Friday, January 23, 2009
President Obama's early action to close Guantanamo Bay's detention facility has Kansas lawmakers and others scrambling to bring in Fort Leavenworth's welcome mat.
Two days into his presidency, Mr. Obama signed an executive order Thursday for closure of the military prison in at least a year. He assigned a task force to determine where to move the 245 suspected terrorists that remain in detention.
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Lynn Jenkins, both Kansas Republicans, suspect the destination might be the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, located about 38 miles south of St. Joseph.
They have filed legislation in both legislative chambers looking to pre-empt such a move.
"Kansas is no place for enemy combatants or terrorists," Mr. Brownback said in a statement Thursday.
His legislation, called the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act, calls for the president to provide 90 days' notice before transferring prisoners from Cuba and to include a feasibility study concerning the move.
Mr. Brownback contends the Fort Leavenworth disciplinary unit proves unsuitable because of its medium-security design, its proximity to the community airport and its lack of on-base medical facilities. He added the housing of detainees would detract from the fort's primary mission as an educational center for military leaders.
The senator repeated his invitation for Mr. Obama to tour the base. Republican Sens. Christopher Bond of Missouri and Pat Roberts of Kansas signed on as co-sponsors of the Brownback bill.
In a meeting of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Thursday, Mr. Bond said Guantanamo's closing posed a number of problems.
"I can't think of any city or town across this country that will be thrilled to have Khalid Sheikh Mohammad or Abu Zubaydah living down the street," the Missourian said. "These are not ordinary bank robbers."
Sen. Roberts said in a Thursday statement, "If President Obama and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein want it closed, why don't they move it to Illinois or California?"
Ms. Jenkins, a couple of weeks into her first term in Congress, also sent a letter to Mr. Obama expressing concerns about the possible transfer of detainees.
Her legislation in the House, filed Jan. 6, prohibits the use of federal dollars for the transfer of enemy combatants from Guantanamo to Kansas. Two other Kansas representatives, Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt, both Republicans, signed on as co-sponsors.
"Any action that jeopardizes the central educational mission of the fort by transforming it into the Guantanamo of the Midwest is the wrong direction," Ms. Jenkins said in a Thursday statement.
Other lawmakers celebrated Mr. Obama's prompt action on the Guantanamo matter.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat and majority leader, said Thursday, "By moving to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, reevaluating detainee policy, and categorically ending harsh interrogation techniques, the president puts America on a stronger footing against those enemies who hate our nation and its ideals."
Ken Newton can be reached at kenn@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
WhoisJohnGalt says...
This is from the United States Combined Arms Center website. "The United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas is the only maximum security correctional facility in the Department of Defense." Ft Leavenworth is the ONLY place to put them, provided they have bed space. Sen Brownback should be ashamed of himself for his lack of faith in the soldiers' ability at the fort and his NIMBY attitude.
January 23, 2009 at 6:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HickFromSticks says...
They won't be giving out Prayer Rugs at Leavenworth. They won't get to face east and pray 5 times a day. And, if they have any contact with the "lifers", they'll be killed. Period. Paragraph!
January 23, 2009 at 8:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gopguy says...
I find it laughable that Sen. McCaskill stated the other day that even she was opposed to bringing the combatants to Ft. Leavenworth. Maybe, just maybe, we should have kept them where they were Senator. Let the Obama era begin.
January 23, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
This makes me very nervous....too close to home.
January 23, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Meowzer says...
"Fort Leavenworth disciplinary unit proves unsuitable because of its medium-security design." I'm pretty sure we want the SOBs in MAX cells. They already had trouble with people escaping that facility, do we really want terrorists escaping now?
January 23, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
...or worse yet, terroists coming over to help them escape!
January 23, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
ninja...as long as the detainees are at Gitmo there is legitimacy in calling them "illegal combatants" under military law and for the purpose of prosecution they are subject to military courts and not U. S. Courts of Law. If removed to the states, the civil rights community will surely make sure they are given all Constitutional rights available to U. S. citizens. Because sensitive national security information would be involved in trial testimony it is probable the detainees could not be brought to trial without endangering intelligence methods and would probably just be released. Their release seems to be the ultimate goal of the bleeding heart leftists seeking closure of Gitmo.
January 23, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
Meowzer, the USDB is a max facility. It is already home to people that makes the run of the mill terrorist look like alter boys.
suzieQ, why does it make you nervous? They will be locked up. You won't run into them at Walmart. They won't be at any PTA meetings. They will be in a cell. And, no, their fellow terrorists will not mount an operation against a military base. They are cowards, they will go after soft targets.
January 23, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Meowzer says...
Are they going to the OLD Ft. Leav prison, or the new Midwest Joint Regional Corrections Facility to open in 2010? I believe part of the reason the new one is being built is because the old one isn't as up to date and efficient as other prisons these days. So why are we putting terrorists in there? I don't see how a 127 y/o prison will be any better than Gitmo.
January 23, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
John Gait, funny you said Walmart, please see my post on Violent crime.
