Here's some real substance for a light Friday. National Journal: Obama's Dangerous Detainees

I do not think I would be the only rider here to say this, but I am going to take special pleasure in the way the Obama administration re-brands previous Bush policies in an effort to soften them into baby mush mouthfuls suitable for mass public consumption. Obama showed a tendency for this approach after the primaries, where he gently backed away from far left stances that won him votes and voted for FISA and supported the gun control ruling in DC, and so on.

This come-to-jesus moment could be witnessed again when the Iraq timetable for withdrawal came back into the public discussions. From the stump, Obama wanted an immediate withdrawal early in the primaries. As the situation greatly improved in Iraq, he wanted a withdrawal based on conditions. His tuned has changed quite a bit and has come right back to where Bush Co said it would be: withdrawal based on the ground situation and in agreement with the Iraqi government. Sounds pretty logical, no?

Now the focus is on Guantanamo and its detainees. Of course, the position that won Obama the most votes appealed to groups like the ACLU. Nobody's going to rush to the polls with the intent of keeping Guantanamo open, right? The post-election tune has changed some, wouldn't you say?

The president-elect said on January 11, on ABC's This Week, that he wants "a process that adheres to [the] rule of law [but] doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up." He also said that "many" detainees who "may be very dangerous" present special problems because "some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true." And Eric Holder testified on Thursday, during the Senate confirmation hearing on his nomination to be attorney general, that "I don't think . . . we can release" people known to be dangerous.

[Raising my hand] Isn't there a great deal of grey area between people who are dangerous and those who are intent on blowing us up? Isn't that the point of Guantanamo? The US captures individuals that are engaged in terrorist activities against it during what the US determines is part of a larger conflict. Evidence exists that implicates these individuals, but the nature of it does not always lead to full disclosure. The detainees either claim no sovereign nation or their native countries do not want them repatriated. Guantanamo is where you keep these individuals until: the war on terror is over; evidence supports conviction and the individual no longer offers any valuable intelligence; current legal processes can be tailored to accommodate 21st century enemy combatants terrorists criminals.

Getting back to the article, Obama will have some tough choices to make that do not fit on a campaign t-shirt. He can determine who is still of value in terms of intel and who is not. Then he can decided who can be tried, and in what type of court. Those who are left will need to go somewhere. If Obama moves them within the US borders, that's not closing Guantanamo as much as it is moving and renaming. He can hope to get other countries to take them back. But that's not like the US being asked to take back Madonna. There's going to be individuals that are not wanted back. Take it to the bank.

So what I see is not so much a rejection of Bush Co's policies as much as a rebranding. Guantanamo will cease to exist. But the policies that brought it into existence will not. The US will still detain terrorists caught in the field. Unless Obama plans on capturing these people and giving them a one-way ticket to Times Square, they are going to be detained outside the US. Some of those detainees are still going to fall through the coarse cracks in the judicial system and they are still going to pose a threat to the US. Obama is not going to win support for a catch and release program for international terrorists. He's also smart enough to know that hanging on to some of them is going to make his job easier.