First a detainee has to win a habeas case. (Check their track record here.) Easy, right? If the government decides not to contest the decision, then the detainee — who, recall, the Obama administration is saying is too dangerous to responsibly release — walks. (More on that in a second.) We haven’t been faced with this situation yet. But if the administration appeals, then the detainee has to win. And on up to the Supreme Court, if the government really wants to contest the issue. Joseph Margulies, a professor of law at Northwestern University who’s focused extensively on Guantanamo, estimates that this process could take at least 18 months to exhaust itself at the earliest. Possibly years. (And even then, it wouldn’t be certain that the Supreme Court would use a habeas appeal as an opportunity to decide the first-order question: whether the Obama administration has the constitutional power to hold a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban in indefinite detention without charge.)

The real inflection point will come “when the government loses” a habeas case, said Margulies. “Are they going to let [a detainee] go?” If the administration concedes the loss, then there’s no crisis. But if it decides it can’t let someone go, and runs out of appeals, then the administration’s most likely option is to get a get a preventive detention bill from Congress, a civil liberties Rubicon. The Obama administration briefly considered that option this summer and balked. But if the administration loses a habeas case; seeks to detain someone indefinitely even so; and doesn’t have explicit preventive detention powers from Congress, then it most likely is just simply breaking the law.

“I heard about this listening to an NPR story this morning,” said Sabin Willett, a lawyer for the Uighurs at Guantanamo Bay, describing his big-picture reaction to the Guantanamo task force’s conclusions. “The intro to that story described them as ‘the terror suspects at Guantanamo.’” Willett pointed out that his clients have been cleared by Defense Department tribunals and exonerated by the courts. They are not terrorists, and no one believes they’re terrorists. “This proves the power of the press — those two words ‘terror suspects.’ How do I fight that?”

From there, Willett continued, it’s natural to start wondering if those “terror suspects” really are too dangerous to release. “I keep saying, give me a name. Who’s too dangerous? Give me a reason. Then start asking what other regimes had people they considered ‘too dangerous to release.’ You’re going to find yourself on a list of countries you’re not too proud to be on.”

A postscript: Dear lawyers. I am not one of you. This is my best attempt to understand what you guys do. I am happy to correct errors here, but please read this post in that spirit.

First, Gibbs told reporters that more transfers of Guantanamo detainees out of the prison camp “have taken place in the past eight months than have taken — than took place in the previous eight years.”

Uh, wrong. As Linzer points out, the Obama administration has transferred 31 detainees in the last eight months, as compared to some 520 transferred by the Bush administration before that.

Gibbs also went on to claim that, when courts have ruled that the government is unlawfully holding a detainee, the Obama administration has transferred the detainees “back to either their home country or third-party countries.”

Well, not really. As of today, 11 detainees who’ve won the right to be released by a federal court are still imprisoned at Guantanamo, as we note on our Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard, posted earlier today.  We’ll continue to update that as developments occur.

It’s worth noting that not only has the Obama administration not complied with court orders for release, but when lawyers for the Chinese Muslim Uighurs detained at Gitmo won an order to be released into the United States — since they can’t go home to China and the U.S. hasn’t been able to place them all in other countries — the Obama administration fought back hard. That case, Kiyemba v. Obama, is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today, The Washington Independent unveils a new feature that will track the outcomes of habeas corpus cases filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees who have challenged their indefinite detentions in the federal court system.

The Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard is broken up into two sections: cases won by detainees — further divided between detainees who have been released and those still in custody — and cases won by the U.S. government. Using information compiled by Pro Publica and David Remes, legal director of Appeal for Justice, the accompanying charts feature background information on all 41 detainees whose cases have been decided to date, including the allegations against each detainee, the court’s reasoning in each decision, and the status of any appeals. As more cases are resolved, we’ll keep updating the chart.

Of the 41 cases heard so far, detainees have won 32 of them. That means that in 32 out of 41 cases, the government was unable to present enough evidence, including classified evidence, to convince a federal court judge that it’s more likely than not that the detainee was a member or substantial supporter of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. (Habeas cases are civil proceedings, where there is no need to establish guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as in criminal trials.)

Of the 32 cases the government has lost, it has appealed only two. Eight detainees who have lost their cases have appealed so far.

Meanwhile, many of the prisoners who have won their petitions for habeas corpus are still imprisoned at Gitmo. Although the court in each case ordered the government to arrange for the detainee’s expeditious release, in some cases the government can’t or won’t send the prisoner back to where he came from. In some cases, that’s either because the detainee legitimately fears persecution at home, as in the case of the Uighurs. In others, it’s because, as with the prisoners from Yemen, the U.S. government doesn’t trust the detainee’s home government to keep him from joining up with local terror groups upon his return.

