This is like a tacit admission of what more reasonable minds already knew: such irrational detainments create new national security risks. Such detainment creates terrorists. Why should they not view us as enemies, if we imprisoned them for no reason for years? We are creating enemies where perhaps none existed before.

The other insidious thing: the Cheney family and Armitage are investors and beneficiaries of the detainment industry, CACI, and CCA. These companies bill the feds daily by # of "beds filled." Do the math. Go read the "investors" sections of those companies' websites. They have big, big plans for "growth."

Perhaps they would like to detain the "liberal media" who object to such. That's the way it worked in fascist states.

Possibly the most disgraceful statement on this comes from Dana Perino (NYT via Froomkin):
"The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said the administration was 'deeply concerned by, and strongly disagrees with' the decision. She added that the ruling, 'if allowed to stand, could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country.'

Someone who can claim that a ruling releasing the innocent is bad because it might lead to releasing the guilty is truly the face of evil.

**************
Someone who can claim that a ruling releasing the innocent is bad because it might lead to releasing the guilty is truly the face of evil.
**************

Yep, and replace "An institution that" for "someone who" and you have the definition of what our DOJ has willingly become. Those who are still there, 8 years into the Bush "policies" are there because they like the face they see in the mirror. That's a knot that won't ever be unravelled.

And what we know now, since at least the publication of Jane Mayer's book, is that Addington and all the President's lawyers were given unequivocal information no later than mid 2002 that a large chunk of those held at GITMO (without even thinking of all those held at Bagram and later, in Iraq)were absolutely innocent of any connections with terrorism or the Taliban.

But while they get lionized by those in search of a hero, the likes of Jack Goldsmith et al took those facts, and still embraced their "torture tour" merit badges and did nothing. Said nothing. And still, to this day, advocate for continuing to torture the innocents in secret prisons rather than undermine the "Republican Presidential Power" they are vested in.

At least their divestiture is likely to come if there is a Democratic President. It doesn't take much more than that to change any of their presidential ideology. And even a Democratic president, with the choice we have left, will bend over backwards to accomodate THEIR continued freedom, despite their conspiracies of torture and kidnap and imprisonment.

And if a Democratic president does, ultimately end up in office, they will get the "blame" of releasing terrorists into society if the follow the law - all because the heads of the the DOJ for the entirety of the Bush administration, whether AG, DAG, Sol Gen or Dep, head of OLC or head of CRiminal divisions, or by and large, USAs, have all been willing torture advocates - have all wanted to sit back and adopt policies of human experimentation without remorse.

Whether you believe in it or not, you can at least understand why humanity has hell as a construct. The fact that the people who are willing to embrace and cover up that much evil end up rewarded with sinecures makes the ration and humane parts of the brain, or soul if you will, revolt.