What are the alternatives to Guantanamo?

Tom Curry National affairs writer • Profile • E-mail

WASHINGTON - “Not in my backyard!”

That's the cry being heard about proposals to bring detainees at the Guantanamo Naval base to military prisons in Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia.

One new location for the detainees suggested by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

In May, Harkin introduced a bill to close Guantanamo and named Fort Leavenworth as an alternative.

Not keen in Kansas
“Americans do not want terrorists in their backyard, and we do not need them in Kansas,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, a GOP presidential contender. “Local residents have expressed concern about this mission, and the Department of Defense has not fully considered the preparations necessary to transition this mission to Fort Leavenworth."

Brownback added, “Given the investment we have made in a secure facility at Guantanamo, far away from U.S. residents, the administration needs to make a much more compelling case that a detainee transfer is a justifiable use of resources, that it can be completed safely, and that it can be done without significant impact on local communities."

Rep. Nancy Boyda, a first-term House Democrat who represents the congressional district which includes Fort Leavenworth, also rejected the Harkin proposal.

“I do not believe bringing terrorist detainees to Leavenworth County is a good idea. I'm not comfortable with this," Boyda told the Associated Press.

MSNBC video High court to hear Gitmo cases June 29: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees may go to federal court to challenge their indefinite confinement. MSNBC's Chris Jansing reports. MSNBC

Former Bush White House associate counsel Brad Berenson testified to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution last week that bringing detainees to Fort Leavenworth "would put the citizens of Kansas at risk because immediately Fort Leavenworth becomes an accessible target to their confederates on the outside, an object of possible terrorist attack."

Another not-in-my-backyard reaction came from a Republican who represents the congressional district including the Navy Brig in Charleston, S.C.

“The Pentagon has stated that while the Naval Brig in North Charleston has the physical capacity to house these detainees, to do so would require significant security enhancements,” said Rep. Henry Brown. “To close Guantanamo and relocate hundreds of prisoners in the war on terror to the backyards of Charleston would be unconscionable."

Are Guantanamo's days numbered?
Despite the outcry, the days of the Guantanamo facility may be numbered.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a challenge to last year’s law. It barred Guantanamo detainees from going to court to challenge their detention using the writ of habeas corpus.

Tom Goldstein, an attorney at the Washington law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld who often argues cases before the high court, said that the Court’s unexpected decision to put Guantanamo on its fall docket “will spur the administration to close the detention facility …. The administration is going to see the handwriting on the wall, that the Supreme Court would not have stepped into this area if it didn’t believe there was a problem.”

Next week the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, a key Congressional panel, will debate a provision to limit funding for Guantanamo as part of its vote on spending for the new fiscal year.

That panel, headed by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., could require closing of Guantanamo or a less drastic step such as putting a time limit on funding it.

Moran: U.S. barracks are secure enough
Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., a member of the subcommittee, was dispatched to Guantanamo by Murtha a few months ago to investigate the feasibility of closing the detention center. Moran sent a letter Friday, cosigned by 140 House members, urging President Bush to shut the site.

“United States military barracks have the capability to provide for the secure detainment of foreign nationals while ensuring the safety of communities within their proximate geographic location,” Moran and his colleagues told Bush.

A Moran staff member said the Virginia Democrat believes it us up to the Bush administration to figure out where to relocate those held at Guantanamo. “He wants the administration to make the decision,” the staffer said.

The new site must be open and transparent, he said. “If you move people to Bagram (air base in Afghanistan) you create the same problem,” he said. From Moran’s point of view that is a lack of openness and transparency about the prisoners’ treatment.

Another complicating factor is the administration’s announced policy of according the detainees the protections in the 1949 Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war.

That treaty says prisoners of war “shall not be interned in penitentiaries” except “in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves.”

That means that the detainees would have to be kept separate from the U.S. convicts in a military prison or brig.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Obama speaks in Berlin House votes to boost bridge spending Obama and the case of the missing 'thesis' Obama targets distrust between U.S., Europe McCain, Obama and their uneven gifts of gab Israelis, Palestinians: Mixed about Obama Mercurio: Put extra emphasis on V.P. pick NBC/WSJ Poll: Obama keeps lead Blumenthal: Consider questions pollsters ask Obama working to ensure Jewish vote   Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: