Done: Obama signs order closing Gitmo within a year; Update: McCain, Graham support

posted at 1:00 pm on January 22, 2009 by Allahpundit

Just one of four you’ll see executed here; the second ends enhanced interrogations by the CIA. Note the third, though, establishing a task force to review all detention policies and procedures. If that “classified loophole” ends up being quietly carved out later, I assume that’s where it’ll come from.

WaPo’s touting its new poll showing that 53 percent support closing the prison, a perilously slim majority for so momentous a decision. Gallup, in fact, finds that 45 percent support keeping it open compared to just 35 percent who want it closed; among independents it’s 48 and 32, respectively. The stakes for Obama from Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen:

During the campaign, Obama described the techniques used to prevent these attacks as “torture.” He promised that if elected, he would “have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.” If he follows through, he will effectively kill a program that stopped al-Qaeda from launching another Sept. 11-style attack. It was easy for Obama the candidate to criticize the CIA program. But as president, what will he do when the next senior al-Qaeda leader — with actionable intelligence on plots to strike our homeland — is captured and refuses to talk? Will the president allow the CIA to question this terrorist using enhanced interrogation techniques? If Obama refuses and our country is attacked, he will bear responsibility.

Well, no, Al Qaeda will bear responsibility, a point to which the left will suddenly awaken after blaming Bush for every IED that went off in Iraq. But not everyone will see it that way, and they won’t all be Republicans: Remember, even a progressive as enlightened as Madam Speaker was cool with “torture” after 9/11.


Update: Right out of the chute, cover from Maverick and his crony-in-chief.

“We support President Obama’s decision to close the prison at Guantanamo, reaffirm America’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees,” McCain and Graham said in a statement…

“Present at Guantanamo are a number of detainees who have been cleared for release but have found no foreign country willing to accept them,” the senators said. “Other detainees have been deemed too dangerous for release, but the sensitive nature of the evidence makes prosecution difficult. The military’s proper role in processing detainees held on the battlefield at Bagram, Afghanistan, and other military prisons around the world must be defended, but that is left unresolved. Also unresolved is the type of judicial process that would replace the military commissions. We believe the military commissions should have been allowed to continue their work.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

I think Hyde Park and Georgetown would be perfect neighborhoods for these scum. In the case of Hyde Park, they might be a step up from Ayers and his skank Manson-fellating wife.

PimFortuynsGhost on January 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Douchebags all.

PBoilermaker on January 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

It was easy for Obama the candidate to criticize the CIA program. But as president, what will he do when the next senior al-Qaeda leader — with actionable intelligence on plots to strike our homeland — is captured and refuses to talk?

Sadly, no one knows.

sherry on January 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

The jihadist movement is gonna gain so much ground with this tool in office.

Pasalubong on January 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

send them to downtown chicago. There is more chaos going on down there than there has been in Iraq.

ousoonerfan15 on January 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Elections have consequences. The damage done in the next four years will be irreparable. Thanks to all you people who couldn’t bring yourselves to vote for McCain because you wanted to make a statement.

Statement made. Damage done.

(No McCain isn’t great, and I often find myself despising the man myself, but he would have been a hell of a better choice than the terrorist enabler.)

ErinF on January 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Geez, if it was SO critical that Gitmo was closed….why didn’t they do it right away?

Why would it take one year to move 50 people?

originalpechanga on January 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Well, no, Al Qaeda will bear responsibility, a point to which the left will suddenly awaken after blaming Bush for every IED that went off in Iraq.

I’m not holding my breath any of them will ‘wake up’.
They will probably whine about appeasing them more & trying to understand why they hate us so much. They might wonder, What is it we are doing to make them attack us?
Sadly, many more Americans will have to die needlessly in attacks on our home soil before the left decides to get a clue about what Islam really wants.

Badger40 on January 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Completely OT:

I am shamed that I too am left handed like this slime…

Rogue on January 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM

It was easy for Obama the candidate to criticize the CIA program. But as president, what will he do when the next senior al-Qaeda leader — with actionable intelligence on plots to strike our homeland — is captured and refuses to talk?

