 Welcome. I'm David Sturman, a senior policy analyst here at New America with the International Security Program. We are here to discuss Guantanamo now that it's turning 21 today to discuss the history of the person camp at Guantanamo and the potential for what its future will be. We have an excellent panel. We have Karen J. Greenberg, who is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. She is also a fellow at New America's International Security Program, author of subtle tools, the dismantling of American democracy from the war on terror to Donald Trump, as well as the other books that I'm sure will come up on the early days of Guantanamo. We also have Thomas B. Wellner, who is co-founder of Close Guantanamo. He is also of counsel at Sherman and Sterling LLP, and he was counsel of record to the detainees and the versu- we'll fee Bush, who met again fee Bush, and out of the United States cases, which are really the core cases for much it's a legal challenge to Guantanamo then. And then we have Andy Worthington, who is co-founder of Close Guantanamo and author of the Guantanamo files, the stories of the 774 detainees in America's illegal prison. With that, I'll turn it over to Karen Greenberg to start us off with a discussion. Thank you so much, David. And thank you to New America. It's a pleasure to be here with Tom and Andy. Again, I'm hoping that the next time we get together for our anniversary on Guantanamo, we're actually looking in the rearview mirror and not in the forever constant mirror. So that'll give you a sense of what I think we're going to talk about today. But, I mean, you know, bottom line Guantanamo despite so many promises and hopes and an immense amount of work on the part of lawyers and others remains open today with no sense of closure. So just a review of who's there at present there are 35 detainees at Guantanamo, down from about 780 at its height, but there are also 1000 guards and staff there recently reduced from 1500 to 10 to these detainees. The cost at Guantanamo is upwards of $13 million per prisoner per year and seems to be going up all the time with new projects, for example, for old age housing for the detainees who are still there. Of the 35 detainees that are still held 12 are in the military commission system 10 facing trial and 20 have been cleared for release on our waiting their transfers out, but have not been transferred out. Three have not yet been cleared for release and remain as indefinite detainees or in the words of New York Times reporter Carol Rosenberg forever prisoners. I was asked today to talk a little bit about the very beginning of Guantanamo and my introductory marks and I will Guantanamo started off and in many ways has remained a place outside the law. US authorities could have kept the detainee captives near the battlefield in Afghanistan, as is customary for captives often in war who can offer tactical as well as strategic information, or they could have been brought to the United States to stand trial and federal court. These were two options. Instead, authorities chose to take them to the island of Cuba where assurances were given by the Cuban authorities that they would not interfere with the tension operation. And where it was assumed the government could avoid the constraints of domestic international and military law. From the start, this remained the sort of mantra of Guantanamo to be outside the law. As the commanding general of the detention effort in the beginning, Michael Leonard was told by higher ups at the Pentagon. Guantanamo could be treated in the spirit of the Jiva connections, but no formal adherence to the conventions was in place as policy, attempting to sidestep Geneva three protections the captives were to be called detainees not prisoners, therefore not prisoners of war and not subject to the protections that would accrue. Over time, a completely new and untried trial system the military commissions reform several times were set up to handle the cases of those who were charged. And I think we'll talk a little bit about how these military commissions have basically not proceeded. Since that day the struggle over Guantanamo has involved the US courts, the international legal community, several NGOs, and the US government in now for successive presidential administrations the lesson has been learned. Once you break something, in this case law and policy, it fundamentally is impossible to fix it. These deviations and there are many that we can talk about but include most clearly indefinite detention lack of access to lawyers physical and psychological mistreatment the use of enhanced interrogation techniques or torture at CIA black sites and at Guantanamo itself, not to mention the litany of violations in terms of evidence court procedures attorney client privilege and the light. Obama famously promised to close Guantanamo within a year of his assuming the presidency. He failed to do so and I think we can get into that maybe in our discussion why and the legacy of that. President Trump basically put everything at Guantanamo on hold, except his utterance that he could add people to it, some bad dudes. And now we have seen Biden take some steps towards closure. At the beginning of administration, it seemed like they were going to be much a very aggressive fast pace effort to close Guantanamo. He didn't make any big announcements the way Obama had I think having learned from Obama's experience, but the periodic review boards went into action clearing all but the three that I referred to. And now there's a person who's in head of transferring those who've been cleared for release Tina, I can't know who's a long time State Department official. So there's a lot of hope in terms of closing it and I would have said eight months ago 10 months ago, even two months ago, I would have had more optimism but right now time is of the essence. And it's complicated to get people out of Guantanamo the amount of arrangements that have to be made to satisfy Congress, who needs to see the arrangements 30 days ahead of release, the amount of a given take that has to go on with the government who is leaving these detainees given the fact that the United States has has by law banned any detainees to come to come to the United States for any reason whether it's incarceration trial, medical reasons or anything else. It's very difficult, not