Guantanamo Bay Closed... Now What?

Two days after Barack Obama's inauguration, he signed an executive order closing the terror detention facility at  Guantanamo Bay, effective within twelve months.  Many, including Democrats and foreign government officials, applauded the decision.  But when asked question- where will the 250 or so detainees currently being held go once the detention facility closes?- the same people who cheered the closing offered no answer.

Some Republicans, rather tongue-in-cheekly (at least I hope so), suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a vocal critic of GITMO, reopen Alcatraz in her home state and prep it for the detainees.  This partisan bickering does not solve any problems, but the Republicans did raise the question none of the Democrats wanted raised in public.

Speaker Pelosi shrugged off the Republicans' suggestion, but neither the speaker, nor any other Democrat offer up any alternatives.  And why would they?  In a show of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) literally on a national scale, not a single one of the 535 members of Congress offered up their states or congressional districts, not even those with active prisons.  And why would they?

Any city or state that opens its facilities to these detainees will make themselves a potential future target.  And let's not forget that, while there may be some innocent detainees, others, while maybe not directly guilty in the execution of a terror attack, may be complicit in either the planning or execution of past and/or future terror attacks.  And the thing sought after by many of the guilty, is the martyr's death, not only for the rewards they believe they will receive in heaven, but also because of the outrage, the indignation, the hate for America that their 'sacrifice' would, with any luck, raise in others in their fraternity.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four of his co-defendants tried to enter a guilty plea on December 8, 2008- why? Are we o believe they had a change of conscience, and now wish to atone for their sins?  Please.  If you believe that, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.  Cheap.  Make me an offer.

No, the defendants entered their guilty plea after the election of the new U.S. President, but before the inauguration.  Since the new President-Elect had already telegraphed his intentions, they schemed and entered their plea, not because they believed they were guilty, but because they were hoping to be put to death by the evil United States Government.  Why?  To try to foment outrage with other Al-Quaeda members, in the hopes of spurring them into action, to get cracking on the next wave of terrorist attacks against our country and countrymen.  

And let's face it- prison isn't exactly a safe place to be- "accidents" happen, what with all of the gangs in prison, and guards, being only human, may not actively participate in harming the detainees, but they may not do absolutely everything in their power to prevent it.

  

Remember Jeffrey Dahmer?  Inmates have their own scale of wrong, and their own punishments.  I have no doubt that a remorseless schemer like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could (and would) say the wrong thing to the wrong people, and get himself shanked.  Even in a Supermax security prison, like Colorado's Florence Federal Supermax Penitentiary.  For the record, there was a riot at the facility as recently as April 2008, where 200 out of the approximately 500 inmates got out of control.  Its not a matter of if it will happen again, its when.  Don't think so?  Toss 200 foreign terror suspects into the mix, and you might as well throw gasoline onto a smoldering fire and expect it to not burst into flames.  Hell, if Vegas were to put an over/under on how long it'd take, I'd be tempted to put some money on it.

So, Mr. President, if we actually want to keep these detainees alive, and none of your fellow politicians is volunteering to house these detainees for fear of turning their cities and/or states into targets for potential future terrorist attacks, where are you going to ship these 250 or so detainees?

[crickets]

Well, Mr. President, perhaps you should've thought about that before you announced GITMO's closing as publicly as you did, eh?  Oh, I forgot, getting your hands dirty with little things like details isn't your thing.  You are more about the abstracts- 'hope' and 'change'- and the grand gestures.  You don't have time for little things like 'details'.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009- Not 'For The People' After All...

"We won the election. We wrote the bill."

-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, January, 2008, regarding the House of Representatives version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, November, 2008.

You hear that whirring noise sounding something like a high-speed drill coming out of Washington? That's Washington firing up the printing presses, getting ready to print up as much money as they can as fast as they can under the pretext of 'Economic Stimulus'. They'll print up so much money so fast, your cash won't be worth the paper its printed on.

In truth, Pelosi, Emanuel, et al can only claim about 12 CENTS out of every dollar in the roughly $825 BILLION 'Economic Stimulus Package' would actually go to create jobs and stimulate the economy- anything more, and their noses would grow so fast it would make Pinocchio blush.

What's in the 647-page bill anyway? Some of the highlights:

$40 billion for arguably worthwhile priorities like broadband and electrical grid development, airports, and clean water projects.

$30 billion for fixing bridges and other highway projects- less than 5% of the total cost. This is what President Obama calls "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy."? This after the bridge collapse in Minneapolis in 2007, after which a report was released in 2007 showing 75,621 bridges were also given the same 'structurally deficient' label as the I-35W bridge, and promises were made to get the infrastructure improved. Well, if they were to concentrate on the bridges and nothing but the bridges, that would amount to about $396,715.00 per bridge... what will that really get you? And that does not even cover any new projects, expansion, nothing. I don't know about you, but I think I'm going to start just avoiding bridges altogether.

$20 billion for business tax cuts.

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture 'demonstration projects' (huh?), a.k.a. carbon sequestration, a.k.a. junk science that does not do anything to change behavior or reduce our use of fossil fuels.

$2 Billion in child-care subsidies.

Amtrak gets $1 Billion; I mean, hey, who cares if they haven't turned a profit in 40 years?

And additional $650 million for even more digital TV conversion coupons.

$50 Million for the National Endowment for the Arts.

By the Wall Street Journal's estimates, only about $90 billion of the total- just over ten percent- could be considered something that would contribute to growth.

And the best part- the President's new budget director, Peter Orszag, told Congress a year ago that the public works projects can't start quickly enough to provide a timely stimulus to the economy.

What else is in here?

$83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax.

$81 billion for Medicaid.

$66 billion or education- with verbiage to prevent the funds from being used to provide financial assistance to students to attend private schools... yeah, because we wouldn't want any of that money going to non-union employees, now would we?

$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits.

$20 billion for food stamps.

$8 Billion for renewable energy funding... I guess its a start, but considering its less than half of the money we sent overseas for oil in December 2008 alone, it seems kind of an empty gesture to me.

$7 Billion to modernize Federal buildings and facilities.

$6 billion to mass transit. Considering how entrenched unions are in mass transit, and how much the Democratic Party courts the unions, does this smell like buying votes to anybody else?

$600 million for the Federal Government to buy new cars.

Where is the job creation in all of this?

And come next budget year, how much of this is going to be figured into the baseline? Or do you actually believe that Congress will actually cut spending on all of these programs next year?

The Speaker said it best- "We [The Democratic Party] won the election. We wrote the bill." Who cares what you want or need, or even what's best for the American people as a whole; the Democratic Party has to look out for number one- the Party itself. Change indeed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The Party and the special interests get everything they want the way they want, and who's left holding the bill? Look in the mirror.

http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB123310466514522309-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB123310466514522309-lMyQjAxMDI5MzIzODEyMDg0Wj.html