He’ll feed them brie and caviar, give them government jobs and have whitey pay for the welfare.

ErinF on January 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM

This guy is gonna be worse for the CIA then the Church commission. The CIA will be neutered, and then when we are attacked the same people who enforced this , will hold meetings and hearings, and decide this is because Bush made us less safe. This is just disgusting.

MDWNJ on January 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM

ErinF on January 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I agree with everything you said.

wise_man on January 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Is the next executive order going to be instructions to paint large targets on the nation’s 10 largest cities? (Note: White males need not apply for the painting jobs.)

aero on January 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Rush is emphasizing the fact that our President is asking the lawyer, Greg Craig about the bill as he is signing it! Greg Craig is telling him what is in the bill and what it means. Pay no attention to that silver haired man behind the curtain!

ckdexterhaven on January 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Well, no, Al Qaeda will bear responsibility, a point to which the left will suddenly awaken after blaming Bush for every IED that went off in Iraq.

They will certainly try to spin it that way but after so many years of beating this issue it’s doubtful they will succeed.

Go RBNY on January 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

We are not at war anymore, so why keep it open? The world is finally at peace now that Bush ran back here (Texas). Go out and SPEND! Save the economy: Buy More Gas!

Neo on January 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

It’s the height of idiocy that he did this before deciding what to do with the guys we have there.

Esthier on January 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

We could rehabilitate all the inmates and hire them to be lawnskeepers and houseboys for the White House…If they want to blow the place up the least they can do is spruce the place up first.

rich801 on January 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Anything that happens will be Bush’s fault because Obama “inherited the situation.” Unlike 9/11, which happened “on Bush’s watch.”

Wethal on January 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Excellent move, President Hopenchange. Now all that’s left is to send them home after getting them to pinky swear that they won’t kill any Jews for a while.

(I don’t really believe that the inmates will be moved to a different prison)

mjk on January 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM

He’s got a jacket AND a flag pin on.

BadgerHawk on January 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM

If Obama refuses and our country is attacked, he will bear responsibility.

Therein lies the problem. Liberals tend to believe that our foreign policy is responsible for the terrorists’ actions. Therefore, changing our foreign policy should fix that.

amerpundit on January 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM

These people are in for a rude awakening…I hope I am wrong.

javamartini on January 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Remember the movie Robocop? The evil villian wanted to have the city collapse into anarchy — so he just opened the door and let all the bleeding heart moonbats program in a set of utterly contradictory proscriptions that had the hero congratulating murderers and shooting at litterbugs?

logis on January 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Will the president allow the CIA to question this terrorist using enhanced interrogation techniques? If Obama refuses and our country is attacked, he will bear responsibility.

In the other thread, I said this:

So, say we have another terrorist attack on US interests over the next couple of months. Conservatives loved to say that Bush “inherited” the terrorist problem from Clinton, whose policies allowed 9/11 to happen. If something similar happens on Obama’s watch, are you going to pin the blame on Bush’s policies over the last 8 years? I’m just guessing … no, it’ll be Obama’s fault …

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

It has begun already.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Obama did the easy part.

Now he can find homes for the 60 people granted release that are still there because no country will take them.

Another 100 are considered too dangerous to release but can’t be brought to trial because of exposing intelligence agents.

And he can release the murderer of 1000s because he was waterboarded.

Chuck Schick on January 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Right now there are a lot of right side bloggers, columnists and radio talkers–who have recently been assuring the riff raff that Obomber is actually an unprincipled moderate in the mold of Bush and not a leftist–who are choking on their oatmeal. Enjoy your Change, chumps.

james23 on January 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Who’s side is this man on? Oh thats right it’s Hussein Obama!
This idiot is going to get inocent people killed!
Back to a Law Enforcment Action! Not a War footing!
I HOPE your happy America!

time2taketheglovesoffGOP on January 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Uh, no. The author said that the blame for the attack would be Obama’s to bear if he had the opportunity to stop the attack using enhanced interrogations but didn’t. Not if any ‘ol attack happens on Obama’s watch.

amerpundit on January 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

so does that mean obama is killing the gitmo orange jumpsuit market? Ass.

lorien1973 on January 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

…as president, what will he do when the next senior al-Qaeda leader — with actionable intelligence on plots to strike our homeland — is captured and refuses to talk?

