Obama: Close Guantanamo within year

We're gaining our dignity back one executive order at a time. Great job, President Obama!

Well thats his first mistake. I'm afraid this is only the beginning, I'm sure the abortion issue and stopping any drilling bailouts, what have you. I was hoping for a more middle of the road approach and a little higher moral position from this President. With the start of his administration already bowing to the far left, I'm sure you will not recognize America in 4 years.

Today, I am even prouder to be an American.

Sanity has returned to the Oval Office !! It doesn't get any better than that !!
What a great day for our democracy. Thanks, President Obama !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE.NOW.

Cue the completely terrorized right with their paranoid delusions that Supermax Federal Prisons aren't capable of securing these guys.

Great. Why take a year to close the coddle camp? Put them in with all the fed inmates. No special treatment. Trials in federal courts. Trust the American system, give them good public defenders like everyone else. Still seems to be a lot of caveats to all this. What is wrong with sending them to their home countries, if their not guilty? Why are we responsible for what they do to their citizens? Just end it.
Before you leftys get all excited about the Army field manual requirements on prisoners, check out the "classified" section, that is, if you can. Maybe the MSM will do it for you. Fat chance, have a nice day looking! Transparency!

Wow in just two days: Fiscal responsibility for even the Washington Elite, Family values (Grandma moves in) in the White House, and now giving even the most vile of our enemies a fair trial (our values don't trump our safety)!!! That Obama looks Divine is more a statement about his predecessor than himself.

Is this going to be another Jimmy Carter Mariel Boat Lift? Castro emptied out his jails and mental hospitals. Carter brought them to America, turned them loose and let them wreak havoc over here for years.

Meanwhile, the hero of the right, Rush Limpbrain, says he "wants Obama to fail". Another class move by the "country first" Repugs.

I guess they will have to shut down the Marine Brigs,If they haven't turned them into
day care centers!
in 1955, I had the pleasure of staying in one at North Island! Cold showers in the middle of the night, they hollered at me all the time,
made me scrub my cell,top to bo bottom before I could go to sleep,forced working parties, forced boxing matches between the inmates, smoking by the numbers. I was young and i thought it was pretty easy! I didn't know it was against the law ,I could have complained and gotten someone to hold my hand ahd give me candy!
our leaders are becoming a bunch Euro weenies, God help us!

Great, now what are we going to do with the terrorists? This whole thing is b.s. He's not going to close it within a year. This is a slap in the face to the victims familes of 9/11.

All of a sudden, I do not feel safe! Thanks Barrack Hussein Obama.

I love the USA. That said, today I am even more proud of our Country. Maybe we will get back to basic human rights. I know it will very hard at first. I have been very discouraged by the growing hostility from other countries and the displeasure of our allies. Maybe will are now on track to get our dignety back.

This is truly a proud day for our country. I look forward to our status as a respected model nation is restored around the world, and this is a huge step in the right direction!

"Great, now what are we going to do with the terrorists?"
~We're going to keep them in prison and even give them death penalties. However, we're not going to continue to demoralize the Americans who torture them.
I commend you Barack, for doing what's right.

Actually, this GITMO closing announcement is no big deal. What IS a big deal is WHAT Obama plans to do with the terrorists--not WHERE he plans to do it.

And on that, the above announcement punts--as usual for an Obama pronouncement. Instead of deciding policy, he "creates" a "task force" to decide.

Obama's actions make me ashamed to be an American. Fortunately, with each passing day, that's one day fewer that we have to suffer through the national embarrassment that is the Obama regime.

Maybe I'm just a fool but I thought when Obama said he'd issue an executive order closing Gitmo prison on his first full day as President, I thought he meant he'd issue the order AND close the prison, not issue an order to close the prison within a year!

Is this going to be another Jimmy Carter Mariel Boat Lift? Castro emptied out his jails and mental hospitals. Carter brought them to America, turned them loose and let them wreak havoc over here for years.

Posted by: Jorge | January 22, 2009 12:31 PM

Yeah, Jorge...we're going to give them each a car and a gun and turn them loose in Miami. You win for World's Dumbest Comparison.

Well thats his first mistake. I'm afraid this is only the beginning, I'm sure the abortion issue and stopping any drilling bailouts, what have you. I was hoping for a more middle of the road approach and a little higher moral position from this President. With the start of his administration already bowing to the far left, I'm sure you will not recognize America in 4 years.

Posted by: Paul | January 22, 2009 12:11 PM

Paul, can I assume English is not your first language? I really hope you're right about America in 4 years being "unrecognizable" when compared to the Hollow Shell of America Bush/Cheney left us with. In 4 years it might be starting to look like the Real America once again.

Why do the liberals care so much about the rights of terrorists while at the same time trodding all over the basic human right to life of the unborn!?

Where's the outrage over that!?

The whiny crybaby Republicans who want the Obama administration to fail should move out of the United States. Move overseas to a socialist country. Or move to South America. See how welcome you are. Obama will deliver leadership and direction, something Bush and the Republicans couldn'tproduce in 8 years.

Neocons - "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Normal people - America is proud once again."

Great, now what are we going to do with the terrorists? This whole thing is b.s. He's not going to close it within a year. This is a slap in the face to the victims familes of 9/11.

