too.

Of the guys you mention, I’ve seen John Lee Hooker and James Cotton, but I never saw T Bone Walker. I’ve seen Koko Taylor but never Broonzy, or Howlin' Wolf or Leadbelly or Otis Spann. But at least I have them all on more than one record or C.D. Howlin’ Wolf was a planet unto himself. I never really understood what smokestack lightning was an image for until one time I took a bus ride with my youngest daughter, just ater she had finished her first year of university and I was taking an extended break from work, from Toronto to Laredo Texas on our way to Mexico City and we came into Chicago some time after midnight and in fact saw, first hand, smokestack lightning.

I’ve over the last few years kind of wound a lot of all that down, just from getting older probably without the will to go to clubs starting at 10 and finishing somewhere around 2 in the morning. Once in a while I’ll still go out and will buy the odd record too. But, as I say, not so much anymore.

Your mentioning the Yardbirds killing Smokestack Lightning reminded me of the scene in Ghost World when Steve Buscemi and Thora Birch go to a club to see an old bluesman that no one will listen to but then some rock band comes on and similarly destroys whatever blues tune they try to play, but they light up the joint.

I certainly agree that along with The Velvet Underground and Aphrodite's Child, the Yardbirds made the Beatles look like the Cowsills. But what pray tell does this have to do with Obama dropping two tons of bombs on The Spine?

Stay focused, please, on that Nazi Muslim in the White House!

Lives are at stake here, for Christ sakes!!

Well, not Christ literally, of course.

Besides everyone knows that Happenings Ten Years Time Ago eclipsed Smokestake Ligtening as reflective of the Yardbirds' legacy in the history of pop music. Jimmy Page debuted on that. And without Jimmy Page, where's Led Zeppelin. And without Led Zeppelin, where's Stariway To Heaven. And without Stairway To Heaven, where's Wayne's World?

gw

I certainly agree that along with The Velvet Underground and Aphrodite's Child, the Yardbirds made the Beatles look like the Cowsills. But what pray tell does this have to do with Obama dropping two tons of bombs on The Spine?

Stay focused, please, on that Nazi Muslim in the White House!

Lives are at stake here, for Christ sakes!!

Well, not Christ literally, of course.

Besides everyone knows that Happenings Ten Years Time Ago eclipsed Smokestake Ligtening as reflective of the Yardbirds' legacy in the history of pop music. Jimmy Page debuted on that. And without Jimmy Page, where's Led Zeppelin. And without Led Zeppelin, where's Stariway To Heaven. And without Stairway To Heaven, where's Wayne's World?

gw

The autodidact gets up at 3am to post. Still craving the attention denied him by him mama and papa. Poor shmuck he needs a psychiatric hospital to hang around in and not a website.

"Stay focused, please, on that Nazi Muslim in the White House!"

Another wishful slip from george's Freudian subconscious swamp.

jackson I would not have known walnuts attacked me if not for your post since I ignore him, I take it he has no comment on the report whatsoever. Imagine the horror of meeting him on the street and making the mistake of saying "nice day" and he launches into a rant about the meaning of "nice" and "day". I suspect due to his advanced age (I believe he wrote he fought in the Spanish-American war) that he has experienced the onset of senile dementia.

Obviously the report is counter-productive, it would only harden positions, (not that the Palestinian one wasn't already set in stone, and disprove it to me if it isn't) but the danger is it would harden Israeli position as well. I generally can't stand Netanyahu, but it seems his policies on the West Bank are likely to be more successful for Israel. The chinese have a saying, kill the chicken to scare the monkeys. This report would only strenghthen Netanyahu's hand, which will only strengthen Israel's security. Barring a viable partner for peace that has to be his utmost goal.

I am truly amazed at the Palestinian leadership's ability to withstand defeat after defeat and still adhere to the policies which will ensure their continuing defeat.

We all know the solution for peace. All the Palestinians have to do is recognize Israel's right to exist (Israel has long, long ago done the same for the Palestinians), renounce the use of violence, and give up the right of return and Israel and the US would trip over themselves to give virtually everything they could, showering untold billions in aid and development.

