Don't you think that now that people on the inside no longer need to fear this a**hole and his administration that more and more of these creepy crawlies revelations will be found under the rock of the Bush Administration?

I'm not sure if I want to weep for what Bush has done to this country, or weep for relief that Obama is hours away from taking control.

Can't we just all hold our collective breaths and NOT begin to leak all of this stuff until the "Decider" is safely away from the stage where he can dole-out pardons for these criminals?

Be prepared to have your blood pressure rise 10-20 points on the last day of the "Head Criminal's" joyful release via pardon to all the jackals who participated in his rouge administration and their war criminal deeds. Cheney, Addington, Libby, Gonzo, Myers, Rice, (but not Powell because he showed disloyalty), probably Rove and any of the numerous sleaze bags who used the "enhanced techniques" to wrestle the lies out of those prisoners who dared to try pay-back on our failed and surreal middle east policies.

I don't think I'll eat on that day. I always seem to break too many blood vessels in my eyes when I projectile vomit, and projectile vomit I will...

@stevio:
Pardons are a double-edged sword. Specifically, they tend to preclude invoking one's fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Hence the Scooter Libby situation.
Also, if anyone really wants these guys prosecuted, we can just render them to the Hague, which is under no obligation to respect our system of pardons. That would work for me.

So what do we do with Qahtani?

Earlier this year, the Administration admitted to waterboarding three people -Hayden said they were Kalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zabaidah, and Al Rahim Nashri. This last Sunday, Cheney was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, and he again said three were waterboarded, but when he named them, he listed Qahtani instead of Nashri. If there were only three, I doubt he would confuse Nashri (USS Cole) with Qahtani.

America can salvage some honor.

"See, we refuse to admit evidence obtained through torture. We have principles, after all."

What do you mean "arguably committing war crimes". It is not at all "arguable" what has gone on; the Bush and company are totally guilty of war crimes. All this dancing around semantics don't mean anything. I hope, even if the USA, its citizens, and the Obama administration do not have the spine or moral compunction to try these guys for war crimes, some other countries do it. As Jonathan Turley pointed out, not trying them amounts to not upholding our morals. This is beyond the pale and I don't have words to describe it.

"So what do we do with Qahtani?"

We release him if he cannot be charged using legally obtained evidence. Those are the consequences of following OUR rule of law.

Then we establish competent policies and strategies which will help apprehend him (along withthe THOUSANDS of other terrorists we have created under the myopic policies of the bush administration) should he continue to commit acts against us.

At some point, this country has to hold itself accountable under its own legal standards.

I'm okay with releasing him; it's a decent position -- BUT maybe we should implant a GPS device in his ass.... and if that isn't legally/technologically possible, let's at least have somebody start a credible rumor that we did it anyway.

Enough with the exclusive focus on OUR side -- lots of folks at Guantanamo were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but not Qahtani: he's bad news. Among other things, he's proof that 'torture doesn't work' was always the most effective argument -- because even when the bastards ARE guilty, ya can't convict 'em. Some of his old pals will see the hand of God in that.

So the only thing worse than keeping this guy would be to release him as a sort of Allah-endorsed poster child to recruit more like him: cuz if he DOES do it again, we'll act worse.

So this time, we should act smart.

Let 'Em All Go
Nearly all the prisoners at Guantanamo are proven innocent of anything; even the ones who might conceivably be charged had their human rights so badly violated to get the "evidence" against them as to be unprosecutable.

Sure, probably 100% will hold grievances against the US and therefore be potential dangers to us. But we know who they are, and presumably, law enforcement and the CIA will be capable of quietly keeping an eye on them after their release.

If "trials" are held, any convictions would be meaningless; meanwhile, the actions of the US interrogation teams will be exposed to the world. This would probably be a good thing overall, if it helps to expose which US officials were responsible. Then their trials could begin.

Be prepared to have your blood pressure rise 10-20 points on the last day of the "Head Criminal's" joyful release via pardon to all the jackals who participated in his rouge administration and their war criminal deeds.

Its worth noting that while criminal laws do apply, criminal liability isn't the only means of accountability -- though it is the only one affected by a pardon. OTOH, laws altering the terms of civil liability can apply to proceedings based on acts which occurred prior to the law; so Congress could easily pass a law retroactively withholding governmental immunity from any totrt claim regarding torture or war crimes, and even creating (to the extent that it does not currently exist) civil causes of action for damages arising from these sources under federal law.

Notice this business, "This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for." Fantasy defenses of torture commonly refer to the ticking time bomb. But this report does not describe behavior that would find the ticking time bomb. It took too long. We sold our souls; we cannot prosecute--all because we used sadistic techniques when we had time for better methods of interrogation.

I've always been puzzled about this "20th 9/11 terrorist." Didn't we already convict one person, Mouseveni (?), for that? How many more are there or were the charges against the first person trumped up?

Steve,
Why the 'arguably' equivocation? Do you think there's a reasonable argument that these actions are not war crimes?

but but but we only torture during ticking time bomb scenarios!!! what are those apologists gonna say in this case now?

Texas Aggie -- I wondered that, too. How many 20th hijackers could there be? Maybe they were stockpiled in Iraq.

Didn't we already convict one person, Mouseveni (?), for that?

There were two described as the 20th hijackers. Zacarias Moussaoui trained to pilot a plane, but was arrested before 9/11 and was never included directly involved with the 19, though there may have been a plan to use him as a backup. The other was Qahtani, who was refused entry when he tried to fly to Florida. He was supposed to join one of the groups.

[...] things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. -- Susan J.Crawford

So, if we just let him go, he'd be hounding our emergency rooms (since I doubt he has health insurance)? Can't have it.

"got a bunch of evidence we can't use"

Can't even call it evidence: it's inadmissable for being crap evidence. Calling it evidence denies the reality that it was pure bulldust elicited through leading questions to a man who was being 'coerced' via torture. And that's why we don't torture; not just because it's wrong, but because it produces crap intel, most of that crap introduced by American torturers. That crap intel places America and Americans more at risk precisely because it's not getting at any kind of truth, and only serves to reinforce the questioners' preconceived ideas about situations.

what to do with qahtani? name him the ambassodor to hamas...he'd fit right in with the rest of the terrorist appeasing pinheads due to take over on 1/20