Shutting Guantanamo

Well, well. MSNBC tells us that "the world" welcomes news that President Obama will close Guantanamo. As a "citizen of the world," surely this will make the new President's heart beat faster with joy.

For the rest of us, however, it's sobering. Where, exactly, does the new President propose that the collection of terrorists -- an increasing number of whom, the Pentagon disclosed a week ago, are returning to the battlefield --go?

Do we really want jihadists in prisons, mixing with and radicalizing the general prison population, in Kansas and other maximum security jails? And wouldn't the ACLU have a great lawsuit on behalf of armed robbers, for example, if such prisons became a target for terrorists determined to martyr their brothers inside, while taking a few Americans at the same time? Does the Obama administration really think that radical jihadist terrorists are the functional equivalent, say, of the typical maximum security inmate population?

Jack Murtha says he'd house 'em in his district. Murtha opines that "They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo." Perhaps he might want to let his constituents weigh in on that -- especially if escapes or attacks occur, and if general inmate population recruiting goes well for the terrorists incarcerated there.

Oh, and for those who think that this move will buy America any meaningful "good will" on the part of our enemies, check out the quote from a former detainee in Pakistan appearing in the MSNBC story linked at the top of this post: All prisoners at Guantanamo must be freed. Tells you all you need to know -- but hey, "the world" is pleased with the US. What else do you need?