CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Where will Obama put the terrorists?

On Thursday, President Obama directed the closing of the terrorist detention center in Guantanamo Bay, but not for a year.

Senator McCain thinks Obama was too hasty and failed to consider where the terrorists detained at Guantanamo will go:

"So, the easy part, in all due respect, is to say we're going to close Guantanamo," McCain said. "Then I think I would have said where they were going to be taken. Because you're going to run into a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem here in the United States of America."

Politico's Josh Gerstein reports that Obama's order to close the terrorist prison sounds dramatic and unequivocal, but "experts predict that American policy towards detainees could remain for months or even years pretty close to what it was as President Bush left office."

Watch the video:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

President Bush also wanted to close the terrorist detention facility. He directed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to try to repatriate detainees to their home countries, make sure they are held safely and treated humanely and that they are not allowed to perpetrate acts of terrorism.

In 2007, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the administration continued to struggle with how to address security concerns that could result from closing Guantanamo:

"The president has said he would like nothing better than at some point to shut down Guantanamo Bay, but there are a number of steps that need to be taken between here and that stated objective and they are tough issues," McCormack said. "There are people down at Guantanamo Bay who are very, very dangerous and you can't just let them walk free."

What do you do with these terrorists?  Do you imprison them here? Do you release them back into the battlefield?

Since 2002, nearly 520 detainees have been released from detention facility. According to CNN, 61 of those former prisoners have or are suspected of rejoining the war Islamic extremists continue to wage against the U.S. One has even become the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch.

Pennsylvania Democrat, John Murtha, told Fox News he'd be willing to house Guantanamo prisoners in his Congressional district. Most Americans don't want those terrorists in their neighborhood.

Time reports there are six prisons that could house the terrorists held at Guantanamo:

1. U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas - a 515-bed military prison, the only maximum-security prison in the Department of Defense:

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, and Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican, have publicly opposed the idea of bringing Gitmo inmates to Leavenworth, which is in close proximity to the surrounding community, including an airport, farms and hospitals. Brownback, terming such a transfer as "unwise and unsafe," has also introduced legislation calling for 90 days' notice prior to transferring enemy combatants to another possible site, in Charleston, S.C.

2. U.S. Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, South Carolina - a medium-security prison, the brig can hold up to 288 inmates:

The facility is within walking distance of the Port of Charleston and within two miles of civilian residences. Congressman Henry Brown, a Republican, has said moving Gitmo inmates there would be a "a high-risk move ... I am fearful for what they might bring with them, and I think it would put the local citizens at risk."

3. Camp Pendleton, San Diego, California - the Marines' largest training facility on the West Coast:

But the local Republican Congressman, Representative Duncan D. Hunter, has mounted a fierce campaign against transferring detainees there. "The facilities, as they stand right now, are not designed to house large populations of inmates — they're not prisons," says Hunter's spokesman Joe Kasper. Pendleton has more than 2,600 buildings and structures, along with 7,300 housing units with 14,000 military family members.

Hunter introduced legislation on Thursday to prohibit the transfer of Gitmo inmates to Pendleton or to the nearby Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. "Redirecting these detainees to Camp Pendleton would present a serious threat to surrounding military installations and resources, as well as the community's civilian population," Hunter wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier this month.

4. Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, San Diego, California - the 23-acre Miramar facility can hold up to 400 prisoners:

Home of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Miramar was included in the bill introduced by Congressman Hunter to prohibit transferring Guantánamo detainees to existing facilities or constructing new detention facilities in the same areas.

5. U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility, Florence, Colorado - the 37-acre" Supermax" prison has 490 beds and at present holds 430 prisoners:

This federal prison 90 is minutes outside Denver.

6. Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York City - located in lower Manhattan across the street from the federal courthouse, the high-rise Metropolitan Correctional Center primarily detains pretrial and holdover inmates.

Are any of those facilities near your neighborhood?

Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, claims that closing the terrorist detention center somehow "made America safer." I don't see how. I agree with House Republican Leader John Boehner, as long as it is necessary to protect our national security interests, the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay should remain open.

Court rules President's warrantless wiretapping power legal

So the Bush administration got it right and the New York Times got it wrong all along.

The New York Times reports a decision, made in December by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, validates the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved.

According to the Times, the decision marks the first time since the New York times decided to reveal the National Security Agency’s (NSA) Terrorist Surveillance Program three years ago that an appellate court has addressed the constitutionality of the federal government’s wiretapping powers:

In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping.

Still, the new ruling is expected to have broad implications for federal wiretapping law, because it is the first time that any appeals court has ruled on the constitutional question of the president’s wiretapping power.

