This was interesting.

Your editorial "Obama's Gitmo Mess" (May 7) notes that a U.S. district court judge recently ruled "that the Supreme Court's 5-4 Boumediene [v. Bush] decision, which granted detainees the right to file habeas petitions in U.S. courts, extends to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan." In fact, the ruling by Judge John Bates only applies to "non-Afghans captured beyond Afghan borders" and subsequently transferred to Bagram. Suspects who are apprehended inside Afghanistan -- or who are Afghan nationals nabbed outside their native country -- do not have automatic access to U.S. habeas hearings under Judge Bates's ruling. They do, however, have habeas rights if they are held at Guantanamo. Thus, if the closure of Guantanamo means that more detainees will be housed at Bagram or at other U.S. installations in Central Asia, then President Obama's ostensible effort to reclaim the "moral high ground" will have the perverse effect of undermining the constitutional safeguards that currently apply to inmates at the Cuban base. Perhaps human rights groups should join the Journal's editorial board in calling for Gitmo to remain open.

Daniel Hemel
Oxford, U.K.