Home › Blogs › kmorrison's blog ›

Senator Brownback Discusses Guantanamo

Submitted by kmorrison on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 20:37
in

Senator Brownback talked to bloggers today laying out the problems with closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The most pressing of these problems is what to do with the detainees. Senator Brownback explains that one commonly overlooked risk of bringing prisoners to U.S. prisons is that the surrounding prison communities may be subject to violent acts by groups making political statements about the prisoners' detention. He also explains that the Geneva Convention says that prisoners of war will not be held along with a general prison population. Senator Brownback lays out numerous reasons why closing Guantanamo is poorly thought out, and is decisively lacking a realistic and safe plan. The propsal also lacks support both in Congress and among the American people. A new Gallup poll shows that by a 2 to 1 margin Americans Oppose Closing Gitmo and Moving Prisoners to U.S.

This call is worth listening to as one may be surprised at the number of solid reasons the Senator gives for opposing the Obama adminstration's call to close Guantanamo.

Blogger Call with Senator Brownback

 -------------

Brownback Talks Guantanamo and Foreign Policy

0
Your rating: None

Comments

I hope that common sense takes over on this issue

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 09:08.

Yes Obama promised to close this facility. But upon further review, he has to be comoing to the conclusion that it would be the best thing for AMERICA to keep it open.

Look, Obama has made it clear that "enhanced interrogations" will not be used on his watch.

Why not just admit at this point that there is really no good reason to close it? Its not like our allies are falling all over themselves to take some of these prisoners. And like it or not, many of them are battlefield terrorists. They do not fit into and easy definition of "POW" or simple "criminal".

Its too bad that we all may have to suffer because Obama needs to save face. He should be more pragmatic on this one.

General Petreaus and Admiral Mullen (COJCS) want it closed

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 09:27.

becasue it is such a powerful symbol and useful recruiting tool for our enemies. Why doesn't the opinion of the nation's two leading miliatry men, on an issue impacting national security and the safety of our troops, carry more weight with you?

Admiral Mullen:

Well, the concern I've had about Guantanamo in these wars is it has been a symbol, and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us. So and I think that centers -- you know, that's the heart of the concern for Guantanamo's continued existence, in which I spoke to a few years ago, the need to close it.

General Petreaus:

I am, on the record, as supporting the responsible closure of the Guantanamo. Now that implies clearly over the next few weeks the Department of Justice will determine the proper disposition, if you will legally and so forth, of those who are still detained in that facility. But certainly the closure of a symbol, and that's what it has become, that is used by our enemies to our disadvantage, we're, if you will, beat around the head and shoulders with it in the media in many of the countries of the central commander responsibility. So if we are able to close this and do it responsibly and to ensure those who are there are dealt with properly, then certainly, I am all for it.

 

Here is what the Director of

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 09:41.

Here is what the Director of the FBI said:

WASHINGTON - FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress on Wednesday that bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States could pose a number of risks, even if they were kept in maximum-security prisons. Responding to FBI concerns, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would not put Americans at risk.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller faced repeated questions about the prospect of transferring to the United States some of the 240 inmates currently held at the naval base in Cuba.

In answer to your question, I would say that certainly their positions have to be respected and considered, but they are speaking strictly from a military prospective. I think you would have to agree that the opinions of the FBI Director, Senators, Congressmen and others should be taken into account as well, correct?

"could pose a number of risks"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 09:54.

What were his actual words? How many risks? How serious are the risks? Are the insurmountable??

The right call here is to recongize those risks, plan for them, deal with them - then do as the brass says and close Gitmo.

Somehow we managed to keep Timothy McVeigh in prision for six years before his execution without him terrorizing the surrounding countryside or inciting prision riots or training up a whole new generation of mad bombers.

Ramzi Yousef has been in prision since 1997, without a peep.

This is not a problem that is beyond the ability of man to solve.

His words were

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 10:31.

At the start of Wednesday's hearing, Mueller was asked what concerns the FBI has about the release of Guantanamo detainees.

"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States."

"All of those are relevant concerns," Mueller said.

The FBI chief said he would not discuss specific individuals. He said there were also potential risks to putting detainees in maximum security prisons.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the World Trade Center site, then prodded Mueller to agree that such individuals could be safely kept in maximum security prisons in the United States.

Mueller balked at Nadler's suggestion, noting that in some instances imprisoned gang leaders have run their operations from inside prisons.

"It depends on the circumstances," Mueller said.

Asked about Mueller's comments, Attorney General Eric Holder said the government won't do anything with detainees "that's going to put the American people at risk."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_fbi

Those are his words. Do you think that he has a political agenda? You sound as if you think that these concerns are not legitimate. What would his motives be?

You aren't quoting him, you are quoting a reporter

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 10:35.

A reporter says that he "balked" - but did he really?

Sounds to me like he is at worst saying there some issues that need to be dealt with - which is a good, sensible approach. But that doesn't equate to it be a grave insurmountable threat.

I think his concerns are legitimate, and I don't think that he has a political agenda - I think he said some very bland predictable things.

 

What hell do you mean I'm quoting a reporter?

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 10:55.

"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States."

"All of those are relevant concerns," Mueller said.

Those are his words. Why would you say that? I do not understand.

And the rest of the what you posted at first

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 11:52.

is the framing supplied by the reporter or his editor to leave the impression that his non-commital statements should be interpreted as as a warning about risks.

But where are the words from his own mouth saying that these risks are significant and difficult or impossible to overcome?

Darn you caught me

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 12:25.

FBI Director Mullen has no concerns about bringing Gitmo prisoners to the U.S. I was duped by the far right press. You are correct, so there is no sense in continuing this conversation

Hava a nice day.

I made it very clear in my prior comments that I agree with you

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 12:50.

I made it very clear in my prior comments that I agree with you that Mueller has voiced some concerns - but are these just routine sensible precautions? I would expect an FBI man to always be conservative and cautious. Or is he saying that there is something here that is serious and difficult to deal with? Impossible to deal with? Do these risks outweight the risks to our troops identified by General Petreaus and Admiral Mullen?

I don't know

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 13:08.

But I would say that it appears someone thinks so, based on the fact that Obama has had to slow down the process. Today he said it would be at least a few more months before they can figure out what to do with them.

 But the very fact that Director Mullen he raised the issue creates a potential political liability for congressmaen and senators. They see the campaign ads:

"Even though Director Mullen expressed concerns about bringing dangerous terrorists into the U.S. Congressman X (or Senator Y) allowed them to be brought into our back yard . . ."

This is a NIMBY problem. Our aliies don't want them and our congressmen don't want them. They are in a safe place. The only valid reason for closing that palce is symbolism. Can we afford symbolism?

Look, I undestand the arguments for closing it. i really do. But I think that the palce works well for what it was designed to do.

BTW

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Sat, 06/06/2009 - 07:31.

How many recruits did General Petreaus and Admiral Mullen say would be recruited if we don't close Gitmo? Did he give a number? 100? 1,000? 10,000?

They did not say. Now, can I ask you a question?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sat, 06/06/2009 - 07:55.

How concrete and specific are the opinions of Admiral Mullen and General Petreaus in favor of closing Guantanamo, and how concrete and specific are the warnings of the FBI director about the risks of bringing the detainees to America? On one hand you've got two men speaking out forcefully and directly - you can read their own words posted above. On the other hand, you've got a guy who appears to be giving the standard bureaucratic line - although, in fact, we don't know, becasue all that we've got is what came through the framing of the reporter/editor who wrote the piece.