Isn't it also interesting how jews have not demanded right of return to the multitude of countries they have been hounded out of, if they returned they would be killed. Interesting how the Palestinians don't have that fear of living in Israel, isn't it?

blackton “jackson I would not have known walnuts attacked me if not for your post since I ignore him, I take it he has no comment on the report whatsoever. Imagine the horror of meeting him on the street and making the mistake of saying "nice day" and he launches into a rant about the meaning of "nice" and "day". I suspect due to his advanced age (I believe he wrote he fought in the Spanish-American war) that he has experienced the onset of senile dementia.”

Of course, he didn’t have anything pertinent to say about the thread topics. He just indulged himself in a lot of second hand grumbling and growling that he plagiarized from uber left wing websites.

“Isn't it also interesting how jews have not demanded right of return to the multitude of countries they have been hounded out of, if they returned they would be killed. Interesting how the Palestinians don't have that fear of living in Israel, isn't it?”

Exactly so, Blackton!

Blackie, see Abba Eban on that subject.

The Obama administration is doing what (most) Dems do - it is dithering. On Afghanistan, on Gitmo, today on Darfur. This should surprise no one, as the POTUS has never been an executive at any level in his life, and showed no affinity for or concern about the leading f-p issues of our time, except to criticize W before his election.

Jeez, at least Carter cared about human rights - this guy won't even MEET with the Dalai Lama, and his performance during the election contretemps in Iran was less than encouraging.

Well, Marty, you voted for him.....

The problem is that none of the choices for Afghanistan are good ones -- or, if I'm wrong, butchie, tell me what I'm not seeing. It's not "dithering" to take time to work out what the least bad option is, and what the implications for national security are. Any three reasonable people, I think, could each easily reach a different conclusion and I understand Obama wanting to get it right.

The "dithering" on Gitmo was brought about by Obama not dithering but making it a fast decision back in late January. The Congress then had the collective vapors because apparently even the highest security prisons in the U.S. from which nobody has yet escaped are too weak to hold the supermen at Gitmo, most of whom have been there for six years, and some of whom had little proof against them that they had ever engaged in actual terrorism. Hence the dithering, Part II.

On Darfur, I agree -- however, the report over on The Plank suggests a tougher line than most had been predicting of late.

What bothers me most is the dithering on the public option in the health care debate.

ironyroad
"What bothers me most is the dithering on the public option in the health care debate."

That's not the only thing that bothers me, but it is at the top of my worries.

"The problem is that none of the choices for Afghanistan are good ones..."

gw:

On the contrary, no matter how things turn out in Afghanistan, the choices will always be good for some folks, and bad for others. Right? Of course I suspect this is more a refection on the general consensus reached in here about things good and bad, good and evil.

Dithering on health care and Gitmo? Same thing. Somebody wins and somebody loses no matter what the Cool Cat does.

Darfur though brings a much more overwhelming concensus. In and out of The Spine. Virtually everyone wants the dithering to stop here. But as Blackton suggested no one really wants pitch in personally to get the job done. Instead, they curse the darkness and swear they will never vote for another lying politician ever again.

As if there were any other kind. As if that was as much as they could do.

george

..ironyroad
"What bothers me most is the dithering on the public option in the health care debate."

That's not the only thing that bothers me, but it is at the top of my worries....

You guys will know better than me, but is the public option an example of Obama's "dithering" or the result of the political constraints on him because of your dogs that are blue?