to mention the fact that so many countries have already taken detainees. And so, even though it seems like there aren't that many that remain it's still a number of different deals. And I think probably Tom and Andy can talk a little bit about what's happening with the military commissions process which under Biden began to start up again for pre trial hearings. It seems like the military commissions process is a series of pre trial hearings, as opposed to getting to trial itself, reportedly a number of plea deals are on the table, including for the 911 defendants. And that may be the only way to end the military commissions process. So I guess in some what I really want to say is that the pieces are there. The path forward is there. We've known it for a long time. There's actually not a lot of new new paths to go down at this point in time. But the question is, are we going to go down that path and so I think the sooner, the better, and I'll end there. Andy, why don't you provide some remarks, building on that. Sure, absolutely. Thanks, David. Thank you Karen for that great introduction to the sad 21 year story of Guantanamo, and I'd really like to follow up by looking particularly at the cases of the 20 men who've been approved for release. I think those of us who've been looking at the history of Guantanamo for such a long time. We've been here before we can remember a long period during the Obama administration when prisoners were approved for release but didn't actually get out of the prison. The lawyers have a have a joke with their their clients when their clients are feeling like being in a joking mood that involves Hotel California, if it involves saying you can check out anytime you want but you can never leave because it's extraordinarily difficult to get out of Guantanamo. And that's, you know, that's because of the fundamental basis of on which the prison was established the fundamental lawlessness that was involved in establishing the prison in the first place. And I think nearly two years into the Biden administration, you know what we need to look at and focus on is the fact that, as you said Karen, it all started very well. And Biden had his transition team had been involved in meetings with lawyers and NGOs for months before he took office. They had stressed to him the issues that all of us were concerned about and one of those primarily was the the absolute unforgivable nature of holding people indefinitely with their charge or trial. And that message got through. What happened then was that through the periodic review board so this parole type process that Obama had established largely to prevent all the obstacles being raised by Republicans in Congress. What happened was that he approved nearly all of the forever prisoners that he inherited, who had just languished for four years under Trump approved them for release. And that was a good thing to do that was the right thing to do. You know also what happened in his first year in office was the 24 senators and 75 members of the House of Representatives also wrote letters to him. They were encouraging him to close Guantanamo but also taking on board this notion that it was unforgivable after 20 years for the United States to be holding people indefinitely without charge or trial. So far so good. All of this is undermined, I think by the fact that these people have not been released. So 19 forever prisoners were approved for release. Since Biden took office but only three of those men have been released only five men in total have been released to inherited from the previous administration who'd actually been approved for release under Obama, but hadn't managed to get out before he left and three other men. And what's interesting about these is that, you know, one of them is an extremely mentally ill savvy. One of them was Guantanamo's oldest prisoners I call a paraca who had also had serious health issues. And the other asset of a Haroon ghoul not only was approved for release by by a PRB but crucially is the only man for over a decade to have his release ordered by a court as a result of having his habeas corpus tradition granted. Now that and I know Tom is going to talk more about this provided obligation on the administration to do something other than sits on it on its hands. If you're involved with the courts and with legal processes, you have a recourse to challenging in action on the part of the government. The problem for all the other men who've been approved for release from Guantanamo is that their approval for release is purely administrative. There is no legal weight behind it. There is no court that they can go to to compel their release. It is yet again as so often throughout Guantanamo's history down to the whim of the president and the Congress as to whether these men are going to be released at all. And I think the situation that we're now looking at bear bear in mind a large number of these men approved for release were approved for release in Biden's first year in office. So when we're nearly at two years now that men sitting in Guantanamo were told nearly two years ago, the United States no longer wants to hold you, we will, you know, subject to security arrangements we are working towards your release. And yet that hasn't happened. So the fact that they, that this is an administrative process. What does that say for what their imprisonment is now I think they are in a kind of administrative detention. I think we could call it an arbitrary form of detention. I think we could call it a political form of detention. Everything that we would choose to use to describe it would not involve the law would not involve a sound legal basis for what is happening. And, you know, I was reassured in the summer when Tina came out was that was appointed for dealing with Guantanamo transfers I have no doubt that she's taking her job seriously. I think that what we can, what we will sadly have to conclude on this anniversary is that she's not being supported fully enough by, by her boss and by President Biden. So Anthony Blinken, and President Biden need to step up and do something. If I could just briefly look at who has been approved for release we have, as far as I can work out at least seven men who's released ought to be straightforward. One can be repatriated. There are two Pakistani brothers in Guantanamo awaiting