As a result, of the 32 detainees who have won an order of release in a U.S. federal court, 11 remain in prison.

For a full breakdown of all the cases, see the Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard here.

The issue in Kiyemba v. Obama is whether the courts have the power to order an “alien” (non-U.S. resident) detainee held at Guantanamo Bay released into the United States, after determining the government has no grounds to keep holding him. But what if Congress then makes it impossible for the government to release the prisoner in the United States by withholding all necessary funding? Two separate bills signed yesterday — specifically, Sec. 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act and Sec. 552(a) of the Homeland Security appropriations bill — appear to do just that. As Denniston points out, those laws open up a key question about Congress’ constitutional powers. In effect, it would mean that Congress could effectively suspend the prisoner’s right to habeas corpus – that is, to be released from unlawful detention.

Of course, by the time the court gets around to hearing the case this winter, President Obama may have already announced a new detainee policy, and Congress may have agreed to alter its spending restrictions. And if the Uighurs are all resettled, their case before the high court will be moot. But if the case survives until late winter, when the Supreme Court is expected to hear it, the administration and Congress may both get slapped down.

The court had previously put off deciding whether to take this case, at the request of the Obama administration, which was scrambling to find places for the Uighurs to go. But although several countries, including most recently the island of Palau, has agreed to take some of the Uighur detainees, at least one remained without a place to go. His brother, also detained, said he would not leave him.

In April, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., ruled that even though the Uighurs were no longer considered dangerous and were being held unlawfully, the courts had no power to order the president to release anyone into the United States. Because the Uighurs cannot return to China, where they would likely be persecuted, and the U.S. government refused to release them in the United States, that left them stuck at the Guantanamo Bay prison indefinitely.

The Supreme Court now has the chance to decide whether federal courts have the power to change that.

Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's alleged driver, was held in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay prison camp like these detainees. (Department of Defense photo by Petty Officer 1st class Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy)

As the pressure grows on the Obama administration to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay by January, so too does the risk that some of the Guantanamo detainees cleared for release could be returned to countries where they’ll face persecution or torture, say human rights experts. The men remaining at Guantanamo mostly come from countries that are notorious for torturing prisoners. And the Obama administration has not ruled out returning the men to those places, even though, labeled “enemy combatants” by the Bush administration, they could face retaliation back home.

Meanwhile, it remains unclear whether the courts can step in and stop the administration from returning prisoners to countries known to torture. In April, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal courts have no authority to interfere with where the administration wants to send a Guantanamo detainee. The lawyers on that case, Kiyemba v. Obama, plan to appeal to the Supreme Court this month, but in the meantime, men from Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and other countries notorious for abusing prisoners could be returned to those countries over their objections. Their lawyers are now scrambling to try to stop that.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court deferred its decision in a related case on whether to review a ruling that judges have no authority to order Guantanamo detainees released into the United States. The court’s punt came in the case of 13 Uighurs, the Chinese Muslim prisoners who have been cleared for release by the U.S. government but cannot return to China for fear of persecution there. But while the Uighurs in that case have been denied the right to be released into the United States, in a way, they’re lucky; the Obama administration has said it will not return them to China.

To be sure, the administration has also promised not to send any detainees to countries where they’re likely to be tortured. But it has also said that in some situations it will accept “diplomatic assurances” from those countries that it will treat the returning detainees humanely. These are, essentially, promises from a torturing country that it won’t torture a particular individual being sent there. But how reliable are those “assurances” really?

Human rights advocates say they’re not at all.

“The record on diplomatic assurances is extremely poor,” said Joanne Mariner, Director of the Terrorism and Counterterrorism program at Human Rights Watch. “It’s rare we see the text of the assurances, so it’s not clear what they consist of, and whether there’s a post-return monitoring mechanism. But there are some very well known cases in which people were sent to Egypt and Syria with diplomatic assurances, and then were tortured.”

Judy Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, agrees. “We think there are real problems inherently with the reliability of such assurances and the ability to monitor them,” she said. After all, she noted, most of these countries have signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, but they’re still torturing prisoners. “When you have a country that’s notorious for torturing, how can diplomatic assurances be reliable? They know they’re not supposed to torture. They’ve signed a treaty. How is an assurance worth more than a treaty?”

