Interestingly, the town of Hardin, MT, recently endorsed a proposal by a nearby private prison complex to house Guantanamo inmates (the prison is basically empty and the town very economically depressed). The entire Montana congressional delegation immediately denounced the idea and rejected having any of the inmates in Montana.

What does it say about US citizens that they don't trust their law enforcement officials and their military to be able to keep prisoners in custody successfully and to keep their communities safe?

They are just being prudent. Clearly they are worried that the presence of these prisoners in a their community might raise that community's profile as a potential target for a terrorist attack. And with all do respect to your insinuations about US citizens, since there have already been successful attacks on the headquarters of US global trade and on the Pentagon, you can't say this fear is entirely irrational.

"What does it say about US citizens that they don't trust their law enforcement officials and their military "

- ask those US citizens in New York who were evacuated last week because the military wanted to stage a photo-op.

Bring them to Greenwich, CT.

How do we know what kind of danger the "detainees" present if we haven't had a trial to determine if they are guilty of anything? The point isn't where you put them. The point is handling them justly. If they are guilty, they should be punished. If they aren't guilty, they should not be locked up. We're giving them a supernatural quality that is ridiculous. Are they scarier than the Manson family or the serial killers we've locked up? I doubt any are great geniuses able to conjure up WMD on their own. I understand we reacted emotionally and with extreme caution after 9/11 but it's time we got a grip.

Makes zero sense to worry about allied terrorists attacking. There is no way they could show up in the force required.

I was baffled by the media reports of Leavenworth citizen comments about "detainees" being brought there. Given that the economy of that town is so entwined with the prisons, and there's so much first- and second hand knowledge about the implacable security of the prisons, and such faith in the ability of the military and the Feds to protect the community from, say, Mafia hits against locals involved in the incarceration of their principals held at the civilian prison there, the reported "fear" was, I thought, a fabrication of the media based on scant evidence.

After all, I'm guessing that the military prison being located there had a lot to do with the fact that in such a homogeneous, white-bread American REGION, not to mention "locality," that nefarious foreign bad-actors would stick out like a Borscht Belt comic at an Alabama Southern Baptist church social!

But, such a "story" of local fear of terrorist attack sure plays well in certain circles (and raises campaign funds).

Somehow, given al-Qaeda's fixation on tourist postcard symbols of America's imperial domination as being appropriate targets of focused attack, I doubt that the bucolic, spread-out, river town of Leavenworth would ever fit their bill.

But, maybe the reports were just a play by local officials to cash in on some of that um-m-m good Bush Era national security appropriations money? If so, I salute the locals their acumen.

(BTW: I have driven past the prisons there a few times, and a more soul-crushing, "abandon all hope" edifice than either the military or Federal prison, there, you will not find on the face of this earth. There is NO HOPE for escape from your court-determined fate at either. And, I'm sure that fact is impressed on every inmate that enters those precincts.)

What does it say?

It says to some we've met the enemy and they are (7 times more likely to be) us.

It also suggests we've met the ninnies and they're us too.

In re detainees, we could and perhaps should return to sender so they don't become us.

In re ninnies...

Pendleton: You know how it works in heaven? (c. 1978)
Corkle: Not exactly.

Pendleton: It's probability and outcome.
Corkle: I never knew that.

Pendleton: Say there's a probability that some guy's going to die. An escort from his way station gets a signal. He goes down and waits for the outcome. If the guy lives, the escort wasted a trip. If he dies, he takes him back to his way station. He puts him in line for his final destination. You follow?
Corkle: Mind if I smoke?

A lot of people are leaping to some very uncharitable conclusions about the good people of Leavenworth. Once again, the chief security issue that the residents of Leavenworth cited was not the concern about escapees. It was the concern that Leavenworth and the Kansas City Metropolitan area "may face an increased risk of terrorism from sympathetic allies of the detainees."

Here is their press release:

https://www.lvks.org/egov/docs/211731229029206.pdf

Just so that there is some appreciation of the range of issues the relocation raises, here is the letter Kathleen Sebelius wrote to Robert Gates opposing the relocation:

Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1000

Dear Secretary Gates,

I fully support President Obama’s position to shut down the terrorist detention center on Guantanamo Bay. Closing this facility is an important step toward helping America regain its moral stature in the international community.

Closing the terrorist detention center on Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) raises some very complex issues, particularly when it comes to relocating the prisoners to other detention centers. It is my understanding that Fort Leavenworth is being considered as one possible sight to relocate the prisoners. As Governor of Kansas, I wanted to communicate with you at the outset of this decision-making process and share with you that I do not support prisoners being moved to the Fort. I will continue to seek input from local elected officials, community and military leaders in the area as your process moves forward, but their input is represented in the reasons listed below.

* The current United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort Leavenworth is a campus-style construction and would not support the requirement to separate detainees from inmates and still retain its current mission to provide rehabilitative operations verses detention operations. Further, the USDB is designed to be secure from the inside out. Placing maximum security detainees in the facility will require significant changes to the USDB so it can be protected from security risks from outside the complex. It is my understanding that the USDB was largely built as a medium security prison with a maximum security section.

* If GTMO detainees are sent to Fort Leavenworth, it is likely that eminent domain would be used to obtain additional land around the Fort needed for the increased security requirements for this base of less than nine square miles. Some of the land expected to be included in eminent domain is prime development land for the region. The economic viability of the region will be significantly affected if this land is no longer available for development.