release. There are three Saudis in Guantanamo awaiting release. There is a Kenyan in Guantanamo awaiting release, and there is an Algerian in Guantanamo waiting release and Algeria has taken in many prisoners before and never had any problems. The more difficult issue facing the government obviously other men who can't be repatriated for either because it's, you know, unsafe for them to go home but primarily because Republicans have passed provisions in the annual National Defense Authorization Act for many, many, many years now, preventing the release of prisoners to certain countries, including Yemen. There are nine of these men who have been approved for release of Yemenis. There's also a Libyan and there's also a man from Somalia. I can see that it's obviously difficult arranging third countries that are prepared to offer these men a new home and unfortunately there is no public forum for discussing what is or isn't happening within the administration for actually dealing with this. I think very noticeable and high profile needs to happen to push forward the necessity for these men to be rehersed otherwise they are just going to sit and rot in Guantanamo and we'll be here in a year's time bemoaning the fact that the government still hasn't done anything. I would love to hear that discussions are underway with Oman where a number of prisoners were happily resettled during the Obama administration. I would be less happy but also quite prepared to accept that maybe discussions were underway with Saudi Arabia for people to go through the Saudi rehabilitation program. We're not really hearing anything. It's a void where there should be a discussion about what's happening and there is an absence of leadership fundamentally, I think. So I would like to close really my presentation today by saying that we need answers from President Biden. We need answers from Secretary Blinken about why it not only appears but actually is the truth that the men who have been approved for release at Guantanamo are in a worse position than if they had never been approved for release in the first place. They were given hope, and that hope has not been fulfilled in any sense. They still wake up every day at Guantanamo with no idea when, if ever, they will be released and that is absolutely unforgivable. Thank you very much. Yeah. Yeah, why don't you. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Let me say. I don't know where to begin and I think those are excellent introductions. I want to make a few points and try to do it quickly. Point Andy made is a good one where we're up as Karen's points are good too but we are in a situation where begging the political branches to get these people out, assuming that the people are properly detained and then the US government, the Biden administration, the Obama administration before it will use their leverage politically to get them out and put them somewhere else. And you know I always think what are the lessons of Guantanamo. One of the first lessons to me is in our democracy you have new people there now they're 35 there. They're 12 to 12 who have been charged but 23 people have not been charged with involvement in terrorism. I know I work closely with the Obama administration at the beginning to get them better in order to close the place and I work closely with the Biden administration this time to do the same and they, you know, they feel the Guantanamo is a blight they like to close it. In our system, 23 foreigners without a domestic constituency in the United States always fall down on the priority list for the political branches as opposed to something else. The Biden administration finds it difficult to with, you know, what was a 5050 Senate and now is a, you know, a minority in the House and a bare majority in the Senate, very difficult to risk votes on other domestic issues over Guantanamo. So what I've learned in one way is when you depend on the political branches for something like this are very thin ice. When we saw that with Obama, originally, he backed down immediately when you had a proposition. So, and let me say another thing too, it is tough now Karen was saying to relocate these people because Congress during its, you know, it's fear mongering thing, put prohibitions of taking any of these people to the United States and there's several other countries like Yemen, whether from your prohibited from taking them there. Also, there's a refugee crisis going on around the world. So, when you approach another country to take someone the first thing they say well why the hell won't you take any of them in the United States and I've got all sorts of refugees. How did the Guantanamo people come above that so it's very hard to count on the political branches. Let me say another thing I, you know, I'm a lawyer. Of course I do legal cases I never thought the courts would be the way to settle this because I thought it would take too long. 21 years later, what I'm amazed by, and you can't in our system. The political branches aren't the ones who protect individual liberties that's supposed to be the courts. And the courts have failed miserably. You know we had to Supreme Court cases saying that the people had the right to habeas corpus which were courageous decisions, but the courts otherwise have back down and let me make a point which has always been my point about one time. Of the 779 or 780 people who were detained at Guantanamo. Since the beginning, only 16 were charged with involvement in terrorism. Without the charges being withdrawn only 16. Now people don't, don't recognize that they assume everyone at Guantanamo is a terrorist are connected with terrorism that's simply not so. You know, in the way the law, international law was supposed to work in a war. You can capture people who fight you against you in combat until the end of that combat. At the end of the combat they're supposed to be released. If they did something wrong beyond just sort of fighting like soldiers. If they committed war crimes or terrorism, they could be charged and you could continue to hold them. Okay, of those 780 people we have charged after 21 years. We have charged only 16 people only 12 of those remaining others have been out there have been charged. The other people are accused of, you know fighting in a war against us in a war that's now over combat that's not over. There is no