"The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana, in September."

So I guess American territory HASN'T been terrorism-free since 2001 now has it? Could it be, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Marc Thiessen & Co. that it actually has not been 2,688 since the last terrorist attack on American soil?

Or do deadly terrorist attacks on US Embassies only count against the national security record of the president if that president is a Democrat?

IOKIYAR of course

What do we have to show for the former president's efforts? A series of bad guys who went free, and many more bad guys we'll struggle to prosecute because the Bush administration broke the law and tortured them.

It's been said before, but Osama bin Laden has had no better supporter than George W. Bush.

Steve, Steve, Steve ... you almost act as though you think facts matter...

The first comment above is the other piece of the strange two pronged illogic being spouted off by Republicans.

We are terrorism free since the bufu on 9/11, except for all the terrorism we ignore.

So Bush kept us safe, and we shouldn't change any of his policies.

Second: we keep releasing people who return to the battlefield. But nobody is responsible for these releases except the Bush system. Nobody ever suggested we should just release these people. If we have evidence, give them a trial.

But it seems insane to say Bush policies have kept us safe, no attacks, except for the 60 bad guys he let go. That is over a 10% failure rate according to their own statistics. So whatever interrogation techniques they are using, they fail pretty often. Just imagine if our criminal justice system had a 10% wrong decision rate!

People are going to have to wrap their heads around the fact that if the government has no LEGALLY OBTAINED evidence with which to charge these people, they will have to be released. Hopefully, competently run enforcement agencies will reapprehend them the right way, and will be able to charge and convict them under established rules of law.

To the American Citizen: this is the cost we must all bear to maintain the rule of law in this country. Grow a pair and STFU.

"the moral is that when venal, shallow, small men are given unfettered power and authority, they do incompetent, stupid, and evil things."
...and then in all our collective wisdom, we re-elect them. Scary.

Doesn't this show the Guantanamo/military tribunal system doesn't work? Why did Bush let this terrorist go? More than anything, this shows Obama is doing the right thing - he'll prosecute dangerous terrorists in a transparent manner, so things like this won't happen.

Don't all of you see the truth. Obama in a year or so will invent a time machine, travel back and release all of the "obvious bad guys" under Bush's watch, and then ask the media to ignore it till he's in office and blame him.

And look -- we're doing something unlike Bush, actually ending a policy that enhances recruiting for groups like Al Qaeda. So what if a couple of dozen of those released from Guantanamo become, or remain, radical jihadists. The positive effects of ending our detention and torture policies will hurt the recruitment into jihadist groups to a far greater extent than this. Only if we act in accord with our stated ideals will we be seen as trustworthy by others in the world, and at that point, the violent radicals will cease to so easily attract young recruits to their cause.

If anyone dropped the ball here, it looks like it was the Saudis. Moreover, it could be that this guy was just a poor schlub rug dealer before he went to Guantanamo and after a few years there became radicalized. What they need to evaluate is not just the evidence these people were picked up on, but what seven years of being in that prison have done to their psyches. It could be that some of them weren't dangerous when they were picked up, but they could be now because of how they've been treated. What do we do in those cases?

The same is true with the incessant media fascination with the 61 former Guantanamo Bay detainees who've since become alleged terrorists. First, the confirmed number is 18, not 61. Second, even that number isn't considered entirely reliable.

Third, US government studies of prisoners serving felony sentences indicates that they have about a 70% rate of recidivism. So if only 18 of the hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners are engaged in criminal activity, that means they have a far, far, far lower rate of recidivism than your average mugger, car thief or armed robber -- which would indicate either (a) the average fanatical al Qaeda jihadi has got kind of a sweet disposition or (b) most of these men were innocent in the first place.

Fourth, I find it frankly shocking that more men who have been imprisoned and tortured for years have not actually taken up arms against their tormentors upon their release.

Just imagine if our criminal justice system had a 10% wrong decision rate!