* Fort Leavenworth currently does not have a medical facility, and it is estimated that it will take three to five years to build the required class three medical facilities for GTMO detainees. In the meantime, high risk detainees would be transported through the community to a nearby VA hospital. Based on past escape/break out experiences with the United States Penitentiary, this is an unacceptable risk to local citizens. Additionally, the local law enforcement staff will need to be increased and the County ambulance would need to be used to move the detainees. This is another negative economic impact to the community.

* More than 120 international students attend the Command and General Staff College. In all likelihood, international student participation would cease since many of the countries from which these students come have publicly stated they are opposed to GTMO and the treatment of prisoners. The elimination of this program will have national and international implications for decades to come.

* Fort Leavenworth and its Combined Arms Center have been acknowledged as the Intellectual Center of the Army. There is a realistic potential that current Fort Leavenworth missions such as Command and General Staff College will be moved to other locations and that future growth planning will cease. This would have a significant economic and quality of life impact on the communities near the Fort, as well as impact for the training and education of future leaders of our military services.

* The local airport is on Fort Leavenworth, and that airport will most likely no longer be available to local citizens. Furthermore, Congress granted a right of way to a rail line to pass through the installation more than 100 years ago, and today more than 50 trains a day use the line to transport goods to Omaha. Additionally, the river running through the Fort has commercial barge traffic. The airport, rail line and river traffic can become security risks, and making them inaccessible will significantly impact the economics of the area.

* Currently there are approximately 1,700 military dependents attending schools on Fort Leavenworth. It is expected that the large majority of the families assigned to the Fort will not want their children to attend schools in a high terrorism/high risk environment. This will reduce the number of families moving to the communities near the Fort, which will have a significant negative economic impact on the communities.

* Local citizens are concerned that the communities near the Fort will become a focal point for protestors, thereby posing a risk to local citizens. Local emergency responders have not been prepared for this type of risk.

As you can see, I believe Fort Leavenworth lacks the capability to host any number of GTMO detainees. Both the unique requirements associated with housing GTMO detainees and some physical limitations at Fort Leavenworth make Leavenworth an undesirable location for the detainees. In addition, their presence would greatly disrupt the largely educational mission of the Army’s intellectual school house.

Thank you for continuing to serve as the Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration. I am proud there is no one more qualified to serve in this critical position than a fellow Kansan.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Sebelius
Governor of the State of Kansas

Once again, the chief security issue that the residents of Leavenworth cited was not the concern about escapees. It was the concern that Leavenworth and the Kansas City Metropolitan area "may face an increased risk of terrorism from sympathetic allies of the detainees." - Posted by Dan K May 2, 2009 10:18 AM

I don't think that people really see a security risk here ... The security issue can be dismissed as entirely irrational. Terrorists are not going to mount a rescue of their prisoners and the detainees are not going to stage a massive jailbreak. - Posted by destor23
May 2, 2009 12:40 PM

viz. difference without distinction.

excerpted from Kansans: Not in our backyard by Judy Keen, USA TODAY; March 2, 2009.

Mayor Lisa Weakley can't think of a single good reason the federal government should transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Army's Fort Leavenworth in this city of 35,000.

She can, however, list many reasons why this community — even though it's famed for its prisons and has the Defense Department's only maximum-security facility — should not be their next home, starting with worries about the threat of terrorism.

"Is it really a bad thing not to want it in your backyard if you've got a really good, solid explanation?" she asks. "We have geographical challenges, security concerns and economic concerns. These are different types of prisoners than we're used to."

President Obama fulfilled a campaign pledge when he signed an executive order Jan. 22 requiring the closure of Guantanamo within a year. Detainees who can't be released, returned home or sent to another country will be moved to a U.S. detention facility. Pentagon officials studying potential destinations have visited Fort Leavenworth, the Navy brig in North Charleston, S.C., and Camp Pendleton in California.

It's almost impossible to find anyone here who thinks it's a good idea. "Nobody wants them here," says Mo Jones, 32, who owns Mo-Cuts Barbershop across Metropolitan Street from Fort Leavenworth. "We know their history. They're terrorists."

That's a classic not-in-my-backyard reflex, says criminologist James Austin, who studies prison systems. He doubts the detainees would pose much of a security risk.

Curtis Hammond, 56, who worked at the federal penitentiary here for 20 years, worries detainees would instill in American prisoners "their ways of thinking and their religious beliefs."

Easy access to the fort would end if Guantanamo detainees end up there, says Leavenworth Police Chief Pat Kitchens. He worries the town could become a target of terrorists angry about detainees' imprisonment. "Terrorists don't target military installations. They target local populations," Kitchens says. He has 66 police officers and figures he'd need more if detainees end up here.

Attorney General Eric Holder heads a task force that is studying the status of the more than 200 detainees.

Another point is this. So many people have been released from Guantanamo with no action against them, and so indiscriminate were the round-ups that collected these prisoners in the first place, that there is no reason to think the people in Guantanamo are the worst of the worst, other than Bush and Cheney's say-so. If we didn't just assume that because someone is in Guantanamo he must be an evil-doer, they might appear a lot less frightening.

I don't know that Kansans ought to support the Obama Administration "Closing Down Gitmo" in a way that would render it a purely symbolic gesture, like pretty much everything else Obama does.

Why not let Gitmo stay open, while Obama figures out how to deal with something for real for just once.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The right-wing meme that the 240 Guantanamo detainees are uniquely dangerous guys who would overwhelm the capabilities of any domestic U.S. prison is the dumbest spin of all.

There are 2.3 million people behind bars in this country. Just put the 240 guys on a plane, we're ready for them.