Welcome to reality Joan.

I have not seen from many civil libertarians and answer for the difficult category. The people guilty of the most violent acts to damage Americans and can not be brought to trial because the evidence is tainted. We are not talking about criminals who may be grateful they were not convicted and go forth and live a good life. We are not talking about drug dealing murderers that are jailed for the drug convictions, but not the murder.

You are troubled but you offer no solution. I believe it troubles the President. What would you do?

But gratitude that Obama isn’t Dick Cheney can’t blind us to the ways he’s not living up to his promises to restore the rule of law.

Sounds like you wrote that on a beta blocker.

When Obama haughtily lectures Americans about the rule of law only to assert - again and again - that we who demand its fair and just application are nothing more than petty, revenge-loving sadists who look to the past and point fingers, he's doing more than "not living up to his promises to restore the rule of law."

Obama is, in fact, actively subverting the rule of law. That he is doing so while going full hog in Afghanistan should provide a clue or two as to what he has in mind.

There is plenty of evidence torture has continued on Obama's watch. He has made it crystal clear that no one who tortures is to be held accountable. Ever.

It is repulsive to see Democrats rally around this con man.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Yet, here we are.

How in the holy hell do we stop this? Let's discuss that instead. How do we stop this?

Eventually, commentators like Walsh are going to have to face a stark choice: either they will have to admit that their shrill and facile criticism of the Bush administration on these issues was unjustified, or they will have to conclude that all of that rhetoric should be leveled at Obama as well. To their credit, they have recognized the flimsy, cosmetic changes to policy for exactly what they are, but I think they have yet to realize just how small a corner they painted themselves into with 8 years of hyperbole.

The consequences of the liberal attacks on Gitmo is that it exposes a lack of any better solution. Obama made it such a politcal thing he's found his empty rhetoric exposed with no practical solution that would be better to insure American security. These are prisoners of war, non uniformed enemy combatants at that. They do not qualify fully for the protections afforded soldiers under Geneva Conventions. The ability to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants has not only instrumental, but also moral, implications. When soldiers do not wear uniforms, they implicitly force civilians to participate in the fighting, because their similar appearances mean the opposition cannot practically distinguish between them. This leads the enemy to view all persons as potential combatants. Germans executed many enemy combatants in WWII captured out of uniform and they had a legal right to do so.

Prisoners of war can be held until hostilities are over 10,20years or technically forever. They need not be guilty of anything other than be an enemy combatant. This is the reality coming home to roost for Obama, what to do? What advantage do we gain by closing Gitmo only to open another one here? Waste money to satisfy the rally cry of the extreme left just to have Gitmo go away to be opened at another location under another name ? Score a big one for Cheney. The NY Times buried this story hoping it would be over looked. Thank you Joan for writing about and exposing it. Time to reconsider alot about this including Pelosi and the Democrat knowledge and willing participation, the hypocracy for politacal gain at the expense of National Security and American lives and World image.

The tendency in American political debate is two-sided dialectic, and the danger of dialectic is when the two sides basically agree, leaving out other viewpoints. In this case, Obama and Cheney disagree on particulars but not substantively on the powers of the imperial presidency, the trashing of human and constitutional rights, and the immunity of elites. In this two-sided context, Cheney makes Obama look reasonable and the voice of anti-torture, though Obama in effect proposes institutionalizing the unConstitutional regime of Cheney.

We need someone to be the third, reasonable voice who can supplant Cheney's frankly fascist viewpoint, but instead represent American Constiutional values. Someone who can paint Obama's proposed gulag as the anti-American, anti-democratic notion that it really is.

Although we of course need a movement of many voices, and we don't have to all agree, we do need one person as the face of constitutionalism, because that is how our media works.

Any suggestions? I'd suggest Russ Feingold, but looks like he's checked his brain and conscience in favor of party disclipine.

The thing is, it actually is easy.

If anyone in the Bush administration authorized, committed or knew about torture and did nothing, they can and should be prosecuted.

If anyone in the Obama administration has authorized, committed or knows about torture and has done nothing, they can and should be prosecuted.

It's that simple.

I repeat nardwilly's question, "What would you do?" And I emphasize that this really is a question, not a challenge. I'm anxious to know more of President Obama's plan but would also like to see the alternatives.

What better motivator is there than kidnapping people around the world and holding them indefinitely? I'd fight anyone who did that to my friends/family wouldn't you?

As for my solution.....we apologize to Iraq for destroying their country, get the hell out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and give the Gitmo prisoners trials in a federal court. The innocent ones get sent back home with our apologies and some kind of compensation, the guilty can go to any of various prisons within the US. Those prisons are good enough to hold the likes of Charles Manson, I'm sure they can hold the supervillian terrorists.