legal authority to hold those people any longer and yet they're still out. The courts have done nothing. As a matter of fact, the courts have ruled against this argument and in three cases now I need to admit I don't think that our lawyers made the best arguments in those cases. But nevertheless, they failed in it. It's amazing to me. After we won the Bumidian case saying that these people had a constitutional right to habeas corpus that is to get a hearing before a court to say is there a valid basis for detaining them. One of the judges on one court said well that's fine they may have the right to habeas hearing that they have no right to do process of law, which means they can't see that the allegations against them so you can't rebut them. So they couldn't win. That is the courts have kept that going out for 12 years. An absurd thing that you have a right to habeas hearing, but you have no right to do processing. The courts have been miserable failures in this time. So I think what is the lesson of Guantanamo for us? Where do we go from here? I mean I think people should stand up and yell at the courts now and ask that they actually act like judges and order the release of people for whom there is no authority. I think that's really what the law should do. I mean to go through the court and try to get the Supreme Court again with this court who knows what we'll do. But it really, just one final point I may have said this last year when Guantanamo started and I got involved in April 2002. I thought this was a short term time when the United States have lost this way because of fear and everything because of terrorism. Now Guantanamo, how many people care about it? In the age of Trump and all the other things attacking the capital, it's a small thing. But it shows terrible weaknesses in our society. I don't know what lessons to say to my grandchildren out of this, but it's quite depressing. I'm over. Thanks. Well, first let me remind people that you can submit questions via the slider box on the side of the platform you're viewing it on. Submit the questions and we'll ask them. But what we wait for the audience to submit some questions. I want to do ask on this issue that Thomas sort of raised that, of course, the United States has withdrawn from Afghanistan. Although the United States did conduct a counterterrorism strike to kill Zawahiri in Afghanistan still how does that change and the declaration or statement from Biden that the war in Afghanistan is over. Change the sort of broader context. And perhaps we could hear a bit more of a detailed discussion of the recent case that was mentioned by, I think, several of you on where the court somewhat rolled on this aspect with the result of a detainee leaving but also not really undermining the idea that the US is still at war and can detain other people on the ground so that at what time up. Well, let me address that since I just argued this. You don't mind. It's really not that complicated is only complicated because of the stupid decisions that have been mentioned and the case you mentioned was by judge meta. Who let a fellow named goal granted his habeas corpus petition because the particular organization, he was involved with that this goal was involved with had entered into a peace treaty with the Taliban. They're bought by ending the conflict but his rationale should also have applied to the other people who are held only because they're supposed to be combatants. I think the great problem with one time and it's not aided by the way the news deals with it, including the New York Times is they always talk about the people who are charged the people before commission so people have been charged with involvement and terrorism. The great bulk of the people who were ever there and who are there now are held simply because not because of any allegation that they were terrorists, but because of the allegation that they were combatants against us and ally troops. In 2004, Justice O'Connor said in the Hamdi decision that you can hold such people. You have the authority legal even though Congress and not explicitly said so they had that the government has the lawful authority to detain such people. So long as us troops remain involved in combat. It's over. US troops are not involved in combat. Why are these people still held in 2010 Congress passed legislation confirming the right to detain people and was sort of loose language. But in that Congress said, we are not restricting or expanding the authority to detain it was originally set for by O'Connor. So, there's no expansion. Moreover, Congress said in the courts of the Nordic. Congress said that these people can be held pending disposition under the law of war. What it did was tie international law of war directly in the US law. International law of war would say, once combat is over you need to release combatants. Now, if people are accused of being terrorists, which is outside that they can be charged and held based on that. That's what the law should say. We have one more case pending on it, which I just argued about a week ago, two weeks ago, a month ago, now time blurs. But sweet decisions have been reached to the contrary before that. So, you know, I'm not hopeful, but the courts need to stand up somebody needs to stand up for the law, and they haven't. I don't know if that answer to David on being short, but that's it. If I could just say as well. You know, as you know, Tom, what happened in the goal case of the case of the Afghan who needed to be released because the organization that he was involved in had had reached a peace deal with the Taliban. That came to be challenged in court. The Justice Department argued that that didn't matter that they were still interested in his alleged connections to Al Qaeda, which fundamentally is what the Justice Department regards so many of the men still held at Guantanamo in that way. And this is absurd and has been for such a long time. These are men who have been approved for release by administrative review processes, so the periodic review boards, if they were to get in front of a court. The Justice Department lawyers would argue that they are connected to Al Qaeda, because of some spurious and not necessarily true allegation that was made over 20 years ago about them having stayed in Al Qaeda affiliated guest house in Afghanistan. There's a there's a