President Elect Barack Obama has made his first moves in the war on terrorism, and they aren't good ones. But they are in line with his foreign policy actions to date: creating a rift with allies (Poland) while pleasing enemies (Iran), and all this before he's even placed his hand on the Bible to take the oath of office. In what can best be described as continuing the failed policies of the past -those of President Clinton - news leaked out on Monday that Obama's advisers are working on a plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and bring the prisoners to the United States to stand trial. To further complicate matters, Obama is proposing the creation of an entirely new court system to handle the trials. No humility here, the One apparently sees that the laws and institutions that have protected the United States from all threats domestic and foreign for 219 years are inadequate. The notion cooked up by the left and applauded by international terrorists everywhere that enemy combatants captured on a field of battle while attempting to kill American troops are somehow entitled to a criminal trial is as ludicrous as telling your enemy when you're going to leave the field of battle. Both are principles that Obama holds dear to. So there is little surprise here that he has chosen the course that served Clinton so well.

Let's take a look at how well that strategy worked out. On February 26, 1993, fifteen hundred pounds of explosives exploded in the basement parking garage of Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six and wounding over a thousand. The urea nitrate-hyrdogen gas bomb was designed to topple the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both of them down with a massive loss of life. That the bomb failed to do so is incidental; it was an act of war on the United States. The Clinton Administration immediately sprang into action: a team of lawyers and FBI agents were dispatched, while the President remained in the Oval Office and decided not to seek a military response. And within a matter of years, six were convicted of the attack. Finding this strategy successful, Clinton responded to the attack on the Khobar towers with another strike team of lawyers and FBI agents. Al-Qaeda was so impressed by this move, that they blew up American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing 245 and injuring 6,000. Apparently no lawyers were available to respond to these latest attacks, so Clinton decided to bomb a Sudanese aspirin factory instead. Clearly shaken by this, al-Qaeda could do nothing, but attack an American Naval vessel, the USS Cole, and kill seventeen sailors. No lawyers were available for comment.

In homage to this powerful and effective means of dealing with terrorists everywhere, Barack Hussein Obama apparently has decided to reinstate this policy. According to an AP story, some of the prisoners would be brought to the US for trial, while others would be released to the countries where they were captured for trial or "rehabilitation", or release. Shall we look at how that has worked out? I didn't think so. Those brought to trial in the United States would have all the benefits of due process, including the right to confront witnesses. Imagine trying to issue a subpoena to a villager in Afghanistan from a court in, say, Albuquerque. There's one dismissal. They'd also have the right to examine the prosecution's case materials, including intelligence files and other classified material. Now there's a scenario to thrill the heart of leftists everywhere: if the prosecution manages to open the files, it weakens the intelligence agencies, if it decides not to, case dismissed.

Is there anyone that sees this going well for the home team? Anyone? But never you mind, dear readers, after all, this is the change America voted for.