Sadly, no one knows.
sherry on January 22, 2009 at

That’s not true. Obama knows.

And he started calling terrorists leaders this morning. So it’s safe to assume he must have told them SOMETHING.

logis on January 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Am I the only one to just now notice that Obama is LEFT-HANDED?

How sinister…

connertown on January 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

It has begun already.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM

It will be Hussein’s fault. Bush didn’t change any of Clinton’s policies while Obama is radically & immediately changing procedures that Bush used to keep the nation safe for 8 years even during the worst of the Iraq War.

Rogue on January 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

send them to downtown chicago.

The perfect use for that vacant lot that Rezko bought behind Obama’s house….

rw on January 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

It’s the height of idiocy that he did this before deciding what to do with the guys we have there.

Esthier on January 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Especially since we’ve been told time and again just how calm, steady and well thought out all of his decisions are.

Now they have to figure out what to do with these guys. If it turns out that Gitmo was the best place after all, it’s not like Obama can reverse his own order w/o looking like a moron.

BadgerHawk on January 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Maverick too, huh?

Well, this is actually good news in a way. No matter who would have won, the results would have been the same.

I knew I should have picked up some “We’re Screwed 08″ bumper stickers last cycle!

Good Lt on January 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Well, no, Al Qaeda will bear responsibility

Al Qaeda (or others) will be responsible for the attack, Obama will be responsible for failing to prevent. He’ll still be responsible for the resulting deaths.

DarkCurrent on January 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Am I the only one to just now notice that Obama is LEFT-HANDED?

How sinister…

connertown on January 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I resemble that remark :P

Rogue on January 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

I would normally say to get a gun and prepare to defend yourselves; plans are being hatched by the savages arrayed against us even as we speak. These decisions will be disastrous.

But even that now looks unsure:

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/281556.php

Bishop on January 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Update: McCain, Graham support

Can I get an apology from everyone who complained I was too hard on McCain during the campaign?

Come on. Ya’ll owe me.

lorien1973 on January 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM

So, say we have another terrorist attack on US interests over the next couple of months. Conservatives loved to say that Bush “inherited” the terrorist problem from Clinton, whose policies allowed 9/11 to happen. If something similar happens on Obama’s watch, are you going to pin the blame on Bush’s policies over the last 8 years? I’m just guessing … no, it’ll be Obama’s fault …

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Here’s the difference:

Bush inherited a broken intelligence system that had zero clue about 9/11. The 19 men were done with all their training and waiting for the go signal before Bush was even elected.

Obama is dismantling a system and fired the CIA chief that right or wrong, have kept us attack free since then.

So of course if Obama is making these grand gestures and we get attacked, why would he not be blamed?

Chuck Schick on January 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM

More evidence that the difference between McCain and Obama was never that great.

MarkTheGreat on January 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM

So, say we have another terrorist attack on US interests over the next couple of months.
Big S on January 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

On September 10, 2001, there wasn’t a soul on earth including whacked out Hollywood producers who could have imagined what was to happen the next day. THE POINT is that it IS possible and NOW the government must protect us against a repeat performance. Jeopardizing our safety with any action that would incite a terror attack is irresponsible and weak. The blame game is a nice Monday Morning quarterback chat but MOST American people just want to sleep peacefully at night, much like we did for the past seven years.

sherry on January 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Update

*headdesk*
/repeat vigorously until things make sense again

Anna on January 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM

He’ll feed them brie and caviar, give them government jobs and have whitey pay for the welfare.

ErinF on January 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM

And have William Ayers over too, to discuss bombing options.

