Kristol: McCain And Graham Plan To Introduce Legislation Undermining Supreme Court Decision On Guantanamo

That's exactly why...

however the Obama campaign can turn this around and show that McCain has a complete lack of faith in the legal system... complete lack of understanding on human rights issues... complete lack of compassion...

I'm sure the list can go on.

It was passed the last two times the court decided against Gitmo policy. This time, I actually agree with the idea, at least as far as making them all go to the same court. Otherwise they'll all flood over to the 9th circuit, who will gleefully free 100% of them just to stick it to the fed. Actually, that might work out well. SCOTUS overrules the 9th circuit loons in almost every single case. Making up a new court is kinda fishy, but let's just pick one, like whatever one is at the appropriate level and covers DC. No cherrypicking.

Check out my column tomorrow as I will have a full exegesis up on this ridiculous, but limited, decision. All the court did in its decision was simply tell the Congress to go back and amend Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to meet what the majority deems as constitutional muster.

Talk about a political move. This legislation will never be passed by Congress, so why introduce it? So the Republican Party can say the Democrats are "weak on terror" before the November elections.

Its wedge politics at it's worse...
We all know that Congress would never usurpe the SupremeCourt after such a long time considering this issue. I twould completely abrogate the determination that the Supreme court made when it determined the legal status of Guantanamo Bay and its relationship to the UNited States. Now if any of you quibble about this commetn i just made go right ahead I qwilling to have a long debate on this issue !

Please note that the petitioners for the detained who stood before the bench wore the Uniform and brass of JAG.

I don't remember which magazine it was, but some JAG officer wrote an article in which he remarked "once we start having show-trials, it's all over". Frankly, the lack-of-faith the Bush Administration is demonstrating towards our court system is what's really shocking, whatever their true intentions are.

I have no faith in our court system. It freed the juice!

Well doesn't that attitude kinda suck when you're the President? I mean, we've got to show faith in SOME kind of court system in this country, right?

I dunno. If I were president, I'd have faith in the executive branch. If I were a judge, I'd have faith in the judicial branch. We all gravitate towards relying on systems that we understand, systems that we control. Not excusing his lack of faith in the system, but I don't have any, either. I'm a Soldier. My faith is in my rifle. Or, as my engineer buddy puts it, "there is no problem so large that it cannot be overcome by a sufficient quantity of expertly emplaced explosives"

Well the juice was freed but the guy they're talking about is from Bosnia. Wrong place, wrong time. Where is this place? When was this time? Is he accused?

Great thoughts Paladin. Rings most credible somehow or other.

Most of it comes not from the Honchos but the young conscript.

Not true. I'm in Iraq as we speak, seeing the fruits of interrogations. The guy that took a $20 payday to dig a hole for a bomb yields nothing of value because he knows nothing of value.

Interrogation is useful to discover what you don't know and in either case if the one captured is a person of rank, they will be missed and all SOP and communications links will be changed.

You would think this to be the case, and it makes perfect sense. I'd certainly do things that way. But the reality on the ground over here is that this is the exception, not the rule.

Not advocation torture or anything, just pointing out that your theories don't accurately reflect reality.

@ Septic Skeptic:

While I would agree that many things are different from my time in that the use of non-aligned civilians is more prevalent and the chains of command are more fragmented and localized; the differentiation of purposes between Torture and Interrogation should still stand -- although I must admit that my Officer's Field Manual on Land and Sea Warfare has not been updated since the 1974 addendum. That leaves me ignorant of the current covers.

Also element deployment is significantly different and no one should second guess the boots on the ground.

Be well, your family awaits you.

the use of non-aligned civilians is more prevalent

Very true.

chains of command are more fragmented and localized

Also very true. Zarqawi would be able to tell you nothing about terrorism in Mosul other than, at best, the names of a few city-level dirtbags...which, if you're doing your job, you already knew.

The real money is made off of the mid-level management. Killing or capturing the bottom level is almost a waste of time, and getting the top level guys gives you nothing more than a propaganda victory. The ones in the middle are the key in this particular fight.

differentiation of purposes between Torture and Interrogation should still stand

It does. I guess we agree more than I at first believed. Thank you for your well wishes.

your theories don't accurately reflect reality

Let me modify that. Your experience doesn't accurately reflect today's reality.

