Close Gitmo?

Nah, not likely.

An article in today's NY Times implies that closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay appears to be under serious consideration. However, well into the article the real reason for some shifting of positions on detainee rights comes into focus. First, the lede:

Administration officials are considering granting Guantánamo detainees substantially greater rights as part of an effort to close the detention center and possibly move much of its population to the United States, according to officials involved in the discussions.

One proposal that is being widely discussed in the administration would overhaul the procedure for determining whether detainees are properly held by granting them legal representation at detention hearings and by giving federal judges, not military officers, the power to decide whether suspects should be held.

Although the Bush administration has long defended the legal protections afforded detainees at Guantánamo against strenuous criticism, some officials now say that moving them to American soil would require giving them enhanced protections.

Now that certainly sounds like a fairly rational approach to the problems which even administration officials (including Defense Secretary Casey) agree have arisen because of Guantanamo Bay. The problem is that this administration rarely acts rationally and never backs down from a position it has taken. What emerges deep in the article is what I consider to be the real reasons for the spate of proposals being circulated.

The administration has insisted for more than five years that a legal pillar of the war on terror is that the military alone has the power to decide which foreign terrorism suspects should be held and for how long, and backing away from that would be a sharp change of course.

Yet some officials say that enhancing detainees’ rights could also help the administration strategically, by undercutting a case brought by suspects at Guantánamo that is now before the Supreme Court, which could wind up winning them even more power to challenge their detention. ...

The administration has fought for years in court and in Congress against granting the detainees more rights. In the latest instance, the Supreme Court is to consider a case brought by Guantánamo detainees who are seeking to challenge their confinement in habeas corpus suits in federal court.

If the administration loses that case, it could give the detainees even more legal rights and create a precedent limiting the president’s and the military’s power. Lawyers inside and outside of government said a detailed proposal from the administration to give detainees fuller legal protections could convince the justices that they need not resolve the case, Boumediene v. Bush. [Emphasis added]

The cynicism of the White House when it comes to the US Constitution is boundless. Giving the detainees the right to an attorney at the initial detention hearing, but hobbling the federal judge with special rules on procedure and evidence looks good on paper. The hope is that it looks good enough that the Supreme Court will decide not to decide the pending case because it is moot.

And, given the make-up of the current court, that just might happen.