Posted by: Jeff | January 22, 2009 12:36 PM
John McCain said he would do the same thing. Think about that you Hate Obama/Hate all the time fRightwing goons.

I sure hope that we don't allow any "harsh interogations" of suspected terrorist too! Lordy knows we don't want to hurt their feelings.

Not sure any of this discussion makes a difference. As dt pointed out, the republicans are invested in failure as pointed out by Limpbag.

Oh the poor, poor terrorists. Now they can have justice the "American Way".

Yeah, and they'd love to kill anyone who believes in the "American Way". You lefties aren't gonna stop until we're the French.

Hey Chas - do you support the torture and detention of American Soldiers in foreign prisons without due process?

Do you???

Thank you Mr. Obama for restoring my pride in America. How can anyone still believe that you can combat an enemy by behaving exactly like the very enemy you claim to hate.
We had a window of opportunity right after 9-11 to use the support and good-will of the international community to rid this world of the unquestioned evils of terrorism, but it quickly closed as good people around the world recognized our actions and our approach as counter to what we, as Americans claimed to stand for. When this concern was voiced by leaders worldwide, we scoffed and mocked them as weak (remember french fries becoming freedom fries and wine being poured in the gutters). When the previous administration told us we were going to war with a country that shared no responsibility for the very reason we were at war in the first place, we blindly followed, even though not only our instinct, but evidence showed that we were being misled about Iraq.
We all share in the blame for the outcome that we now are witness to. We arrogantly waved flags, and howled for the attack dogs to be turned loose. Or, we stood by, intimidated into silence by the fear of being labeled "unpatriotic" or a "traitor", never giving any thought as to the consequences of the methods being used in this battle, nor the dangers of the unchecked powers being bestowed upon a president who quickly acted more like a king than a civil servant. Yes America, most of us are to blame for where we now find ourselves. We must remember our actions and learn from this, for a time will come again, when we' ll have the same decisions to make, of that I'm sure. And although the temptation is great, we can never again allow fear to motivate us into any action that is contradictory to who we are, as a people and as a country. We should never again sacrifice our values, ideals, or liberties in the name of security, for in doing so, we are giving up the greatest weapon that we have in ensuring the security that we so desire and we become the very thing that we, as a nation, claim to hate.
Let's never forget the path we just walked, the one where we, as a nation very nearly lost our way. And let us hope that we are getting an opportunity at a second chance at this, and if so, to take advantage of that opportunity by holding fast to the qualities that we, as a nation were admired for the world over. And by swearing never again to repeat the mistakes that very nearly cost us, as Americans, this nation we all hold so dear, for if we take lightly this opportunity at a fresh new start, we just might find it pass us by, never to come again.

themadtrader....
"Maybe I'm just a fool but ..."

You must be a fool if you thought they could close Gitmo in one day. Nice of you to admit it. Now educate yourself.

Posted by: "Dissent is Patriotic" | January 22, 2009 1:01 PM

Oh look.....now dissent is patriotic. Funny how just a little while ago it made you a coward, unamerican, a defeatist, and "unpatriotic".

“Meanwhile, the hero of the right, Rush Limpbrain, says he "wants Obama to fail". Another class move by the "country first" Repugs.”
.
Posted by: dt☢ | January 22, 2009 12:34 PM
.
Not that I’m interested in defending Limbaugh, but what you say isn’t at all correct. I caught a glimpse of a TV interview of him speaking on the subject. He didn’t say he wanted to see Obama fail. He said he wanted to see America succeed, and that he hoped Obama would succeed in doing the right things.
.
What he said (that you misinterpreted) is that he would like to see Obama’s administration fail in any effort to turn America into a country full of dependent citizens. He said that building a large nanny state (my term, not his) would put an end to America as we know it, because it would be a change that future generations could not roll back. He was very specific in stating that turning the U.S. into a nanny state was the one area in which he hoped the current administration would not succeed.
.
One doesn’t need to be a Rush Limbaugh or agree with 98% of what he says most of the time to agree with this sentiment. One doesn’t even have to be a Republican to agree with him on this one point.

Limbaugh said, “I disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he succeeds.’”

Sorry John W. that doesn't ring true with the words.

The rabid right is unbelievable.......as the "new" conservatives say now.....no to the bailout.....here is what they said a very short time ago. As with Limpbag....words mean something.

Here's House Minority Leader John Boehner (pronounced BOH-ner) falling in lock-step with the president on passing the bill with no oversight: "We don't need 535 members of Congress adding their best idea to this bill," Boehner said. "We need to keep it clean, simple, move it through the House and Senate, and get it on the president's desk."

Oh look.....now dissent is patriotic. Funny how just a little while ago it made you a coward, unamerican, a defeatist, and "unpatriotic".

Posted by: bill r. | January 22, 2009 2:11 PM

bill r., I think your sarcasm meter is a little off here. Otherwise, you would have noticed right away that "Dissent" was merely pointing out that, after 8 years of hearing from those who believed that calling Bush "Chimpy" was akin to saying the Pledge of Allegiance, it is a bit ironic to now hear from those same people that real patriotism is measured by whether you "hope Obama succeeds" in whatever he wants to do, whether you agree with it or not. See?

