The June 27 New York Times Opinionator on Bush's options for closing Guantanamo drawn from the same day's Washington Post Editorial "Closing Guantanamo"  outlines the bargaining options available to Bush and Congress in negotiating the closure of the Guantanamo Gulag.

BUSH, opines the Washington Post, 

can and should offer a lot: the closure of Guantanamo and major improvements in the commissions and tribunals. In particular, those suspects to be held without trial as unlawful enemy combatants should be given far more due process. They should have lawyers and be allowed to call witnesses and challenge evidence. Their cases should be considered by full-fledged judges whose decisions can be appealed, and reviews should occur more frequently.

CONGRESS, suggests the Post

[can authorize the executive branch to] hold a limited number of foreigners in the United States without charge and to try some suspects — such as the top leaders of al-Qaeda — under rules that would depart from those of conventional courts-martial and criminal trials.

BUSH COULD THEREBY

create a legal system for the war on terrorism that could serve future presidents [potentially avoiding history's judgment as the President]  who created the terrible mistake that is Guantanamo — and who missed his chance to fix it.

This is certainly a rational proposal, but not one likely to meet the Bush Administration's very real political interests in maintaining the status quo.  

Why Won't This Compromise Work?

There is simply nothing in this proposal to satisfy the Bush Administration's interests (the needs, desires and fears that underlie its political positions).  

The proposal is, essentially, complete surrender with the stick of history's judgment (and the inevitability of Guantanamo's closure) to compel capitulation.  The current administration, however, is surely aware that history's judgment will be no less harsh if Guantanamo is closed during Bush's final year in office or during the first few months of his predecessor's tenure.  

What are the administration's interests in maintaining the status quo?  

• if nothing changes at Guantanamo at least until after the election, the future of the Republican Party will be less endangered than it might otherwise be if the public were to learn, pre-election, about the precise conditions to which the Guantanamo prisoners have been subjected and on what flimsy evidence many of them have been held. 
• if military personnel and administration officials are guilty of war (or lesser) crimes for the "interrogations" they have conducted at Guantanamo, a victorious Democratic Party might well not be inclined to prosecute those in charge of Guantanamo in the spirit of "healing" the country.

These, I believe, are the true interests  that any compromise with the Bush administration would have to address if there is to be any meaningful shift in the status quo at Guantanamo before the '08 election.

Bush and Company simply have nothing to gain and nearly everything to lose by opening Guantanamo now.  

There is always the option, of course, of behind-the-scenes deals that can be brokered to protect the highest officials from the worst investigative and prosecutorial follow-up. 

Legal?  No!  The historic norm?  (think presidential pardons)  Yes.

We'll just have to wait and see.