complete disconnect here, but we've had this problem throughout the whole of Guantanamo's history. It doesn't matter who the Attorney General is, this time around it's Merrick Garland. The Justice Department lawyers who are responsible for dealing with Guantanamo, when they get anywhere near a courtroom, they all behave as though their very lives depend on never approving anyone from release from Guantanamo under any circumstances, despite the huge weight of evidence against that in so many cases. And, you know, and as I say that the disconnect between decisions being taken by the periodic review boards and the position that would be taken by the Justice Department, it's absurd. So, can I just say to make it clear, you're right in the Justice Department and God knows why they advocate these things. I can't talk about the classified evidence in the case I'm talking now, or some of the others I've had but I will tell you that when the Justice Department comes in makes these wild out that they try to paint everyone as a terrorist even though when you go into the classified allegations, there are no allegations against involve about involvement by in terrorism by the people I have seen, they are there because they were combatants, not because they were involved in terrorists, and the distinction that has never been made. You look at all the people in Guantanamo and people think they're the bad guys, these guys, you know, we're fighters in a combat against us and most many of them are just wrongly detained to serve anyone. So I just want to jump in here and say a couple of things. One is that, you know, we're talking about the specific details of this but this is a much larger conversation that Guantanamo is taking place in the middle of which is that the authorization for war, the AUMF right, under which Guantanamo and the military order is established, didn't have an endpoint prior to, you know, unlike so many of our other declarations of war statements getting us into war prior to this in fact all of them didn't have an endpoint didn't name an enemy and really just set out a template for forever war. And so whether or not we've pulled out of Afghanistan, the framework for that was set up by the way intentionally at the very beginning, so that we would find ourselves in this exact situation. That's the first thing. And, and, and that is one way to go at it and yet every year, you know, we keep, we keep, you know, adhering to that and not withdrawing the AUMF so there are some remedies for that that would be impactful to begin with. Second thing is, you know this reliance on the courts and yeah the courts need to do something you know we need to. It's just, it's not going to happen. I mean, I think we need to accept that as a reality that the courts have failed as we've said and it's hard to see them, not failing. And then the final thing I wanted to say, which is not a helpful thing but if you think about it this way. The federal courts, the federal courts not being not, you know, trying these cases. If you think Guantanamo is hurting the American image and it's hurting the ability to get out the DT needs etc. Do you know what it's done to the federal courts which basically said, we don't know how to try to work with the federal courts, it's beyond us. This is all part of this larger conversation. And the third thing is about the Biden administration. Their idea and the reason we had so much hope and kind of, you know, maybe naively, maybe things changed was that we could do this quietly that instead of waving a banner, like Obama did I'm going to close the place, you know, and all this that that maybe there was a quiet way to do this. It looks like they didn't figure out a quiet way to do this. It looks like whatever was on their minds to start with giving them the benefit of the doubt, given the early things we saw that that that too has failed. So what you're seeing is an executive that's failed and a legal system that's failed and a congressional system that's failed. So it's not saying that Guantanamo isn't essential and important. I'm saying that it's part of a, it's revealed a weakness that is profound. And that if we could deal with Guantanamo, it would be important. And one of the things that we'd have to do to deal with Guantanamo to get through all of these things that still linger is people would have to say they were wrong. We were wrong to do this. We were wrong to violate the law, we're allowed to create a system and definite detention not to mention we were wrong to torture people. And, and it seems to me that that's a deep, you know, human part of what's going on of people not wanting to I guess could disagree with me, but just this was wrong. And the people, no matter whose administration they were in, who tried to make it work and fit a, you know, round thing into a square hole. No, it doesn't work. It can't work. And the idea that we're going to find procedural ways to use our system now to close it. It's not going to work. I do disagree a little bit. And I think part of the problem is people have not concentrated on really what's wrong. They do large things. So the AUMF is bad. Yeah, we all agree that the United States should be able to fight terrorists around the world. The question is, and I take this guy Bahani, Bahani is held at Guantanamo because he was allegedly a cook in the army fighting against this and under a long war, even if you're a cook, you could be held out of combat. The question is, yes, you can continue to fight terrorism around the world and we're going to continue to for the rest of our lives and we want to authorize that. Does that allow you to hold a cook who was captured 21 years ago for serving something? That's really a legal question that people have avoided. And you say the courts to do this. In fact, Justice O'Connor spoke very good, the Supreme Court when they were spoken and spoken very clearly. She said, you can hold such people so long as US troops are involved in combat. That's something that has been blurred by the lawyers, by everyone. You know, there are things that we should hold to international law, we should hold to domestic law. Nobody thinks, you know, as criticized Guantanamo more than me, the whole effort to avoid the law, the Bush administration. It's disgusting, but there are things we can do if well articulated. And I, and you know