By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist

While asserting that a federal biolab could be built in Kansas to withstand virtually any threat, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback took a stab at explaining why he and other leaders continue to insist the state would be imperiled if Guantanamo detainees are moved to the maximum security military prison in Leavenworth.

"The terrorists out of Guantanamo Bay don't fit in the mission of Leavenworth," Brownback said. By moving suspected terrorists to the town known for prisons and an Army training school, "You hurt the mission of Leavenworth, you hurt the area," Brownback said.

On the other hand, a biolab to research threats to food and animal safety "clearly fits with the mission" of the Manhattan region, Brownback said, noting the number of food safety and animal science researchers clustered around Manhattan.

I have enjoyed contrasting the consternation shared by nearly all Kansas politicians at the thought of moving Guantanamo detainees to Leavenworth, vis a vis the nearly unanimous eagerness to get the biolab built in Manhattan.

Both strike me as invitations to potential disasters if they aren't handled very carefully. Which they can be.

But Brownback seems to be saying that the threat at Manhattan is worth absorbing, because it enhances broader goals, whereas the threat to Leavenworth isn't worth absorbing, because it doesn't enhance broader goals and -- let's face it -- relocating the detainees isn't the most popular political cause.

I still think Leavenworth could find a way to handle the detainees. It is, after all, a prison town with a maximum-security military brig.

But I'd say Brownback has found a pretty good way to explain why a biolab is more acceptable than a prison transfer.

Follow Barb Shelly on Twitter