Basman,

I think all "dithering" on the part of presidents is due at least in part to political constraints. The "dithering" on Gitmo is due to a spineless Congress (including democrats, both blue dog and otherwise) who would not permit any detainees to be transferred to US prisons. (Of course Bush didn't "dither" with regard to Gitmo; he created it and permitted it to fester.) The "dithering" on Afghanistan, as you have suggested elsewhere, is probably due in part to political considerations of the likely domestic response if the Afghan war becomes protracted and becomes more bloody and expensive. (Bush dithered with regard to Afghanistan for 8 years.) With respect to health care reform, I think Obama wants to at least give the appearance that he has tried to be bipartisan. So he has hoped that some Republicans would jump on board. He can't steamroll the Republicans in any event, unless he can get 60 democratic senators on board. And you are correct; there are many democratic congressmen who are concerned about mid-term elections and are therefore nervous about supporting a public option. So Obama is trying nudge, rather than push, reform through. If he can get a public option, fine. But he can live without it if he nevertheless gets legislation that will broaden coverage and potentially reduce costs. Obama's style, for good or ill, is to try to persuade rather than intimidate.

butchie, have you ever seen "Heritage: Civilization and the Jews" written by Abba Eban and produced in 1984? It is great, and here it is 25 years later and I still remember many parts of it, I literally thrilled with pride when he mentioned how America was viewed as the Promised land a hundred plus years ago.

The objection to the 'Public Option' is that any organization with the clout of governmental endorsement will inevitably shape the particulars where it becomes the "Only Option". Really. What self respecting manager would do anything other than advantage it's own proposition?

As for dithering I am growing increasingly uncomfortable with my vote. I'm starting to gear up for singing a humiliating stanza of " Mea Culpa " to the strands of Beethoven's 5th.

basman, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship!

blackie, just coincidentally today I was teaching Mary Antin's 1912 autobiography (which she published at the age of 30), which is entitled The Promised Land, a book that caused some resistance and irritation when it first came out: the nativist and anglophile reviewers and commentators found it unacceptable that Antin would claim that all immigrants, including Jews from Eastern Europe, could and should take possession of the American political and social legacy upon arrival. That they were essentially Pilgrims who had missed The Mayflower and had taken a later ship, in other words.

Now (and even to some extent then) it would be read as an pro-assimilation text, and therefore viewed as being too uncritically infatuated with America. Indeed, contemporary conservative readers might find themselves on the opposite side of the conservative readers of 1912. But in many ways there is a palpable argument within the narrative self in the book about how to remain a Jew, to keep that legacy too while embracing the new one.

dhurtado: thanks for your note.

I won't respond now to its substance. (It's an insane hour in the morning and I've just finished some work if you can believe it. I'm getting way too old for such ridiculous hours, even if it's only once in an odd while.)

I just wanted to suggest that you take your better half, whomever that might be, and go to a place this Saturday night where the lights are low and the ambience intimate, the music soft and unobtrusive, the clientele refined, the conversation never more than a hushed whisper, and which carries UFC 104 and watch Lyoto "the Dragon" Machida throw down with Mauricio "Shogun" Rua. Machida cannot lose. The point is not so much the fight as such, but to see a cage fighter as brilliantly talented as Anderson Silva.

I know what romantic, dimly lit Toronto Sports bar I'll be at this Saturday night. That's for sure.

...I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship!...

I was thinking the same thing.

Or, another version, you had me at "Skip James".

basman,

I can get my wife to go to bars and watch football with me, but she would not enjoy even boxing, much less cage fighting. : -)

Blackie, I have seen it, and it is excellent.

The dithering is as follows: Obama announced on 27 Mar 09, in the Rose Garden, that he was pursuing a new strategy, vetted by a policy review, blah, blah. Here we are 6 months later and, whoops, time for a new strategy. But not for a few weeks, after multiple meetings of his "War Council." I agree that there aren't good options particularly, but the options are clear, and it should not take weeks to decide on one. In the meantime, we have 68,000 troops on the ground now. Time to decide.

On Gitmo, don't blame the Congress. The POTUS did not say for months (if he really has) that his "plan" to close Gitmo, for which closing he received hosannas from the MSM, was to bring KSM, et al. to the US. Fine, but say so up front.

