By Matthew Palcher, Kansas City Star Reader Advisory panelist
President Obama's decision to close the Gitmo prison leaves an important question unanswered: where do they go now? Some have suggested they be transferred to Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., but both Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback oppose this proposal.
For one, Leavenworth does not have the facilities to support an influx of prisoners. It would require greater security, more resources, and alterations to the facility to provide for such detainees.
Secondly, as a resident of Kansas City, I would feel unsafe that a group of possible terrorists would be situated less than 40 miles away. These prisoners would stop at nothing to wreak havoc on innocent American civilians.
Especially with so many military installations in our area such as Whiteman Air Force Base and Fort Riley, such locations would be likely targets for possible terrorist attacks. One can look no further than the plans to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey to see the scope of their evil intentions.
Finally, there are better locations, if not in America, but in other parts of the world where such prisoners can be transported. If this is truly an international war on terror, then our European allies must get involved in both the prosecution and punishment of such violators of freedom and democracy.
America has other viable alternatives than Leavenworth. How about sending them to the middle of the desert, like say Death Valley, California or maybe it is time to reinstate Alcatraz island?
President Obama and the Justice Department must find an alternative to Gitmo prison, but it is high time that Kansans join together and tell the administration: NOT IN OUR BACKYARD!
Delicious
Digg
Perfect example of a strawman argument
I am willing to bet you don't understand many ideals.
Hmph.
If their mothers had only been good people and aborted them like they should have in the first place, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion, right? Kill the innocent, but bless the terrorists? I don't understand the leftist ideals.
You're absolutely correct.
Let's take 'em out back and murder them. Then when they do it to our soldiers, AND our innocent non-combatants, we won't have to do any messy complaining, trials, or witch-hunts for those nasty war criminals, because we said it was OK.
What the Hell?
A report was recently released stating that no fewer than 61 of those "innocent detainees" have been captured or killed in the act of fighting our troops or making bombs -- AFTER their release from Guantinamo Bay.
My big question is this: Why should we bring these people onto our soil where groups like the ACLU and others will fight for them to have the same rights as American citizens in order to make it easier to release them so they can come back and blow up more Americans? How does this benefit anyone besides those who seek our ultimate destruction?
Missing it
The problem with Guantanamo Bay is that the U.S. has attempted to place the prisoners as being outside U.S. rule of law because Guantanamo Bay is not U.S. sovereign territory. The U.S. occupies Guantanamo Bay pursuant to a lease with Cuba, and recognizes Cuba's ultimate sovereignty when it's convenient. To move the prisoners inside what is unquestionably United States sovereign territory quashes any further attempts at justifying this particular insult to our law, heritage and traditions.
How many have escaped from this military prison?
Additionally, Ft Leavenworth is the home of our elite Military College where we train many of the free world's military elite (currently training officers from over 80 countries).
Included among those are many Arab states who have already stated publicly that if the terrorists are housed there they will leave immediately.
It is actually a rather troubling decision on Obama's part. It is, sadly, more political than practical. The Gitmo facility is a perfectly good, well placed and well constructed facility which puts no American at risk. The move to close Gitmo is unnecessary. It is a concession to his netroot base. It is the President who sets the treatment standard .....so Obama can implement his (silly in my mind) desired level of treatment at Gitmo.
The criticisms of Gitmo have not been levied at the facility ....but at the policies by which it has been governed. Closing it is a ridiculously frivolous and expensive exercise.
If it is a safety risk, then it obviously needs to be upgraded before the detainees can be transferred there.
I find it interesting that you refer to the detainees as 'terrorists' since most were ransomed by their neighbors in the middle east; and since they have not had the right to confront their accusers or hear the charges against them, we really have no idea if they are terrorists or not. All we know is someone in the country where they were taken into custody fingered them as terrorists.
If you see no problem with that, then I think I will go ahead and turn you in as a terrorist. I could use the money and besides, I would love to get you out of my hair. (Not really but I hope you get the point)
The problem with Gittmo is out of sight, out of mind. Bushco used its location as an excuse to abuse and torture the detainees. Placing the ones we really do need to keep in custody on American soil will place that many more sets of eyes upon them and those supervising their captivity. Not a no-brainer in the least.
Monkeyhawk's Comments are an Insult
Moneyhawk,
It's not terrorist inside the prison, its the big fat target on the outside. Do you maybe remember the World Trade Centers?
Let's assume that other states have the same NIMBY thought. Seems reasonable that if Kansans do not want the terrorist in their back yard, neither would anyone else.
I have an idea. We need to set up some sort of remote detainment center, something well protected, difficult to reach. Something called Gitmo!!!
I miss the protection of Bush. Welcome to the Obama years.
Wrong facility, Hawk
You are talking about the federal penetentiary in Leavenworth.....these are military prisoners and, if moved to leavenworth would be housed in a 100 year old prison barracks on the Ft Leavenworth campus. The inadequacy of that facility is legendary.
Additionally, Ft Leavenworth is the home of our elite Military College where we train many of the free world's military elite (currently training officers from over 80 countries).
Included among those are many Arab states who have already stated publicly that if the terrorists are housed there they will leave immediately.
It is actually a rather troubling decision on Obama's part. It is, sadly, more political than practical. The Gitmo facility is a perfectly good, well placed and well constructed facility which puts no American at risk. The move to close Gitmo is unnecessary. It is a concession to his netroot base. It is the President who sets the treatment standard .....so Obama can implement his (silly in my mind) desired level of treatment at Gitmo.
The criticisms of Gitmo have not been levied at the facility ....but at the policies by which it has been governed. Closing it is a ridiculously frivolous and expensive exercise.
It is amazing to me
that there is more objection to transferring prisoners to Leavenworth than to that biodefense lab.
And which is really more dangerous?
Prisoners in a military prison, guarded by well trained guards behind layers of escape proof security?
OR
Biochemical weapons and diseases?
Those prisoners are a lot closer to where I live but I fear the potential of an accident at the biodefense lab far more than any prisoner at Leavenworth.
NIMBYs Insult Kansans
Sam (the Sham) Brownback's objection to Gitmo prisoners incarcerated in Leavenworth is a slap in the face of Kansans who protect society from prison inmates. Sam and Roberts automatically assume those horrible "terrorists" (how many have already been released because they've been imprisoned for no cause?) most certainly will outwit the Kansans who serve as Correctional Officers, Wardens, and support staff.
Just about every one of those CO salaries turns into mortgage payments, car purchases, grocery store sales...and on and on.
Bringing the Gitmo prisoners to the pokey in Kansas is an economic stimulus. So of course the CONs are against it if only because President Obama suggested it.