the judges didn't say we can't try terrorists, quite the contrary, it was a politicians that said it. Anyway, so we have some questions from the audience that we should turn to. One builds on this and I think, Andy, you might be well placed to this answers us but everyone should feel free. The question is, building on sort of the sunset to courts have failed or either or failed fully or partially in their role of on this issue. But what about the sort of public and the audience member who is anonymous asks, as public attention or desire for the person to close their efforts, organized efforts, increase, decrease states the same over the 21 years here. And what should be made of that. The high point I think for for people being interested in the closure of Guantanamo amongst the American people would have been at the end of the Bush administration when Obama came in that particular moment when I think it was discussed widely. I think we were at that point somewhere close to a majority of people saying that it should be closed. That then dwindled. I think there was a lot of support from active people active in this field towards the end of the Obama administration. And you know and I think the pressure from people helped to make sure that Obama released as many people as possible before he left office but Guantanamo has never been as significant with the US public as it should have been with maybe that exception of the start of the Obama years. I would say that it's almost entirely disappeared off the radar now. Who do I blame well obviously I blame the mainstream US media which which doesn't report the broadcast media in particular which hardly ever touches Guantanamo. I have to say on this anniversary that the quietly quietly approach taken by the Biden administration also has helped everyone to forget that there is a problem there that needs a solution being found for. I think it's, I think I always am appalled how few people in the United States care about what has been done in their name to foreign citizens held at Guantanamo without any form of due process held indefinitely without charge of trial. That ought to be shocking. And yet, and yet, you know, sadly, I have to think that the that the ghost of Donald Rumsfeld is still with us. That what that the most successful line probably ever uttered about Guantanamo is that it held the worst of the worst as the late Mr Rumsfeld said when it opened. So, how we go about reversing this I have absolutely no idea I think if it hasn't happened by now people just don't care. It's a wider part of a disengagement with with significant political issues that has plagued us and continues to play isn't that I think gets worse and worse. So other others should feel free to weigh in on that question we have another one that is about strategy of trying to get people out via plea deals, and what people and in particular, Tom your thoughts are on the strategy of plea deals and their role. I think both somewhat broadly and then in this particular moment, regardless of whether there's criticisms that this is where it's ended up. Well, for a limit let me say one thing about the last question, I will tell you that I back in the bush days it was quite easy for us to get editorials in the major papers and do things and been so difficult since then. A few months ago as part of the issue I was talking about about, you know, can you hold people after the war is over huge issue I think. And legally I tried to get something in the Washington Post, and the editor person told me, oh, you know, we have Guantanamo fatigue, you know they don't want to deal with it. What about my client, what about me but so it's very tough now, and in light of people attacking the capitalists, it's a small thing, unfortunately, in terms of plea deals. I would never represented people charged people who are charged, I think might enter into a plea deal to get out and indeed some have. It's very hard for those people who have not been charged who have done nothing wrong except being accused of being in combat to plead to a criminal charge always oppose that and if you do, if you say and it's a charge of being supporting terrorism or something that they haven't and they're they're opposed to terrorism, as my clients have been absolutely opposed to terrorism. It's something that that stays with you your whole life, wherever you go so I'm, I'm not in favor of those sorts of things but I said it's different for those 12 people there who have been charged with involvement in terrorism. So, I mean, I'm obviously it's an interesting topic when we're looking at the future of Guantanamo that what we're dealing with is, you know, one group of men who have been charged and another group of men who never have been and there is there are clear distinctions between between them both I mean I will, I do just remember that over the years, highlighting the plight of people who were so insignificant that they could never be charged with anything. On several occasions, these people being in despair, saying, saying I wish there was something I could be charged with because then I could agree to a plea deal and maybe get out of here, because that has happened in a in those handful of cases, where the police managed to secure convictions in connection with the motor commissions through plea deals, that people agree to a plea deal and left, and people who couldn't be charged with anything because they never did anything and had no knowledge of anything remained in Guantanamo. And to be honest, that's still the case with some of the men who've been approved for at least but haven't been freed. But the plea deal question, I think is, is progress in a way in dealing with the absolutely poisonous nature of the military commissions. You know which, when Dick Cheney first conceived them we're going to use torture evidence and we're going to have people executed in a very short amount of time, they were eventually thrown out. And it's happened twice the version of the major commissions that we've ended up with still doesn't work because the defense teams for the men accused. It's their job to try and establish what happened to their clients in the CIA's black sites, and the government on the other hand is absolutely determined not to allow anything to become public about the torture of these men in the CIA black sites, and it goes