Bush did keep us safe. If we’re attacked now I won’t blame Dear Leader for the attack, but I will blame him for lowering our guard.

rbj on January 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM

It has begun already.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM

It’s a different game AFTER 9/11, now we know.
And when you know how hard they want to kill you it’s stupid to back down on what has stopped the attempts.

the_nile on January 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM

I want to vomit. McCain and Grahamnesty are not Republicans, they’re liberals in sheep’s clothing.

The Republican party needs to redefine exactly what it is and what it stands for. At this rate we’ll end up with a one party system.

darwin on January 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM

I fell like ripping that American flag pin right off Osama Obama’s lapel. He has no right to wear it.

MrScribbler on January 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

ErinF on January 22, 2009

As one who held his nose and voted for McCain, I understand you. But the motivation to vote for someone solely because he isn’t someone else is just not enough, as this election plainly demonstrated. We have to find a candidate we want to vote for. No more lesser of two evils.

SKYFOX on January 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

It will be Hussein’s fault. Bush didn’t change any of Clinton’s policies while Obama is radically & immediately changing procedures that Bush used to keep the nation safe for 8 years even during the worst of the Iraq War.

Rogue on January 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

My point: it probably won’t be anyone’s “fault”. It’s unlikely that anyone at Gitmo will have info on terrorist plots currently being hatched against the USA. It’s entirely possible (even likely) that Bush’s vaunted anti-terrorism policies have missed some things that will hurt us down the road, but you and other fans don’t want to acknowledge that. This is all just an exercise in pre-emptive ass-covering, with little basis in reality.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Can’t wait for the first terrorist attack by one of the released detainee’s.

DeweyWins on January 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Can we not wish for bad things? Be an adult.

lorien1973 on January 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Am I the only one to just now notice that Obama is LEFT-HANDED?

How sinister…

connertown on January 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I just noticed that too. Heh.

Anna on January 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Update: McCain, Graham support!

2 more usless idiots that need to retire or they need to be water boarded!

time2taketheglovesoffGOP on January 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Update: Right out of the chute, cover from Maverick and his crony-in-chief.

Bush: I Would Like To Close Guantanamo
“Obviously, the Guantanamo issue is a sensitive issue for people,” Bush told ARD German television. “I very much would like to end Guantanamo; I very much would like to get people to a court.

wise_man on January 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

“Present at Guantanamo are a number of detainees who have been cleared for release but have found no foreign country willing to accept them,” the senators said.

How on earth does closing Gitmo change that one little bit?

BadgerHawk on January 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Juan McVain is on board so it must be a good thing, right?

Elric66 on January 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Lemme guess – the order doesn’t answer the question “and then what?”.

What an issue on which to take a stand. I’m actually wishing he had voted “present” on this one.

landshark on January 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Maybe we could get Gorelick to re erect the wall between the CIA talking to the FBI again. Then everything will be right again.

MDWNJ on January 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM

How on earth does closing Gitmo change that one little bit?

BadgerHawk on January 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

They’ll be shown the front door of gitmo and be allowed to live in Cuba?

lorien1973 on January 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Please excuse me for a few minutes while I go purchase some more food and ammunition, and build a bunker…

meltenn on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

How on earth does closing Gitmo change that one little bit?

BadgerHawk on January 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

I was wondering the same thing. Are they going to remain in custody until a country will accept them? That changes nothing from the present condition. Or is the point that they’ve been cleared for release, so it’d be okay to let them go here?

amerpundit on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Obama did the easy part.

Now he can find homes for the 60 people granted release that are still there because no country will take them….

Chuck Schick on January 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM

No. Obama signed the proclamation (“with a flourish”, remember?)

His job is done. The responsibility for all the niggling little details will now rest on Hillary Clinton’s padded shoulders.

The Messiah can do no wrong; his acolytes make all of the mistakes. And rest assured, they will all receive His divine rath in due course.

Welcome to the next four years – or more.

logis on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

If you just concentrate on the way BHO whistles when he talks, then you don’t really have to hear what he has to say.

