Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, May 7, 2009

Roberts vows to block moving of detainess to Kansas

May 7, 2009

Advertisement

— Kansas Republican Pat Roberts promises to tie the U.S. Senate “up in knots” over any plan to move detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Kansas.

Roberts’ remarks Thursday to the Senate were the latest expression of opposition from Kansas officials to closing the prison at the U.S. naval base on Cuba. It still houses 241 suspected terrorists and enemy combatants.

Fort Leavenworth is one of several sites being considered to house detainees. President Barack Obama has ordered the Guantanamo Bay prison closed by January.

Roberts, a former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, opposes closing it.

In prepared remarks, he told fellow senators if there’s a plan to bring detainees to Kansas, they should cancel summer plans because he’ll keep them in Washington to block the move.

Comments

Jaylee 5 years, 3 months ago

so keebler, you think the current Guantanamo situation is ok?

if these individuals are to be indefinitely detained without a trial, while having their rights habitually violated, by the United States, we should at least have the balls to house them in our country.

0

verity 5 years, 3 months ago

I must be missing something here.

If they're locked up, why is it a problem to have them in Kansas?

And despite all the assumptions, whining and moaning, if the prisoners are never tried, how do we know if they are guilty?

0

JohnBrown 5 years, 3 months ago

Locking up people for years based on an accusation without a chance for a trial is unAmerican. Roberts played a big role in this. It would be appropriate to place the accused under house arrest in Roberts' Kansas home. Then maybe he'd want them to have a trial to get them out.

Tom, how can you call yourself an "American" while supporting jailing people for years without trial based on accusations? Stalin did it, Mao did it, Hitler did it, Castro does. Americans don't. Consider with whom you are surrounding yourself with.

Please.

Shame on you.

0

pace 5 years, 3 months ago

Typical Roberts support of the troops. He will do anything except take responsibility. We have a federal prison, we sure took the money, now when it is needed, he decides Kansas shouldn't do it's part. The entire country should do what they can to handle the horrendous problems. Yes there are risks, but if we don't deal with them as a country and if we continue to shirk the real jobs the men and women losing life and limbs will be paying for Roberts big selfish mouth. Most Kansan's aren't cowards or afraid of responsibility, just our politicians. He never comes up to the plate except to feed at the trough.

0

average 5 years, 3 months ago

There are plenty of businesses in Leavenworth county who are thinking "detainees, particularly detainees that require nearly one guard per detainee, equals jobs and growth". Add a few protestors? Hey, protestors buy gasoline, motel rooms, and burgers at Sonic, too.

Lot more jobs than the coal-fired plant everyone's been moaning about.

Oh, yeah. That's in "real" (85%+ GOP-voting) Kansas.

0

Jeff Plinsky 5 years, 3 months ago

The real fear here is that moving them to Leavenworth will give them access to the courts. That means some will go free. But I'm guessing many won't, because they are in fact terrorists.

In that light, Leavenworth makes sense to me. We sort it out in the courts, and only keep those we can convict. After that, if they do manage to escape from jail, they have to travel though hundreds of miles of rednecks to get out of the country. I like those odds . . . .

In fact, we should put them in with the general population and treat them like the common criminals they are. And frankly, we can put Cheney & Co in the same federal facility and let the two groups work their grievances out for themselves, so the rest of us can focus on repairing the damage they were all responsible for.

0

timetospeakup 5 years, 3 months ago

Question for all you people that don't want these detainees here ... Do you want them left at Gitmo? If not, where do they go? Do you just want them set free?

Everybody complains about gitmo, but they complain about every plan to move them too. Let's here one of you lefties come up with a plan to solve this, they'd probably listen in washington

0

madameX 5 years, 3 months ago

It seems to me like it's not the lefties who have a problem with detainees being sent to Leavenworth. Apparently it's Senator Roberts and his supporters, who are probably not lefties, who are so adamantly opposed to it. I don't have a problem with it at all.

0

timetospeakup 5 years, 3 months ago

it's the lefties that want gitmo closed .... so let's hear their plan

0

HW 5 years, 3 months ago

What I don't get is every time moving detainees is brought up, the discussion goes to how the detainees are being treated. They are two different topics. GITMO is not the problem. The problem is how GITMO is being operated. By moving the detainees, they aren't automatically going to be treated better. Leave them at GITMO, try them, send the innocent ones back to where they came from, and let the guilty ones rot. Then they are not on our soil, yet they are being taken care of. GITMO is a perfect place for them to spend their sentence. If they escape, they will either drown in the ocean, or be shot by the Cubans as they try to cross the wire.

