|
‘No’
to
closing
Guantanamo
Washington
Times
August
18,
2015
President
Obama
is
pleased
with
himself
for
his
diplomatic
opening
to
Cuba.
The
rest
of
us
wouldn’t
be
pleased
with
what
he
wants
to
close.
The
president’s
long-standing
goal
of
shuttering
the
detention
facility
at
Guantanamo
Bay
appears
to
be
advancing
apace.
This
was
one
of
Cuban
President
Raul
Castro’s
demands
for
the
“normalization”
of
relations
with
the
United
States,
and
he
doesn’t
need
to
twist
Mr.
Obama’s
arm.
Closing
the
prison
at
Gitmo,
however,
raises
the
large
problem
of
where
to
put
the
prisoners.
Nobody
wants
them
in
his
backyard.
Secretary
of
State
John
Kerry
supervised
the
pomp
and
circumstance
of
raising
the
American
flag
at
the
U.S.
Embassy
in
Havana
this
month,
ending
a
half-century
of
U.S.
isolation
of
the
Caribbean
isle
of
oppression.
With
the
precise
timing
of
a
Swiss
watch,
the
Obama
Defense
Department
signaled
that
same
day
that
it
has
identified
several
locations
for
a
domestic
Gitmo
to
hold
the
remaining
prisoners
from
the
war
in
Iraq.
High
on
the
list
are
the
military
prison
at
Fort
Leavenworth,
Kan.,
and
the
Naval
Consolidated
Brig
in
Charleston,
S.C.
The
Pentagon
sent
a
team
to
survey
Fort
Leavenworth’s
Disciplinary
Barracks
last
week
and
expects
to
send
a
team
to
Charleston
before
the
end
of
the
month.
Good
fences
make
good
neighbors,
as
Robert
Frost
reminded
us,
but
there’s
no
fence
high
enough
to
calm
the
fear
and
loathing
of
Americans
at
the
prospect
of
sharing
their
neighborhood
with
the
Islamic
terrorists
captured
on
the
battlefield.
“These
detainees
are
the
worst
of
the
worst,
including
planners
of
the
September
11th
attacks
and
the
attack
on
the
USS
Cole,”
says
Sen.
Tim
Scott
of
South
Carolina,
a
Republican.
“They
should
stay
right
where
they
are
—
in
cells
at
the
prison
on
Guantanamo
Bay.”
Sen.
Pat
Roberts,
Kansas
Republican,
expressed
equal
opposition
to
hosting
the
bad
guys
in
Kansas,
in
a
letter
to
Defense
Secretary
Ashton
Carter:
“I
will
continue
to
be
a
vocal
and
staunch
advocate
against
closing
our
current
detainment
facilities
due
to
the
high
security
risks
and
economic
waste
doing
so
would
cost
the
American
public.”
Mr.
Obama
has
been
gradually
cutting
the
number
of
prisoners
at
Guantanamo
Bay,
some
would
say
by
hook
or
by
crook.
He
provoked
a
furious
outcry
a
year
ago
when
he
traded
five
notorious
Taliban
leaders
for
U.S.
Army
Sgt.
Bowe
Bergdahl,
who
was
being
held
in
Afghanistan
following
his
desertion
to
the
enemy.
There
are
now
116
prisoners
at
Gitmo
and
52
of
those
have
been
cleared
for
return
to
the
Middle
East.
No
more
are
coming.
The
president
prefers
to
kill
them
on
the
battlefield
with
drones.
There’s
less
mess
and
bother
that
way.
Bringing
the
remaining
detainees
to
America
runs
considerable
risk,
of
public
fury
if
not
of
actual
security.
Lawyers
for
the
evildoers
are
agitating
for
the
release
of
one
Tariq
Ba
Odah,
an
inmate
on
a
hunger
strike
and
in
declining
health.
The
closer
they
are
to
American
television
cameras,
the
greater
the
hubbub
the
prisoners
can
generate.
Americans
have
said
no
to
closing
Guantanamo,
backed
by
a
2012
majority
vote
in
the
U.S.
Senate,
to
prevent
the
detainees
from
being
transferred
to
the
United
States.
There
are
no
easy
answers
to
the
question
of
what
to
do
with
implacable
Islamic
terrorists.
But
answering
the
question
of
whether
to
bring
them
to
America
is
easy:
Not
on
your
life.
### |