John W, you are out right lying. Here is the exact transcript of Limbaughs words from his very own website.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

"If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.""

Later...

"I'm happy to be the last man standing. I'm honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I'm the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn't, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I'm serious about this. Why in the world, it's what Ann Coulter was talking about, the tyranny of the majority, all these victims here, we gotta make sure the victims are finally assuaged. Well, the dirty little secret is this isn't going to assuage anybody's victim status, and the race industry isn't going to go away, and the fact that America's original sin of slavery is going to be absolved, it's not going to happen. Just isn't, folks. It's too big a business for the left to keep all those things alive that divide the people of this country into groups that are against each other. Yes, I'm fired up about this. "

Which word in "I hope he fails" was too long for you to understand? Show me where he says that he hopes Obama succeeds as you state. You won't be able to, because it simply isn't there. You lied. Tell us why John. Tell us why you felt compelled to completely fabricate what Limbaugh said, while claiming to be reluctant to defend him. I'm wondering who the worse person is, the one who wants the President of the United States to fail, or the guy who tells lies to try and defend him.

Wonder if closing Gitamo was nfluenced by the alleged heavy middle east contrabutions to his campaign.

Here's just another example of treating terrorism like a crime as opposed to an act of war. President Clinton treated all the terrorist acts under his watch as standard crimes and you saw all that turned out. Day by day we're forgetting just how horrible terrorism can be and we're gradually returning to 9/10/01. With these policies of his, there will be another attack on US soil before the end of his first term. Some Change.

JohnW. - you apparently are interested in defending the big windbag Limbaugh. Here is what he said:

"I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."
"I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it."
Source:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

Over and over the neocons kept asking "what change"? They kept saying that Obama had not changed anything because of some of his appointments. The neocons never could understand that "change" always meant a change in the way government does its business.

Today marks a huge "change" by bringing the United States back into being a government of law, justice, and civility. President Barack Obama and everyone who believed in him and his message of change. It is a great day for the United States and once again to feel proud to be an American.

Wingnuts, it's official, there's a new Sheriff in town and he's not a fan of your heroes on the fictional TV show 24.

Enoy your 4th party gadfly status Repubs, you earned every bit of it.

Should we spend a little more time thinking about these issues. For example, the following quote: SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE.NOW. No serious person advocates that, including our new President. We all would prefer that it happen sooner but does not one have to consider the costs associated with when and how that happens. Another example: "Put them in with all the fed inmates. No special treatment. Trials in federal courts. Trust the American system, give them good public defenders like everyone else." The people in Gitmo are not American citizens, did not commit acts on American soil and may not have "broken" any american law. There are questions as to whether you can even try such a person in an American court. That is why Gitmo was created in the first place.

Suppose the person is dangerous, are you willing to release them on a technicality? Obama apparently wants a year to think about it. Before people comment, a little research and thought might be in order.

* * * * *
Posted by: Bob | January 22, 2009 3:10 PM
.
* * * * *
Posted by: TIBN | January 22, 2009 2:56 PM
.
I am not lying, and I am not trying to defend him. Yesterday, in a television interview, he explained his views as I indicated above. See http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=214

Simply closing the Gitmo terrorist holding camp will not suddenly make US enemies like and respect us. Gitmo didn't even exist prior to 9/11, yet the radical islamists hated the US enough to kill thousands of Americans. They will continue to hate us after Gitmo is gone. I think its naive to think the reason they despise the "infidels" is because of Gitmo. It goes much deeper than that. Simply put, they hate our entire way of life. Gitmo or no Gitmo, don't expect the US to suddenly be liked and respected in the world.

gitmo has 250 prisoners more or less. some of them are terrorists and some are not. holding them in cuba where they are subject to no laws does not make americans any safer. by placing them in detention centers which are held accountable for treatment of the accussed we can restore our reputation without any risk to the american's who fear them. gitmo is an embarassment on a global scale. the guilty will be punished and the innocent shall be set free....who can fairly say that they themselves would not want the same chance at justice?

The new president chose to bow to the "usual suspects" among the chattering classes who have never come to grips with the fact that we are in a real war with determined enemies who have no place in our criminal judicial process. These are enemy combatants who must be regarded as such. The criminal jusitice system is totally inappropriate as a venue to deal with this situation. America will be less secure now with the closing of Guantanamo. This is yet another indication that we've elected an untried, untested, inexperienced neophyte as our nation's chief executive. While the NYT and the Washington Post will no doubt purr approvingly, it's unfortunate to say the least taht we have a president who panders to those who have no grasp of the challenges facing us. A poor beginning indeed.

Posted by: JB | January 22, 2009 2:54 PM

Oh I see.....somehow I thought there a difference between disagreeing with an ill thought out, ill managed war than hoping for an administration to fail. My mistake.

"Dissent" was merely pointing out that, after 8 years of hearing from those who believed that calling Bush "Chimpy" was akin to saying the Pledge of Allegiance, it is a bit ironic to now hear from those same people that real patriotism is measured by whether you "hope Obama succeeds" in whatever he wants to do, whether you agree with it or not. See?

