While the rest of us were recovering from Christmas, Hugh Hewitt was working. Today he posted an article at HughHewitt.com about some news the White House released on the day after Christmas (Friday) at 5 pm. The news was about President Obama’s desire to close Guantanamo.

Mr. Hewitt quotes a CNN New Story:

Once a detainee is deemed no longer a risk, they are either transferred back to their country of origin, or a third country that is willing to take them.

Sixty-four of the 132 remaining detainees have been ruled eligible for transfer.

Of the 64 eligible, 54 are from Yemen. But the United States is not willing, at this point, to send them back to Yemen because of concerns that the government — under pressure from al Qaeda and Houthi militants — cannot ensure they do not join al Qaeda elements there. The administration for the last several months has been trying to find a country that will take the Yemenis and provide security and human rights assurances for them.

If the sixty-four are not dangerous, why would there be a problem sending them to Yemen? (Because they actually are dangerous–there is a game being played here).

The article lists President Obama’s reasons for wanting to close Guantanamo:

“It is something that continues to inspire jihadists and extremists around the world, the fact that these folks are being held,” Obama said. “It is contrary to our values and it is wildly expensive. We’re spending millions for each individual there. And we have drawn down the population there significantly.”

Guantanamo is not the problem in creating jihadists. Our values do include locking up people who are dangerous to society. Guantanamo may be expensive, but how much is an American life worth? A large percentage of prisoners released have returned to the battlefield and killed Americans. The fact that we have drawn down the population does not mean that we have done the right thing,

On December 24, Hot Air posted an article with the headline, “U.S. offering $5 million reward for Al Qaeda capo…who was released from Gitmo in 2006.” Unfortunately, that story is not unique.

Mr. Hewitt’s article concludes:

In short, an absurd, serial set of non-sequitors, about par for this president’s command of logic and persuasive argument. Windy and without logic or fact to back it up.  The new Congress should block him not only from closing Gitmo, but from expending money to relocate prisoners –a classic appropriations’ rider.  Given the way the world is going, we are going to need the facility for decades into the future, and a full throated defense of the necessity as well.

I hope we have someone in Washington who has that much wisdom.