Over three or four days, we've heard that Obama will sign an executive order closing Guantanamo on the first day of his presidency, that he will do nothing in the first hundred days (This Week interview...), and that it make take a year to close Guantanamo.

I am reminded once again how enamored Democrats are with style and symbolism over substance. We're going to have a big party, announce that the captives are going free, that peace and goodwill again reign in the U.S.A.

Then the state media will bury the details over the coming years and hope no one notices.

In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said the incoming administration appeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. The Bush administration has insisted that such a measure is necessary to close the Guantánamo camp and bring some detainees to the United States.

Its curious how incurious the Times is about what transition officials have in mind here. There are precisely two alternatives to holding some of the terrorists in Guantanamo or on U.S. soil--pass the buck, and let other countries deal with these individuals, or simply let them go.

In practical terms, one of those alternatives could amount to the same thing as the second.

Aside from analyzing intelligence and legal filings on each of the remaining detainees, diplomats and legal experts have said the new administration will need to begin an extensive new international effort to resettle as many as 150 or more of the remaining men. Portugal and other European countries have recently broken a long diplomatic standoff, saying they would work with the new administration and might accept some detainees who cannot be sent to their home countries because of concerns about their potential treatment.

There is a word for sending someone to a country other than their native country for processing--rendition.

I think its a given that the New York Times won't be following the developments with any of these "resettled" detainees. Of course once they are in the custody of other countries, its none of our business what happens after that. The could be indefinitely detained (which is better how exactly?), or they can returned to their home country to face the justice of the religion of Peace, or they could be released to return to the business of terrorism.

These were always the alternatives to Guantanamo, and to their credit, the Bush administration wasn't going to sacrifice lives (those of the terrorists or innocent civilians) for political bennies.

The Obama people seem to feel like a few lives are a small price to pay for the symbolism of peace and reconciliation.