Posted by: JB | January 22, 2009 2:54 PM

And for those same 8 years, disagreeing with President Bush was akin to aiding and abetting terrorists, trying to sabotage the whole country, America-Hating and treason. It's no less ironic to listen to THOSE people saying that NOW it's patriotic to stand up and speak their mind. Sure wasn't when they were the ones holding the reins.
.
Adjust your OWN sarcasm meter. Y'all are hypocrites. "Chimpy" EARNED the scorn he got through repeated ineptitude, incompetence (and REWARDING incompetence in others), arrogance and blind ideology. If Obama fails to the level that Bush failed, he'll ALSO have earned scorn -- and SHOULD be impeached, as Bush should have been.

The new president chose to bow to the "usual suspects" among the chattering classes who have never come to grips with the fact that we are in a real war with determined enemies who have no place in our criminal judicial process. These are enemy combatants who must be regarded as such. The criminal jusitice system is totally inappropriate as a venue to deal with this situation. America will be less secure now with the closing of Guantanamo. This is yet another indication that we've elected an untried, untested, inexperienced neophyte as our nation's chief executive. While the NYT and the Washington Post will no doubt purr approvingly, it's unfortunate to say the least that we have a president who panders to those who have no grasp of the challenges facing us. A poor beginning indeed.

FrankK: What did they give you Castro let you out of jail and Carter turned you loose in Miami? Car? Gun? Money? Girls?

very correct thing to do , Chicago could use some of them as community organizers!

it's unfortunate to say the least that we have a president who panders to those who have no grasp of the challenges facing us. A poor beginning indeed.

Posted by: Disgusted | January 22, 2009 3:47 PM

Do you mean like pulling marines out of Lebanon after the bombing?

...
These are enemy combatants who must be regarded as such. The criminal jusitice system is totally inappropriate as a venue to deal with this situation.

Posted by: Disgusted | January 22, 2009 3:47 PM
....

Crybaby,
The BushCo criminals rounded up hundreds of goat herders and possibly a few badguys and that's the problem.

They don't even know who they have and they never did.

If you think that's ok then I guess you won't have a problem with us rounding up you and your family, putting you in prison, calling you an enemy combatant and never giving you a trial, right?....I mean, you are a member of the rightwing lunatic fringe and you sound awfully unhinged to me....so maybe you should be locked up.

Jack Bauer is a fictional tv character and 24 is a fictional tv show, you Wingnuts need to keep reminding yourselves of that before you completely lose touch with reality.

"Not that I’m interested in defending Limbaugh, but what you say isn’t at all correct. I caught a glimpse of a TV interview of him speaking on the subject. He didn’t say he wanted to see Obama fail. "

Yes John W, you did lie, when you said "He didn’t say he wanted to see Obama fail". In fact the original statement you took issue with was completely correct, and your statement was incorrect. He clearly said that. That he tried to explain it away to gullible people after the fact doesn't change the reality of what he said. It also doesn't make your original statement in his defense truthful. You defended him. You lied. You got caught.

these people are prisoners of war and as such do not get to go home until the war is OVER. then and only then if they get to go home, unless there are war crimes that they have been charged with. Its a WAR PEOPLE not summer camp

Closing Gitmo is just a little more lost when trying to fight war on terror. Having a weapon to use on terrorists like Gitmo was a psychological method that could be used when needed. All we had to do was threaten a terrorist with going to Gitmo and it changed them and their defiance. Softened them up because they knew it was a bad place for terrorists. Like the criminals in the 20's-30's being sent to the "Rock", last place they wanted to go. Just the first example of Obama showing his panty waste side. We will see a lot more of it in the future.

They are prisoners of war in a military detention center. they don't need to be charged and they don't go home until the war is OVER. If they have committed war crimes, then they get tried by a military tribunal. There is a war going on people.

The problem is that Rush and the thug Rethuglican crowd cannot offer any explanation as to why the Gitmo detainees should not, if convicted, be held in US prisons, as all terrorists prior to 9/11(such as the First WTC bombers and Terry Nichols) were dealt with.

The answer is that the detainees on US soil have a right to a trial and the neocons never intended to try these people, merely to hold them for the rest of their lives.

Not surprising after listening to the so-called "leadership" of the Rethuglican party the last year or so.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKtuXmorlSY
.

Strange. What the reporter didn't report was that Obama had to repeatedly ask his attorney for details on the executive order Obama was supposed to have authored. Could you imagine if Bush or Reagan or any other Republican, in a press conference, had to ask an aide to define a program, what the media clamor would have been? We don't ask for much; just accurate reporting...for a change.

these people are prisoners of war and as such do not get to go home until the war is OVER. then and only then if they get to go home, unless there are war crimes that they have been charged with. Its a WAR PEOPLE not summer camp

Posted by: John | January 22, 2009 4:18 PM

I agree, BushCo shouldn't be allowed to go home until they are tried on the war crimes that they committed in our name.

Could you imagine if Bush or Reagan or any other Republican, in a press conference, had to ask an aide to define a program, what the media clamor would have been? We don't ask for much; just accurate reporting...for a change.