I don't know if I can really put it into words. The thought of it makes me nervous, scared, sickened. Terroists are very evil people I and just as soon they are far away from my family as possible. I do agree, they are cowards, but they are crazy...who knows what they will do. These SOBs don't care if the die and they certainly don't care who they take with them, the more Americans the better.
I guess, they make me nervous regardless of where they are at, but I still prefer they be kept further away, right or wrong, may not be a legitimate reason, but it is how I feel.
January 23, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Meowzer says...
Yes, Alcatraz sounds amazing for those lovely terrorists. Lets put em there!
suzyQ- I definitely understand where you are coming from. No one knows Kansas as it is, why draw any attention to our region? lol. And yeah, maybe fellow terrorists will come and try to bust 'em out.
January 23, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Why can't we leave them where they are? If it not being run properly can't that be fixed? I can't think of anywhere where the majority of people would be say, yeah...bring'em here.
Alcatrez...not a bad idea if they must be moved.
January 23, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Germando says...
Moving terrorists from Cuba? Has the prison in Leavenworth gone downhill in the last years? In 1945 the US army housed dedicated Nazi SS troops at Leavenworth and even executed over a half-dozen . If the prison was OK for the Nazi SS troops, I am sure that it today is secure enough to house a few followers of Allah. Alternative? Send them home to Afghanistan or Sudan? Put them on a C-130 and fly over the Sahara Desert. Push them out with a parachute and a bottle of wine? Best thing to do is leave them in Cuba--- no where for them to go other than worker's paradise of Castroland... but the American people voted to close Gitmo. :(
January 23, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Germando says...
Is Senator Brownback getting ready to run for Governor? Ahhhh one way to get some free press is to oppose the Gitmo transfer...... Someone ought to contact the folks in Florence, Colorado . Florence Federal Pen has ALL baddies from the shoe bomber to the dudes who earlier tried to blow up the world trade center to the participant in the Oklahoma City bombing to Theodore who blew up things for 15 years. People in Florence have neither fear nor concern about all of those bad people living on the edge of town. Closing Gitmo is a liberal way of dealing with reality... option: free them or send them to Leavenworth..... which would you take.... Obama is going to close Gitmo... so get over it and accept reality.
January 23, 2009 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
10377586 says...
I'll gladly put my fate in the hands of the military guards at Leavenworth. Perhaps the rest of you should show a bit of faith in our soldiers, they are the finest in the world.
January 23, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stjoegirl says...
This is going to be a problem throughout the country. No one wants to take these Terrorists in home state. Should leave them in Gitmo. Our safety is at risk, but that is a risk Obama is willing to take.
Way to go America, ready for change? The change may be that we will not be as safe.
January 23, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
isackqbs says...
Funny to read that some people are scared or nervous about this. Do people not realize there is a maximum security prison right here in the middle of St. Joe that is surrounded by banks, shopping areas and even LeBlond High School?
January 23, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
isucksqbs - why is that funny to read? I don't necessarily like a prison right here either. You have to recognize that a enemy combatant or national "terrorist" is hardly the same as other criminals. In either regards, I prefer not to have either, but there is nothing we can do now about the prison in St. Joe, but there still is a chance to preempt the other. So how is that funny? BTW-has there ever been an escape here? Yeah thats what I thought.
10377586 - I have nothing but utmost respect for the soldiers, especially close to home here, that has nothing to do with it.
January 23, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Well I didn't say there wasnt a broken system. Some of these repeat offenders or offenders of horrid crime should be dealt with a little more harshly. Maybe that make one think twice before committing crimes.
Symbol? Really? I hadn't thought of it that way.
January 23, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Hmmm, this is interesting:
msnbc.com news services
updated 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
CAIRO, Egypt - A Saudi man released from Guantanamo Bay after spending nearly six years inside the U.S. prison camp is now the No. 2 of Yemen's al-Qaida branch, according to a purported Internet statement from the terror network.
Lam-While I do agree that violent offenders incarcerated in the US are very dangerous, something though about terrorists and their long reach of massive destruction and their hatred for America/Americans that I do find a bit more frightening. With *most* of the individuals here, you are usually dealing with a single person or small group, not some big terrorist organization with bigger potential to do harm and such exquisite hatred for us. I do view them as being "more dangerous" and I am betting a majority of others here do as well.
January 23, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tigersfan says...
They're own country does not want them back that is why they are there. They were caught so according to their fellow "terrorists" they are dead, no one is coming after them or going to bomb Kansas to get them (even though it may rid the world of the plague that we call KU). These people are no more dangerous than the mentally unstable that are locked up on Frederick Ave. given the choice I would choose the terrorists instead of the guy that ate 14 people after he killed them with a toothbrush b/c he found the tooth fairey was make believe.
I have to agree with the early posts that when these people get put in Leavenworth they will be taken out by the other inmates or they will take their own lives. I say bring them here and throw them in with the rest of the prisoners and stop spending tax dollars on another prison full of people that we don't know what to do with. They are not citizens so they shouldn't get our freedoms of the judicial system, they are prisoners of war and need to be treated that way, held without trial.
