Blogs Descend on Gitmo Compromise Report

(March 19) -- President Barack Obama is reportedly closer than ever to delivering on a key campaign promise: closing the Guantanamo Bay prison. But he may be forced to compromise on one of his key national security policies -- trying terror suspects in civilian courts.

According to The Wall Street Journal, a bipartisan group led by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will work with the president to close the infamous prison. In exchange, Obama will support holding military tribunals for accused terrorists, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is facing a civilian trial.

John Moore, Getty Images

A reported deal to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorism prison has stirred strong reaction from columnists and bloggers.

Reports that the deal was close has stirred the blogosphere. Pundits on the right and left trashed the compromise as a "disaster," both for the country and for Attorney General Eric Holder, who has strongly advocated civilian trials.

Why the deal to close Gitmo is no bargain:

Holder Is Thrown Under the Bus. At The Washington Post, columnist Michael Gerson says if the reports are true, Holder is "the most endangered member of the Obama Cabinet," and notes that "everything he has touched has backfired." Chris Rovzar of New York magazine says a deal struck between Graham, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and legal counsel Robert Bauer "leaves Attorney General Eric Holder, a continuing vocal supporter of civilian trials -- the most prominent ones being here in New York -- on the sidelines."

A National Security Crisis. Andy McCarthy of the conservative National Review blog says the dispersion of terrorists to prisons across the country is a serious threat to national security. He writes, "The place or places where the terrorists are held will become targets that we will have to spend tons of money to protect; the tons of money we have already spent to make Gitmo a first-rate, ideally secured facility will be lost; and, most significantly, the physical presence in the U.S. of the detainees will mean they are unquestionably in the jurisdiction of the federal courts, where judges will be able to say the Constitution requires all sorts of remedies, including release."

White House Should Tell Graham to Take a Hike. At Politico, William Yeomans isn't sure why the administration is willing to give up so much to score a few points with Graham. "Closing this deal means the White House has to undermine its attorney general, bargain away its power to exercise prosecutorial discretion, inject politics into law enforcement and delay and jeopardize the conviction of Mohammed," Yeomans writes. "The administration shouldn't hesitate to tell Graham, 'No thanks.'"

No Deal. Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent thinks it's unlikely there's enough support among liberal lawmakers for the compromise to happen. "How many progressive Democrats are going to back a bill that paves the way for a military commission for KSM in exchange for entrenching all the bad stuff (except for torture) making Gitmo problematic in a new ZIP code?" he asks.

Closing Gitmo Is a Waste of Time and Money. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey, a conservative blogger, says Obama needs this deal to save face, even though it will cost taxpayers money and do nothing to prevent terrorism. "Terrorism existed before Gitmo opened; we have a massive hole in the ground in Manhattan to testify to that," Morrissey writes. "It will exist regardless of where we hold detainees. The terrorists are not at war with us because of Gitmo, and the suggestion that they are is absurd."