Back to Guatanamo?

While skimming through the headlines on Huffingtonpost, I noticed this article about Mr. Obama's position on Guatanamo Bay. It would seem that the President and his staff are starting to have second thoughts about entirely shutting down the military tribunals in Cuba. Some people have argued, for a while, that an attempt to shut down Guantanamo, and to allow the detainees therein contained a trial in the American courts, would be a course of action which could only end in disaster.

Sadly, the Huffingtonpost offers no original point of view on such an important article, but merely provides options of being able to read just the headline, a paragraph-long excerpt, or the entire length of the article. The fact that the President is now re-considering his position on Guantanamo Bay is important for a couple of reasons.

First, it shows that perhaps he and his staff have finally come to realize that there simply is no good way to try potential terror suspects under American law, if indeed they are truly guilty.

Second, perhaps more important, the article shows - yet again - that the President has started to develop a habit of saying or promising to do one thing and either failing to deliver it, or changing his mind some time later and supporting the opposite position and taking the attitude of "I didn't say that. What I really meant was_." This method of proclaiming one stance and then quickly changing it as soon as events prove the original view is inconvenient or unpopular, is cowardly, shameful, deceitful, and downright unproductive. It should also be mentioned that for the President to engage in such a manner of saying one thing and later doing the exact opposite - on a regular basis - cannot have anything but ill effects on the remaining moral fiber of the country and its work ethic.

The (potential) continutation of the Guantanamo tribunals is, from a security perspective, a good thing. However, the fact that this is being achieved only after the President so ardently supported the complete opposite view on January 20, makes one wonder at the likelihood of such a proposition. Lest we forget, the President has, on many prior occasions, taken one view and quickly changed it based on what was convenient or popular.