|
WASHINGTON
–
U.S.
Senator
Tim
Scott
(R-SC)
today
published
an
op-ed
in
the
National
Review
telling
the
real
story
of
what
it’s
like
at
the
detention
facilities
at
Guantanamo
Bay
following
his
recent
visit
with
Senators
Kelly
Ayotte
(R-NH)
and
Shelley
Moore
Capito
(R-WV)
to
the
facility
in
Cuba.
As
part
of
his
visit,
the
reviewed
the
detention
operations
and
met
with
American
troops
serving
at
the
facility.
Last
week,
President
Obama
vetoed
the
National
Defense
Authorization
Act
(NDAA),
which
contained
language
that
would
keep
terrorists
from
being
transferred
to
domestic
soil,
and
his
press
secretary
stated
that
the
president
wants
Congress
to
“get
out
of
the
way”
on
the
issue.
Keep
Guantanamo
Open
—
the
Arguments
for
Closing
It
Don’t
Add
Up
National
Review
Senator
Tim
Scott
November
4,
2015
I recently
had
the
opportunity
to
travel
to
the
Guantanamo
Bay
Naval
Base
to
review
the
detention
facilities
housing
some
of
the
world’s
most
dangerous
terrorists,
as
well
as
to
meet
the
brave
Americans
guarding
them
every
day.
On
the
heels
of
the
president’s
using
Guantanamo
as
a
major
reason
to
veto
the
National
Defense
Authorization
Act
and
continue
his
push
to
transfer
these
dangerous
terrorists
to
domestic
soil,
this
trip
took
on
an
added
level
of
importance.
After
visiting,
it
is
clearer
than
ever
to
me
that
Guantanamo
is
the
best
place
on
earth
to
keep
these
terrorists.
These
are
al-Qaeda
members,
terrorist
financers,
and
other
highly
dangerous
people.
So
why
does
the
president
want
to
shut
it
down
and
have
Congress,
as
his
press
secretary
Josh
Earnest
said
late
last
week,
“get
out
of
the
way”?
Let’s
walk
through
the
arguments.
The
propaganda
war:
Opponents
of
keeping
the
detention
facilities
open
at
Guantanamo
believe
that
by
closing
it,
we
can
stop
terrorist
groups
from
using
it
as
a
recruiting
tool.
This
requires
you
to
also
believe
that
any
new
facility
built
would
not
be
held
up
as
a
recruiting
tool.
And
if
you
believe
that,
I
have
a
nice,
new
bridge
to
sell
you.
Here’s
what
is
actually
occurring
at
Guantanamo:
250
assaults
on
our
guards
in
the
past
year
and
a
half . . . and
absolutely
zero
retaliations.
Our
troops
are
highly
disciplined
and
dedicated
to
serving
our
nation,
and
this
proves
it.
This
number
is
rarely
reported
on,
but
it
tells
you
more
about
what
is
happening
at
Guantanamo
Bay
than
anything
else.
At
the
same
time,
compliant
detainees
have
their
own
portable
DVD
players,
wireless
headphones,
and
access
to
satellite
TV
and
PlayStation.
If
they
behave
well,
they
can
be
out
of
their
cells
for
22
hours
a
day.
But
that
doesn’t
make
for
very
good
propaganda.
Prohibitive
cost:
Folks
like
to
throw
out
there
that
it
costs
$2.4
million
per
detainee
annually
at
Guantanamo
Bay
and
that
it
would
be
more
cost-efficient
to
close
the
facilities
and
bring
these
terrorists
to
domestic
soil.
Now
anyone
who
looks
at
my
voting
record
knows
that
I
am
a
strong
fiscal
conservative.
Part
of
what
I
dislike
about
how
Congress
budgets
is
the
use
of
murky
numbers
and
procedures
that
don’t
tell
the
full
story
—
Washington
math.
And
Washington
math
is
in
full
effect
on
this
$2.4
million
number.
As
the
president
rushes
to
transfer
terrorists
out
of
Guantanamo,
of
course
the
per
capita
cost
is
going
to
appear
to
rise.
(It
is
also
important
to
note
here
the
30
percent
recidivism
rate
among
detainees
who
have
left
Guantanamo.)
The
president
has
sent
more
than
40
detainees
on
their
way
in
the
past
few
years,
as
part
of
his
political
calculations
to
close
the
detention
facilities
down,
and
a
nice
side
effect
of
that
is
this
shiny
new
number
to
throw
out.
Second,
built
into
these
cost
calculations
are
the
salaries
of
hundreds
of
our
troops
guarding
these
terrorists.
But
our
armed
forces
are
not
a
private
industry,
and
those
salaries
will
not
just
disappear.
Those
troops
will
just
be
deployed
elsewhere.
That’s
not
actually
saving
money
—
and
anyone
who
wants
to
save
on
the
backs
of
our
troops
is
barking
up
the
wrong
tree
anyway.
And
finally,
it
does
not
take
into
account
that
we
would
need
to
provide
substantial
upgrades
to
existing
facilities
or
build
a
brand-new
facility
to
hold
these
detainees.
That
would
cost
untold
millions
on
its
own.
We
can
hold
them
domestically: Here
is
where
the
rubber
meets
the
road.
There
are
detainees
who
are
simply
too
dangerous
to
release
and
whom
no
country
would
agree
to
accept.
So,
if
you
close
the
Guantanamo
detention
facilities,
you
have
to
move
the
remaining
terrorists
somewhere
on
American
soil.
The
administration
has
already
publicly
surveyed
Fort
Leavenworth
in
Kansas,
the
Naval
brig
outside
Charleston,
S.C.,
and
the
supermax
facility
in
Colorado.
We
can
look
at
the
Naval
brig
in
Hanahan,
S.C.,
as
a
prime
example
of
why
moving
terrorists
to
domestic
soil
is
not
just
a
terrible
idea
but
wholly
unnecessary.
This
medium-security
facility
sits
less
than
two
miles
from
a
residential
neighborhood,
a
elementary
school,
and
a
high
school;
four
miles
from
the
Charleston
airport;
and
20
minutes
from
downtown
Charleston
—
one
of
the
top
tourist
destinations
in
the
world.
It
is
also
near
vital
infrastructure
such
as
the
Port
of
Charleston
and
multiple
rail
lines.
It
simply
does
not
make
sense
to
transfer
some
of
the
most
dangerous
men
in
the
world
here,
especially
when
we
consider where
they
would
be
coming
from.
Guantanamo
is
surrounded
by
water,
desert,
and
mountains.
It
is
incredibly
isolated.
This
is
not
an
accident.
While
it
is
extremely
disappointing
that
the
president
has
chosen
to
veto
the
NDAA
in
part
because
of
his
desire
to
close
the
Guantanamo
detention
facilities,
I
have
secured
commitments
from
congressional
leadership
that
the
language
in
the
bill
regarding
this
issue
will
not
change.
The
men
and
women
serving
our
nation
at
Guantanamo
are
doing
an
amazing
job
at
a
state-of-the-art
facility
—
one
there
is
no
need
to
replace.
—
Tim
Scott
is
the
junior
United
States
senator
from
South
Carolina.
### |