Those who have been among the most vocal critics of Guantánamo would be the last to endorse any "solution" that has at its core the continuing noncriminal detention of any group of the detainees--regardless of where or under what circumstances. All the more so if such a solution is perceived as a potential authorization for additional detention going forward, untethered to the armed conflict authorized by Congress in 2001.
So why would the author of the above consider doing just that? Stephen Vladeck's "least-worst solution" is actually the worst suggestion I have come across since Obama took over the helm of the U.S. torture state. It would ensure the suspension of habeas corpus until the last victim of baseless incarceration dies.
