the lesser of two evils to keep them indefinitely? Or maybe some combination of the two? Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I've always assumed that Obama reached a reasonably good faith conclusion that the current batch of prisoners really are a danger even if it can't be proved in court. That said, show trials on BS evidence is a stupid way to go. If it's what I suspect, the right thing to do is just come clean: tell everyone that, on balance, it's too damn risky to give these guys a public trial or even to show their lawyers what, where and how the evidence against them was developed. Therefore, they will be detained indefinitely or, alternatively, a review of the evidence by a board cleared to see the intelligence will make the determination. Do you think it's political expediency or do you think that, now that Obama's had a look at the classified stuff on these guys, he's been persuaded that it's the lesser of two evils to keep them indefinitely? Expediency. I'm reminded of something CharleyCarp wrote here a few years ago (describing his efforts defending a Gitmo detainee): "there are no files". We keep thinking that the government has big files on each prisoner, overflowing with evidence recounting their guilt. But there just aren't any. The CIA went into Afghanistan and paid villagers to give them terrorists without bothering to figure out if the people handed over were actually terrorists. Then they get to Gitmo and