You may recall that after it revealed the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program, the New York Times was accused of doing so in order to sell a book. Even the Washington Post took the Times to task for revealing the classified program.

President-elect Obama, then a United States Senator, was highly critical of the presidential wiretapping power claimed by President Bush, and threatened to filibuster the revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies participating in the NSA's terrorist surveillance program. Obama ultimately voted for the revisions, angering many of his left-wing liberal supporters.

The warrantless Terrorist Surveillance Program is only one of the things Obama promised to have his  Attorney General investigate. For his part, Attorney General-Designate Holder has already made his mind up, incorrectly, that President Bush was wrong to authorize the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Scheuer: Panetta Clinton 'chose to do nothing to protect America.'

Michael Scheuer, a former CIA Officer In Charge of the hunt for Bin Laden is critical of former President Clinton and the man reported to be President-elect Obama's pick to head the CIA, Leon Panetta:

Appearing on  on Fox News' "Special Report" , Scheuer said:

"The agency officers will be well aware that bin Laden is a problem today because Mr. Panetta and Mr. Clinton and their colleagues chose to do nothing to protect America."

You can watch Scheuer's comments at the 1:21 mark in the following video:

Scheuer's remarks are sure to get under Clinton's skin. You might remember that Bill Clinton went nuts during his September 2006 encounter with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. Clinton suffered his meltdown when Wallace asked him if he did enough to get Osama bin Laden because Clinton knows he did not do enough.

Scheuer had more to say on CNN:

"He clearly has nothing on his curriculum vitae that suggests he should be the candidate for this job," Scheuer said. "It's not apparent he has any talent that is pertinent to the job."

Scheuer said Panetta's lack of experience could damage the agency and jeopardize national security.

"What Mr. Panetta's appointment says is that there's no urgency in the mind of the Obama administration that they think they can send somebody over there who can learn on the job and that the enemy will wait to attack us," he said."

Watch Scheuer question Obama's choice of Panetta in the following CNN video:

Obama hit over driving illegals

There is a new ad being broadcast in Ohio. It takes Obama to task for his position favoring driver's licenses for illegal immigrants:

Remember the Democrats' debate at Drexel University? Tim Russert asked Hillary about giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants:

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you, Brian.

Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

Hillary's failure to give a straight response was the beginning of the end of her presidential campaign.

When pressed to say whether he was for it or against it, Obama said it was the right idea:

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you for it or against it?

SEN. OBAMA: I think that it is a -- the right idea.

Obama couldn't be more wrong on this issue. The American people do not support giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Even Democrats don't support the wrongheaded proposal that Obama calls "the right idea."

Senate passes terrorism surveillance bill

The US Senate voted 69-28 to approve approved revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies participating in the National Security Agency's (NSA) terrorist surveillance program.

In his rush to the center and away from his extreme left wing positions, Obama "shifted" from his "unequivocal" opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, and voted for the expansion of the government’s power to invoke emergency wiretaps.

You may recall that after it revealed the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program, the New York Times was accused of doing so in order to sell a book.

Even the Washington Post took the Times to task for revealing the classified program.

It's way past time the Justice Department made some progress in tracking down the leaker. If we can spend who knows how much and more than two years to investigate who said what to whom to learn who revealed Plame worked for the CIA, we can damned well spend the necessary resources to determine who told the Times about the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

I still don't find the Terrorist Surveillance Program very bothersome. We are at war, even though too many pretend we are not. I like the idea that someone is keeping an eye on suspected terrorist communications.

America Is At Risk

Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have allowed the Protect America Act to expire. The Protect America Act authorized our intelligence agents to intercept the plots of foreign terrorists:

Navy Missile Hits Decaying Satellite

A missile launched from a Navy ship struck a failed U.S. spy satellite passing over the Pacific Ocean:

A network of land-, air-, sea- and spaced-based sensors confirms that the U.S. military intercepted a non-functioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite which was in its final orbits before entering the earth's atmosphere, defense officials announced in a press release.

At approximately 10:26 p.m. EST today, a U.S. Navy AEGIS warship, the USS Lake Erie (CG-70), fired a single modified tactical Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) hitting the satellite approximately 247 kilometers (133 nautical miles) over the Pacific Ocean as it traveled in space at more than 17,000 mph. USS Decatur (DDG-73) and USS Russell (DDG-59) were also part of the task force.

The objective was to rupture the fuel tank to dissipate the approximately 1,000 pounds (453 kg) of hydrazine, a hazardous fuel which could pose a danger to people on earth, before it entered into earth's atmosphere. Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available within 24 hours.

