Okay, so the courts look at these cases and say, hey wait, the CSRT determinations about these cats being enemy combatants was wonky, so you need to rethink this. Rethinking commences and, hey, surprise!: No charges against them, not enemy combatants.

Everyone is totally cool with that.

So, Uighurs, you are free to go home. Safe journey.

Except, well, wait. Home doesn't want them. Uighurs: "We would like to come home, please. Can we come back?" Home: "Uh, no. You were in Afghanistan doing lord knows what. We'd feel safer if you didn't come back. we don't want you. Sorry, tough luck."

Now, this may come as a surprise, but we can't just put 17 Uighurs on a plane and send them to any country we want, even if it is their home country. That tends to violate sovreignty and all. Oh, yes, you get no argument from me that it's damned wrong to be plucking people from hither and yon, we certainly don't care about sovreignty and all when we do that, no argument. But that doesn't work in two directions. However morally repugnant it is to steal people from their home nations, we can't just send them back. Those nations may just keep them right at the airport, thank you very much, and f*ck you, United States, for trying to sneak them back in. You bastards.

Okay, so we can't just pack them on a plane and send them home. Got it. Everyone agrees.

But we can't keep them at Gitmo. There's no legal way to do so, it's wrong, and they can't be kept there. Again: everyone agrees. Cool.

So: what to do?

Bring them into the United States, let them live here! Put them in a community of other Uighurs! Boom! Done! Problem solved! Easy peasy lemon squeezy! Right?

Okay, well, hold on just a quick second here. I have a few questions.

So, when we let them in, what do they come in as, U.S. citizens? Well, no, we can't make them U.S. citizens, can we? That's just sort of crazy. They haven't been here very long--in fact, not at all--and under immigration law, it's a lengthy process, and we can't really grant them citizenship just because we imprisoned them without eventually charging them. I mean, it just sounds unreasonable and goofy. Hi, sorry we detained you because we thought you were involved in training at al Qaeda camps, here, have U.S. citizenship even though you have never lived here. Don't forget to vote!

Okay, so that doesn't work.

Well, maybe we can then make them slightly less than citizens, give them green cards and make them lawful permanent residents. But wait. Does that make sense? Given the fact that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have applied for visas to come here, and have had to wind their way through the immigration requirements, we are just going to give these guys lawful permanent status? Hmmm.

Well, wait, what if we do that, and one of them goes off and commits a crime? Can we deport them? like we can other immigrants? If so, how? Wouldn't we have to bring them into the United States consistent with U.S. immigration law, like we do with other aliens?

Well, wait, if we can only bring them in through U.S. immigration law, what do we do about the provisions of the law that would otherwise make them inadmissible? Do we just ignore those provisions?

I submit, brothers and sisters, that while everyone can agree that what happened to the Uighurs is, at the very least, regrettable, how we get them out of Gitmo is a tricky business. The devil, as always in areas of the law, is in the details. And unless you want to rip apart some of the fabric of immigration law, then this issue takes time. Unless a country is willing to take them, as one has.

(Also, if the Uighurs want to come to the United States, they can now do what every immigrant can and does do: they can go to the consular office at Palau and file a visa application. Which would be considered by US Citizenship and Immigration Services and a determination made on the application. After which, if the Uighurs don't like the determination made by the USCIS regarding their visa or applications to come to the U.S., they may sue under the APA in a U.S. district court.)

This, my friends and neighbors, is why I don't scream and pull hair when I hear that Obama has not released the Uighurs into the U.S., or warns that dealing with the Gitmo detainees like the Uighurs (non-enemy combatants, but nowhere to send them) will be our thorniest issue (it will), or when he takes positions on State Secrets privilege that seems anti-thetical to what he has previously stated, or when he hasd decided to keep (but significantly modify) military commissions.

Because, and all due respect to Prof. Greenwald and company, these things aren't so easily solved (I have yet to read Glenn Greenwald's plan for how to deal with these folks).

And I remember this because I remember thinking, "Jesus Christ, I wonder which one of these assholes is eventually going to snap and start shooting up the mall?"

And then this happens. And then I read this assface's writing snippets featured here at TPm, one of which dealt with the Rothschilds and the Feds, and I thought, oh, okay.

But I think you need to see the potential other breakdown of this. Imagine:

Pawlenty, who wants to run for President in 2012, probably doesn't want to be in the position of having to play coy with a certificate signing on the basis of a questionable federal lawsuit, and probably would like to avoid the whole thing altogether.

Norm, who may be corrupt and worthy of scorn and derision, is not a stupid man. can we all agree that Norm Coleman is probably not cut from the same Blagojevich cloth that let's him genuinely and sincerely believe he has a shot at winning? Of course not. Coleman: bad, but not stupid. So he pushes forward on a federal lawsuit to get what, exactly? Nothing. Best to let this one go, claim that he thinks it was a travesty, but proclaim that he will not press his bona fide case forward in the federal courts for the good of the people of Minnesota etc. etc. Norm has no shot of coming back politically if he keeps pissing against the wind, but he may have a chance to retire to San Clemente for a spell and come back and run for Governor if he lets this one go.

So: Pawlenty has every reason to want Norm to stop now, and Norm may recognize that his trip to the wilderness need not be so long if he stops now.

Two politicians with not incompatible goals. A situation ripe for certain soft deals to be made. Norm knocks it off, and maybe Pawlenty rewards Norm by either supporting him for Governor or by keeping his support for some other candidate at bay.

This is not inconceivable and, I would argue, more beneficial to both than a stupid tilt at yet another windmill that benefits no one.

I wish I could have made this up, but it's true. this is from an article written by Marcus Epstein, featured on the site of something called VDARE. Note that it was written in April 2008, after Epstein was arrested for his hate crime -- a fact not mentioned in his article:

In my last column, I examined how the Thought Police have moved from swastikas to nooses in the list of officially outlawable "hate symbols". The same thing is happening with words. It would be futile to even begin to catalog all the people whose careers have been destroyed for uttering "nigger" or even words that sound like "nigger" no matter the context.

Well, not impossible, Marcus. I can think where to begin.

Cite: http://www.vdare.com/epstein/080417_obama.htm

When the Howard incident occurred, I was a sophomore in high school. I will be the first to admit that at the time I didn’t know what the word “niggardly” meant. I would like to think that public servants in the District of Columbia with college degrees would have had a better vocabulary than a high school sophomore, but I’m not all that shocked that they did not.

Marcus sells himself short. His vocabulary is apparently a bit more extensive than he lets on.

Boozey f*cking kids with their Long Island Ice Teas from Sequoia.

I'd love to see how he gusses up karate-chopping a woman and calling her that word.

"I was stopped and questioned by police after, due to a miscommunication, I encountered a person while in transport from my workplace and, reasonably apprehending for my own safety, applied a martial arts defensive move to the cranial region of said person, while at the same time, again reasonably apprehensive for my safety, attempted to get my potential would-be attacker to flee by saying, in a loud tone, a word designed to cause such offense as to result in my attacker fleeing. I was convicted, and am heartily sorry."

however, note this from wikipedia: "On February 3, 2009 the Denver Post revealed that Tancredo has probably lost a significant amount of money invested in hedge funds with Agile Group, a Boulder-based investment company with substantial investments in Bernie Madoff's investment firm."

So, maybe, yeah, jzap...he probably is looking for a big payday. Maybe from where he's standing Steve Doocy's seat doesn't look too bad.

And on this one, Scalia was just a dick. No two ways about it. A pure-d, unalloyed dick.

None of these opposition assfaces would say boo to Sotomayor if they met her at a cocktail party. It would be all nice and sweet and cordial, and I suspect none of them would walk away thinking, "She's a racist.' Nor would they feel that way about Sotomayor if they appeared before her, as I have. Yeah, I thought some of her questions to me were insipid, but none--and I mean none--of the allegations these fringenuts are leveling make any sense or have a shred of evidence in support.

look to the financial interest.

The folks at this site are correct: this is about raising money through the base, and nothing brings in the checks like a good nasty us-against-those-activist-liberal-commie-racist-socialist-womb-loving-dirty-fuckin'-hippies like a Supreme Court nomination.

Nice scoop, TPM.

And now fucking Liz Cheney is on television complaining about Sotomayor? Really? Liz Cheney was a State Department appointee, whose background as a commentator on all things legal appears questionable.

How the fuck can the media be so fucking lazy as to keep coming back to the well on the same old same olds, even on matters outside their area of "expertise"?

I would like to throttle the fucking bookers who line up these talking heads. I'm serious. Why aren't they going to, you know, actual fucking elder statesmen?

He certainly could have made such a forceful declaration. This was without question in my mind one of the most powerful speeches Obama has made, not only on National Security, but on any matter since becoming President. And I think it was so powerful because it laid out a clear outline of principles for how we will proceed. Shorter Obama: This is the framework, this is how what I have done fits into this framework, and this--this--is how we are going to proceed.

And it was because of his confidence that this framework was right in the context of our American values that he could lay down some brickbats on both sides. Which he did. I heard a level of determination that some could hear as being mixed with a bit of pique over the political silliness of the last few weeks.

He mixed what I think can only be described as steely determination with eloquent and diplomatic language. For instance, he forcefully declared that we will close the prison at Guantanamo --without any hesitation or reservation. And the message between the lines was, hey, you scardey-cat and illogical Congress critters can sort of suck it if you think otherwise. So he took some in his own party to task in that measured, reasoned way that is becoming Obama's hallmark.

But here's the point: I did not hear such foreclosure with regard to possible prosecutions. Key passage:

I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

That passage packs a significant amount of punch. A significant amount. Some will see this as an abandonment of a Truth Commission (which he never wanted), and thus an abandonment of the idea at getting at the truth. But I think the President only rejected a Truth Commission as a matter of process because he believes it can be addressed elsewhere (and probably because the idea of establishing such a commission in such a charged atmosphere would be tantamount to--if I may mix metaphors for a moment--ringing the dinner bell on a three-ring circus in this town).

Now, i know some will say, yes, but maybe he wants to rule out a truth commission because he can't effectively kill a truth commission, but he can tamp down prosecution if it is led by a department of the executive branch. I think that is a cynical view.

I think the President respects, and wants to restore, the Department of Justice to its rightful place: as representatives of the American people in the cause of justice in defense of the Constitution, and not, as it has been for the last 8 years, a law firm acting at the beck and call of the White House for the purpose of covering up, excuse me, a lot of ass. Those days are gone. I can see it from here, where I sit, on the inside.

So, for President Obama to make that statement--he Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws--he is not shutting the door on prosecutions. He could have shut the door. But he did not. He's going to let this Department--a group of attorneys who cherish independence--look into it (and I think it is safe to say it is already looking into it, at least where OPR is concerned.).

That's what I took from Obama's speech.

Yeah, Bill, there probably won't be 40 years of Democrats in power in the White House. But in Congress? It's happened before.

Epically busted.

I believed when Specter came over, Obama greeted him with the full understanding that Arlen will eventually come around on a number of these issues. EFCA, certainly, and maybe Johnson (although in my heart of hearts I do not think the Obama Administration will lose sleep if she is not confirmed). Arlen needed time to settle, he needed that time after the Klieg lights went off.

Sort of like Joe Lieberman. JJoe is well-heeled now. That's the best way to put it. And I always thought that Specter would come around as well. And I am not surprised it has taken him this long. The man has faced death. He will do what he thinks is best for him. If that means coming around he will. In this sense I see him as less craven than Joe Lieberman. But Arlen is learning where his bread is to be buttered, and he wants to keep the loaf right side up. Not surprising.

And the point is, said the man in the office with the Yeungling, the point is this: Sad as it may be, Obama doesn't follow the less-than-24-hour-cycle of blog outrage. he does not. He never will. It took him three days after the Wright thing blew up to respond meaningfully. But meaningfully he did.

Which is why I think he will be strategic, and not tactical, on torture and other issues. Obama wants there to be enough oxygen in the room to pass health care reform, to get energy policy in place, to get square on Afghanistan and Pakistan and the lot, but mostly to do the things he wants to do domestically. If that means that bloggers and lefties like me chafe a little for a while, so be it. We are not going to get everything, but we are going to get a lot more than we might suppose now, in the heat and the angst and the strum of it all. He saw the path on Lieberman, and we discounted it, and we were wrong. I think that will be true with Specter, also. And with torture (though, for the record, anyone who thinks they will ever live to see George Bush in a witness box is a fool; Cheney gets only slightly less longer odds; Bybee, Yoo, etc., they will get a different punishment. The verdict will largely be written by history.).

But I've typed too much. The beer is talking.

Have a good weekend, fellow travelers.

Liz: "My father made it clear that these interrogation techniques saved lives, they got us actionable intelligence. And he knows that, he's seen the reports, the memos. And when the Obama Administration and the Democrats started coming after him and others on these techniques, he wanted those memos released, but Obama's CIA said no. So you tell me, Mika, how fair is it for the Justice Department to selectively release some memos that they say show, you know, say they are 'bad,' but not release the memos that show they techniques worked. that they were good, and kept us safe."

"So you are saying, so what are you saying? That this is a railroad to get your father, to go after him on torture, on these techniques?"

"Yes, I think it is. I mean, how else can you look at it? Obama and the Democrats are basically trying him in the public media, and it's a one-sided thing. It's their memos against my father's word, because he can't show the memos that show he was right."

"So maybe there needs to be an investigation."

"Well, Eugene, sure, maybe. And there--"

"What if it were by a special prosecutor?"

"--should be a bipartisan--wait, no, I don't think there should be a special prosecutor, no, I don't. It should be a bipartisan committee, or something like that."

"But what's wrong with a special prosecutor?"

"I'll tell you what's wrong with a special prosecutor, Mika. My father didn't commit any crimes, we didn't engage in torture, so there is not--look, we didn't have a special prosecutor on the attorney firing controversy, so why for this? We have legal memos that show this was legal. And the White House is trying to use these memos against my father when he can't effectively defend himself, because the CIA won't release their memos showing these techniques were effective. It's ridiculous."

"You're a treat. Let's keep you on an extra segment."

"Thanks, Mika. I'd love to."