January 23, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
isackqbs says...
Posted by suzyQ on January 23, 2009 at 1:01 p.m.
isucksqbs - why is that funny to read? I don't necessarily like a prison right here either. You have to recognize that a enemy combatant or national "terrorist" is hardly the same as other criminals. In either regards, I prefer not to have either, but there is nothing we can do now about the prison in St. Joe, but there still is a chance to preempt the other. So how is that funny? BTW-has there ever been an escape here? Yeah thats what I thought.
.....Ah, name calling. Maybe I should have a grade school flashback prior to responding to you in the future.
January 23, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
What??
January 23, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Oops now I see, my apologies. Please feel free to remove the post.
January 23, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalearch says...
suzyQ:
After reading isackqbs' posts, I like your spelling better.
January 23, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
isackqbs says...
Sorry, I get paid to watch inmates, not spell.
January 23, 2009 at 7:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
johncourter says...
Closing Gitmo and moving the prisoners to Leavenworth does not solve the core problem of certain militant groups out there who have one mission in life and that is to take us out. They are highly capable people and well organized. Caving to close Gitmo because that is what the international community wants does not justify the closure. While many of those people presently there have not been tried, they are there for a reason, a reason many do not understand fully. The problems Gitmo had were created by a few individuals and that escalated into an out of control media and international frenzy. The place is handled in a professional manner and the people who are incarcerated are taken care of better then many realize. Unless anyone has been there and truly knows how things are being handled, much of what is going on through the press is hearsay. I have been there 4 times during my service time, I know how the place is run and handled. There is a book coming out on this if it has not been published already. I am hoping it will address the fact many who are incarcerated were indirectly supporting the militants by hiding weapons in their homes. These people are loyal to their cause, hide it very well, and manage to gain international sympathy. They need to be stopped.
January 24, 2009 at 3:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
Let's move them to St.Joe and put them to work at Triumph - or would that be considered torture?
;)
January 24, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lou says...
All the worry about detainees that will be locked up, when Plum Island will be right around the corner...
Gosh, how about both? Murderers and bio-sickness.
Kansas is turning into a real winner.
January 24, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
johncourter says...
Michael H, I agree with you that leaving them in Cuba does not solve the problem. There does need to be a process that is fair and resolves the issues facing those who are detained. Each case is different and has to be handled based on the circumstances that got those individuals detained in the first place. But the present decision process of closing and moving them all to another location does not address that. What I hear now is "review and study". That is not good enough, there needs to be an action plan or this problem will fester. In stating this, the people who serve in Gitmo and have to deal with the present circumstances need to be respected and appreciated for what they do. I am not happy with the few who were not professional and created an international and diplomatic nightmare. But that has been addressed and resolved with those individuals and punishment was given where warranted. The Patriot Act I never brought up and never made reference to it, this is a separate issue and the business of that is changing.
The Taliban and Al Queda have roots that go all the way back to the end of WW1. The Afghan issue I agree should have been handled differently then how it was. However, that was a result of a congressional leader stepping out of the box and going "rogue" without any approvals what so ever. Going "rogue" and supporting international causes without understanding consequences especially when it involves supplying weapons and other tools to try and even things up is a dangerous business.
January 25, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalearch says...
isackqbs:
I meant the way she spelled your name.
January 25, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
johncourter says...
They are owed them nothing. The US did not walk out on them, weapons were brought in for them to use to take out some serious Russian hardware without the US public's approval. At the time this occured, there was a plan under review. This "rogue" congressional figure could not wait and made serious international decisions without anyone's review or consent. I am not debating whether he had good intentions, there are checks and balances in any major decision process and they were ignored. The decision to help the Afghans should have been made by a majority vote, not by a few individuals. I am not in favor of any politician who makes major decisions like that without following the checks and balances in place. My personal opinion at the time is maybe we should have assisted, but not in the way it was carried out. Given time, the plans that were being proposed could have been approved and carried out, but those few individuals involved decided not to wait and moved forward into a dangerous game that backfired. I hold them responsible for the outcome. They went in to help and then pulled out because they utilized all the support and financial backing they did manage to succeed in. If they were serious about this on an independent and personal level, they should have went in with a highly professional Merc team. They did not, they went in on resources gained through questionable means and blamed US policy when they failed.
I do not know where you got the "partisan bickering" from. I never mentioned anything about supporting one party over another on this issue.
Closing Gitmo is not a goal. It is a quick way to attempt to appease the international community because of the attention it has recieved over a few individuals inappropriate behavior. Before this base is closed, there needs to be a long term solution and plan for handling detainees and there is not. The book is hitting the street this week and it will shed light on how Gitmo is truly ran day to day. Not the stories. Even though I do not subscribe to all your views MichaelH, you raise some interesting points and I respect your opinions, they are well thought out. Good debate.
January 27, 2009 at 3:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )