Unfettered Letters

America less safe?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that America is less safe under President Obama (3/16, A-3) is ironic. On whose watch did 9/11 occur? Did the “shock and awe” hunt for fictional weapons of mass destruction keep us safe or rather kill thousands of our young soldiers, create a terrorist beehive in Iraq and sap more than a trillion dollars from our Treasury?

Has warrantless surveillance of our citizens and other disregard of our constitutional rights made us safer or did it encroach upon our liberties? Did failure to recognize and regulate big corporations’ abuses help save us from bank failures, foreclosures, unemployment and a huge loss of savings?

Did the contemptuous alienation of foreign friends make us safer? Did dismissal of environmental problems make us safer?

The truth is that Cheney helped destroy our safety and Obama is doing his best to restore it.

Byron A. Stewart Jr.
Independence

Gitmo detainees

I enjoy reading Barbara Shelly but disagree with her column “Kansas politicians share yellow stripe on Gitmo” (2/6, Opinion). I do not believe they insult the military by implying they are not able to handle the task. If given this mission, our military forces would accomplish it. What it implies is that perhaps this task is better suited for another federal institution such as the Supermax facility in Florence, Colo.

It is easy for those not affected by the decision to house the Gitmo detainees to be critical. The global yearning to shut down Gitmo has not had a corresponding global willingness to share the burden. Kansas politicians were advocating on behalf of their constituents when they joined forces to secure the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, just as they are in denouncing the idea of transferring Gitmo detainees to Fort Leavenworth.

Glenn K. Grothe
Fort Leavenworth

The Star’s editorial (2/7, Opinion, “Fort can handle Gitmo detainees”) regarding placing terrorists at Fort Leavenworth is an amazing display of ignorance and naïveté.

Members of al-Qaida and Lashkar-i-Taiba have a goal of killing Americans. The judgment of The Star’s editors apparently is so clouded that they do not understand that terrorists see no distinction between those in uniform and civilians. They will gladly kill themselves if it means killing Americans. The editors cannot grasp the cultural difference between those cowards and our culture that distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants.

Unfortunately, The Star’s editors are quite willing to place Gitmo detainees in our community. That terrorists might seek vengeance by sending suicide murderers wearing explosive vests into our city schools is of no consequence to The Star.

In short, before editorializing from ignorance, you would do well to educate yourselves, take off your blinders, and get your heads out of the sand.

Richard L. Kiper
U.S. Army Special Forces (retired)
Leavenworth

Gitmo detainees

Sen. Pat Roberts (2/5, Letters) writes that moving Guantanamo detainees to Fort Leavenworth would insert them “into our daily lives.” This is nonsense, the sort of rhetorical cant that has taken the place of political discourse in our country.

Leavenworth has long been known as precisely the sort of community that can handle the toughest and most dangerous criminals. There is nothing about the Guantanamo detainees that makes them more dangerous than the high-security population already present. These are not super-criminals who belong in some phantom zone. The danger they pose to us is not primarily physical; physical threats are readily contained. Of far greater concern is the symbolic value of their incarceration and treatment to those who would harm America.

Sen. Roberts is opposed to closing the prison at Guantanamo. Honesty requires that he state that objection plainly and not hide behind an ersatz NIMBY façade that is disrespectful of both the intelligence of his constituents and the professionalism of the prison staff at Fort Leavenworth.

Jim Abel
Leawood

It’s funny that Pat Roberts fears for our safety if we house terrorists at Fort Leavenworth, yet he is OK with putting murderers and rapists there and in neighboring Lansing.

Has he ever been to a prison or even watched a documentary on prisons? They would probably get better treatment at Guantanamo. Our good old-fashioned, American- made criminals would rip these guys to pieces.

Honestly, I couldn’t care less if they come here. In fact, I bet they are more worried about it than we are. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed doesn’t stand a chance in Leavenworth, and I feel sorry for anyone worried about them coming here.

Shaun Peterson
Lansing

Perplexed by plan to close Gitmo

I am very perplexed by all the chatter regarding the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain have all expressed that they wanted to close the place.

Since 9/11, the U.S. government has spent billions on Homeland Security. Did anyone think about the need for housing for enemy combatants? If we have another attack and have the need to detain thousands, where would we put them?

If Homeland Security doesn’t have a plan, and the U.S. government can’t come up with a facility to handle 200 people, then we’re in more trouble than I thought.