One of the most infamous recent cases of torture following assurances from a foreign government involved the Canadian citizen Maher Arar, arrested at JFK airport and sent to Syria for interrogation, supposedly with diplomatic assurances that he’d be treated humanely. Arar says he was brutally tortured there. Human Rights watch has released several reports on the increasing reliance of the United States and other countries on such “diplomatic assurances,” and documented that in many cases, they have not worked. What’s more, it’s often impossible to know whether an individual returned has been tortured, since the country that returns the prisoner has no credible way of determining how he was treated, and both countries have an incentive to say the detainee was treated humanely.

Technically, the United States is bound by the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights not to send people to countries where they face a real risk of torture. (The Bush administration argued those laws did not apply to prisoners held abroad.) But as Mariner explained, that often leads those countries to rely on “diplomatic assurances” to say the risk has been diminished. That’s exactly what the Bush administration said it did when it sent terror suspects for questioning under its “extraordinary rendition” program, and many of those suspects claim they were subsequently tortured.

The choice, says Mariner, is either to trust the discretion of the executive branch, or to have some sort of system for deciding the legitimacy of the prisoner’s fears. The D.C. Circuit ruling eliminated the possibility of the federal courts playing that role. That ruling took effect in early September, clearing the way for the U.S. government to begin to return Guantanamo detainees to countries known to torture prisoners.

The administration announced earlier this week that it has cleared 75 Guantanamo detainees for release. The list includes nine prisoners from Tunisia, seven from Algeria, four from Syria, three from Libya, three from Saudi Arabia, two each from Uzbekistan, Egypt, the West Bank and Kuwait, and one each from Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. None of these countries has a strong human rights record.

About 30 of the prisoners cleared for release fear return to their home countries, said Mariner.

Ahmed Belbacha is one such prisoner at risk. He fled his home country of Algeria in 1999 during a civil war between government forces and a militant Islamic group. A former soldier in the Algerian army, he was at risk from both sides. He sought asylum in the UK, where he worked cleaning rooms in a hotel. In 2001, however, while traveling in Pakistan where he was offered free Islamic education, he was captured by the Pakistani Army and turned over to the U.S. military shortly after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The U.S. military deemed Belbacha an “enemy combatant” because he had attended prayer services led by a fundamentalist sheik, travelled on a fake French passport and received small arms training in Afghanistan. Belbacha was sent to the prison at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. But in 2007, the Bush administration decided that he did not pose a threat and cleared him for release. But by this time, Belbacha was afraid to go home; he fears retaliation and torture from both the Algerian government and radical Islamists.

In 2007, Belbacha’s lawyers told the court that they’d learned that the U.S. government planned to return their client to Algeria, and filed an emergency motion asking the court to prevent his transfer. The court ruled it did not have the power to do that, and Belbacha appealed. The court of appeals held off deciding the case though, while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on whether detainees have the right to challenge their detention in federal courts. (It ruled they did last year in Boumediene v. Bush.) In the meantime, the court temporarily enjoined the U.S. government from sending Belbacha to Algeria.

Then, in April, the D.C. Circuit ruled in Kiyemba v. Obama that the courts have no authority over where the government sends the men. Now, Belbacha is worried again, and his lawyers are scrambling to keep the court from issuing an order that will allow the government to transfer Belbacha to Algeria. His lawyers say he’s now even more likely to be tortured by the Algerian government if he returns there because his struggle to avoid transfer there has drawn international attention and support from human rights groups. As his lawyers put in their brief to the court: “He believes that his strenuous and widely-publicized efforts to avoid transfer to Algeria place him in the government’s crosshairs.”

Belbacha’s lawyers have filed a motion with the court asking that his case be “held in abeyance” until the lawyers handling the Kiyemba case have an opportunity to file a petition to the Supreme Court, and then until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case. Holding the case off would leave in effect a June 2008 district court order prohibiting the government from transferring him to Algeria.

The Department of Justice, meanwhile, is vigorously fighting to lift that order, arguing that the D.C. Circuit has already decided that the courts don’t have authority to prevent a detainee’s transfer, and that the government has promised not transfer any detainee to a country where “he is more likely than not to be tortured.”

That’s not sufficient assurance for Belbacha and his lawyers, however. “The U.S. has not assured Belbacha that he won’t be sent back,” said David Remes, Executive Director of Appeal for Justice and a lawyer for Belbacha. As the law stands now, there is no court or independent arbiter to whom Belbacha can appeal.

Human rights advocates say that Algeria’s abusive treatment of two other prisoners recently returned there by the UK raises serious concerns. According to Human Rights Watch, the men were reportedly threatened and beaten in custody. Statements coerced from them were used against them at trial, and both were sentenced to several years’ imprisonment.

Lawyers for Guantanamo detainees from Libya and Tajikistan who similarly fear persecution if returned home have also asked federal judges to at least temporarily prevent their clients’ transfer until the Supreme Court can consider whether courts have any authority over the administration’s decisions about where to send them.