Septic,...I am privileged to get some straight information on what's going on over there.
The press is turning the war into taffy. I for one can't figure out what's spin anymore. Everything is suspect. So any way thanks for communicating. Come home safe.

The justices aren't writing policy. The policy was written in 1787:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

No rebellion. No invasion.

It's even more dangerous having the President of the United States writing laws as s/he wants... regardless of actual legality.

All three of you are wrong.

They are Militant Combatants

They are common criminals. Calling them anything else elevates them.

The justices aren't writing policy. The policy was written in 1787:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

This only applies to Americans. It should apply to the whole world, maybe some day it will. For now, you should substitute the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in your argument.

President of the United States writing laws

That is, gentlemen, a power reserved to the legislative branch of our very broken government.

1) No matter what they are called... they are still people who believe they are fighting for their country/religion/beliefs and are enemies in which you are combating... it's very hard to say that they are not "enemy combatants."

2) The Declaration of Independence states nothing about it applying only to Americans... actually it states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That doesn't say Americans only... that says "all men."

3) For the past 7.5 years the President of the United States has been either interpreting or changing laws. It may be reserved to the legislative branch, as it should, but it is practiced by "Dubyah."

I direct you to your own statement to show why this happens:

just pointing out that your theories don't accurately reflect reality.

This has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence, but an interpretation of the Constitution, which begins "We the People of these United States"

Thank you, wwct. This isn't the first time he's made that mistake, but the other occurence was also today, so we'll give him time to absorb the education.

And here's a slightly tongue-in-cheek response to the idiotic notion that non-Americans should enjoy the protection of American laws: Just as soon as they register with selective service and file a tax return. The not so tongue in cheek point behind that is that American law includes rights AND responsibilities. It's a package deal. To sign up, apply for naturalization.

the President of the United States has been either interpreting or changing laws.

He hasn't changed a single law. That's not within his powers. I think I just said that. Why do you make me repeat myself? Anyone charged with applying the law is forced to interpret it. Anyone disagreeing with his interpretation has the right to challenge that interpretation in court. Which happens. A lot. Case in point: The SCOTUS decision we're currently debating.

This has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence, but an interpretation of the Constitution, which begins "We the People of these United States"

Now I've read everything... are you meaning to imply that the Declaration of Independence isn't important. That document should not be followed? You must be the same as the Skeptic that wants to just ignore Ethical law.

Anyway, to humor you... as well as myself...

The Constitution is the legal system created to provide "Constitutional" law.

The Constitution actually applies, in my interpretation, to these individuals because the government brought them into custody of the United States of America.

Resident aliens is interpreted, by the courts, as those who have established a form of practical residency in the US, regardless of their status as undocumented or "illegal" aliens.

We brought them into the US. We gave them "practical" residency in a military prision, which is considered US property.

By my interpretation, Bush brought the Supreme Court's ruling on himself.

Lucky for Bush though, I'm not a justice.

That document should not be followed?

That document explains why we gave ole George the finger. It establishes no legal rights for anyone. There's nothing to "follow".

Whose ethical law would you like to apply? Yours? Zaid Khalid's? The Dalai Lama's?

We brought them into the US. We gave them "practical" residency in a military prision, which is considered US property.

Wrong again. Technically, Gitmo is cuban territory.

When is a US military base built in a foreign land American soil and when is such a base foreign soil?

It's American soil when John McCain, born at a US naval air station in the Panama Canal Zone, is running for president of the United States.

It's foreign soil when George W. Bush needs somewhere to indefinitely incarcerate, torture and even execute those he labels "unlawful enemy combatants."

Also, understand ethics and morals and the differences between the two before speaking of such. I will not continue to discuss the most important law with the likes of you. Luckily I can choose not to... unlike the detainees that must talk to their "masters."

The Declaration of Independence is the document that we sent that told "ole George" that all men are created equal and we're not going to be treated different anymore... I'd say that's a bit more than just a letter that "gave ole George the finger."

Of course I was being flippant. My point was that the Declaration of Independence is an expression of the principles on which the country was founded. But it establishes no laws. And I continue to insist that those who would derive rights from American law should also suffer the responsibilities that come with it. I do believe that to be fair.

The U.S. exercised sovereignty over the canal at the time of his birth.

