You can change the orders, the personnel or whatever. Closing Guantanamo is symbolic. Policy change is fine and may be exactly the right thing to do, but the location is not in itself abusive. If the prisoners were moved to someplac else and tortured Guantanamo would be closed. If the prisoners were left at Guantanamo and not tortured there would be something substantive.

I'm just weary of emotional and PR reactions to solving policy problems. "Closing Guantanamo" is not the issue one way or another.



>It's hardly cosmetic to reaffirm our commitment to the Geneva Conventions and human rights. Coming the first week of the Obama administration, the repudiation of Bush administration policies in this area and the signal to the rest of the world could not be more clear. Not quite sure how you can consider this just political and cosmetic.
>
>>Since the purpose of the exercise is political and cosmetic it would seem anywhere it gets off the lefty blog radar would serve the purpose and make everyone feel good about themselves.
>>
>>>Maybe Said Ali al-Shihri, can tell us:
>>>
>>>http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php?page=1
>>>
>>>Somehow the thought of a Saudi terrorist rehabilitation center just doesn't promote images of 'rehabilitation.' They still claim %100 success. Now the U.S. is considering opening one up in Yemen? How likely is it that it will be an improvement on Guatamano? I guess that means they won't be moved into the U.S....