His style is to persuade because he can't intimidate. But that's what y'all voted for.

butchie, a few questions arising out of your comment:

1. Why wouldn't/shouldn't we bring people to the U.S. that we intend to prosecute?

2. What do you think was the rational basis for this quasi-hysterical reaction in the Congress? To me, it seemed deranged, and posited upon a completely fictional notion of who all was being held in Gitmo.

3. Isn't persuasion generally better than intimidation, in most circumstances?

Irony, I have no objection to bringing terrorists here and putting them in maximum security prisons. Of course, if that's all you want to do, leave them in Gitmo, which is a maximum security prison, and a good one.

I agree that Congressional reaction was a bit over the top, but the fact remains that all people at Gitmo won't be tried and won't be repatriated. And shouldn't be, by my lights. We make a serious mistake if/when we confer US criminal rights on terrorists. I'm just glad we can now put to rest the nonsense about W "shredding the Constitution." Because if he did, so is the Current Occupant.

Persuasion is a wonderful thing, but some people/regimes simply won't be persuaded. Then intimidation comes in handy on occasion.

butchie, re the last, yes, that's what I meant by "in most circumstances" But the great advantage of persuasion is that you have a better chances of keeping the persuaded entity on your side if things get difficult. If you've intimidated then, they'll bail on you at the first opportunity.

I agree that there is a legitimate difference of opinion about granting criminal rights to terrorists (although I like to think that doing so emphasizes the "criminal" aspect), but the central problem with Gitmo, and why it became a lightening rod, was the criteria for deciding who went there what and evidence for actual terrorist activity there was in any particular case. Those criteria were corrupt and misapplied.

Irony, I agree that we shouldn't intimidate people into being on our side. I meant, for example, Iran and NK, who don't seem to be persuaded by our eminently reasonable suggestions. Intimidation then comes in handy. But I see no indications that this administration either knows how or is willing to intimidate anyone about anything.

The cntral problem with Gitmo is that it was primarily used to bludgeon the Bush administration, and now that W is gone, it can be closed. Not a thing wrong with Gitmo as a prison, according to Eric Holder.

BTW, we don't know what the criteria were and how they were applied. But KSM and his ilk can't be tried and can't be repatriated.

Clearly there was no particular problem with the physical plant at Gitmo. The reason for transferring prisoners to other locations was that Gitmo had become a symbol of prisoner mistreatment and failure of due process. But I agree that the issue should not be so much closing Gitmo, but affording the prisoners there a criminal trial -- or something equivalent -- or letting them go. To say that criminal process should not be afforded to "terrorists" begs the question of whether any given detainee is in fact a terrorist. As we have seen, many of the Gitmo detainees were not terrorists, yet were imprisoned for long periods of time. An accused terrorist is just as entitled to due process as is any other accused criminal.

Now I agree that the principle of due process is sorely tested in situations like that of KSM, who we apparently believe cannot be convicted in a trial because the evidence has been tainted by the manner in which it was obtained, but who we believe will pose too great a danger if released. Obama has said he wants to explore whether the Constitution would permit indefinite preventive detention if the executive decision to apply it could be reviewed by Congress and/or the courts. It would be interesting to see what the constitutional argument would look like.

Actually, we do know in a large number of cases. butchie. We know for example that many people were sold for money by rival militias or tribes in the aftermath of the initial victory in Afghanistan and, once they were in the system, couldn't be gotten out (something which worried the Army people -- my guess is MP/CID/JAG -- who were initially tasked with processing supposed key Al Qaeda terrorists. Many of these people were not only subject to dubious criteria but were entirely innocent.

We also know that several people had been involved in a minor way with Islamic militants but had not had any hand in 9-11 or other terrorist acts against the U.S. The end of the trial of (if I recall) Osama bin Ladn's driver ended in, among other things, a sentencing phase that included testimony that he hadn't really understood what had happened on 9-11, that the military tribunal found convincing.

I agree about KSM and a few like him -- obviously I wasn't suggesting that they be released. But it just doesn't look good for a nation that regularly lectures others on human rights and the rule of law to be keeping people in an offshore gaol who are neither regular prisoners awaiting trial nor POWs with specific protections.