around like grand whole day so there is no resolution. Now added to that the fact that, you know, the death penalty was was on the or is on the table as far as the major commissions are concerned in some of these cases, and the marriage and the death penalty cases involve, you know, much higher safeguards. And really looks impossible. Now to my mind that would absolutely please certain parts of the of the structure of the establishment in the United States the CIA I'm sure will be happy that these men never go to trial and just stay in Guantanamo forever. But I think it has been progress that we've heard that Biden isn't obstructing efforts to reach plea deals where the death penalty has been taken off the table. And we'll just have to see what develops. What interests me is that I'm not sure what the prisoners have to gain or lose in a way because they're stuck in Guantanamo forever whatever happens. A plea deal isn't going to lead to them being made free the people that are accused in the serious cases. But you know who knows I mean are they arguing about where they would where they would go to serve a sentence. Would they be better off insisting that they stay at Guantanamo which is where they are going to stay forever. And unless something, you know, a better offer comes along. If you go to a supermax prison, does it in fact highlight how absolutely disgusting and disgraceful the supermax prison system is for example in the United States. And I think it does. But it's an interesting topic. But just, you know just to finish on that, you know, I am concerned that something resembling justice needs to be delivered in the cases of these men eventually. But my primary concern on this anniversary and going forward is to get out of Guantanamo, the men who have never been charged with anything the man who the United States says it wants to free but can't seem to actually do so. If we could reduce the 35 men still held by more than half, then the figure that Karen came up with at the beginning of 13 million a prisoner becomes something like 30 or 35 million dollars per prisoner per year in perpetuity. And maybe finally we could discuss how absolutely irresponsible it is to be maintaining a facility that costs so much money. So we have a question from Mark Erickson about who the defendants who who the people who are the defendants and these commission cases are. And what is there other than the 911 case how do people connect into that. And then I'll talk on to that. Might you also provide a bit of context on, I believe you said there are three people who are neither charged with anything, nor have they been shifted into at least a theoretical administrative effort to get people out, but are still in the sort of purest form of this forever detention without even an intent to a stated intent to let them go at any point. Who are they. I'll add something on to what Andy just said because I think it's important which is that, you know, there is the option and it's been raised by a number of people of rehabilitation for the people that have been charged in our facing military commission so it's not just, are they going to stay at Guantanamo forever, but these are people who are tortured who are suffering from physical and psychological ailments as I, you know refer to before and there is the possibility of, you know, including in the plea deal some efforts of rehabilitation for these individuals so I just wanted to put that in there and I'm happy to talk about the cases but maybe Tom you want to start and talk about those. No, I mean I don't represent people who have been charged with involvement in terrorism. I will say that, you know, the main ones are 911 people, I mean, of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was in charge of the 911 attacks and I have really no sympathy for him. I mean, you know, the whole purpose of our system of justice is that people have done wrong. You know, in terrorism is a crime under US law and international law the killing of innocent civilians is a heinous crime, and someone who does it can be prosecuted, and someone who is convicted in a way that, you know, you don't need to depend on evidence derived from torture to do that with some of these people and they're really not hard cases. So, I will just shut up after that. I think what Andy said to me the biggest crime of Guantanamo. It's disgraceful that Congress took away these people could have been tried in US courts, which have been very successful in trying and convicting people accused of terrorism. The lawyers didn't want that as well because it's much easier that bollocks up commissions. And that's what's happened but the greatest crime of Guantanamo is what Andy said to me. It's those people who have not been charged with really wrongdoing, but are held out of being combatants 21 years ago in a war that's now over it's absurd. So, I'll shut up. On that point, you know, someone had asked about the three forever prisoners. So that's interesting. I mean, three down from 22 when Biden took office so at least, at least in terms of assessing what people have been accused of the you know we've had that progress but what is what is the the issue with these three men. And what it's particularly significant is one of them is Abu Zubaydah. Abu Zubaydah for whom the torture program was developed in the mistaken belief that he was the number three in al Qaeda when he was no such thing, which the United States has walked back from over the over the two decades but he had his last periodic review board hearing in the summer of 2021 and no decision has been reached on what to do with Abu Zubaydah. And, you know, in the end, we are, we need to see a prison where people have either been charged or they are going to be freed. And Abu Zubaydah and these two other men are still in a limbo. And I don't know how the administration is going to resolve that but the, the issue of Abu Zubaydah remains absolutely crucial to the, to the brutal mismanagement of the war on terror and the terrible crimes and errors that were made along the way. And I don't know what's going to happen. I don't know what's going to happen there. I just want to flesh that out a little bit because what what the reason Zubaydah is is there. You know, we assume at the base is that when they first detained and tortured him, they agree the intelligence agencies