0

MeAndFannieLou 5 years, 3 months ago

Pat Roberts has a problem with moving detainees, and he's not a "leftie" by any stretch.

0

akuna 5 years, 3 months ago

Oh @keebler1rk, how pathetic you are. Stop trying to paint our President as something he is not. It just makes you look like a fool.

Why would Pat Roberts have a problem with the detainees being housed in Kansas prisons? I think it is an honor for Kansas to do its part for this justice. Pat, stand down and call of your ridiculous cause.

0

madameX 5 years, 3 months ago

timetospeakup (Anonymous) says…

it's the lefties that want gitmo closed …. so let's hear their plan


Their proposed plan is to transfer the detainees who need to be held to federal prisons such as Leavenworth. I thought that was pretty clear.

0

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 3 months ago

Why would Roberts be opposed to this? After all, Leavenworth is a federal detention facility designed to detain very bad people.

It is troubling that our US senator has such a low opinion of the abilities of a federal pen in his own state.

0

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

I say send them home after years and years of illegal detention.

0

webmocker 5 years, 3 months ago

From the Pat Roberts press release:

"You think Army officers want to study at Fort Leavenworth if terrorists are there? You think they want to send their kids to schools on base- minutes away from the most dangerous men in the world? And do you think foreign countries, especially friendly Muslim nations, will want to send their best and brightest officers to a place that houses men we all agree are not appropriate for a civilized society?

Not a chance....

And before someone says Fort Leavenworth is secure, let me tell you that it’s secure alright- but for military prisoners who are compliant, and for civilian prisoners who are not on a jihad against America."

Really? The mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing enjoyed a long visit at USP Leavenworth, and is now doing just fine at the ADMAX in Florence, Colorado, along with at least a couple of his buddies.

I'm guessing the members of the military at Fort Leavenworth are not scared of having 100 evil bastards locked up near their homes and children. It's the norm there, and has been for over 100 years. I suspect they can handle it.

Whatever Roberts' true objection may be, this is not about the ability of the BOP to secure these prisoners, and he knows it.

0

webmocker 5 years, 3 months ago

Ahh, the 6:12 posting references a plausible reason that I missed while typing my first post. And I like the phrase "Winner winner chicken dinner."

0

GOPConservative 5 years, 3 months ago

Roberts should embrace coal plants, garbage dumps, nuclear waste dumps, gitmo prisoners and anything else that will bring money to our State. God created Kansas as the dumping place for the rest of America. Roberts should support God, Kansas and all the investors who want to help our State by using it as God intended.

0

Kyle Reed 5 years, 3 months ago

You're all over the place webmocker.

Ramzi Youseff never was housed at USP Leavenworth as this is a medium security facility across town from Fort Leavenworth. Ft. Leavenworth is where the USDP at Ft. Leavenworth is located which is a maximum security military prison. It's also not run by the Bureau of Prisons. It is however designed to house members of the military that have been sentenced to terms of incarceration that are 7yrs or more. The key to that being "members of the military" that, while they are certainly prisoners, they still follow a strict military regiment and continue to act as diciplined soldiers.

Something tells me the Gitmo crew isn't going to be quite the same type prisoner as the USDB is set up to house.

I say send them to SuperMax. They are set up and accustomed to dealing with these type of undiciplined killers.

0

webmocker 5 years, 3 months ago

Akreed says: "I say send them to SuperMax. They are set up and accustomed to dealing with these type of undiciplined killers."

I agree that the ADMAX in Florence is the place on U.S. soil that is best designed and equipped to handle prisoners of this sort. It is more remote, already equipped with anti-aircraft defenses, and not a very fun place to be housed.

I would also argue that some of these prisoners are rather disciplined killers, and that's a big part of the problem.

Akreed also says:

"You're all over the place webmocker. Ramzi Youseff never was housed at USP Leavenworth as this is a medium security facility across town from Fort Leavenworth."

I may be "all over the place" but you are wrong about Yousef not being at USP Leavenworth.

When Yousef was at USP Leavenworth (in the late 1990's), it was a maximum security facility (and had within it a baby ADMAX facility.)

USP Leavenworth was relatively recently (within the past 5 years) downgraded to medium security, at which time many maximum security prisoners were moved to other facilities around the country. Yousef may have been moved earlier, but I do know for a fact he was there at one point in time.

