Why do Americans hate the troops so?

If this is really true, I cannot understand why Obama would choose to appease such blatent nonsense. Republicans are acting out like a bunch of obsrteperous 10 year olds. Can't the Wapo find a better descriptor than "Congressional opposition"?

In the long run, appeasing them will result in more wasted time and resources. They know if they can get away with this, the sky's the limit.

It can't be emphasized enough that the people who were to be resettled in the U.S. are innocent.

When Bush administration offered bounties of thousands of dollars for "terrorists", it encouraged unscrupulous people to turn in enemies or innocent bystanders. They were kidnapped off the streets by the Pakistan intelligence service (the group that made a "peace treaty" with Osama bin Laden) and by the Afghan warlords (our "allies" who let bin Laden escape and whose rule was so violent that the Afghan people turned to the Taliban to get rid of them). These innocent people were held by our military for years with no trial, and usually with no evidence against them.

This is just one more mess left by the arrogance, ignorance, incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration and it will take years and millions of dollars before it's fixed.

Well, would you want them #sputter# living *sputter+ next to you? Foreigners? Really?

What kind of xenophobes do you think a nation of immigrants can be?

The Republicans get away with this nonsense because the media will not treat their positions with the scorn and ridicule they merit.

Jimbo said "The Republicans get away with this nonsense because the media will not treat their positions with the scorn and ridicule they merit."

Yes, there appears to be no downside to blatant lying because the media never, ever calls them on it. And obviously they feel no moral compunction to be honest. The Republicans lying seems to be becoming more blatant to me.

The Republicans, far right and their ilk deserve to have Gitmo detainees in their backyards. The Republican President and vice pres set it up without further thought. Let the republicans be accountable for allowing such a travesty.If the Republicans areheld accountavle for the smears , wars, bankrupcyof America and Americans, war crimes the horrid rhetoric would END.

It's disappointing to see Obama cave in on so many issues.

The Sanctity of Fear

It's just weird. Americans used to take pride in being "the land of the free and the home of the brave" - probably still do, except that "brave" part is no longer practiced much.

To the contrary: being afraid is now the all-purpose excuse. On the home front, this includes hiding in your home, locking in your kids, vigilantizing a neighbor who just might be a sex offender, and keeping loaded guns around where small children can reach them.

On a national scale, because we've sanctified fear as the all-purpose excuse for doing the unthinkable, too many Americans actually support locking up provably innocent people for year after year after year without even an accusation, brutally torturing people to get the answers the torturers want to hear, and listening to ALL the phone and computer traffic with special screening software to pick out items of interest. We stand sheep-like in the airport, with our shoes and belt off, our pockets emptied, all of our possessions spread out in little bins, and then stand mutely in the new Nudie View scanners which make the private dramatically public.

Nobody (or too few to be noticed in the constant din of fear, fear, fear) is saying to the American public "Man up! Grow a pair! Get some spine!" much less "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

I really wish the Dems would give serious consideration to going back to some of their Greatest Hits. Painting the Repubs as cowardly betrayers of the American tradition just might have some traction at this point.

My question is, aren't the supermax prisons WAY more secure than Guantanamo? I know I haven't seen anything of the real Gitmo, but they always show pictures of prisoners in chain link cages. You'd think that there aren't to many of those in the supermax.

I mean, as is, if they were to escape they are already in a country with a Communist government that may look the other way, or not make any effort to recapture them. All they would have to do is hang out for a little while, and float on over. Jeez, if a 9 year old boy can do it these guys would be able to...

It's just the same old crap from the fear mongers and their corporate media lackeys.

...members of Congress, who were very likely swayed by polls showing the vast majority of Americans...

Interesting how other polls indicating a vast majority of Americans' preference for one thing or another, such as ending the Iraq war, investigations into Bush administration abuses, and increasing funding for mass transit, don't ever seem to result in the same kind of Congressional response.

kanopsis, you're conflating two issues. Granted, Steve seems to share your confusion. While it is true that there are already terrorists imprisoned on U.S. soil and that nobody's ever escaped from a supermax facility, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of resettling "detainees who have been cleared for release." The latter will, by the definition of the word "release", not be in prison, much less a supermax.

I'm not making an argument here that we shouldn't allow released Gitmo detainees to live in the U.S. (I think we should have granted asylum to the Uighurs, for instance, rather than shipping them off to Palau). I'm just pointing out that it makes no sense to cite facts about prisons when discussing the question of where to resettle people after they're released from prison.