In the ruling by SCOTUS they determined that Cuba, not the US, is the sovereign. However, because the prisoners are under the authority of the United States, the laws governing how they should be processed fall under our legal system (excellent interpretation Vance, IMO).

The writ of habeas corpus extends all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215, not the US Constitution. This is old stuff here, not anything new by any stretch of the imagination. These laws have been universally accepted and followed for centuries precisely because of the power grabbing foolishness demonstrated by the current administration.

Any president, senator, or congressman should have known better to sign off on any legislation that circumvents these basic rights (citizen or otherwise). Any person aspiring to the seat of the house, senate, or the presidency that would agree with the removal of this liberty should be denied a position of authority; this should be an imperative of the citizenship.

McCain, no soup for you.

I know the origin of the writ. History is my demesne. My point, however, is that no U.S. law guarantees this right to those detainees as long as they do not set foot on American soil.

So you either accept or endorse the bizarre legal vacuum created to make people disappear? You deny them privelage under the Geneva Conventions, then remove any ability for the accused to have a fair trial (unless you are actually supporting the notion that the trials granted under the MCA are, in fact, fair), and top it all off with no way for the detainee to challenge the validity of their imprisonment, is this an acceptable way for our country to operate?

My point, however, is that no U.S. law guarantees this right to those detainees as long as they do not set foot on American soil.

And, as a minor point, 5 justices on the Supreme Court disagree with you.

Actually, five of them disagree with my reading of the law AS WRITTEN. Four of them agree with me. I just think the law is wrong. So I agree with the majority in principle, that habeas corpus should apply, but I agree with the minority in fact that it does not apply. I'm happy for them to get a day in court. But let's make it one court for all, no cherrypicking allowed. I have repeatedly suggested the federal district covering DC.

As for MCA trials...they don't go as far as civilian courts to stack the deck in favor of erring on the side of the accused. I can see where some would have a problem with that. I don't think a MCA judge is going to railroad anyone. I think all the hysteria stems from the fact that such trials would not be broadcast live on Cspan.

Thanks for your response.

I agree with the first point you made but not the second.

While our mob-like populace would love nothing more than the drama those courtrooms would undoubtedly bring, I'd like to go on the record that those courts are not fair.

The information coming out of Morris Davis is enough to question the system (or at least should prompt a more critical review of how the process is working).

Why should any part of our legal system be denied to people that have been literally snatched off the street, probably tortured (enhaced interrogation, or whatever you [not you SepticSkeptic, just in general] feel comfortable calling it), and for all intents and purposes wiped off the face of the earth.

I don't like the idea, let alone the actuality, of our government making people literally disappear. Some would argue that in order to provide security these things need to happen. I don't.

If Gitmo is closed won't they be secreted off too some other God forgotten place? The whole thing reminds me of gulags and Kafka's Penal Colony. Dis appearing people is a foreign practice. It happens in Chile or Argentina and Roumania. It can't happen here.

@ Jade-log

May I offer It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis circa 1935 CE as well as The Child Buyer by John Hersey circa 1960.

Paladin,...Thanks I know the authors not the works. My reference was less serious I was referring to a Frank Zappa album of the 60s.

:)

habeous says all persons, not all citizens
there are also international treaties ont eh subject and geneva spells out how you can label someone an enemy combatant
if gitmo isnt american soil how come it is americans that will shoot you if you try to land there.
they are actually playign on the fact that the origianal treaty to get gitmo states that the land is ultimately cubas but then again the treaty also bans commerical enterprise like the mcdonalds they have there and it bans anything but a naval base and gitmo is a bit different than a naval base.

Interesting debate, but isn't the real import of this decision "Take No Prisoners"? If their are no live prisoners to try, the whole problem goes away. The Gitmo terrorists will get their day in court, then we will suddenly not have any detainees to replace them.

habeous says all persons, not all citizens

I can read, Joules. You've just done a good job of explaining why aliens have that right when they set foot on American soil.

You seem to labor under the false impression that U.S. law is in force in Cuba.

Septic, that's what the Supreme Court just ruled -- that G'tmo is American soil.

