Might want to tidy this up a bit:

"national security courts") in order to make it easier for us to keep them win against them and keep them incarcerated.

Also, first sentence,last pp., lose the "a" or add an "of"

Slow down, guy. I can barely read as fast as you post. It's wearin' ME out...

There was what sounded like a pretty good discussion on closing Guantanamo on the NPR show "On Point" this morning (I happened to be listening in a cab, so I'm going to have to check it out online). One of the guests was Maj. Frakt, I believe the same one appointed to defend Jawad before the Commissions. He made some good points.

From Glenn's post:

"You can't have different due process standards and entirely different courts that you pick and choose from based on how many rights you think you can afford to extend and still be assured of a conviction."

OK, Bushites, tell us why (and how), within the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, you disagree with that proposition.

This is a beautiful phrasing. Beat it. Go ahead, protect me.

And absent that we should just slap a plane ticket in all their hands and send them home, or wherever. There is no longer any point in wasting another 4 or 5 or 8 or more years debating whether we should have a constructive debate about deciding whether to decide what to do with all of this. The time has passed. Drop it, close the camp and go home.

are going a LOOOONG way to restoring America's stature in the world.

I don't think he is losing political capital because of this (as evidenced by the poll against torture you cited earlier).

"The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with." - Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Because they give the appearance of having committed a crime.

Jesus fuck:

"The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications -- faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications," Tice claimed. "It didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Whistleblower_Bushs_NSA_targeted_reporters_0121.html - at sig

Yeah, let's let bygones be bygones.

Let no one say that Glenn Greenwald wasn't willing to acknowledge progress, or at least good intentions, when he saw it.

I particularly like the appeal to stay vigilant. It the early days of a presidency (or, more relatable, any new job) it's easy to be idealistic. Without constant intellectual support and open discussion about the government's commitment to those ideals, it'll be easy to slide back to where things were. If I learned one thing from the past 8 years it's that there are a lot of people with a lot of money who don't considered the bill of rights to be all that important.

Obama looks to be off to a good start, but he's still got to work with a Democratic congress with a real (sincerely shocking) weakness for right-wing fear-mongering.

Now, will someone please send Omar Kadhr back to Canada?

...the torture defenders (self-proclaimed or not) argument too often come off as something out of The Onion. I can't believe this Hiatt guy actually wrote this with a straight face.

We have more abuse going on in our prisons, of our own citizens, than ever has gone on at Guantanamo Bay.

While we end the miserable disgrace there, why don't we pay a little attention to how we are mistreating our own citizens? Wasn't Cheney recently indicted over this?

If? How about when? I just might write that blog today.

from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Also a good interview with a former Guantanamo detainee. (Should come on automatically right after Turley-Rivkin)

Speaking as a past and present Hillary supporter, I have a hard time imagining a Hillary Clinton presidency taking steps this dramatic. Whatever the current media response is with all its flaws, they clearly pay Obama far more respect than anything they would show her. In her case it would devolve to a total clown show. At this point I'm glad that Obama won over Clinton.

TeeVee tuned to first press briefing of the Obama Adminstration held by the somewhat hapless Gibbs who glibly is spouting the worst kind of generalities about "keeping America" safe. OK. Press flak. I understand.

Then comes the White House Press Corpse. They are attack dogs. It is like a party in Michael Vick's backyard. Snarling. Cynical. Relentless.

Childish.

Question: How can the President assure the American people that today's Executive Order closing Guantanamo will not release these terror suspects back to their home countries to kill again.

Ed Henry, CNN, same question. Even more insistent, as if "I'm a real journalist and I'm really gonna hold your feet to the fire."

Gibbs--we will be safe.

Chuck Todd--why is there not the promised transperency of the reswearing in?

Gibbs--we posted audio. We posted still pictures. There were no video cameras.

CBS Flak: That's like pay to play. Your office got to select the photos we saw. That is not transperency.

If ever there was a question as to whether or not the press corpse would regain its spine when a Democrat was in office, you now have the awful truth.

They got spine alright. For the most trivial of right-wing talking points.

Release terrorists to kill again??????

Lack of transperency because there was video????

I really, really am sorry I tuned in. Gibbs needs to be replaced immediately.

Please, Glenn, give me a group to donate to. Post more columns. Make more radio shows. Tell us how we can promote this blog more.

Talk about torture.

Glenn,

You are leaving room for Mr. Hiatt to argue that sensitive national security issues, not evidence obtained by torture, compels him to argue that some detainees will be too dangerous to try in our "normal civilian courts." Please don't allow him to hide behind this ridiculous excuse.