Obama: Only Two Days to Make the US Less Safe

It took President Barack Obama a mere two days to make the United States less safe than we were on Tuesday.

With two executive orders, Obama approved the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and all such facilities throughout the world, despite the fact that he has no idea of what to do with the terrorists detained there. He then announced that the U.S. will no longer torture terrorist subjects.

The speculation is that some terrorists will be released to "countries that want them." If no other country wants them, do we get them by default?

Others will be tried in "modified military commissions." Whatever that is (we can say that quite often regarding Obama's plans).

The rest of the detainees, those who can't be released or tried, will face a "national security court," again yet to be defined.

A correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers unwittingly gave the most essential reason why these terrorists cannot be tried in a non-military court:

The detainees had access only to the unclassified evidence against them, and they had no way to challenge it. Military officials told them nothing of other evidence that might be responsible for their detention.

If these detainees are tried in a civilian court, they will have to be provided classified intelligence and military information, or they will walk. And, of course, the classified information will be revealed in court or otherwise leaked to the press. That will do untold damage to the war on terror.

Reports indicate that many Guantanamo detainees who have been released have indeed returned to the war against us.

AP reported today on an alleged statement from a Yemeni group known as "al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula," who claim "that group's No. 2 is a Saudi national who is a former Guantanamo detainee."

This, apparently, is nothing new.

The Washington Post reported in 2004 that one of the repatriated Guantanamo prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said.

Meanwhile, Obama announced to the press -- and our enemies throughout the world -- that the U.S. can only use interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. This inexplicable pronouncement tells our enemies that U.S. soldiers and intelligence officials cannot use any extreme methods of interrogation, even to elicit information that could save American lives. How many terrorist captured in the future will talk, knowing that their interviewers are limited in what they can do to them.

In two quick strokes of a pen, Obama has made it easier for terrorists to do their job: killing us; and he made it harder for the military to do their job: protecting us from the people who want to kill us.

Obama: Change that Could Kill Us.

Massachusetts is Suppressing Military Voters

According to WTKK FM talk show host, Michael Graham, officials in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are engaged in knowing and intentional voter suppression.

Reports Graham: Secretary of State, Bill Galvin, has been ignoring federal law designed to protect the voting rights of uniformed military personnel deployed to Iraq and elsewhere.

According to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice, Galvin's office has been in violation of the Uniformed Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) since its inception in 2002.

This violation, Graham challenges, indicates that Galvin refused to obey the law and make sure Massachusetts military members got their ballots and had their votes counted.

While no such assertion was stated in the DoJ complaint, the DoJ did state that: Without (UOCAVA compliance), Congress and the public cannot determine whether states are fulfilling their obligations to let uniformed service members and overseas citizens fully participate in our elections.

Galvin, it appears, is not reporting accurate and complete information about whether our uniformed service members and overseas citizens are being given an effective opportunity to have their votes counted.

While we cannot prove that Galvin is truly suppressing military votes, his office cannot prove that they were not.

This transgression seems odd from someone who lobbied for ballots in Boston to be translated into Chinese to protect the rights of Chinese-speaking voters.

Could Galvin, a Democrat, have reason to prevent the military from voting in the fact that the large majority of soldiers are planning to vote for Sen. John McCain? Recall that Al Gore and the Democrats tried to suppress military votes in Florida during the 2000 election.

He won't say.

When confronted by Graham, who called Galvin's office, Galvin's spokesperson refused comment. Later, the spokesperson called Graham's producer, demanding that the talk-master stop talking about the subject. According to Graham's blog, The Secretary was filing a complaint against me with the Federal Communications Commission because he didn't like what I was saying.

Not unusual that a Democrat would try to shut down dissent.

Could it be that Galvin would not allow the people defending our democracy participate in our democracy?