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.”
A very very sketchy story, as if censored. As I remember, the Brits were petty criminals and not terrorists, but I may be all wrong. Knowing nothing about any of them on either side makes it pretty murky.
If Rumsfeld was overruled, the Michael Moore alarm goes off.
This is old news. Coming out now seems designed to embarrass Bush. Bush really shouldn’t have screwed with the CIA.
My guess is that they were highly-connected terrorists whose uncles and cousins have a LOT of pull. The acephalous tribal Saudi state makes it almost impossible to punish well-connected people. A Mahfouz who was involved in the Grand Mosque attack was the only one not immediately beheaded, and is alive and free today.
This “swap” allegation was headline news in Canada. Here’s a story on the Canadian involved, with his view of things.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040705/SAMPSON05//?query=swap
A few things:
1) I don’t think the brits were criminals at all — I believe they were merely convenient “arrests” by the saudis and then were tortured to extract “confessions.”
THe US gave back people who were probably real terrorists to get the release of UK citizens who were certainly NOT terrorists.
2) If I recall correctly, the Saudis did not even announce the fact that these people had been returned, and didn’t announce their names. So, how can a return of Saudis help “public opinion” in Saudi Arabia when the public there doesn’t know that anyone , or anyone specificcally, was returned?
In short, maybe it assuaged the saudi royals but it had nothing to do with Saudi “public opinion.”
3) This gives the Saudis encouragement to abduct, torture and extract “confessions” from westerners so they can hold them in hopes the Bush administration will offer them painful concessions to release innocent people.
If you don’t know how the saudi “justice” system operates for non-Saudis, please look into it. It’s pre-medieval.
I’d prefer the US not negotiate with terrorists like the saudis.
Keef
It is proved this swop took place, I am one of the relatives of the British men, Saudi officials say they have a justice system NO not true, you are first tortured(James’s case 10 weeks) and dragged in front of three non english speaking bearded men, well you are guilty no matter what, James Cottle one of the men just found out over the weekend he was swopped we are horrified that there seeemed no other way, appease Saudi again seems to be the norm, James was living back in UK and was lured to Bahrain for new work when he was kidnapped in June 2001, this was engineered by Prince Naif to make up his jigsaw of weterners to blame when all along Saudi is crawling with Al-Queda
Sombody noticed.
Quoth the Moore:
When is the real discussion going to begin? If the White House has its way, the CNNs of this country will just keep attacking me with wild-ass claims about how I am in cahoots with Martians or something. And I’ve NEVER even released a suspected Saudi terrorist! I just made a movie! Geez…
The Brits were rounded up and accused of bootlegging (appears near the bottom of page 2). Saudi, as you may or may not know, is a “dry” country where alcohol is forbidden (despite the word alcohol being arabic). The excuse the Saudis used to arrest, torture and sentence to death the Brits involved revolved around some tortuous claim that rival rumrunner gangs were doing the violence, not terrorists. Speaking from experience, there are no rumrunners in Saudi. People living in the compounds there brew their own moonshine (called Sidhiki, or “friend” in arabic) and trade it among co-workers. When a still catches fire, the news reports blame the fire on an “unattended cooking pot.”
All this from a country that claims binLaden is a dupe of the Mossad, and that AlQeda is run by Israelis.
Those of you who have worked in Saudi know that when you get your alien registration card/work permit, it is one of 2 colors: green if you are a muslim, and purple if you are an infidel. Little wonder how the kidnappers know who to kill and who to let go.
Saudi Arabia is not the ally of the US or the UK. I don’t know how long it will take for that to sink in to the folks stateside, or how many more of these things have to happen before they start to wake up.
Yes Peter correct, these westerners were not petty criminals they did a home brew like everyone else there, Saudi Royals used to get the best Johnny Walker delivered, there were pubs there too but Saudi turned a blind eye unless it was blatant.
When James Cottle was kidnapped from Bahrain he was never asked about booze just which embassy official gave the orders for the bombings…
I guess you don’t need habeus corpus if you habeat britti
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review