Closing Gitmo? Maybe, maybe not

Via CNN - Bush administration close to shutting down Guantanamo

The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

Both the Pentagon and the White House denied Thursday evening there were any plans to close the facility.

President Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.

The advisers will consider a new proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where they could face trial, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.

Officials familiar with the agenda of the Friday meeting said Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace were expected to attend.

It was not immediately clear if the meeting would result in a final recommendation to Bush.
"No decisions on the future of Guantanamo Bay are imminent"

Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott Stanzel said Thursday that there are no plans for such a meeting.

Certainly just because the White House denies it doesn't mean anything. As I recall, they denied that Rummy was leaving almost up until the moment it was announced. Only time will tell I guess.

An interesting development (US-Russian Relations edition)

NYT - Putin Surprises Bush With Plan on Missile Shield

After months of angrily rejecting a White House plan for missile defense in Europe, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia surprised President Bush on Thursday with an offer to build a joint system in the former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan.

The proposed system, designed to guard against a missile attack from Iran, poses serious diplomatic and technical challenges, experts said. But the fact that it was suggested by Mr. Putin, and not immediately rejected by Mr. Bush, indicated a desire on both sides to cool the hostile exchanges that in recent months had driven relations to a low point in the post-cold-war era.

[. . .]

Experts say that Mr. Putin’s proposal faces a number of daunting, and possibly insurmountable, hurdles. Russia leases but does not own the radar station in Azerbaijan, and it is an early warning system, not the X-band radar that is used to guide antimissile interceptors, and which the Bush administration wants to build in the Czech Republic.

Trust between the nations is also an issue. The plan would require the kind of intense cooperation in which only the closest allies could engage. With the two sides already embroiled in disputes over the future of Kosovo, the state of democratic institutions in Russia and how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, some experts raised questions about whether Mr. Putin was serious — and, if he was, whether the White House would ever accept the offer.

[. . .]

In recent weeks, the Russian president has made a veiled comparison between the United States and the Third Reich, complained of “diktat and imperialism,” and, most recently, threatened to once more aim Russian missiles at Europe if Mr. Bush went through with his missile defense plan.

This is an interesting tactic by Putin. The Bush Administration has long insisted that the missile defense system was not about US-Russian relations, but about threats from rogue states. By offering this proposal, it seems to me, Putin is trying to make Bush prove that his argument is sincere. I think the fact that Bush did not turn down the deal right away is a step in the right direction. I find it hard to believe that we would go so far as to accept the deal, but the fact that civilized communication is taking the forefront over veiled threats is a definite improvement. Hopefully a true compromise can eventually be worked out.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . .unless they are at Guantanamo

NYT - New to Job, Gates Argued for Closing Guantánamo

In his first weeks as defense secretary, Robert M. Gates repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.

This idea was shot down, however, because some members of the administration wanted to make sure that the detainees didn't gain any Constitutional rights.

There is widespread agreement, however, that moving any detainees or legal proceedings to American territory could bring significant complications.

Some administration lawyers are deeply reluctant to move terrorism suspects to American soil because it could increase their constitutional and statutory rights — and invite an explosion of civil litigation. Guantánamo was chosen because it was an American military facility but not on American soil.

It is funny (ironic) to me that the United States was founded with the grand notion that all men are created equal, but when it comes down to it, we don't seem to think that all men (human beings) are entitled to the same rights or considerations. If they are not American citizens or housed on American soil, we don't have to treat them in the way that we claim to believe all of human-kind should be treated.

If we truly believe that our justice system is the best possible (although not perfect) form of determining guilt or innocence and doling out judgments while preserving the inalienable rights of the individual, why are we so bound and determined not to use it in the case of terror suspects. The short answer, of course, is that we think they don't have any rights. They are guilty until proven innocent. Actually they are guilty. Period. Or maybe even exclamation point. They are guilty, we know it, we shouldn't have to prove it. We should just be able to torture them and execute them. End of story.

I'm sorry, but that is just not the moral foundation that my country was founded on. It seems to me that if we can't try and convict them according to our stated standard of justice, the same standard we hold our own citizens to, then we have no business being the ones to punish them.

Lost laptops. . .and weapons!

CNN - FBI loses laptops with classified information

The FBI lost at least 10 laptop computers containing classified information during a four-year period ending in 2005, the Justice Department's inspector general has found.

The 10 were among the 160 laptops lost or stolen during a 44-month period ending September 30, 2005, Inspector General Glenn Fine reported. Along with the laptops, an equal numbers of weapons were also missing.

One's initial response might be that this sounds bad, but you haven't heard the best part yet:

The report said the number of missing items, while still a problem, represents a sharp improvement since a 2002 audit, which found more than 300 laptops and 300 weapons lost or stolen during the previous 28-month period.

Now as a percentage of the total laptops and weapons they are responsible for, this may seem small, but it still seems like it is way higher than it should be considering the sensitive nature of the items in question.