Dems Fire Back

[Gaspar]

Angry at the President?

According to the Times this morning, Dems have fired back by adding measures in their Omnibus spending bill that make it impossible for President Obama to take any steps in closing GITMO or bringing enemy combatants here for trial:

This year's omnibus spending bill refuses to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and would block the transfer of any suspected terrorist detainees to the United States in what appears to be the final blow for President Obama's campaign pledge to shutter the facility.

The massive spending bill Democrats released early Wednesday morning would prohibit the Obama administration from spending any money either to transfer detainees to the United States or to buy a replacement prison in the United States, as Mr. Obama had planned.

Prohibiting spending effectively stops the administration from acting over the next year, and with Republicans about to take control of the House in January, his chances are virtually zero that Congress will relent any time before the president stands for re-election in 2012.

The bill, which will be voted on over the next week or so, explicitly prohibits the transfer of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"None of the funds provided to the Department of Justice in this or any prior Act shall be available for the acquisition of any facility that is to be used wholly or in part for the incarceration or detention of any individual detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of June 24, 2009," the bill says.

Closing the prison was one of Mr. Obama's chief campaign pledges and was one of the first orders he issued after being inaugurated last year, when he set a one-year deadline for closure. But he's struggled to carry it out, failing to meet his deadline and battling both Republicans and Democrats in Congress who fear a prison on U.S. soil would be riskier and could confer new rights on detainees.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told a Senate panel that the administration was ready to move forward but needed Congress to approve the money to buy a new prison in the United States. The department was eyeing a facility in Illinois, Mr. Obama's home state, as a likely candidate for the massive conversion that would be required to hold detainees.

The detainee decision is part of the massive full-year spending bill Congress will consider to fund the government for fiscal 2011. The fiscal year began Oct. 1, and Congress has not passed a single one of the dozen appropriations bills yet, which has left the government running on stopgap funding.

The new bill would freeze total discretionary funding at 2010 spending, which came to $1.09 trillion. The Defense Department would see a slight increase in funding for troops' salaries and health benefits, while cuts would be made to domestic agencies.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Hillary, fire up the jet, you're headed back to Washington.

[nathanm]

Is there a reason that KSM is more dangerous if held in a prison here? Does he have a nuke up his donkey or what?

[guido911]

Transferred GITMO detainees return to terrorism.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/12/director-of-national-intelligence-gitmo-detainees-transferred-under-obama-administration-have-reenga.html

[Conan71]

Is there a reason that KSM is more dangerous if held in a prison here? Does he have a nuke up his donkey or what?

Why do we really care if detainees are held in the U.S., Europe, Cuba, Iraq, or Russia?

"Gitmo" was just another sound bite like "waterboarding" Dems used to whip up resentment toward Bush and the hawks in the GOP.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Gaspar]

Is there a reason that KSM is more dangerous if held in a prison here? Does he have a nuke up his donkey or what?

Domestic prison's are notorious for being incapable of providing the security necessary for high-level detainees.  Just last week Charles Manson was caught sitting in his cell talking on a cell phone.

Military prisons are staffed by people less likely to be susceptible to bribes or smuggling by outside influences.  They are typically secluded away from any such temptations.  This also decreases the possibility of influence on the surrounding population and makes the possibility of attack or escape attempt far less likely.

In GITMO, KSM has no assets in close proximity. 

[we vs us]

Just last week Charles Manson was caught sitting in his cell talking on a cell phone.

Charles Manson = "high value?"  Yep, you're sooooo right. 

Do you do much reading/viewing on Supermax prisons?  In actuality, we do a stupendous job of isolating "high value" people for the rest of their natural born lives.  It's actually one of our core competencies.

[Conan71]

Charles Manson = "high value?"  Yep, you're sooooo right. 

Do you do much reading/viewing on Supermax prisons?  In actuality, we do a stupendous job of isolating "high value" people for the rest of their natural born lives.  It's actually one of our core competencies.

Seems like the same can be said of our military prisons.  Why do we really need to spend the money on another at the moment, especially when we'd like to see less military spending?

[Gaspar]

Seems like the same can be said of our military prisons.  Why do we really need to spend the money on another at the moment, especially when we'd like to see less military spending?

Good point.  We seem to have a nice one down south.

[Gaspar]

Dems fire another volley. 

Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell Denied in the Senate.


I like Stephen Colbert's explanation: "What if the guy saving your @ss on the battlefield is just saving it for later?"