Christopher Boucek at Carnegie discusses the rubrics by which we can measure the success of terrorist/jihadi rehabilitation programs, given the recent revelations on recidivism among graduates of the Saudi's efforts in this regard. (Mentioned on this blog in November). Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal takes the a strong stance against releasing prisoners; if you have strong opinions either way, join the discussion on Stephens’ op-ed at Meedan (you’ll have to register - learn more about the site here). Karen Greenberg, Director of NYU's Center on Law and Security and my former employer, offers a different perspective.
It seems pretty clear to me that, while the discussion of rehabilitation programs and repatriation of detainees and appropriate vehicles for trial is important, it is somewhat secondary to the symbolic importance that Guantanamo has taken on both domestically and globally. The moment to rationally evaluate whether Guantanamo Bay is an acceptable place to detain ‘enemy combatants’ is long since passed - the administration should have had answers to these questions before they brought a single individual to Cuba. There are arguments, and maybe even some intelligent ones, in favor of offshore detention, but they ring hollow now because Guantanamo has become a flashpoint for all the upsetting elements of the war on terror. If I had to guess, I would say Obama will probably deal with the intractable 60 or so hardened terrorists that no one wants in a way that's pretty secretive and pretty unsavory and will involve something less than the American standard of due process. Those who think that full transparency is imminent are going to be disappointed. But he won't do it at a place whose name has become synonymous with the tarnishing of America's reputation, so it will be easier to stomach.