agreed among themselves that he could and they put this in writing, never ever ever get out on paraphrasing because of what he would say about what happened to him. We know so much already about what happened to him from a variety of sources, including the Senate Intelligence Committee report that it seems kind of absurd that they still stick to this and I think a lot of us ask ourselves what is it. We don't know that would be so consequential. I thought it was interesting when all Katani got out another detainee that that maybe the threshold of those who had been tortured and whose tortured was known about to be particularly brutal. We knew the details about maybe we had crossed some kind of threshold but you know, what is the beta's always been the prisoner who, if everything else gets resolved that the focus would be on what would have to happen for Zubaydah to get out so I just wanted to flesh in why yeah. Well Karen I think it goes to what you said to which putting up as a beta would require an admission that we've done things wrong. And so, even if there's not more, you know it's amazing to me, how few. Nobody's read this Senate intelligence commission report to think so people. It shatters the myth that the United States is holding bad guys when you really look what happened to him that's why he's there. Right and they're Alex give me his forever prisoner I mean there are ways to we, we know so much about this that so to say that that's why he's there right it just seems to. Yeah. Yeah. So we're coming up on the end of our hour. So let me. So it's one last question to all three of you and then give you an opportunity to make some concluding remarks. So, the overall, the first question I have to give to you all is, we had discussed before we started that of course, well, the sort of primary focus of much of the efforts right now is getting and rightfully getting people out of Guantanamo. What is happening to the people who have been transferred out of Guantanamo, and how is the US and those they have been transferred to fulfilling or failing to fill their responsibilities to care for and protect these people who have been held in Guantanamo. And then just since we're so short on time, perhaps, in answering that you could also provide whatever concluding remarks, perhaps with a look to what can be done looking forward to hopefully make some movement so we're not stuck next year when we discuss this again. And I'm sure you've said you feel have also been left out of our conversation. We've got about a minute each and we. So very quickly, I would say that the way that the men who have left Guantanamo have been treated is scandalous. And that's because men who were stripped entirely of their rights as human beings when they were taken to Guantanamo in the first place, strict and entirely of their rights have never been given those rights back when they've left. They are, they can be arbitrarily harassed they can be arbitrarily imprisoned. They can be prevented from traveling they can be prevented from working. They can be prevented from socializing the list goes on in successful cases. People have gone back to their home countries and been treated well in successful cases. They have been resettled in third countries when they couldn't go home and have been treated well. There are unfortunately an array of cases where that has not happened, where terrible things have happened to people after their release. Some people are living in horrendous conditions now. And one day, the United States government must be held accountable for what it did to these people at Guantanamo. And one of the stages of developing the Guantanamo accountability project, and part of that is to, is to focus absolutely on the necessity of giving these people back their humanity. They have, they have no legal status in the world because of simply because of having been held at Guantanamo without charge or trial as enemy combatants. It's a fundamental and ongoing injustice of Guantanamo. It really is just so appalling. But that's it over to you other guys. Karen, you want to go. Well, I just want to add that to a point you made before Tom which is that they're treated so many of them when they get out. They're still called terrorists. They were never convicted of terrorism. They're treated as terrorists and we see this time and time again as the basis for their being denied their rights and sometimes that affects their communications that affects their travel that affects their ability to work all the things you've said but it's like the label we put on them without any legal backing has stayed with them even upon release. So that's really all I wanted to add to that point so Tom. You know my final concluding point and I agree with those people released or some who are just put in prison somewhere else they remain forever prisoners, but I keep struggling. Say what do we say about Guantanamo overall. How what do we learn from it. And I think to me the biggest lesson is when Tom was Karen said from the beginning was an attempt by the by the Bush administration to avoid the law to put people in a prison where they wouldn't have legal rights or access to our courts. And then when they came to, you know, charging certain people, they again put them outside of the law and Obama was complicit in this. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was going to be tried in the federal courts, and they said oh no, let's set up a separate system, and all the systems they set up have been a disaster and will be a terrible stain have been a terrible stain in our country, and will remain so and I think to me the one lesson is when we get in these situations people look for ways to avoid the established system of the laws of the courts. Our systems work, go through the real systems let them be subject to the law, the law is a benefit to us and gives credibility to it when you avoid them you screw everything up, and you really harm people forever. So, sounds pretty wise to me. Well, thank you to you all. With that we've completed our time. But hopefully next year will be discussing at least in a more optimistic mood, even if today we're pessimistic that it will be something that will be looked at and the rear view mirror and addressing this is sort of fall out for various people. But until then, thank you all. Thank you, David. Thanks guys.