Salahi Error Correction

In my post on Friday on the Salahi oral argument, I pointed out that counsel for the detainee had erred in not bringing to the court's attention an important sentence from the district court's underlying opinion. I won't summarize the matter again here. But a brief follow-up is in order.
Following the argument, after which I brought the matter to her attention, Salahi's lawyer filed this letter with the court on the point, highlighting the sentence in question. In response, the government filed this letter today. As I have argued before, I think the government should prevail one way or another on the merits of this case, but on this point, Salahi has the better of the argument. It is true, as the government argues, that the reference to the oath does not occur in the conclusion's cursory summary of the evidence but, rather, a few sentences later. But I don't think the reasonable reader looking at Judge Robertson's conclusion as a whole would have any doubt that he considered the oath. Rather, he posed the problem before him quite starkly: this is a guy who swore bayat to Osama Bin Laden, and if I issue the writ, I might find out later on that Salahi really meant it--and still means it. And with that thought clearly in his mind, Judge Robertson proceeded to issue the writ. Whether one thinks that was wise or legally correct, Judge Robertson's words leave me in no doubt that he considered his summary of the evidence as a summary in light of an oath that hung over the entire case.