Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

The following is copied from a news release fro FOX:
The naming of a journalist as a possible co-conspirator in a criminal case of leaked classified information is "chilling," Judge Andrew Napolitano says.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that when the government makes it difficult for you to do your job as a journalist by scaring off your sources or watching your every move, that’s called 'chilling.'" Napolitano said Monday on Fox News Channel. "Chilling is a constitutional phrase meaning the government hasn't directly silenced me, but it's made it more difficult for me to speak."

Latest: Is Benghazi a Cover Up? Is Obama at the Heart of It? Vote Here

Fox News correspondent James Rosen was named a possible co-conspirator in a Justice Department affidavit, it was learned Monday. His personal emails were searched as part of the investigation.

Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge and analyst for Fox News Channel, said it was not a crime for a journalist to ask for, receive, or publish classified information. Nothing in the affadavit claims Rosen did anything more than what journalists are legally allowed to do as part of their jobs, he said.

"James, like all of us who are professionals in this business, have an absolute, constitutionally protected right to seek news of material interest to the public wherever that news may be," Napolitano said.

Though it is a crime for someone to give classified material to a person who does not have clearance to see it, it is not a crime for the person to receive it if that person is a journalist, he said. "It’s just terribly wrong to tell a federal judge that that journalist engaged in criminal activity, when we know from Supreme Court opinions from the Pentagon Papers to the present, James's activity is absolutely protected by the First Amendment."

Napolitano said that when a search warrant is issued, the person who is the target must be told. Rosen and Fox News did not learn of the subpoena of his emails until they read about it Monday in The Washington Post. The request for a search warrant was issued on May 28, 2010.

"The government has an obligation to report this to the target, James, and to anybody else involved – Fox, the computer server, whoever else might be involved – within a reasonable period of time," Napolitano said.

Latest: Is Benghazi a Cover Up? Is Obama at the Heart of It? Vote Here

Depending upon which statute the government used, when the information is in the hands of a third party, such as a computer server, investigators have an obligation to tell the subject of the probe beforehand so it can be challenged, he said. "They didn’t tell anybody."

Now that is liberalism at work and also very distrustive toward our country. We have never lived under such a travesty of justice in our entire history.

@straightUp . . . I'm apparently as new as you to this particular forum, so have patience w/ me. My main comment to your most recent entry is simple . . . if you have watched a combination of the MSM {vs} "conservative" and how they present specific events involving Obama {vs} ANY Conservative/Republican, etc., the facts you seek should be as plan as the nose on your face. You express yourself as an intelligent individual; therefore, I feel if you take the time to read different publications and watch different news outlets on the boob tube, you'll see (I would hope) those facts. Take the issue of Bengazi (yes, sounds like "old news" ), but the facts you are asking about are right there! How many rewrites; how many of the "King's men/women" put in front of the American public w/ a lie, only to have their heads eventually handed to them by an awakening news media/body politic (i.e; Ms. Rice). Consider the comments by dear Hillary that, "It's been so long", and, "What does it matter?" Direct lies? Maybe, maybe not. Lies of "omission"? Mor'n likely, as she never answered the question. Keep reading; keep watching . . . and if you can't see it, it would seem to indicate on which side of the chamber you sit (which doesn't matter, as we will all be adversely affected by the misdeeds, half-truths, and outright lies told by this administration).