Posted by: Derrick | January 22, 2009 4:39 PM

So why don't you get a press pass and ask them yourself, Bruce?

Waaaaaaaaaah!

* * * * *
Posted by: TIBN | January 22, 2009 4:10 PM
.
Did you even watch the video in the link I provided? I am not going to waste my time quibbling over the matter with you. The facts are: (1) I didn’t read his original statement; and (2) he explained what he meant in the video of his interview. What he said is that, if Obama wants to create a nanny state, he wants that endeavor to fail. He does not say that he wants America or the government to fail if Obama and the government take this country in the right direction. His first statement, without any explanation, may have lent support for your view. Now that he has explained himself, one has to look at his views in their totality. I have done that. None of the other posters here, including you, have. I hope I don’t have to spoon feed that to you again.

Why do all of you call the republicans the cry babies, funny thing I haven't heard a lot of complaining from the republicans. I think we are in big trouble now that the Obama regime is in power. We're going to end up a socialist society in less than 4 years. The dems will give it all away, just like the dems decided to give social security benefits to immigrants and ignore the hard working americans that pay their taxes to the government.

Please tell me what country must surrender for the War to be over? What Country do we need to make peace with?

How does the War on Terror end?

Those who claim they are POW's and should only go home when the "war" is over are actually arguing for perpetual detention.

Wars happen between soveriegn nations. This is NOT a war. We are not fighting any soveriegn nation, or any group that even claims that status.

Bush didn't commit any war crimes you cry baby, Les. What he did was kept this country safe after 9/11. Mr. Clinton sure didn't do anything about terrorism and we were attacked more under his administration than Bush's. Our military is proud of the job they have done, I know because I have family in the military. They can't stand the fact that Obama is in power.

None of the other posters here, including you, have. I hope I don’t have to spoon feed that to you again.

Posted by: John W. | January 22, 2009 4:57 PM

What part of this don't you understand?

Druggy Rush said it and here it is on tape:
.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rush-limbaugh-passes-out-his-marching-o
.

I hope the radical right continues to take their marching orders from Rush and Hannity because that will mean that they will be out of power for even longer than I suspect they will be now.

What's the surprise? He did what he said he was going to do. He'll order the troops out of Iraq within 16 months, socialize healthcare, make unions into the pillars of socialism, have government control banking and give away money and raise taxes in a couple of years to "equalize things". Pelosi and Reid, Durbin , etc. will certainly help him. Sit back and enjoy the ride down, but we'll have our pride!

John W, if you didn't read his original statement, why on earth would you make a post telling someone else, who did read his original staement, that they were wrong about what Limbaugh said in his original statement? You were so reluctant to defend Limbaugh, yet you felt the need to correct someone about a statement you now say you were ignorant of? That doesn't sound like a very sensible course of action. You didn't say that he had explained it. You said he never made the statement. A complete falsehood. You spin madly away, trying to explain away your lie, just as Limbaugh tries to explain away his original, clear statement.

Next time try to know what you are talking about before you accuse other of being wrong. You make yourself look doubly foolish when you don't. You'd come off alot better if you just accepted your error, and apologized to the original poster who you falsely accused of getting it wrong.

...
We're going to end up a socialist society in less than 4 years. The dems will
Posted by: Laurel | January 22, 2009 5:07 PM
....

Giving tax cuts to the lower and middle class Americans isn't socialism, Einstein...but if you crybaby Repuglicans want to continue on with that already failed meme, by all means, please do so.
It has already failed for you, resulting in two straight landslide elections for the Repugs.

What's the surprise? He did what he said he was going to do. He'll order the troops out of Iraq within 16 months, socialize healthcare, make unions into the pillars of socialism, have government control banking and give away money and raise taxes in a couple of years to "equalize things". Pelosi and Reid, Durbin , etc. will certainly help him. Sit back and enjoy the ride down, but we'll have our pride!

Shouldn't the President wait for the recommendations as to what to do with the prisoners BEFORE ordering the closure of Gitmo?

What if the committee comes back and says, "sorry Mr. President, the current situation is the best. Closing Gitmo would require moving these enemy combatants into an already overcrowded penal system."

I, for one, don't think it is smart to move Islamic extremists onto US soil voluntarily.

Guys, give it up. John W will never admit he was wrong. He thinks he's never been wrong on any topic. This is a guy who believes his legal knowledge surpasses that of every Supreme Court Justice of the past 70 years, and that his economic knowledge surpasses that of every member of the Federal Reserve Board. He really believes deeply in his own infallibility. Facts will never penetrate the thick shell of his own self regard.