Read the opinion, it would help, but I'll summarize:

Before 1903, Cuba was American soil. Since 1903, America has retained actual civil and military jurisdiction over G'tmo Bay. You wouldn't ever expect a Cuban police officer to arrest anyone on G'tmo; nor does any Cuban authority exercise any authority over Guantanamo. Guantanamo's status as part of Cuba is purely based in the 1903 treaty/contract. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress and the President cannot give up legal sovereignty simply by contract without giving up "de facto" sovereignty -- otherwise, what would stop the Executive from signing away North Carolina to some puppet government while maintaining actual control over NC without being subject to the Constitution? Thus, G'tmo has been, and still is, American soil, and as such, the writ runs to these aliens.

Sorry, whenever I see the word McCain I just think Bush...

because the two are identical.

McBush cares nothing about ethical legality...

What is "ethical legality"?

Anyway, it sounds like the legislation is designed to create a new court to hear the challenges against their detainment, rather than costing the taxpayers millions for 300 different lawyers to cherrypick the 300 different courts in which they file 300 different suits. I have a better idea. Just pick one existing one, whichever is at the appropriate level with coverage of D.C. Anyway, no use arguing about a bill that hasn't been proposed yet, we have no idea what it will actually say, if it ever gets proposed in the first place.

1) There should not be a separate list of laws and legality... Our laws were either broken or they weren't...

2) Ethically legal is a philosophical term. I can see you never took philosophy in school or else that question would never be asked.

I'll use common knowledge to help explain:

There are two directions of law...

"Ethical" and "Constitutional"

Ethical law doesn't change. Ethical law can actually be commonly seen in Christianity's "Ten Commandments."

Constitutional law changes. It's like having a road's speed limit at 55 mph one year... and 65 mph the next. Both are laws, and either one can be broken... however the year when 65 mph is the law one can not be cited for going 56 mph under the previous law.

To violate either is a violation of law... however if a constitutional law is created to "override" ethical law,

that constitutional "law" still a violation of law.

What a ridiculous notion. As you define ethical legality, it varies from person to person and culture to culture. Since the muslim concept of "just war" is any war waged for the purpose of spreading Islam, a war to end genocide would be unjust by their ethical law, but justified under Western "just war" theory. Ethics are not absolute. Whose system of ethics are we to use to establish this ethical law? To be honest, it really sounds like you're talking about divine law, as defined differently by each different religion.

It's like having a road's speed limit at 55 mph one year... and 65 mph the next. Both are laws, and either one can be broken... however the year when 65 mph is the law one can not be cited for going 56 mph under the previous law.

That has nothing to do with ethical legality and everything to do with a concept the Romans introduced: sine lex nulla poena.

Now I admit I'm no philosopher and I only took a few classes in philosophy... but please, please understand the concept.

Ethical law does NOT change. I simply tried to use common known pieces to explain to you since you obviously, and still obviously, do not understand the concept.

What is right is right. What is wrong is wrong.

What you talk about changes in each person/faith/country is morals... Morals do change... ethics shouldn't.

Regardless of what "constitutional" law states.

By the way... you are correct... constitutional law does not have anything to do with ethical law... so at least you understand that point.

Oh, I agree that it does not change. I am simply pointing out that ethics are not universal.

You point to the ten commandments as an example of ethical law. Ok. For a Jew or a Christian, those are authoratative. Several of those commandments deal with property rights, correct? Well, the Quran, the authority on ethical law for muslims, states that it is permissable for a Muslim to disposess an infidel. Clearly, these two systems of ethical law are different. Neither of them changes. But they contradict one another.

For that reason, I ask you whose ethical law we are to follow. I also ask what we are to do when constitutional law contradicts your preferred version of ethical law.

And I just googled "ethical law" The term doesn't exist, you made it up. I think you mean natural law, which is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.

My question, which you seem intent on dodging, is whose natural law you intend for us to use? Thomas Aquinas's summa theologica? Hobbes's theory of natural law? Islamic natural law? Christian natural law? Stoic Natural law?

Oh, and only those who are dissatisfied with positive law resort to the natural law bit. You seem pretty happy with the Constitution. Or would you only like to substitute natural law when specific points of positive law don't do it for you?

Ethical law was covered in PHI 100 - Introduction to Philosophy.

Except that the term does not exist. google it. dictionary.com it. You won't find it. I really do believe that you mean natural law. For the fourth time, I ask you: Whose version would you like to use?

For the last time I tell you... I will not discuss philosophy with someone who I tried to explain it to without going into the terms which, in my first class, were very confusing for me. Ethical law was covered... and yes... Natural law was written up on the blackboard... with a big equals sign next to ethics.