And yes, the USDB is a different facility than USP Leavenworth, housing death row inmates for the military, as well as other military prisoners. It would certainly need an upgrade, probably very expensive, if it were to be the home of choice for the prisoners in question. However, I have heard more than one discussion of this topic refer to USP Leavenworth and the USDB as essentially interchangeable in their potential as locations for the prisoners. Since the ADMAX is a BOP prison, and Guantanamo Bay is extra-legal, it seems clear that we are not committed to keeping the prisoners in an approved military prison, and are just looking for the best place, period. Perhaps this helps explain my imprecision regarding the two prisons in Leavenworth. I am sorry for any confusion caused.

My main point, perhaps not as clearly stated as it could have been, was that the United States has proven capable of housing terrorists and other really dangerous people in prisons on our soil.

0

Newell_Post 5 years, 3 months ago

I think they should be split up and distributed around among many different Federal prisons in small groups. Play the shell game with them so that no one ever knows which person is in which prison. Isolate them from each other, and place them with informers, and you might learn more than by keeping them together in a unit.

0

standuporget 5 years, 3 months ago

Leavenworth is a medium security prison I used to swim in a pond on the prison grounds and the DB was just rebuilt so I don't think the cost would be worth it. The max prison is in Lansing. My Dad worked at the DB and doesn't think it's a good idea or safe. I used to ride my motorcycle all around it right up to the yard and talk to the prisoners. Most of them are trusties and used to bag our groceries.

0

standuporget 5 years, 3 months ago

Newell has a good idea or just keep them in Gitmo. Some consider them POWs and they don't get out until the war is over. The other post was for webmocker

0

standuporget 5 years, 3 months ago

Webmocker - Ramzi Youseff wasn't in Leavenworth Muhammad Salameh, the guy who rented the Ryder truck used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was and then moved to the Florence, Colorado supermax prison. It's early I'm tired and I think you're wrong. Back to watching Matlock

0

danemary 5 years, 3 months ago

Pat Roberts is a LIAR! He said he was for PRO LIFE, yet he voted YES for confirmation of SEBELIUS-THE ABORTION QUEEN. Roberts must not be reelected!

0

webmocker 5 years, 3 months ago

standuporget:

I agree with you about the USDB not being a good location without significant security upgrades, and that those are probably more expensive than other options.

And yes, as I said in my response to Akreed, USP Leavenworth is now medium security. Are you suggesting the entire facility always was medium security?

As far as Yousef: You have your information; I have mine. So be it.

0

standuporget 5 years, 3 months ago

I lived in Fort Leavenworth in the 70's and went to Patton Jr High when they had the big riot at the Leavenworth Prison, the secretary's husband worked there and got his hand cut off. We wondered why there and not the maximum security prison in Lansing, where all the bad people were. I hope - they wouldn't let us swim in the pond and play around in the bunker if it was dangerous- I hope or I believe they wouldn't.

0

webmocker 5 years, 3 months ago

Standup: Just FYI USP Leavenworth was a High/Maximum security federal penitentiary until 2005, when it was changed to medium security. (Lansing, as you probably know, is a maximum security state prison.)

That does not mean that swimming in the pool was any more dangerous then than now, since as you likely know, there were and are multiple obstacles in the way of any prisoner trying to escape. But the fellows inside were, on average, considered more dangerous than those now housed there.

If you want to learn a bit about the place that was the backdrop to your childhood swims, check out The Hot House by Pete Earley from your local library.

0

Jaylee 5 years, 3 months ago

verity (Anonymous) says…

"I must be missing something here. If they're locked up, why is it a problem to have them in Kansas?"

Because then Kansas is liable to have any friends of these detainees, whether or not they were terrorists before, come and attack the prison. Guantanamo is far enough away that an attack to free detainees could be monitored, but not felt. Not to mention it would take a full naval and/or air strike, not a band of hoodlums with explosives to successfully implement any sort of plan involving retrieval AND escape from Guantanamo Bay.

Also, America is too coward to admit it's wrongdoing concerning even being at Guantanamo in the first place, so we must forge ahead and not relinquish the base for any reason.
We created a treaty with Cuba in the early 1900's stating we would remain on the island via Guantanamo Bay until the point at which BOTH parties, America and Cuba, come to the agreement that Cuba no longer requires U.S. presence. Sooooooo, basically until we want to leave.

We have spent so long making it impenetrable that we would probably have to blow it all up anyway so Cuba could not utilize it.


IllTeachYou (Anonymous) says…

"The real fear here is that moving them to Leavenworth will give them access to the courts."

This is definitely the other half of the reason the U.S. will more than likely not move Guantanamo facility. We would have to admit fault in some heinous crimes committed upon these individuals as well as having violated Geneva Convention and our own Constitution.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.