Quid pro quo pro quo

I’m amazed how little comment there seems to have been on this front page story in the NY Times from July 4. That date explains part of the silence, no doubt, but this still strikes me as a Very Big Deal.

In May, 2003, the U.S. returned five terrorism suspects from Guantanamo Bay to Saudi Arabia “as part of a secret three-way deal intended to satisfy important allies in the invasion of Iraq.” In exchange, the Saudi’s later released five Britons and two others [a Canadian and a Belgian] who had been convicted of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.” According to the authors, Don van Natta, Jr. and Tim Golden, “The releases were public-relations coups for the Saudi and British governments, which had been facing domestic criticism for their roles in the Iraq war.”

The authors use numerous anonymous sources, but to me, two specific points lend the story credibility. First, they quote from officials who supported the exchange, as well as though who were critical of it. Second, check out the non-denial denial from the spokesman from the National Security Council: “There is no recollection here of any linkage between these two actions.”

Tony’s Blair’s office wouldn’t comment, but an official in the British Foreign Office said: “We were extremely relieved to get the guys out of Saudi. We worked ceaselessly to get them out.” According to the authors, “Mr. Blair was so intent on winning the Britons’ release that he or his top aides pressed the Saudis every month for pardons, officials said. Even Prince Charles personally lobbied Crown Prince Abdullah.” Why were they so concerned to get their nationals released – after all, they had confessed and been convicted of terrorism in a Saudi court? “British diplomats said they believed that the men had been tortured by Saudi security police officers into confessing falsely.” They later retracted their confessions.

What did the Saudis get? “This was something that the Saudis desperately wanted, as a way to show their people that they could get something from the Americans, and that it was not just a one-way street,” an American official said. The authors helpfully point out that “Although Saudi leaders opposed a war with Iraq, they allowed the United States to use several military bases to launch air attacks into Iraq and as a staging ground for American troops.”

And what was in it for the U.S. – you know, aside from buying support for the war in Iraq? “We acted in our national interest to reduce the Guantanamo population at a time when we were able to conclude that we had no further need to detain these individuals,” said the American with knowledge of the negotiations. Wow – clearly the national interest was well served.

But surely those transferred from U.S. custody had been thoroughly investigated and found innocent? “Officials involved in the deliberations said the transfer of the Saudis from Guantanamo initially met with objections from officials at the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. Those officials questioned whether some detainees were too dangerous to send back and whether the United States could trust Saudi promises to keep the men imprisoned.” Still, “As part of the arrangement, the United States initially authorized the outright release of one of the Saudi detainees. But a senior American official said the man was kept in custody by the Saudis after a terrorist attack in the kingdom raised concerns about militants’ activities.”

“It didn’t seem right,” said one military official who was involved in the process. “The green light had not appeared on these guys in the way that it had on others” who were released. “It was clear that there was a quid pro quo to the deal that we were not aware of.”

But since U.S. officials voiced these concerns, Saudi Arabia must have handled these individuals with extreme care once they received them, right?

Saudi officials gave contradictory accounts of the current whereabouts of the five men, saying at first that one or two of them had been released, then denying that any had been freed. The officials also gave contradictory accounts of the suspects’ legal status, first saying they had been tried and convicted of seeking to join Taliban forces in Afghanistan, but later saying prosecutions were still pending.

Yes, there’s more – I find almost every one of the following sentences to be a jaw-dropper:

The diplomatic initiative that led to the transfers began in July 2002, when a delegation of Saudi officials visited the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay…. The Saudi officials briefly interviewed each of the roughly 130 Saudi detainees at Guantanamo…. In August 2002, officials said, a diplomatic proposal was put forth by the American ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Robert Jordan, who had served as a personal lawyer for President Bush. Officials said Mr. Jordan first suggested the swap to senior State Department officials, but when Pentagon officials learned of the proposal, several objected, including the defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld….

One American official said the Saudi authorities put forward a list of about 15 candidates for release, which the Americans ultimately disregarded. Instead, Pentagon officials instructed military intelligence officers at Guantanamo to assemble their own list.
But even that list became the subject of controversy at an interagency meeting at the Pentagon in April 2003. Officials from the C.I.A., the Justice Department and the Defense Department — which had produced the list — all raised objections to different detainees, officials involved in the meeting said.

I hadn’t heard about allowing the Saudi visits two years ago, but leave that aside. The proposal to link the prisoners came from Bush’s former personal lawyer who then became the ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Donald Rumsfeld – Donald Rumsfeld! – objected. And when the Pentagon drew up a list of candidates for release, the Dept. of Defense (which drew up the list!), State Dept., and CIA all objected. And yet, somehow, it happened. The authors don’t say, but we can guess who was pushing for it, no?

I obviously have no idea whether the terrorism suspects sent to Saudi Arabia were dangerous – although it seems that they were. (Their names were not released.) If they were innocent and not dangerous, they were being held hostage as bargaining chips – not the first time for this administration. If they were guilty and dangerous, the Administration sacrificed national security and the fight against terror to gain support for the war in Iraq – um, again, not for the first time – discussion here and here. It’s beyond me how anyone can seriously doubt the need for habeas corpus.

When I read this, I said to my wife, “This is unbelievable.” She asked whether I meant that literally. I said that I did – I would have a hard time believing any administration but this one would do such a thing. Then I though for a second: “Well, except for Reagan … and Bush … and Nixon.”