I tried to explain it to you using terminology that I was comfortable with you already knowing. Instead you attacked.

Here's my response:

Next subject.

Septic,...You can't possibly be in Iraq. You're too rational and calm. I get rattled at the Super Market. Anyway, The Ten Commandments don't have any thing to do with "ethical law" or natural law. The Big Ten are moral guidance supplied, so I'm told, by God. People
break them all the time. The only place you can have them ruled on is when you decide to accept the consequences of your actions. Rev. Hagee believes Katrina was God's wrath punishing New Orleans for moral laxity. I wonder what awful thing those people in Iowa and Kansas did? God's hitting them pretty hard too. It's all up for grabs it seems. I offer this quote:

"This is the century when white people will become a minority
in this country. What that means is, right now, we need to have
a clear picture of where we're headed."

--Ben Jealous newly named president of the NAACP--

It sounds to me like things are changing big time and we have to accept the possibility of
making some more extensions to preexisting laws. Respect the past but deal with the present.

jade,

I wasn't this calm when I invaded this country five years ago. I was scared out of my mind. We went in expecting a real fight. But, when I get home, I will have spent three out of six consecutive years over here. The fear diminshes if it doesn't make you crazy first. Plus, on any given day, you have a 1/150000 chance of getting killed. That's too low to dwell on.

As for "ethical law", if it's another term for natural law, there are eight or so theories of natural law, and all of them, except that of Hobbes, are religious. As such, I would think the ten commandments would be in play.

you make no sense at all.

you make no sense at all.

Senator McCain is making noise about the supreme court ruling and threatening to write legislation to alter that decision.

By making a big deal out of this and going up against the supreme court at this time, during this election campaign, he risks reminding voters that the supreme court decided the year 2000 election which put George W. Bush in office. ---- If he feels the supreme court is wrong this time, some would conclude the supreme court was wrong in 2000 as well.

Risks he is taking.
- He thinks the supreme court is wrong now, people could relate that to the supreme court being wrong in 2000 and their decision for George W. Bush.

- Reminds people that this next president may very well select people to sit on the supreme court, this in turn moves the angry Clinton only voters over to Obama to protect their woman's rights from another conservative judge that may outlaw roe vs wade and other woman's rights.

- Many judge that the current administration has harmed the constitution, using the supreme court in this way, to over ride a decision about the constitution links McCain to Bush and how he might continue abusing the constitution and use executive privilege.

That help clarify?

By making a big deal out of this and going up against the supreme court at this time, during this election campaign, he risks reminding voters that the supreme court decided the year 2000 election which put George W. Bush in office. ---- If he feels the supreme court is wrong this time, some would conclude the supreme court was wrong in 2000 as well.

Again the same whatever. Bush won all the recounts. The Florida Supreme Court sided openly with Al Gore milking more votes for him. I hope that all the six Judges weren't or aren't alected anymore.

Before the corrections started I know that are seven Supremes, but at the end the Chief recognized that we as a country were embroiled in a future Constitutional crisis. The Dems knew that the FSC were in their side and gave favoritism in payment to be Dems.

Mighty,

I understand what you are saying now. Your argument lacks merit. Different court (two new justices). Different issue. You can't expect me to believe that people who agreed with the court in 2000 are, because McCain disagrees with the court in 2008, going to reconsider their opinions from eight years ago. If they did, who cares? We are six months from the end of Bush's second term. What possible impact could it have now? First, those people would have to have time machines. Then they'd have to go back to 2000 and convince the court to decide the other way. So this is all useless speculation.

Who said anything about a court that doesn't require evidence? Now you're making stuff up.

When evidence against a terrorist is not handed over to the defense because it's classified...

Evidence has to be handed over in time to prepare for trial. No trial date set, no evidence need be handed over. Seems logical to me... At a detention hearing, they'd only have to present enough evidence to show that they acted reasonably in detaining the guy, not that he's actually guilty of anything...lot less evidence to hand over.

When Guantanamo Bay detainees challenge their status as "enemy combatants," judges must review all the evidence, not just what the military chooses, a federal appeals court ruled July 20, 2007. Friday's unanimous decision was issued by Judges Douglas Ginsburg, Judith Rogers and Karen Lecraft Henderson.

