At his news conference this week, President Obama made a powerful plea for ending the humanitarian and diplomatic disaster created by the continued detention of more than 160 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, more than 100 of whom are engaged in a hunger strike that necessitated the dispatch of an emergency medical team.

The problem is that Obama has contributed to the crisis by acquiescing in the congressional obstruction of his promise to close the facility. We hope he is serious when he says he will now "re-engage with Congress that this is not in the best interest of the American people." "The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried, that is contrary to who we are," Obama said. "It is contrary to our interests and needs to stop." The president repeated his familiar observation that the existence of Guantanamo is a "recruitment tool" for extremists. Those are eloquent words, but if they are to be translated into action, Obama will need to alter his own behavior.

It has been more than four years since the newly inaugurated president issued an executive order promising, "promptly to close detention facilities at Guantanamo." Yet the prison remains open. Of the prisoners remaining, about half have been cleared for release but continue to be detained because of congressional opposition to their repatriation to Yemen and other countries whose authorities might not be able to prevent them from engaging in terrorism. Congress also has used its authority to prevent President Obama from transferring detainees to the U.S. mainland, a factor in the decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other alleged 9/11 conspirators before a military commission rather than in civilian courts.

However, Congress isn't entirely to blame. The Supreme Court, which in 2008 ruled that detainees at Guantanamo had a constitutional right to challenge their confinement by seeking writs of habeas corpus, stood by while a federal appeals court eviscerated that landmark ruling. For his part, Obama has refused to expend political capital on closing Guantanamo. Rather than veto the defense authorization bills that have limited his ability to transfer inmates, he has signed them while raising questions about whether they intruded on his constitutional authority.

At the very least, President Obama could take the advice of several progressives in Congress and renew his administration’s efforts to transfer the 86 inmates cleared for release three years ago by an interagency task force from Guantanamo. He should do so, ideally with congressional cooperation but unilaterally if necessary.

Guantanamo is a stain on this nation's reputation, not because of where it is located but because the men held captive there are languishing in a legal limbo, which would be just as hopeless if they were transplanted to American soil. Notwithstanding Obama's comments about the un-American nature of indefinite detention, more than 40 inmates are being held without the prospect of even a military trial. As he "re-engages" with Congress, the president should also reconsider his own decision to deny those detainees their day in court.

As thoroughly awful as everyone knows cigarettes to be— still the No. 1 cause of premature death in this country— public officials walk a blurry line when they try to reduce the terrible toll caused by smoking. 

High tobacco taxes, critics say, unfairly punishes smokers, who are disproportionately low income. Banning advertising of a legal product raises free-speech issues and can tobacco companies really be forced to put large graphic warnings on their own products to discourage customers from buying them? Do any of these ideas yield the results promised? Does this type of oversight really change people’s behaviors?

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was successful in getting trans-fats removed from restaurant menus and last year proposed doing away with large soda purchases to protect citizens from excessive sugar intake, thus causing an alarming obesity rate in the city. However noble the goals of controlling the bad habits of others, these laws are grossly overreaching and should be defeated at every turn.

Now, the New York City Council, backed by Mayor Bloomberg, is considering another tactic: making it illegal for anyone younger than 21 to buy cigarettes. Currently, anyone 18 or over can buy a pack. The new proposal would, at least theoretically, make cigarettes difficult to obtain by those who are most vulnerable to peer pressure and tobacco marketing. Prevention makes sense because smoking is so addictive that more than 85 percent of those who try to quit relapse.

Yet, the good intentions are outweighed by the proposal's problems. For one thing, it's practically doomed to have minimal effect. A 20-minute bus ride will transport any Bronx resident to neighboring Yonkers, where 18-year-olds would still be allowed to buy as many cartons as they wanted. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, nearly 90 percent of smokers take up the habit before the age of 18, apparently unfazed by the existing rules barring stores from selling to them.

Beyond the practical considerations, government leaders should think twice about taking away the right of adults to buy a legal, but dangerous products like cigarettes, which, includes 18-year-olds who are adults who are allowed to sign legally binding contracts, to vote, to go to war and to seek and obtain a doctor's prescription for Oxycotin. True, the legal drinking age is 21 in every state but that is justified by the fact that an 18-year-old's dumb decision to drink may harm others. A decision to smoke harms only the smoker.

More than 1,200 people die from smoking-related diseases each day in this country. By all means, there should be more education about the dangers of smoking, more bans on where people may smoke, more advertising to counter the tobacco industry's marketing. At the end of the day this proposal is less about smoking and more about individual freedoms. Adults should retain the right to make most decisions that affect only themselves— even very bad decisions!

The administration of Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has made a good decision in eliminating thousands of speeding tickets issued from the city’s faulty electronic cameras.

It almost seemed impossible to believe— literally thousands of complaints from city residents about unjustified ticketing— everyone disputes their speeding habits, but many of those who received tickets for speeding on city streets and even running red lights may have been telling the truth. The tickets appear to have been issued in error and completely unjustified. 

However, the larger question was how would the city be able to wade through thousands of tickets to make the tough call about which tickets were legitimate and which should be mitigated. The process has already cost Baltimore millions of dollars and has put the credibility of the ticketing vendor in serious doubt.

A clean slate with a company with a proven track record is what’s needed in this situation and city transportation officials have taken a commendable and fair first step.

In the wake of two bomb blasts in Boston near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday that killed three, including an eight-year-old boy, and injured more than 175, our thoughts turn to our fellow Americans, stunned and frightened, and to what we can do for them.

Many of us can’t help thinking back to September 11, 2001, and the terrorist attacks that changed everything for us, forever. Many of the same feelings of confusion, anger, sorrow and fear arose again. Many folks from our area were in that marathon. Terror hit home, again.

Immediately following the Boston attack, we wondered who was responsible. Some immediately accused, or suggested their favorite political or cultural scapegoats. It’s only natural to have such a visceral reaction, but it’s not a reaction that should be acted on. By late Tuesday afternoon, no information was available about the perpetrators or their motives. A rush to judgment would not do us credit.

Many also immediately asked, “How can I help?” Heroes were on the scene, running toward the blasts, rather than running from them. Raw video footage has shown us men in police uniforms and military uniforms, and civilians, including marathon runners, all focused on clearing debris and reaching the injured. Some Bostonians opened their homes and gave food to the marathon runners whose departure from Boston was delayed. So many donations of blood were made that the Red Cross had more than enough. Already people around the country, including here in Baltimore, are committing themselves publicly to running the Boston Marathon next year in a show of support.

We can’t ignore the weight of the crime. President Obama spoke for all of us when he vowed that those responsible for the attack will “feel the full weight of justice” for this act of terror.

When tragedy strikes somewhere in our country or someone or a group comes against our values and against the principles we hold dear— we cease to be left or right, Democrats or Republicans, or conservatives or liberals, and we stand tall together as one undivided nation— as Americans.