I personally think the President is doing the right thing by closing Guantanamo Bay. I also think the President should have made it very clear that he is not the one who made the decision that these detainees should be tried in federal court rather than a military court. The truth of the matter is that it was the US State Attorney General who made that call.
I agree with the US State Attorney General’s opinion on this matter for the following reasons:
1. The US Military is not above the law.
2. The US Military is bound by the US Constitution as well as International Law “The
Geneva Convention.”
3. If the US Military is allowed to torture and in some cases kill detainees in direct
violation of the US Constitution and International Law, WE THE PEOPLE have
have lost our freedom and all right to due process of law.
4. If WE THE PEOPLE allow this kind of conduct to exist in our Military, how much
longer would it be before WE THE PEOPLE allow this same kind of conduct to exist
within our State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies?
5. More importantly, if WE THE PEOPLE allow the military to violate the Geneva
Convention WE THE PEOPLE would have no legitimate complaint against any
enemies of The United States who torture and or kill American soldiers whom they
have detained.
6. Last but not least, if the military and/or any other legally recognized Law
Enforcement Agency deprives any one the judicial authority to consider petitions for
habeas corpus relief (Terrorists or otherwise) this would allow them to Circumvent
the current enacted Law which states “one is innocent until proven guilty” to now
mean one is “guilty until proven innocent.” Therefore, granting them the Lawful
authority to deprive any one they please of their constitutional right to Due Process of
Law by merely declaring they are a potential terrorist.

This is only my opinion for what it’s worth. You decide for yourself, whether we should close down Guantanamo Bay or not.
________________________________________________________________________

The Department of Homeland Security (HDS) has now made it clear that a potential
terrorist (Domestic Extremist) is one who disagrees with the policies of our current Government and/or supports our US Constitution.



26 March 2009
(U) Prepared by the Strategic Analysis Group and the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland
Environment Threat Analysis Division.

(U//FOUO) Domestic Extremism Lexicon

(U) patriot movement (U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American
Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises
violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign
citizens.
(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
Constitutionist)
For further (HDS) views on Domestic Extremists go to Yahoo and type in (U//FOUO) Domestic Extremist Lexicon.

Now, under these circumstances one may assume that (HDS) could declare any one who disagrees with our current Federal Government to be a terrorist (Domestic Extremist). Therefore, giving them the authority to arrest any one at their leisure. “Totally disregarding their Constituional rights. specificly the right of due process of law.” and/or “the right to petition government for redress of greavences”

If the (HDS) declares any one who supports the Constitution to be a Domestic Terrorist should they be denied their constitutional rights to Due Process of Law and sent Guantanamo Bay to be tried by the Military?

The constitution makes no destination between a Domestic terrorist and a foreign terrorist.

The constitution states “all enemies foreign and domestic”

THINK ABOUT IT.

Holding enemy combatants until the end of hostilities has happened in every war that I know of. The trials at Nuremberg happened after the war, they held the National Socialists for trial until they had investigated and determined the facts.

Closing Gitmo doesn’t make us ‘safer’ neither does leaving it open.