DJ from MA on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Therein lies the problem. Liberals tend to believe that our foreign policy is responsible for the terrorists’ actions. Therefore, changing our foreign policy should fix that.
amerpundit on January 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM

When changing policy does NOT change the terrorists’ hatred of the West, therein lies the solution, unfortunately at some probable high price. This will be the death of the “Kumbayah” foreign policy approach. For a generation.

Patrick S on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

I knew I should have picked up some “We’re Screwed 08″ bumper stickers last cycle!
Good Lt on January 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

It may take a year, it may take a little longer, but at some point, that joke will no longer be so funny when there are dead Americans in the streets.

And these two people are not the same.

wise_man on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

My point: it probably won’t be anyone’s “fault”. It’s unlikely that anyone at Gitmo will have info on terrorist plots currently being hatched against the USA. It’s entirely possible (even likely) that Bush’s vaunted anti-terrorism policies have missed some things that will hurt us down the road, but you and other fans don’t want to acknowledge that. This is all just an exercise in pre-emptive ass-covering, with little basis in reality.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at

But none of this IMPROVES some things Bush’s anti-terrorism policies might have missed either, does it?

The idea was that these moves make us SAFER than under Bush. This does nothing of the sort unless you actually believe in the positive-vibrations-turning-terrorists-into-community-service workers philosophy, as you obviously do.

Chuck Schick on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

wise_man on January 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

What’s your point? Is it that Bush wanted to close Gitmo, but didn’t because he realized it was the best option currently available?

BadgerHawk on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

There will be blood on their hands if something happens to this country.

jencab on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

I’ve always wondered: what do you stupid trolls eat? Fish heads? Baloney rinds?

TMK on January 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Can we not wish for bad things? Be an adult.

lorien1973 on January 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Perhaps if you were an adult you could recognize sarcasm.

DeweyWins on January 22, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Update: Right out of the chute, cover from Maverick and his crony-in-chief.

You conservatives want to put Republicans back in line?

JD Hayworth to challenge John McCain and anybody to challenge Harry Reid.

If come 2010 two Senators don’t make it back to Washington we will see a change in philosophy on both sides of the isle. A shakeup of that size would send an unmistakeable message.

Theworldisnotenough on January 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

But none of this IMPROVES some things Bush’s anti-terrorism policies might have missed either, does it?

We don’t know. If the closing of Gitmo or changing interrogation regulations can help us get other nations – who don’t want to be associated with it for political reasons – on board, it might help a heck of a lot more than it hurts.

Don’t assume you know anything about the current security situation of the USA. Staking your reputation on the success of anti-terror policies without any information might not be the wisest thing you can do.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

To be fair if anyone has the right to gripe about the potential use of torture on detainees at Gitmo it is John McCain considering what he and his fellow POW’s went through in Vietnam.

Dreadnought223 on January 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

My point: it probably won’t be anyone’s “fault”. It’s unlikely that anyone at Gitmo will have info on terrorist plots currently being hatched against the USA. It’s entirely possible (even likely) that Bush’s vaunted anti-terrorism policies have missed some things that will hurt us down the road, but you and other fans don’t want to acknowledge that. This is all just an exercise in pre-emptive ass-covering, with little basis in reality.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

1.A lot of those who already have been released have been found on the battlefield killing people.

2. Obama wants to take away interrogation methods that has given information stopping attacks.

the_nile on January 22, 2009 at 1:27 PM

If something similar happens on Obama’s watch, are you going to pin the blame on Bush’s policies over the last 8 years? I’m just guessing … no, it’ll be Obama’s fault …

Considering that Bush had eight months to reassemble what Clinton tore apart, the apparatus needed to fight the savages before 911 hit, that would be about right. You’ve been watching too many episodes of “24″, things don’t happen that fast or effectively in the real world.

Ogabe is busy tearing everything apart again, the system that has kept us attack-free in the U.S. for almost eight years, so yes it will be his fault.

