Hold the Line on Guantanamo

You've got to wonder what's really going on when Obama seems to cave into the opposition without too much of a fight. One doesn't, for example, see him saying, "Well, okay, health care reform is a bust for this year. The public just won't have it! We'll revisit this issue after we handle the economy." Nope. Not going to happen.

So The Washington Post story that Obama is caving on the New York trials for KSM and friends is a red flag. What's he really up to?

The Post gives us a clue:

If Obama accepts the likely recommendation of his advisers, the White House may be able to secure from Congress the funding and legal authority it needs to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and replace it with a facility within the United States. The administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.

Ah! So he'll agree to try KSM and friends in the military tribunal system IF he can bring the rest of the terrorists to the United States.

And he's got an ally:

Top Obama advisers have been negotiating with. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) -- a vocal critic of trying the Sept. 11 suspects in civilian court -- in pursuit of a deal that would secure his help in closing Guantanamo. Graham has sought the creation a legal framework that would spell out how the government would detain and try future captives, but an administration official warned that a "grand bargain" is not likely in the immediate future. The official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the talks with Graham have been mostly about "limited issues" involving the Mohammed trial and the future of Guantanamo.

What's Graham going to get out of this?

Andy McCarthy is on to this charade:

The real agenda here is to close Gitmo. That’s the ball to keep your eye on. The Post is trying to soften the opposition to shuttering the detention camp by portraying beleaguered, reasonable Obama as making a great compromise that will exasperate the Left. The idea is to strengthen Sen. Lindsey Graham’s hand in seeking reciprocal compromise from our side.

This, however, is a matter of national security, not horse-trading over a highway bill. You don’t agree to do a stupid thing that endangers the country just because your opposition has magnanimously come off its insistence that you do two stupid things that endanger the country.

If a deal to grant military commissions in exchange for closing Gitmo happens, it is a major win for the Obama Left and an enormous loss for public safety.

Michelle Malkin suggests we continue to call them out. This isn't an issue that merits compromise.

Ed Morrissey sees this issue as having an impact on the health care debate as well:

This may have some impact on the health-care debate as well. There have been suggestions that Obama would sacrifice his progressives and hoodwink the House into passing the Senate bill without seriously attempting to get the fixes House Democrats want made through reconciliation. After this retreat, Obama won’t dare cross the progressives on ObamaCare now — but they may be angry enough to demand a do-over to restore the public option. Just when Obama needed the Left to sit quietly so he could pass something on health care, he will enrage them on a key cause.

In either case, we don't want this lame health care boondoggle and we sure don't want Gitmo graduates on American soil. (And if this health care bill passes, you can bet the Gitmo guys will be getting better health care than the rest of us.)

Stay vigilant. Don't let this administration compromise on national security. As McCarthy said, there's just no reason to do it. Congress wasn't going to approve the funding to close Gitmo or renovate Thomson prison. Nobody in Congress wants THAT vote on their record heading into the midterms.

Hold the line.

(More at Memeorandum)