If Not Gitmo...

If President Obama is truly resolved to close Guantanamo in one year, where will he put its detainees? Certainly Obama will hit the same brick wall that his predecessor did. There are the really bad guys, who we can't let go. And the Gitmo detainees who are in limbo: We'd like to let them go, but have no place to send them. Surely they could be sent to a federal penitentiary somewhere. But where? The Gitmo detainees are proving to be less welcome than nuclear waste.

First we have to get past the Geneva Convention: "Another complicating factor is the [Bush] 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.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19585886/

That's a mere speed bump to the current administration. The critics of President Bush for not exceeding the requirements of international law have shown themselves to be accommodating to this administration's infinitely elastic approach to laws; foreign, domestic and constitutional. Of course, al Queda fighters should not be accorded prisoner of war status according to a fair reading of the Conventions. They are illegal combatants. As such, they don't rate the priveleges accorded POWs nor the due process granted US criminals nor are they non-combatants. If the Conventions were not even more 'living' than the Left thinks the US Constitution is, it would be clear that al Queda fighters deserve the bare minimum protections due a human person. Any more than that is generousity. But, since the Left pressured President Bush into granting them a status they don't deserve, President Obama is stuck with it.

Alcatraz? "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday shrugged off Republican suggestions that the federal government reopen Alcatraz prison in her San Francisco district to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/25/pelosi-shrugs-alcatraz-possible-terror-detention-facility/

Leavenworth? "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." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19585886/

Supermax? Obama advisor '"Ken Gude, a national security analyst at the Center for American Progress, said Supermax is the "most maximum security prison we've got" and ideal for housing detainees who have nowhere else to go.

U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., has said a military facility would be more appropriate than his state's high-security prison."' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/30/state-officials-protest-consideration-prisons-gitmo-detainees/

"Democratic Rep. John Salazar says prisoners at the Cuba-based U.S. Naval detention center should not be sent to the maximum-security prison in Florence."I frankly think it seems more appropriate to send them to military facilities," Salazar said. The Democrat echoed GOP fears about moving high-level terror suspects from Guantanamo" http://www.trib.com/articles/2009/01/28/news/breaking/doc4980ad75b55fc005538773.txt

Their nervousness is understandable. Despite Obama apologists' professions, the presence of Kalid Sheik Mohammad and other high profile al Queda leaders will certainly attract unwanted attention - and additional risks - to the communities in which they are located. Worst case, serious jihadists attempt a breakout. Most likely, fellow travelers and sympathizers congregate and agitate. A prison is designed to keep people in - not to keep people out. That's what makes Guantanamo such a good location. It isn't accessible by land and it already has significant defensive capabilities.

Obama faces other problems with sending the Gitmo detainees to Supermax. It's worse than Gitmo, according to the Colorado ACLU: "Waterboarding and the like won’t happen at Supermax, but for these men awaiting trial, indefinite detention in total sound and sight isolation is simply another form of torture, one which makes a mockery of “innocent until proven guilty.” To release these individuals from Guantánamo Bay, only to send them to the toughest prison in the country could well be considered a move “out of the frying pan into the fire.” Cathryn Hazouri, Executive Director, ACLU of Colorado http://coloradoindependent.com/19970/colorado-aclu-supermax-move-for-gitmo-detainees-would-mock-justice

That no waterboading took place at Gitmo isn't a problem for Cathryn. The truth is never an obstacle to the message for the Hard Left.

But then, where to send them? Rep Murtha has offered to take them in Western PA. The fact that there are no high security prisons in his district is hardly a problem for Mr Quid Pro Pork: "Rep. John Murtha, Johnstown's outspoken, veteran Democrat, praised the idea of closing the prison. When pressed during a television interview this week, he said he would have no problem bringing the prisoners to his district.

"I don't see any downside," Bob Layo, president of the Greater Johnstown/Cambria County Chamber of Commerce, said Thursday. "There has to be an added level of security for those types of prisoners, so they would probably build new facilities and add staff."" http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_608412.html

Of course, where ever the Gitmo thugs land in the continental US will face problems that the Lefties have failed to mention: "The trouble is once they get here, I'm sure the courts would give them all the rights a normal prisoner has," said Gregory Rogers, director of the Intelligence and National Security Program at Point Park University." http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_608412.html

Cathryn of the Colorado ACLU knows it, and she and her co-conspirators are already lining up their lawsuits and arguments.

In the past, I've joked that Obama could transfer the detainees to Bikini Atoll. Can't complain about conditions when you're living in a tropical paradise. And they could get plenty of fresh air and sunshine doing remediation work from Operation Crossroads. But that would be unfair to the Bikinians who continue to look forward to re-inhabiting their tropical paradise and who are already building up a tourist industry. http://www.bikiniatoll.com/

Kwajalein Atoll might work. It combines the advantages of Gitmo and Bikini - minus the residual nuclear radiation. http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/BaseOps.html

But, the Left, including the Left winged buzzards of the ACLU may protest that those advantages to the US people and government are disadvantages to them. And there can be no question which side the Obama / Holder Justice Dept would come down in a choice between the American People and the ACLU.

So, I propose what I think are the perfect locations. They are w/in the United States. One is relatively close to San Francisco and the Leftist Lawyers who flourish there, but it isn't a part of the National Parks Service. Neither is in anyone's back yard:

Johnston Atoll http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/your-concrete-utopia.html Farallon Island http://ludb.clui.org/gmap/?uuid=CA316