Due to the relatively low altitude of the satellite at the time of the engagement, debris will begin to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere immediately. Nearly all of the debris will burn up on reentry within 24-48 hours and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40 days.

The Associated Press published the following video report about the intercept:

China expressed phony concern about the successful strike on the disabled satellite:

Within hours of the reported success, China said it was on the alert for possible harmful fallout from the shootdown and urged Washington to promptly release data on the action.

“China is continuously following closely the possible harm caused by the U.S. action to outer space security and relevant countries,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a news conference in Beijing. “China requests the U.S. to fulfill its international obligations in real earnest and provide to the international community necessary information and relevant data in a timely and prompt way so that relevant countries can take precautions.”

China is still smarting from all the international criticism about its secret and ill-advised attack on an aging weather satellite last year. The worrisome debris cloud created by the Chinese antisatellite missile test continues to threaten more than 800 operating satellites and will do so for up to 100 years.

The Wall Street Journal contrasts the U.S. operation , calling it "A Shot in the Light:"

Contrast this operation with what happened a year ago January, when Beijing surprised the world by shooting down one of its weather satellites in a test of its antisatellite capabilities. Not only was the test unannounced, but it took China days to concede that it had happened. Because the satellite was destroyed at an altitude of approximately 850 kilometers, it left countless hazardous particles drifting in orbit that could harm future space flights.

The Chinese and Russian complaints are tied to broader political gamesmanship over the "militarization of space" and efforts to get Washington to sign an international treaty restricting space defenses. China appears to have an antisatellite missile program of its own, while Moscow opposes U.S. efforts to place missile-defense sites in Eastern Europe.

But the technology on display here is important in part because of Chinese and Russian actions. The U.S. has missile-defense systems in place in Japan, for example, to counter North Korea -- a dictatorship that wouldn't exist without Beijing's support. Russia and China are friendly with , which is rapidly developing long-range missile capabilities. If anything, the U.S. needs to spend more on such technology.

Meanwhile, Washington has gone out of its way both to alert other countries of this operation and to avoid the kind of dangers posed by Beijing's last launch. The satellite will be hit at a low altitude to ensure that most of the debris re-enters either to burn up during descent or to land in the ocean. The Pentagon hosted a press conference last week to discuss the diplomatic and technological aspects of the operation. A military spokesman said this week that a press statement will be issued "within an hour" of the missile launch.

This isn't the first time that the U.S. has destroyed a satellite. In 1985, a U.S. F-15 fighter jet fired a Vought ASM-135 ASAT missile which intercepted the Solwind P78-1, an aging gamma ray research satellite. According to CNN, the fact that we have had such a capability for over 20 years is evidence that the U.S. acted Wednesday strictly to guard against the prospect of a potential disaster.

Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Lawsuit Against Terrorist Surveillance Program

The Supreme Court has rejected the ACLU's challenge to the government's terrorist surveillance program.

The ACLU won the first round, when U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, declared the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional in one of the most blatantly political opinions I've ever read. The Sixth Circuit appeals court reversed the lower court and today rejected the ACLU's appeal. The case is titled "ACLU v. NSA."

If only Nancy Pelosi were as supportive of our efforts in the war Islamic fundamentalists are waging against us.

Thompson: Police Should Enforce immigration Laws

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson says state and local police should help enforce federal immigration laws:

On a brief fundraising swing through Arizona, Thompson said it makes sense to have sworn officers working "in cooperation with the federal authorities."

"I've been places where they're working hand-in-glove," the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" star said. "That's the ideal way to do it."

Thompson told reporters he's not concerned that putting local police in the position of trying to determine who is in this country illegally might lead to racial profiling "any more with that kind of cooperation than otherwise."

During the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate Thompson got in his licks by chiding former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani about what he said has been that city's "sanctuary" policies. CNN/YouTube question number 3 was posed was directed to Thompson:

Good evening. There are thousands of people in Canada and Mexico waiting to come to America legally. They want to become American citizens. They want to be part of the American dream. Yet, there are those in the Senate that want to grant amnesty for those that come here illegally.

Will you pledge tonight, if elected president, to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally?

Thank you.

Cooper: Senator Thompson?

(Applause)

Thompson: Yes, I pledge that. A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation. And it's unfair...

(Applause)

We have -- we have thousands of people standing in line at embassies around the world to become United States American citizens, to come here to get a green card, to come here and to assimilate and be a part of our culture. They are part of what has made our country great. Some of our better citizens. We all know them and love them.

