EDITORIAL: Obama and Gitmo

Thanks for clarifying what is at stake. I never understood the value of the current system until you explained it. Why has the Bush administration failed to make this case in defense of its own practices? Obama is a "goody two shoes" who doesn't really know what he is doing. He wants to appear to be noble and grand, even if the results are the opposite. If Obama's deficiencies are apparent to Americans, how much more apparent are they to our enemies who are looking for signs of weakness?

This is nothing more than a token closure to appease the Code Pink's who helped him get elected. This is the very reason voting for him was a huge mistake. He is more concerned with our image abroad than our safety at home.

Your editorial underscores my reason for reading your publication online instead of subscribing to our lame, left-wing home paper. It really is too bad that we don't have more media outlets like the Times.

President-elect Obama behaves like a terrorist sympathizer of the first order. He may as well have bulls-eyes painted around every major US city so his Muslim friends can find us more easily. We're in deep do do.

Well, this article is sure deceptive. The writers, or at least the editors, must know that the prisoners are only going to be moved from Cuba, a communist country, to prisons in the US so we can get all this dealt with. Don't your realize that many of these people have already been found innocent, after 7 years in prison for crimes they didn't commit, without even a chance to prove if they're American citizens or not. I'm pretty sure I'm right about all that. I think that Americans, no matter where they are in the world should follow our laws better or go live somewhere else. We can't just leave the country and do what we want. Just trying to help. The world is waking up and tired of the extremists on either side. For thousands of years the model has been top down government, but we are just realizing that it should be top down, bottom up. A company is built by it's owners AND it's employees and we should ask for voting shares to protect our assets and keep the companies from going into the red from corporate raiders or deceptive managment, if they are dishonest. We are part of the economy and part of the government and have to take it as more than a spectator sport or something we do every four years, if we are able. These blogs are a public service, to get people together to find out what's going on. If we are better informed, it may be enough to just vote. Being informed, looking at both sides is our civic duty, if we have the interest. Those who don't, that's OK, but not voting might be best in that case, no offence, just an observation. All these conspiracy theory comments are put out by the conspirators, who really are trying to do these things and picked up by the naive. You've been punked. Check the data. It's part of terrorism. Most of the world is getting tired of extremists on both sides who are interested in world domination and stuff like that.

If I'm not mistaken, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction for U.S. territories abroad. Why couldn't the President order that court to set up shop at Gitmo and try or dismiss cases against the prisoners there? There is no logical reason why the military must be the trial authority merely because Gitmo is a military facility.

Not to mention once in our prisons they can recruit until their hearts content. Then we can have home grown extremists. Either way this is a foolish idea. I believe the majority of Gitmo's prisoners are enemy combatants, Gitmo is where they belong.

I agree with harold1...we need to set a better example. Where is the consistency? Are we the city on the hill or are we hunkering down in a bunker? Here's a revelation for you: We are not actually at war. War is a condition that exists between nations or states. A real war requires congressional approval in the form of a declaration of war, not a vote to support the troops passed out of fear of being made to appear unpatriotic. The best way to fight terrorism is to deprive the terrorists of their base. If the US suddenly has a nice world image and -- even better -- if it helps better the lot of the impoverished, then those seeking funding and footsoldiers will find their activities more difficult. Consider how the petrodollars come back to you. The sad reality is that Al Qaeda will probably detonate a nuclear device within our borders in the next 20 years. When that happens, we will want to hit somebody back, but it's going to be hard to find the right people to hit. Since most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, why didn't we invade that country instead of Iraq (Afghanistan's ruling Taliban were harboring Bin Laden, so that invasion at least made sense)? Going after Saudi Arabia would have shown true grit and determination, but since they were such good friends of the Bushes...I don't hear anybody whining about how we helped the other Bin Ladens get quickly out of the US post 9/11 despite an obviously blown chance for at least a debriefing. Convenience or consistency, you have to choose. You can call for a tougher stance against terror (where it suits you), but it will only harden the resolve of our enemies. Yes, strength and power do command a certain amount of respect, but in the end they can only beget tragedy and loss.

"Mr. Obama suggested that Gitmo was damaging international respect for the United States". So our new leader is not motivated by principles and values, right and wrong. Decisions will now be based on perceptions ... let's see how England feels about gun control. I wonder what the intellectuals in France think of Euthanasia? We now have a man-child as President of the United States of America ... and at the worst possible time.

I say put them in H's neighborhood with the other terrorist.

Here's another revelation. When someone declares war on you, you are at war whether you declare war or not. Three thousand+ dead after years of attacks while we pretended we were not at war. That's more than died at Pearl Harbor on another day when we were not at war. We can argue sematics but for us, WWII started on Dec. 7, 1941. Not on whatever day Congress declared we were at war.

This is the first example of just how Obama is going to kill a lot of American's. We are in a war of survival, the left doesn't want to admit this becuase if they do they will have to start fighting the war, and this will give the Republicans wins in the elections. They would rather see Americans killed and even see America destroyed if they can remain in positions of power.

I am praying that Obama thinks hard about this promise and that his exposure to intel briefings has opened his eyes to the naivete of his reasoning. We do need to do something with the Gitmo detainees, but the U.S. court system is not the answer, despite what the Democratic illuminati believe.

I hear tell many of the "detainees/prisoners" will be tried and or executed by the government of their nation if/when they return. Some nations have refused to admit them back. So, in those cases, a captured terrorist has earned entrance and admittance into the good ole U.S. of A. While the msm and democrats do not acknowledge war, the Bush government has consistently reminded me that we are indeed at war. What ticks me off is this neophyte Obama espouses military strategy and tactics. I doubt he even knows what a brigade is and he's already talking about pulling one, two or whatever number out of here and moving them there. He is an overnight military strategist. He was against removing Saddam Hussein. He was on the losing side. Now he'll garner our victory in Iraq during his tenure.

He's also going to end travel restrictions and the Cuban embargo. Come march im going to be sittin in a cafe in Havana by the water, sippn on a mojito.