Oh, believe me, it does.

Put Bush in jail. How could he let them go?

Somehow, the Clinton Administration was able to capture, try, convict and incarcerate the Blind Sheik and his cronies all here, in the US without resorting to torture, illegal wiretaps, extra legal prisons or kangaroo courts.

Gosh those dumb ol' Dems putting the legal system to work like that. I guess the hyper macho national security buffoons are unable to imagine such a thing.

Gitmo for many inhabitants was a training center in motivating terrorism. After being tortured despite being innocent, many who were not terrorists certainly now have reason to hate the US and want to do her harm.

This is pure fear mongering...again. Yemen branch???WTF. Like Glenn Greenwald says...what, do they have business cards now?

Those 60 possible terrorists will overcome all 150 million of us with their vast armies, sea and air forces in spite of our high tech spying equipment. I'm so afraid...the terrorists are coming (now that Cheney is out of office they'll get no inside help like having our defenses stand down while planes get flown around the country). How pathetic is the right's attempt to make us afraid. Like saying there's a man with a gun standing in front of the police department threatening people...everybody scream and hide. What Goobers.

Bush wanted a system that will "make them guilty" no matter what the evidence says, and call that a 100% conviction rate.

Our constitution does matter. Out bill of rights matter. Our laws matter and for 8yrs they all have been cast aside. It's time to restore our democracy and our principles and most people will not be scared into submission by our corporate media or the republican chicken hawks. These idiots try to turn 60 men into a massive army we should fear so much we give up our freedoms.

If nothing else the terrorists responsible for 9/11 pointed out the need to see just exactly what our government has been doing...and does now...because for the most part our government does not represent the people who elected them when it comes to keeping us safe.

Steve, don't forget the good guys who turned bad because for some inexplicable reason they just didn't care for being kidnapped, tortured, and held incommunicado in a foreign place for several years, all without any charges ever being brought. I'd be pretty pissed too.

Why did Bill Clinton let him go? And Obama, why did he train them at his Muslim mosque?

Seriously, though, why is the MSM still passing around Rove-aganda without mentioning that the terror recidivists - as well as freshly minted guys that were converted to jihadism by the Bush gulag cruelties - fly in the face of Rove's claims that Bush policies stopped repeat terror attacks.

They can't have it both ways.

Somehow, the Clinton Administration was able to capture, try, convict and incarcerate the Blind Sheik and his cronies all here, in the US without resorting to torture, illegal wiretaps, extra legal prisons or kangaroo courts.

Gosh those dumb ol' Dems putting the legal system to work like that. I guess the hyper macho national security buffoons are unable to imagine such a thing.

Posted by: bcinaz on January 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Such an approach would not have stopped 9-11 from happening would it now? Until the terrorists took control of the aircrafts, what crimes had they committed that would have justified taking them into custody? Or what evidence would have been available to law enforcement on 9-10 that they could have taken to a judge that would have justified the issuance of search warrant to search their computer hard drives?

Face it, if you believe terrorism to be a criminal law issue, you have to accept the fact that people are goind to die because you value the due process rights of terrorists more than the lives of your fellow Americans.

Speaking of which, did the One just committ a war crime by allowing that Preditor strike that killed 7? Did those who were targeted and killed have a chance to challenge the evidence that the U.S. government, headed by the One, believed justified their execution before a judge or other neutral party?

Until the terrorists took control of the aircrafts, what crimes had they committed that would have justified taking them into custody?

You mean other than entering the United States on fake visas under false identities? Other than being on terrorist watch lists that should have meant they would be denied entry to the country?

Law enforcement isn't just sitting on your ass waiting for bad things to happen, you know -- it's also trying to prevent the bad things from happening by not allowing known terrorists into the country in the first place.

Or what evidence would have been available to law enforcement on 9-10 that they could have taken to a judge that would have justified the issuance of search warrant to search their computer hard drives?