Now, it's our country together -- their's and ours, now together. It's our home. And we now get to decide who comes into our home.

And to place somebody above them or in front of them in line is the wrong thing to do.

We've got to strengthen the border. We've got to enforce the border. We've got to punish employers -- employers who will not obey the law. And we've got to eliminate sanctuary cities and say to sanctuary cities, if you continue this, we're going to cut off federal funding for you, you're not going to do it with federal money.

(Applause)

Now, there are parts of what both of these gentlemen have just said that I would like to associate myself with.

First of all, of course, Governor Romney supported the Bush immigration plan until a short time ago. Now he's taken another position, surprisingly.

(Laughter)

As far as Mayor Giuliani is concerned, I am a little surprised the mayor says, you know, everybody's responsible for everybody that they hire, but we'll have to address that a little bit further later. I think we've all had people probably that we have hired that in retrospect probably is a bad decision.

(Laughter)

He did have a sanctuary city. In 1996, I helped pass a bill outlawing sanctuary cities. The mayor went to court to overturn it. So, if it wasn't a sanctuary city, I'd call that a frivolous lawsuit.

(Applause)

Giuliani was allowed to respond:

Giuliani: New York City was not a sanctuary city. New York City did three exceptions. The three exceptions were to allow children to go to school, to allow those illegal immigrants who were the victims of crime to report the person who assaulted them, beat them up, mugged them.

And third, to allow emergency care in the hospitals, which we were required to do by federal law. We had a policy of reporting every single illegal immigrant other than those three who commit any kind of crime or were suspected of crime, and we reported thousands of them to immigration service. Few of them were deported.

McCain was asked to address the same question and came off as much more compassionate:

McCain: You know, this whole debate saddens me a little bit because we do have a serious situation in America. In 1986, we passed a law that said we would enforce our borders, and gave amnesty to a couple of million people. We gave the amnesty. Now we have 12 million people and still borders that are not enforced.

I came to the Senate not to do the easy things, but to do the hard things. Mel Martinez and I knew this was going to be a tough issue, but we thought the status quo was unacceptable: broken borders; 12 million people here illegally; a need for a temporary worker program, certainly in my state in the agricultural section, certainly in this state of Florida.

And we tried to get something done. We said we'd enforce the borders. The American people didn't believe us. They don't believe us because of our failure in Katrina, our failure in Iraq, our failures in reining in corruption and out of control spending.

So we tried and we failed. And I appreciate the president's efforts. He comes from a border state too. And what we've learned is that the American people want the borders enforced. We must enforce the -- secure the borders first.

But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. And we need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well.

(Applause)

And they need some protection under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion. [From the CNN/YouTube Republican debate transcript.]

I don't disagree with McCain. But I strongly agree with Fred. State and local police should help enforce immigration laws, we must control the border and end the sanctuary policies that some cities, such as New Haven and San Francisco have adopted.

You can watch the exchange between Thompson, Giuliani and McCain in the following video:

Spitzer Can't Take The Heat

On Saturday I asked if New York Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer could take the heat over his very unpopular plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

Today we learn the answer is no.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, saying that opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy.

[. . .]

“You have perhaps seen me struggle with it because I thought we had a principled decision, and it’s not necessarily easy to back away from trying to move a debate forward,” he said.

If Spitzer's position was truly principled, should it not be worth fighting for to the better end? The truth is more likely that Spitzer's decision is simply unprincipled and poll-driven:

Mr. Spitzer’s decision to abandon his plan comes as a poll released Tuesday by Siena College found that seven in 10 New York voters who had heard about it — and more than 80 percent of the 625 registered voters polled had — opposed it. It also found that for the first time, more people viewed the governor unfavorably than favorably.

Steven Greenberg, Siena New York Poll spokesman said, "voters think the Governor is wrong on the policy and on the rationale for the policy:"

"One year ago, Eliot Spitzer won 69 percent of the votes for Governor. In January, 75 percent of voters gave him a favorable rating. Only five months ago, 64 percent viewed him favorably and 55 percent gave him a positive job performance rating," Greenberg said. "All that’s changed in a New York minute."

"Eliot Spitzer’s standing with voters has fallen faster and further than any politician in recent New York history," Greenberg said. "Everything may not have changed on day one but from the voters’ perspective, everything about Governor Spitzer changed in year one."

[. . .]

The Governor’s fall is directly tied to his license proposal.

Even Democrats can't understand why their party's national leaders embrace driver's licenses for illegal aliens, and see driving illegals as "de facto amnesty" and political poison.