A legal architect of Guantanamo questions Trump's El Salvador plan

Hey, it's Elsa Chang. Before we get to the show, there's an anniversary on Saturday that we wanted to shout out. 54 years ago, on May 3rd, 1971, A brand new outlet called National Public Radio went on the air with the very first episode of All Things Considered. Listeners heard from a barber talking business in Iowa, poet Allen Ginsberg, and Vietnam War protesters in Washington, D.C. More than a half century later, we're still considering all the things. And your support makes it all possible.

It's the last day of public media giving days. When you donate, you ensure that we can keep reporting the facts and bringing you stories that inform and inspire. So visit donate.npr.org to give. And thank you so much. Now to the show.

people it has detained. People it says are terrorists. to a prison overseas. And there is no end date. The men are effectively detained. indefinitely. This is true in 2025 and it was also true two decades ago. I would characterize Montanamo Bay, Cuba as the least worst place we could have selected. Its disadvantages however seem to be modest relative to the alternative.

That is former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, just three months after the 9-11 attacks, announcing the plan to house captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters in a military prison at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo. Ultimately, the U.S. would bring hundreds of people from many countries to Guantanamo. Fifteen remain at the prison today, six of whom have never been charged with a crime.

When the prison opened, Rumsfeld made a new legal argument for this indefinite foreign detention. They'll be handled not as prisoners of wars, because they're not, but as unlawful combatants. As I understand it, technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention. According to Rumsfeld, the prisoners had no U.S. constitutional rights to challenge their detention, but...

They also had no Geneva Convention rights as prisoners of war. It's why critics called Guantanamo a legal black hole.

And that's almost the same phrase human rights advocate Noah Bullock used to describe what happened to the migrants that the Trump administration has deported to El Salvador. He runs a group there called Cristo Sal. Yes, I'm sorry. Like a judicial black hole. Disappeared into one of the most brutal presence. The Trump administration has deported at least 261 foreign nationals, mostly from Venezuela, to El Salvador's maximum security terrorism confinement center prison.

The U.S. is paying El Salvador for this service, and the Trump administration also now says that U.S. courts cannot compel the government to return these migrants, even for the due process that they are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. argues that the cases of these migrants are now a matter of foreign policy under the authority of the executive branch. So, the detainees remain in the custody of a government that Noah Bullock says

has normalized cruelty. The state of exception in El Salvador has become so normalized that I think that nobody questions the premise that the state can do whatever it wants to whoever it wants and there's no institution that could intervene to protect your rights. Consider this. The George W. Bush administration came under heavy criticism for its treatment of detained Guantanamo. One of the legal architects of the Bush administration's policies President Trump legal lines.

established after 9-11. From NPR, I'm Elsa Chang. I'm Tanya Mosley, co-host of Fresh Air. At a time of sound bites and short attention. Our show is... We do long-form interviews with people behind the best in films. TV, music and journalism. our guests open up a you've never heard before. Listen to the Fresh Air podcast from N.P. This is Fresh Air contributor Anne-Marie Baldonado.

I talked with actor Cole Escola about their hit Broadway play, Oh Mary. Cole plays an unhinged alcoholic Mary Todd Lincoln, who's an aspiring cabaret performer. If that makes no sense, that's part of the point. You can find my interview on the Fresh Air on NPR's through line. Witnesses were ending up How the hunt for gangster Al Capone launched the IRS to power. Find NPR's ThruLine wherever you get your podcasts. consider this from NPR.

John Yoo is now a law professor. As a Justice Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, he wrote the legal justification for the government's treatment of Guantanamo detainees, now widely referred to as the torture memo. RecentlyU has argued that there are key legal differences between what the Bush administration did and what the Trump administration is now attempting, deporting people to an El Salvador prison without due process hearing.

I think there are superficial parallels. For example, President Trump is claiming wartime authority, invoking something called the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Bush administration also claimed wartime authority to be able to hold enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But there are important differences. The primary one, I think, is are we really at war? I think after 9-11, not just President Bush, but Congress and the Supreme Court all agreed the 9-11 attacks had started a state of war.

Here, President Trump, he is claiming that we're at war with Venezuela, and he is claiming that this gang, Trendel Aragua, is sort of like a military arm of Venezuela. But he has no agreement from any of the other branches. In fact, a federal district court judge just rejected that idea. Saying that the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to remove a group of migrants in Texas actually is not...

proper yes because there's no state of war and then the second difference is no matter whether there was a state of war or not the Bush administration view in which I participated developing, was that anyone who was captured in the United States had a right to due process. whether they were an American citizen or an alien, whether they were an Al-Qaeda member or some kind of sympathizer. And we took the view if they were caught in Afghanistan or in Iraq.

They were not entitled to due process in US courts because that had been the traditional practice of war. The Trump administration seems to be taking the opposite view. They think that you could deport people under the Alien Enemies Act who are in the United States. Without any due process at all and that is I think a challenge to the settled rules that

we and the courts came up with in the years after the September 11th. I was just going to ask you, because yes, the Supreme Court did eventually rule against the Bush administration on some of its policies towards Guantanamo detainees. How confident are you that the Trump administration will eventually heed the courts here? Part of me worries. I hear President Trump on TV. He says, we will not defy judicial orders. I will never defy judicial orders.

At the same time, you have Trump administration officials, you have fellow travelers of President Trump and the MAGA movement say they might defy judicial order or attack the judges, call for their impeachment. great difference here between the Bush administration. We didn't even think of ourselves as opposed to the courts. We thought of ourselves as working with the courts to figure out what the rules should be because we wanted there to be stability.

I do want to acknowledge throughout all this that you are known to many people as the so-called author of the torture memos. One of which did say that only pain equivalent to an injury that could result in, quote, death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions could be considered torture.

And let me just ask you, because there are credible reports of torture in Salvadoran prisons, if you look at a 2023 State Department report, including at least one report that meets the definition in your memo. So, just to underline the point, are there legal issues with sending migrants to prisons in El Salvador when the U.S. government has acknowledged these conditions? I have to say, I think the circumstances and the context of what we're talking about...

after 9-11 and this are very different, but in a way that cuts against the Trump administration. And we are talking about a time period when there was very little definition in American law. about what torture was plus we were talking about unfortunately the ticking time bomb idea that we had terrorists in our custody who knew about pending attacks on the United States and would not tell us what they were, which is a very different world than where do you send

Where do you send aliens? Or even how do you hold American citizens in prison? And there, I think, the definitions are much clearer. And the way you just described it is, I think, quite accurate. The United States isn't supposed to, under American law, deport people to places where they might be tortured.

John Yu is a former Justice Department lawyer and a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also a visiting professor at the University of Texas Austin School of Civic Leadership. Thank you very much for this conversation. Oh, my pleasure. You heard reporting in the top of this episode from NPR's Ada Peralta. This episode was produced by Connor Donovan. Sharon Watanainen. Our executive producer is Sammy Ennegan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Elsa Chang.

Look, we get it. When it comes to new music, there is a lot of it. And it all comes really fast. But on All Songs Considered, NPR's Music Recommendation Podcast will handpick what we think is the greatest music happening right now and give you your next great listen. So kick back, settle in, get those eardrums wide open, and get your dose of new music from All Songs Considered, only from NPR. On the Indicator from Planet Money Podcast, Trump's tariffs. It's called...

strategy, or sometimes called grim trigger, which sort of has a cowboy-esque ring to it. To what exactly a sovereign wealth fund is. Listen to NPR's The Indieguide from Planet... Want to hear this podcast without sponsor break? Amazon Prime members can listen to Consider This sponsor-free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.