Why don't you ask FBI agents Harry Samit and Colleen Rowley? They thought they had plenty of evidence to present to a judge, but they couldn't even get permission to do that from the higher-ups in the FBI. Which, not coincidentally, was run by a Republican.

Until the terrorists took control of the aircrafts, what crimes had they committed that would have justified taking them into custody?

Conspiracy, being a member of a banned terrorist group, and immigration violations, among others.

Really, and this idiot claims to be an attorney. It makes me laugh....

Face it, if you believe terrorism to be a criminal law issue, you have to accept the fact that people are goind to die because you value the due process rights of terrorists more than the lives of your fellow Americans.

Uh, look, if you believe crime of any kind to be a criminal law issue, you have to accept the fact that people are goind to die because you value due process rights. Every day in this country we let potential and actual murderers, rapists, kidnappers, etc. go free, but we do so because we know that we have due process that prevents the government from locking up anyone merely on the government's say-so. If you want the government to be free to lock up anyone it says, then fine, but in that case you want to live in a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Oh, and also: give me liberty or give me death.

Until the terrorists took control of the aircrafts, what crimes had they committed that would have justified taking them into custody?

Seriously? Or does the "-counsel" at the end of your moniker just signify something you are in need of psychologically?

Police arrest individuals every single day for plotting murders. Police arrest individuals every day for crimes of intent, e.g. possession with intent to sell, attempted murder.

I mean...c'mon.

Face it, if you believe terrorism to be a criminal law issue, you have to accept the fact that people are goind to die because you value the due process rights of terrorists more than the lives of your fellow Americans.

Terrorism IS a law enforcement issue. Law enforcement based on intelligence stops terrorism. Clumsy military endeavors breed it.

Police arrest individuals every single day for plotting murders. Police arrest individuals every day for crimes of intent, e.g. possession with intent to sell, attempted murder.

I think Chicounsel shares Sideshow Bob's opinion about that:

"Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit. Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?"

the potential complications

In the end, Obama's actions will be a little more liberal than Bush's actions, most of the Gitmo prisoners will remain in prison somewhere or other, and most of those prisons will be worse than the Gitmo prison (consider the former Gitmo prisoners held now in British and French prisons.) As the operations scale up in Afghanistan, there will eventually be some prisoners (now mostly the Taliban/al Qaeda are killed), and they'll be treated according to Obama's standard for Afghanistan. My expectation is that they will be "handled" by the Afghan government, and no one will care a whit what happens to them.

As the operations scale up in Afghanistan, there will eventually be some prisoners (now mostly the Taliban/al Qaeda are killed), and they'll be treated according to Obama's standard for Afghanistan.

You may be surprised to hear that, unlike Bush, Obama does not think the Geneva Convention is a piece of toilet paper:

In the meantime, Obama ordered that the detainees being held at Guantanamo must be treated humanely in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, including regular visits from the International Red Cross, a reversal of Bush administration policies.

most of the Gitmo prisoners will remain in prison somewhere or other

Except for the fact that Obama's executive order demands that they be charged or released. And that many will probably be released as there is no evidence to hold them. And that if charged and found guilty then they belong in prison - which is completely different from Bush's approach of simply letting men and women rot in jail without charges while being abused and even tortured in some cases.

And except for the fact that as Menemosyne points out, the Red Cross has been mandated access to all prisoners everywhere to make sure they are treated humanely. And except that Afghanistan isn't handling prisoners, the U.S. military is, and so the "standard for Afghan prisoners" is the same standard for U.S. held military prisoners everywhere which have just been reformed by President Obama.

In other words, except for all the facts that refute your unsupported assertions, your propaganda might be true. But it's not. And you're just trolling.

Until the terrorists took control of the aircrafts, what crimes had they committed that would have justified taking them into custody?