The Obama administration, in another context, has similarly indicated that it is willing to send people to countries known to torture. In making recommendations on the transfer of terror suspects to other countries for interrogation – commonly known as renditions – an Obama administration task force recommended that renditions be permitted to countries known to practice torture, so long as the administration obtains assurances that the suspect will be treated humanely. Although the Obama administration has promised to monitor and enforce those assurances, Human Rights Watch has found that “monitoring is no panacea” because the prisoners cannot be guaranteed confidentiality. Their reports of abuse to foreign monitors would be easily traceable to them, placing them at serious risk of retaliation.

The court yesterday also put off deciding whether the U.S. government has to release photos of detainee abuse, as the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing in its Freedom of Information Act case against the Defense Department.  The court could decide whether to hear that case on Oct. 9.

SCOTUSblog has listed here all ten cases the court yesterday decided to review.

A task force set up when Obama took office is reviewing each case, and the administration has started posting the names of those cleared for release at the prison camp, according to a spokesman for the Guantanamo prison.

Although President Obama when he took office set a Jan. 22 deadline for shutting down the prison, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged to ABC News on Sunday that “it’s going to be tough” to meet the deadline. Recent news reports have suggested that the deadline may be impossible to meet.

Despite the list of 78 prisoners deemed free to go (the list included three already released), many of them, such as the prisoners originally from Yemen, have been “cleared” for months or even years, but have not yet been returned home, despite eight years in captivity without charge. The Obama administration has been reluctant to return prisoners to Yemen because it does not trust the Yemeni government’s ability to prevent them from joining al-Qaeda-sponsored terrorist groups.

Reuters reports that the prisoners on the latest list include, in addition to the Yemenis, the 13 Uighurs still imprisoned (Palau has agreed to accept 12 of them), plus “nine detainees from Tunisia, seven from Algeria, four from Syria, three each from Libya and Saudi Arabia, two each from Uzbekistan, Egypt, the West Bank and Kuwait, and one each from Azerbaijan and Tajikistan.”

The first and better-known case involves whether the executive branch has the right to refuse to release photos of detainees abused by U.S. officials in overseas prisons simply because it fears the photos could spark violence against U.S. troops. Lawyers for detainees, such as American Civil Liberties Union attorney Amrit Singh, have insisted that the photographs “provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” and therefore their disclosure is “critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.”

Meanwhile, Republicans and others have argued that the photographs’ release “will serve no public good, but will empower al-Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country’s image, and endanger our men and women in uniform,” as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) wrote to President Obama in May. Days later, Obama announced that he had changed his mind and decided not to release the photos, although he’d previously agreed to turn them over. Whether potential “harm” to the troops by unspecified persons abroad is sufficient to trump the public interest in access to information embodied in the Freedom of Information Act is the question the Supreme Court will consider, if it decides tomorrow to review the case.

The second big terror-related case questions whether a court can order the U.S. government to release Guantanamo detainees into the United States if the court has already determined that the government has no right to keep holding them and the government has not found anywhere else for them to go. The situation arises in the case of the Chinese Muslim Uighurs, all of whom have all been cleared for release. Although four were released to Bermuda earlier this year, 13 remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay because they cannot return to China, where they would likely face persecution. The United States has refused to accept them. The D.C. Circuit Court earlier this year ruled that the courts cannot order them released into the United States; only the president and the Department of Homeland Security have that power.

Perhaps in an effort to keep the issue away from the Supreme Court, the administration last week announced that the Pacific Island nation of Palau had agreed to take most of the remaining Uighur prisoners that have yet to be released. But it did not agree to take one of the 13 prisoners left, who is reportedly mentally ill. He and his brother, then, will remain at Guantanamo. If Palau had taken all of them, their case — and the Supreme Court’s chance to review the president’s authority — would have become moot.

What’s remarkable about both cases is that the Obama administration has taken essentially the same position as did the Bush administration before it. Tomorrow the high court will decide whether it will review and potentially reverse those positions, as it has in several other key rulings that dealt a blow to the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies regarding executive power and the treatment of war-on-terror detainees.

As the Washington Post reports today, the story is even sadder given that the older brother was only captured because he went searching for Bahtiyar after the younger brother left their homeland eight years ago.

Like the other Uighurs, the brothers are Chinese Muslims who face persecution in China and can’t be returned there. Although they have never threatened nor plotted against the United States, they were seized in Afghanistan and Pakistan shortly after the United States launched its war on al-Qaeda and the Taliban after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.