Bishop on January 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM

There will be blood on their hands if something happens to this country.

jencab on January 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Blood, yes. Blame? Of course not. All the blame will fall on Bush’s war and how it did nothing but embolden terrorists and create more of them.

9/11 united this country for a brief period before it drove us apart. If something similar happens again, God forbid, I’m guessing we skip right past the “uniting” period.

World B. Free on January 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Man, am I glad I don’t live in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Fransisco or any other number of major cities.
Now when captured the AQ know they will have protection, so why say anything?
Fear and intimidation is the only thing that makes these animals “talk”.
And I can see more clearly then ever why McCain’s run was doomed…like so many said; why vote for an imitation when they can vote for Obama and get the real thing.

right2bright on January 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM

It’s entirely possible (even likely) that Bush’s vaunted anti-terrorism policies have missed some things that will hurt us down the road…

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

It’s easy to miss something in early stages, but as things become more and more complex and closer to fruition then they are caught via Bush’s policies.

You’ll never be able to stop the lone gunman or mall suicide bomber but W’s policies did stop the next 9/11. Obama is now dismantling those policies.

A man is elected mayor of a village protected by a picket fence, he doesn’t improve that fence and within the first few months the village suffers the worst attack in it’s history.

The mayor takes action and improves that picket fence into a stone wall which stops multiple attempts to repeat that attack. He leaves and the in his first few days the next mayor makes it a point to tear down that stone wall and replace it with the picket fence.

Who will be responsible the next time that fence is breached? The guy who left the stone wall or the one who tore it down.

The Gitmo detainees are dry husks as far as info is concerned I agree…give them their bullet and virgins and be done with them.

However, now the ones who do know about the next attack won’t be asked any more harshly than “Pretty please with goat on top?”

Any future attack during the Hussein Administration will be the fault of the Hussein Administration but you and other Hussein fans don’t want to acknowledge that. This is all just an exercise in pre-emptive Obama ass-covering, with little basis in reality.

Rogue on January 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Also unresolved is the type of judicial process that would replace the military commissions.

Not really. Federal district court in DC sounds right to me, and they’re way overdue for a bail hearing. So it’s probably better to release them in Georgetown or something with court dates and some money.

Beagle on January 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM

We must build the narrative that Obama is deconstructing the anti-terror apperatus that Bush built…The Republicans will never win if they cannot make this point that Obama is undoing the one thing that Americans think Bush got right: national security…

RedSoxNation on January 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Theworldisnotenough on January 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

I hope this happens. Maybe the obsession with Maverick would finally stop.

wise_man on January 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Nice one Maverick. Let’s apply the Geneva Convention to non-combatants.

Such utter stupidity.

Ares on January 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

I agree with everything you said.

wise_man on January 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Evidently, when you and Erin posted you had not yet noticed the update. You attempted to use this Obama decision as a “teaching moment” for all of us who found no reason to stick our necks out for McCain. But now we know McCain is walking hand in hand with Obama on this. Hand in hand “my friend”.

wise_man, I am waiting for my apology. Should I hold my breath?

Zetterson on January 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

It’s unlikely that anyone at Gitmo will have info on terrorist plots currently being hatched against the USA.

Charles Manson probably doesn’t know about any murders being planned either, better let him go. How about your neighborhood?

Bishop on January 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

We don’t know. If the closing of Gitmo or changing interrogation regulations can help us get other nations – who don’t want to be associated with it for political reasons – on board, it might help a heck of a lot more than it hurts.

Don’t assume you know anything about the current security situation of the USA. Staking your reputation on the success of anti-terror policies without any information might not be the wisest thing you can do.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

The ‘S’ is for ‘Stupid’, right?

DarkCurrent on January 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

1.A lot of those who already have been released have been found on the battlefield killing people.

You tout this as evidence for the success of the Bush administration’s policies? If anything, it’s a testament to their inability to identify who among the detainees is actually dangerous.

Think before you type.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

“All the blame will fall on Bush’s war and how it did nothing but embolden terrorists and create more of them.”