I can see that IQs have been dropping at a faster rate than I thought. Let’s start off with the basics. The people held at Gitmo are currently detained there for two different reasons. Some are held as “enemy combatants.” In normal parlance, that means they are held as Prisoners of War. Prisoners of war aren’t put on trial. It is illegal to put them on trial. They are held in custody to keep them from rejoining the battle. That is a practice permitted under international law. Experience has proven again and again that, if you let them out, they will return to the battle and make war with our forces. Somewhere between 40 and 60 such enemy combatants have, in fact, returned to the battle after their release, and have either been recaptured or killed. So, if we insist on either a trial or release of all Gitmo detainees, then we can expect most of them to be released and to return to fight us again in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
.
It is only the second group of people - i.e. those held as “unlawful enemy combatants” - who are supposed to be tried for war crimes. Their transfer to the United States for trial in civilian courts poses a different, but equally interesting dilemma. That’s because civilian courts don’t have trial jurisdiction over war crimes. (At least, not the last time I looked.) It’s not that Congress couldn’t invest civilian courts with jurisdiction to try war crimes. It certainly has that power. The problem is that Congress hasn’t done so. Thus, trying them as “terrorists” or under some other, existing law over which civilian courts have jurisdiction could raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction.
.
Furthermore, assuming civilian courts had or were given jurisdiction to try war crimes, there might be a plethora of constitutional issues which prevent any trial. These guys have been held for years. Civilian crimes, with a few notable exceptions, are subject to statutes of limitations. Might they not have expired already? (Not all war crimes involve murder, mayhem or similar inhumane treatment.) Due process and speedy trial rights which attach to civilian prosecutions could also have been violated because of the delay and the resulting inability to present evidence for the defense. Any new procedure or change in the definition of the crime - to vest civilian jurisdiction over war crimes - could violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Prosecutions in federal court require indictments, and none of these detainees have been indicted. There may be other serious issues regarding the right to present a defense, to confront and cross-examine impossible to find witnesses, rules regarding the use of hearsay and privileged intelligence information, and so on that makes it impossible to try them in civilian courts under prevailing procedures. Thus, transferring the war crimes cases to civilian courts could effectively set free all those who are suspected of war crimes. If setting them free is Obama’s plan, he can simply order the prosecutions abated. He doesn’t have to go through the pretense of bringing them to the states just to watch the prosecutions languish on the horns of domestic criminal procedure.

* * * * *
Posted by: TIBN | January 22, 2009 5:24 PM
.
I’ll explain it one last time, and maybe it will seep in. The fact that Limbaugh explained himself means that it was no longer valid to take his first statement (on 01/16) at face value TODAY. One had to look at both statements (01/16 and 01/22) in combination. Had I told dt he was wrong on January 16, 2009, the substance of Limbaugh’s statement on that date would have made me incorrect, as it would have validated your claims regarding “lying.” Now that we are here on January 22, 2009, after Limbaugh explained his position, it is no longer valid to simply look at his first statement on January 16, 2009 (that you and dt were relying upon) and represent that his January 16, 2009 statement represents a complete or accurate statement of his position. In other words (and I know I can’t work too hard at making this too simple), dt’s unqualified claim TODAY about what Limbaugh thinks, just like your claim TODAY, is inaccurate insofar as it is based entirely on Limbaugh’s statements six days ago - which is neither a complete or accurate explanation of his position. Furthermore, my claim regarding his statements (in their totality) is accurate even if I didn’t look at his first statement until now BECAUSE his second statement accurately reflects what one must understand about his position. I think that came out in my first post to dt when I described what I saw in the television interview (that obviously didn’t happen on January 16, 2009).

* * * * *
Posted by: otis | January 22, 2009 5:17 PM
.
Get it straight, Otis, and listen to everything in context. Limbaugh stated that he wanted what he called Obama’s left wing policies to fail. Limbaugh views Obama and his administration as embodying a “liberal” agendum of transforming this country into a nanny state with state run industries. THAT is what Limbaugh said he wanted to see fail. He has, in the meantime, stated that he doesn’t want America, the federal government or Obama to fail to the extent that they do the right things for this country.
.
I strongly suspect that if it were Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton or anyone else, you all would have said, “No, no - you have to take everything in context to understand what he/she is saying.” That’s exactly the kind of apology that was offered when Obama came under criticism for stating that he would meet with the leaders of Iran without any apparent pre-conditions. It just happens to be that, now, since we are talking about Limbaugh instead of Obama, you get very selective in the kinds of things you care to hear. To be precise, you hope and listen for the worse just to satisfy yourselves, and then proceed to ignore the rest of what he says or its context. Don’t fool yourself. You would be acquitted if put on trial for being open minded.

Posted by: John D | January 22, 2009 5:27 PM

Yes, John D, those Unions are pillars of socialism. Allowing workers to organize is truly un-american. They should be kept as powerless and low paid as possible. They should have no say in workplace conditions. They should take whatever meager scraps management offers them humbly and without complaint. The worker is there to work, nothing more. Their lives should be nasty, short and brutish. That is the Capitalist way. Crush the unions completely and we shall have a great country for us elites who deserve it. The rest, well, let's be honest, they really don't matter, right John? Not like You and me. We deserve to profit from the sweat of their brow far more than they do.

themadtrader....
"Maybe I'm just a fool but ..."

You must be a fool if you thought they could close Gitmo in one day. Nice of you to admit it. Now educate yourself.

Posted by: mort | January 22, 2009 2:10 PM

At least I have original thought Bozo.

John W, you really should just stop digging, your hole is more than deep enough. You lied. We all know it. the facts are clear. Limbaugh said it, you said he didn't say it. You are just making yourself look silly now. Have some dignity and take your lumps like an adult, rather than like a petulant child. You sound like Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is.