The following federal crimes can be inferred from their later actions to have occurred prior to that time, just from a quick read through of the applicable code sections; I'm probably missing quite a lot, but these are certainly enough to warrant taking them into custody, trying them, convicting them, and imprisoning them for terms many times greater than the longest human lifespan:

1. Conspiracy to set fire to, damage, destroy, disable or wreck a civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce.
2. Conspiracy to perform an act of violence against or incapacitate any person on an aircraft of the type described in the previous item
3. Conspiracy to kill a cabinet member, member of congress, the President, or designated members of the Executive Office of the President
4. Conspiracy to go upon a military reservation for a purpose prohibited by law
5. Conspiracy to kidnap
6. Conspiracy to kill officers and employees of the US government in the course of their official duties
7. Conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism
8. Harboring and concealing terrorists
9. Providing material support to terrorists

Here's a good liberal essay on the strengths and weaknesses of Obama's Guantanamo order:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=obamas_minimalist_approach_to_guantanamo

I've come to the conclusion that "counsel" in "chicounsel" is an accurate cognomen. I mean, let's face it, how many of us don't know someone who, for a free drink (or two), will gladly tell us exactly what is wrong with everthing and just how to fix it?
Yeah, that's "chicounsel", sitting there at the end of the bar; alone, for some reason...

I blame Harry Truman for reneging on FDR's promise not to support the creation of a Jewish state, and subsequent one-sided support of Israel.

George Washington got it exactly right.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

Since the question has arisen recently, what do our allies and indeed the rest of the world think of the decision to close Guantanamo?

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghanistan's president applauded the decision to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay _ where an undisclosed number of Afghans have been incarcerated _ as a move that will boost global support for the fight against terrorism.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly called for all detained Afghan citizens to be released so that their cases can be adjudicated at home.

"This decision by the United States is a major step toward bringing more international support to the struggle against terrorism, and enlisting all nations in this war," President Hamid Karzai said in a statement issued late Thursday.

Afghanistan is in favor. What do the British think?

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said it welcomed Mr Obama's executive order and insisted it had been "vociferously" calling for the closure of Guantanamo for years.

Spain?

Miguel Angel Moratinos told Punto Radio that Spain welcomed new U.S. President Barack Obama's order suspending for four months the trials of Guantanamo detainees before military tribunals.

Germany?

Germany has welcomed US President Barack Obama's plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay on Cuba. A government spokesman told reporters in Berlin that the move would mark an end to a difficult period in trans-Atlantic relations.

Others?

Reaction in Europe was positive. The European Commission said in a statement it "has been very pleased that one of the first actions of Mr. Obama has been to turn the page on this sad episode of Guantanamo." The European Union had criticized the Bush administration for alleged human rights abuses at the jail.

The French Foreign Ministry also welcomed the decision.

"The essential fight against terrorism must be conducted in all circumstances with respect for human rights, international humanitarian law and the rights of refugees," spokesman Frederic Desagneaux said in an online briefing.

And Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini called the move "a good decision," but said it might force Europe take in some of the inmates.

The list goes on and on. Malaysia, Peru, the EU, the UN. Finland, Ireland and Switzerland are pleased enough that they have expressed willingness to shoulder the burden and take in detainees. Let this put to rest forever the notion that the world will see President Obama the same way they saw Bush with regard to this issue, as one raving lunatic in particular has recently claimed.

WTF. All bush ever knew was I'll do as I please,to get what I want but OK lets get all the bad guys even those here at home.

Whats the difference between foreign or domestic enemies? George W. and the 5th, district along with Mississippi state courts. check out this Government Industrial Conspiracy against United States Citizens. Now where the hell does this fit in fighting deadly terrorist who attack the U.S.?

The blog site your Government doesn't want you to see. Power of state government used for protection of total corruption against is own people. Supreme Court Judge, three circuit court judges, one state senator and countless attorneys gain $ 276 million in fraudulent scam seeking $2, billion. Lawyers for Halliburton and states AG. Looks like unlawful lobbing funds taken by fraud.