When the GOP/Right can scare up a bogus 90-6 Senate vote, there's not much point in attacking directly. It's too late; the trap is sprung. Extrication must be done carefully.

In part this problem arises from the "put all the big things on the table" approach. It makes it hard to expend capital on GITMO or DADT/DOMA or even comments on blatant lies because the administration can't give up front desk coverage to the priority message of the day/cycle.

Fundamentally, sceptic is right that this would be less of a problem were our media more independent and a lot more professional, but that isn't going to happen.

On GITMO, I expect the president will have us out of there by the end of the year, really. And, I look forward to his 2010 State of the Union Address because it will be time to swat the R/W hornet's nest on a whole lot of promises bogged down in cleaning the past and waitinf ro an actual GOP spokesperson.

We will fight them on the beaches should any RepuG be shipped to the shores of Tierra del Fuego or Patagonia.

noncarborundum is right.

Different Gitmo issues are being conflated by commenters here (WashPo's hyperbolic headline didn't help). That article almost exclusively deals with the couple dozen Uighurs (who were exonerated early on and treated much better than the vast majority of long term detainees).

Other innocents (like Boumedienne) DON'T WANT to settle here. They want to go back home. The "issue" that Obama is "caving" on is allowing detainees that BushCo tortured and illegally held but now is RELEASING to settle in the US.

I have NO PROBLEM with transferring the actual bad guys to our Supermax facilities (Montana has a brand new EMPTY prison and could take a bunch of them). However, I think the wrongly imprisoned need to go back to their home countries.

The idea of an wrongly-imprisoned, embittered and possibly converted potential jihadist being released to live here isn't a comforting thought.

It IS true that by denying even the most "tame" detainees (who are legitimate refugees), we make it much more difficult for other countries to share the burden, but I don't recall the President promising that the innocent Gitmonians would get to live here. WashPo's headline is irresponsible.

God, we are a nation of chickenshit cowards! People who peddle this fear-mongering bullshit need to be repeatedly labeled as such.

It's time to put these idiots on defense for a change. Don't try to make rational arguments. Question their fucking (wo)manhood.

How far would this nation have come if our ancestors had displayed such blatant cowardice?

I don't really want innocent Gitmo detainees to be given asylum in the US, but not for the reason the Republicans have; I genuinely fear for the safety of any detainees, cleared of any wrongdoing, being settled in this country. How long do you think it would take for any released detainee to be murdered in front of their home or work by one of our own right-wing extremists?

The idea of an wrongly-imprisoned, embittered and possibly converted potential jihadist being released to live here isn't a comforting thought.

I've got news for you. There are already plenty of home-grown embittered potential jihadists living here already, on both ends of the political spectrum.

You just need to call these people what they are.

Cowards.

Plain and simple. That is what they are. Cowards. And every time someone says they don't want Gitmo detainees on US soil call them a coward. It has the benefit of being absolutely true.

"Consider an idiot, then consider a Congressman. Ah, but I repeat myself."
Mark Twain, 1872

plus ca change...

"The Republicans, far right and their ilk deserve to have Gitmo detainees in their backyards."

No they don't. Those prisoners will provide good paying jobs for the people who will guard them. Whoever gets to keep these people will get plenty of federal money to do it. The Republicans do not deserve such federal largess. That said, the people of Florence, CO will be more than happy to build another SuperMax facility to house these detainees. It's already a town whose economic base is housing prisoners. Another prison is exactly what they want. The solution is so obvious it's wonder anyone is even talking about it. We have prisoners who need to go somewhere and somewhere that would be happy to take them. What's the issue?

AltonDarwin:

"The idea of an wrongly-imprisoned, embittered and possibly converted potential jihadist being released to live here isn't a comforting thought."

Well, then you certainly understand the reluctance of other countries to help out here, because for them your statement expands a little:

The idea of a wrongly-imprisoned, embittered and possibly converted potential jihadist generated by a country other than ours being released to live here isn't a comforting thought.

The thing that flummoxes me about this whole debate is how hard we have historically worked to extradite terrorists to our soil so they could be tried and imprisoned. After all, then they are under our control. Suddenly they are radioactive. Maybe we just need to tell everyone that we're going to put them in Yucca Mountain.