...
To be precise, you hope and listen for the worse just to satisfy yourselves, and then proceed to ignore the rest of what he says or its context. Don’t fool yourself. You would be acquitted if put on trial for being open minded.

Posted by: John W. | January 22, 2009 6:33 PM
....

What is it with conservatives like you anyway?

No matter what the issue you can't seem to wrap your head around another point of view no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

This is EXACTLY why you are now the minority party.
Just because you have to have the last word DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE RIGHT!

Loudmouths like you and Limbaugh are the number one reason why I am no longer a Republican.

RUSH SAID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

....and he's an idiot.

John W....I understand what you are trying to say....however......do you think wishing for failure whether it be a liberal agenda or not a "wise" decission? You may say what you want about Bush and the war....but I don't remember anyone wishing failure for the conservatives/ party in power/country. Limpbag can explain all he wants but that doesn't change the context of what he said. Call a spade a spade.

"At least I have original thought Bozo."
Posted by: themadtrader

So why don't you tell us what it was???

Our country is disolving before our eyes and all BHO can do is a little grandstanding for the media like a puppet. And, spend money that we don't have like he's mad at it. Well, I guess he doesn't know any better.

Bill r-

The reality is that John W feels exactly the same as Limbaugh. He is hoping for failure. He'd rather see this nation suffer than be wrong. A succesful America resulting from liberal policies is their worst nightmare. They'd rather see the nation go through another Great Depression than modify their worldview and politics.

There'd be nothing wrong with saying " I think Obama's policies are going to fail. I hope I'm wrong, and that they are good for this country, but I really don't think that will happen."

But that's not how guys like Limbaugh and John think. They need to be right. Always. Every single time. Millions suffering is nothing to them as compared to never admitting they may have been wrong. As Rush said, It's all about victory to them, not success. Their egos remaining intact is the only thing that matter. Don't expect these guys to care what happens to America. They will happily sacrifice everything just to be able to say "I was right and you were wrong." Their first Identifier is "Conservative", American comes in a far second.

* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | January 22, 2009 7:45 PM
.
Do I think it was wise for Limbaugh to say what he did? Absolutely not. I am sure it would have been much wiser to couch his objection to Obama’s agendum in terms of opposition to specific goals or issues - as opposed to the personal focus on Obama’s success or failure. Then again, I at least understand that Limbaugh’s focus on Obama has to do with the fact that he views an Obama “success” narrowly as the creation of a nanny state and a command economy, and that anything short of that would be an Obama “failure.” That is why his objection makes him sound like he wants a total failure. That is not, however, all he said. In context, his objections were directed entirely to the creation of a nanny state. He didn’t say he wanted the government or country to fail in general. Rush Limbaugh, despite those who like him, isn’t as good with words as he seems.
.
I won’t take your cue for talking about Bush and the Iraq war. I have long believed that the Iraq war was foolish in the face of any proffered justification, and that Bush was neither a good President nor a good conservative. However, I must also disagree with you that there were no voices hoping for conservatives/party in power to fail during Bush’s administration. There were lots of them. If you didn’t see them, it’s only because you weren’t in the right place to perceive them.

And thus a promise is kept...

* * * * *
Posted by: An Observer | January 22, 2009 8:35 PM
.
That is unmitigated nonsense. I don’t want this country to fail. If anything, I fear some of Obama’s policies precisely because I do not believe they will bring us to recovery. I am firmly convinced that, if America succeeds, it will be in spite of - and not because of - some of these plans. The new stimulus and re-worked Wall Street Bailout are two featured parts of his plans, and both are wrongheaded ideas. I thought this kind of stuff was bad when it came from Bush. All the same, the Obama administration is moving ahead to spend trillions of dollars we can’t afford on programs that have previously failed in this country and elsewhere. I am not afraid these plans will raise people up when executed. If I thought they would help people, and were temporary emergency measures, I would support them regardless of any theoretical misgivings. What I am afraid of is that, when executed, these plans will have no appreciable positive effect on people’s lives, and will simply drive us deeper into debt. If you can tell me how that is going to help millions of people, please do so - because I am otherwise at a loss to figure out how.
.
Furthermore, your logic, or lack thereof, mystifies me. You suggest there would be nothing wrong with saying (and I quote), “I think Obama's policies are going to fail. I hope I'm wrong, and that they are good for this country, but I really don't think that will happen.” What is right with saying such a thing? If I rationally believe policies are doomed to failure, even if I hope I’m wrong, why should I believe they are “good for the country?” Failures, and especially those bearing multi-trillion dollar price tags, are most definitely not good for the country. So, if I believe they are doomed to failure, the logical response would be to oppose them. Or do you think I should consider these plans “good for this country” because they are well intended? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions - and that isn’t the path upon which I care to see my country travel.
.
Finally, your suggestion that I care more about being right than the plight of millions or the fate of this country is absolutely insane. In the first place, I have no illusions of grandeur that my views, right or wrong, are going to have any effect on anyone, much less millions of people. Why you get your contrary ideas can only be explained by the Kool-Aid you’ve been drinking. In addition, your suggestion that I would wish pain and destruction just for the sake of being right both misjudges my esteem for my fellow countrymen and fails to take into account that I must share whatever fate befalls them. I can’t afford to move cross town, much less to another country (as if any countries were doing any better). So, if I urge a position, it is because I not only believe it is in my best interests, but that it is also in the best interests of everyone else affected.
.
The rest of what you have written is simply mean spirited. As a self-appointed member of the thought police, you are a dismal failure.