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit)

Care to rethink that comment?

No, but I care to dispute the decision, if it is real. I'd take that one to the SCOTUS. If you want to apply standard American law, the standard for habeas corpus and the standard for a conviction are miles apart. Can't have your cake and eat it, too!

More than likely the decision was made because the government was withholding whatever they wanted and the courts were getting sick of his abuse of power.

Anyway, the decision was made almost a year ago... and we can see how far that's gotten us.

Let's see how far we can go without Bush in office.

Withholding whatever they wanted? How about presenting the minimum required to prove that the detention was legitimate? Would a prosecutor lay out his entire case to a grand jury? Of course not. He provides enough evidence to convince the jury to bind the accused over for trial. The purpose of a detention hearing is not to determine innocence or guilt. That's what a trial is for. Detention hearings determine whether there was probable cause to detain the guy in the first place. No more, no less. What sense would it make to show all of your cards when two of the five will suffice?

Anyway, I've had enough of you scamps for one night. It's one AM in Mosul, and I'm off to bed. It's been grand, I really love a good argument. Much more entertaining than video games. For that, I thank you!

How about presenting the minimum required to prove that the detention was legitimate

I know how quaint the constitution is and all, but...

Hahahahaha. You want to give them more rights than you yourself hold? How long can the police hold you without presenting enough evidence to a grand jury to convince them that you should be put on trial? Do you really think the district attorney has to present enough evidence to the grand jury to convict you? No. Only enough to show that a trial is merited. Same thing here. enough evidence at the detention hearing to show cause for the detention. Then, at trial, ALL evidence has to be shown.

You clearly don't understand our justice system well enough to be qualified to argue this point. You think you are arguing that the Gitmo detainees deserve the same rights you have, but you insist on giving them more. The obvious conclusion is that you don't know your own rights. The unthinkable alternative is that you want to give these detainees MORE rights than you and I have.

Totally baseless rant. Thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion.

If you'd like to try again, let's start off with something other than emotion and evocation of 9-11? How about legal precedent or possibly case law references that support your position?

when I see attack ads from McCain accusing Obama of wanting to set turrrists free after he votes against this bill.

Call me naive, but I don't think that kind of angle of attack has the same effect these days. There just doesn't seem to be enough 'oomph' behind it, and good riddance to the days in which it did!

I sure hope so...

Just wondering, Mr. McCurdy, how would the Book of Revelations say that the anti-Christ is of Muslim descent when Islam hadn't yet been invented when that Book was written?

Your talking to the wrong crowd Jamesemccurdy. Newsvine tends to provide an opportunity for intelligent political discussion. I suggest going over to FoxNews.com. I'm sure they can provide the type of political philosophy you seek.

Sounds good, but under the condition that we make the leaking of the secrets that come out in those trials punishable by death. That way, we get to fry us some lawyers. Everyone wins!

Agreed. Habeas Corpus should apply for exactly that reason. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't apply, I'm arguing that it doesn't apply. Big difference. Happily, it will be applied, according to this ruling.

Personally, I'd rather have those guys in a prison we know about, where have some oversight on their treatment. Look at that German who was "disappeared" to a secret camp. If they really wanted to, they could have murdered him instead of releasing him (so maybe they're not the evil sadists you'd like to think?), since nobody knew they had him in the first place. Closing Gitmo would put these guys in more (theoretical) danger, not less.

I am for closing GITMO and send the prisoners back to their country of origin. Then the subject will be closed forever.

Something lost in the fray are those in GITMO who have petitioned to block their return home.

I'm sure one of you can find the source data for that -- I often get lost in the plethora of bad results from the searches, good meds I guess.

During WWII America had the formula right for capture, acceptance of field surrender, secure containment, and disposition.

The one good thing I find coming from GITMO is the vigorous public conversation about who we are as a people and how and by whom we allow ourselves to be defined.

I am for closing GITMO and send the prisoners back to their country of origin. Then the subject will be closed forever.

Oh, yeah, there's a bright idea. And if we let Hannibal Lector go, he'll stop eating people.

With the bright defense of our top and expensive pro bono lawyers I am sure that they will work hard for letting everybody off the hook and to show that our military is the worst with no sensitivity at all.

And if we let Hannibal Lector go, he'll stop eating people.

Compliments of our Media and followers. Tough luck.