Its the qur’an that emboldens them and creates more of them, not Bush. 9-11 was hatched before Bush took office.

Elric66 on January 22, 2009 at 1:31 PM

E pluribus quinque: Bill, Hillary, Obama, McCain and Graham

Entelechy on January 22, 2009 at 1:31 PM

They’ll be shown the front door of gitmo and be allowed to live in Cuba?

lorien1973 on January 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM

They’ll be given government offices there.

capitalist piglet on January 22, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Today’s Final Score:
Global Terrorism 1
USA 0

Obama sells out his own country to satisfy the Hollywood wing of the Democratic Party. Blame America first socialists all over the planet are pleased. The “you cannot outlast us” inaugural promise lasted what?…less than 48 hours. Yep…you cannot outlast us. Al Queda’s response…”YES WE CAN.”

sdd on January 22, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Charles Manson probably doesn’t know about any murders being planned either, better let him go. How about your neighborhood?

Bishop on January 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Ayers’s whore of a wife would be all for it. They could talk about forks.

PimFortuynsGhost on January 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Why the devil should I care what McCain supports . . . I thought after that election fiasco we’d be rid of him.

rplat on January 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM

If anything, it’s a testament to their inability to identify who among the detainees is actually dangerous.

Think before you type. Shoot before anything.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Now we agree.

Entelechy on January 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM

We don’t know. If the closing of Gitmo or changing interrogation regulations can help us get other nations – who don’t want to be associated with it for political reasons – on board, it might help a heck of a lot more than it hurts.

Don’t assume you know anything about the current security situation of the USA. Staking your reputation on the success of anti-terror policies without any information might not be the wisest thing you can do.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

You’re just dreaming , if “we don’t know” it can go either way. There’s a lot of other nations doing far worse things than USA , and they still get cooperation.
This Gitmo bashing is a farce.

the_nile on January 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM

I hope this happens. Maybe the obsession with Maverick would finally stop.

wise_man on January 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM

The obsession will stop when he and his RINO cronies are out of power.

Elric66 on January 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Blood, yes. Blame? Of course not. All the blame will fall on Bush’s war and how it did nothing but embolden terrorists and create more of them.
World B. Free on January 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Oh, they’ll do it.

They tried to get us out of Iraq, and Harry Reid claimed that the war was lost. Another lie they used all the time was to say that the war in Iraq made us “less safe.” And in ‘less safe,’ that is there were ‘no attacks on American soil since 9/11′ Yet they also will do anything in their ability to make this ‘less safe’ claim of their a reality.

If we are hit again, you can count the seconds it would take the press and people like Olbermann to say that this is proof that the Iraq war made us ‘less safe’ and this was the result. – Not that it was Obama’s dismantling of the procedures in place that brought this to our doorstep.

wise_man on January 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM

It’s entirely possible (even likely) that Bush’s vaunted anti-terrorism policies have missed some things that will hurt us down the road…

Agreed, so dismantle the entire system or neutralize the most effective parts.

We are eventually going to be living like Israelis, told by the left that the occasional attack or slaughter is part of the price we need to pay for “peace” and that we are to blame for the outrages against us.

Bishop on January 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM

We don’t know. If the closing of Gitmo or changing interrogation regulations can help us get other nations – who don’t want to be associated with it for political reasons – on board, it might help a heck of a lot more than it hurts.

Don’t assume you know anything about the current security situation of the USA. Staking your reputation on the success of anti-terror policies without any information might not be the wisest thing you can do.

Big S on January 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

I know that if you cant hold someone and you cant try someone, you let that person go.

We have some major players that would be able to take option #3- KSM would be one of them.

Same with the detention centers. Any thought where you guys are going to do with those people.

As mentioned before, countries wont even take 25% of the people at Gitmo that the UNITED STATES finds harmless.

Show me dont tell me- as mentioned before, we know of released detainees that rejoined the jihad. Obama’s just going to create more of them.

Chuck Schick on January 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6