These dingbats, that are hoping for President Obama's failure, are irrelevant, as the election has proven. Let them rant and rave, all they want. America is much bigger than their small-mindedness. The Republicans are in retreat, trying to solve a very serious question: How do we sell capitalism to a democracy, without lying, without exploiting and without them knowing, we are doing these things, to them? The Corps are robbing this country blind and people are beginning to realize this and are not happy with this !! No where in our Constitution does it state " Corporate rights " and yet, they claim to have constitutional rights. That is what you call, the best government money can buy !! Enough of this oligarchy, let the people live their lives without the burden of financing the lavish life style of the Few !! Give America back to the People and put Corporate America in its place !! Bring those jobs back to America and quit trying to emasculate the American worker, in particular, the American union worker !
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

What a lame decision. His ardent belief that "It is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to deal with the... violence'' of terrorism" ignores the fact that 9/11 antedates Gitmo, "torture", etc. Apparently the 19 terrorists on the planes were not impressed by our then "strength" or our then "moral high ground". I doubt that they'll have a change of heart just because of O's latest round of saccharine sentiments. Mr. Barack Hussein Obama tragically fails to grasp the simple truth that what makes us a target for the Islamic extremists isn't Gitmo or Bush, but our very way of life---abortion, Hollywood, and the trappings we have of a free society. His short-sightedness isn't new, it's characterized even his earliest post 9/11 writing.
I wonder how much it will cost the United States for him to learn what is obvious to everyone else. Unlike Mr. Obama, I shudder to think of the implications of letting these combatants loose. This guy lives in some kind of fairyland. If he keeps going on like this, HOPE ain't gonna save us. Al Qaeda is too gritty to lose in the face of this cotton puffery.

As I said about 1 yr ago, there really does need to be a Truth Commission.

One of the topics that needs to be examined by a TC is:

how effective was the torture conducted by the Bush Admin.?

Accounting for all the homicides in custody.

What vile plots were uncovered and prevented thereby?

Of the ones already released, why were they released and why did it take so long?

And of the remaining ones, why are they still being held?

A TC needs to issue a report like th e 9/11 report.

Because on O'Lierly the set up already began tonight with Laura Ingram (Ingraham?) who said, refering to the order of today, that "if US is hit again it is all over for Obama".

As if Gitmo keeps American from being hit.

Bring on the Truth Commission.

OK, a dear friend who is as far right as I am in the other direction today phoned and said Barack screwed up on some details in an Order and had to ask some assistant what was in the order.

Tell me it isn't so--or that this is some Limbaughian exaggeration.

Can someone provide a link to a transcript???

Can't be on camera asking someone else what was in the order, right????

Must catch up on sleep.

What I like about this plan is that finally something is going to happen to sort these guys out. If this is done properly it will help sort out the real terrorists from the those who are being held without good reason. Overall, this is a good move to repair the bad reputation America has received over the past few years. I just hope this doesn't blow back in our faces.

John W....One last word and I'll drop it. The problem I see with this is that Obama was given these extrordinary problems.......he did not come to Washington to create a nanny state, but this crisis calls for drastic action. Now we can debate how to achieve it, but something has to be done. I don't remember Limpbag saying a word about this crisis before....but now he uses this crisis to increase his listenership. He is just a blowhard that makes his living off of dividing America.

He also will attempt to recast the world's view of the U.S. ~ M.S. ("He" is President Obama)
--------------------------------------

This is obviously a very important issue for Liberals. That is, that the rest of the World will love us. Enemy Combatants can have the legal representation that they are entitled to within the American Legal System. How will we know, though, when the rest of the World appreciates that pious moment? Will there be an announcement on CNN? Campbell Brown is pretty. I made her an honorary Pretty Latina. Maybe Larry King will get the call, but how will we otherwise know that the moment has come when the World Collective has decided to make us popular again, and exactly when did they stopped loving on us anyway? The U.N. That would be a good place to make the announcement, but is it available.

Sure do not want to miss the announcement from the World. "Hopefully", Liberalism does not get us all killed before that happens.

Django points out a fundemental difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe that a respect for freedom and basic rights makes a country weak. They believe diplomacy is a sign a weakness. They believe torture and the brutal use of force makes a country strong.

Fundementally they don't think a country based on the principals the US is based on can compete in the world. Anytime there is a challenge their first response to to start to compromise those principals. They believe tyranny is stronger than freedom at a basic level. Dajngo and his like believ that terror is in fact stronger than freedom. They think fear is the answer to terror. They believe that it would be better if the world feared America rather than admired it.

Liberals don't. Liberals believe that those basic principals are what makes us strong. Liberals believe that the US has become the power it is specifically because of, not in spite of, those principals. We lead best when we lead by example, not by fear and power.

closing Guantanamo represents a step in the right direction; pretty soon the U.S. will be able to join the world community once again