Oh, I almost forgot. This is the same Homeland Security that handled Katrina.

Vicki Bronson
Overland Park

Gitmo detainees don’t belong here

Kansans, Missourians, military experts, area chambers of commerce, the mayor of Leavenworth, the Mid-America Regional Council and Kansas legislators do not agree that Fort Leavenworth should be the next Gitmo (1/24, Opinion, “No ideal solution for Gitmo detainees”).

The reality of such a decision would insert these terrorists and their associates into our daily lives — in our airports, on our roads, in our hospitals.

They are not just low-ranking Taliban fighters. They include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

The Star doesn’t account for safety precautions needed to protect the public. The security required would have a chilling effect on the post, the town and the area. As we have explained to out-of-town media unfamiliar with Fort Leavenworth, there are homes within feet of the facility. There is a railway through the post. There is not even a fence around the perimeter.

The detention of these terrorists would attract worldwide attention. Many of their associates are willing to become human bombs in targets like schools, hospitals and churches. Obviously, this poses a great threat to all of us.

I question the wisdom of wishing this on any community, let alone your own.

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts
Kansas Republican
Washington

Closing Gitmo bad idea

President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center is a terrible mistake. To consider bringing the Islamic terrorists from that facility to the United States mainland is even worse. These terrorists are vicious killers who have no protection under the Geneva Convention and certainly no protection under the U.S. Constitution. These detainees should be tried by military courts and tribunals.

Those found innocent should be sent to their native countries. To the guilty, as their crimes are judged, let them be incarcerated or executed. To bring these people to the United States and try them in our federal court system would be nothing more than a tremendous boon to the likes of radical left trial lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Bud Frye
Olathe

Closing of Gitmo

According to one letter writer (1/27), it is immoral and inhumane to keep terrorists penned up at Gitmo. That argument is easily cast aside. I, for one, remember the glee and joy of some Muslims as they danced in the streets after 9/11.

Here is what you need to know about Gitmo, the closing of which has nothing to do with the inmates there.

First, President Obama needed to pander to his base.

Second, he needed to inform the CIA and military as to who is boss.

Third, do you think that, in his infinite wisdom, Obama cares what happens to the inmates?

Fourth, Obama can’t stand the thought that Bush actually found the best place in the world to keep them.

Fifth, he has a year to change his mind.

If left to me, I would convert an old freighter into a prison ship and have it crewed and captained by Bosnian Serbs.

Peter Winkler
Kansas City

Questions about Gitmo

Four questions about The Star’s endorsement of bringing Guantanamo terrorists to Kansas City (1/24, Opinion, “No ideal solution for Gitmo detainees”):

1. If Obama’s premise for closing Guantanamo is to enhance U.S. prestige, won’t the Kansas City area become a substitute for the worldwide anger that necessitates closing Guantanamo? Why will they love Kansas City more?
2. If one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter, is The Star in favor of the Kansas City area becoming an international mass protest site? International travel to KCI is a breeze compared with getting to Castro’s Cuba.
3. Obama has suspended the military commissions trying the Guantanamo terrorists. What is The Star’s position on the magnitude of the security, logistical and transportation challenges required to give Guantanamo terrorists their day in Kansas City civilian courts? Would those challenges be equivalent to establishing metro area light rail?
4. The news article “Could Fort Leavenworth become the new Gitmo?” (1/23, A-1) quoted only Republican politicians on this critical metro area issue. The Democratic politicians with affected citizens (Sebelius, Cleaver, Moore, Funkhouser, McCaskill, Nixon) were amazingly mute. Did The Star forget to interview them? Did they have nothing newsworthy to say? Just wondering.

Phil Brewster
Overland Park

Reason for trash on the Mall in D.C.

Lee Larson (1/26, Letters) is concerned about all the trash left scattered over the Mall in Washington after President Obama’s inauguration last week. I was there and was also offended by the trash as I watched it grow around me.

I was also present down by the Lincoln Memorial on that August day in 1963 when Martin Luther King was telling about his dream. On that occasion, once containers were filled, people neatly stacked their discards right by the can and the Mall remained very neat.

But this time, when I had wrappers to dump, I discovered that all trash cans had been removed from the Mall. I’m sure security dictated their removal because such containers have been used to cache explosive devices, which could have ruined the day.

Donald E. Schomacker
Kansas City

Closing of Gitmo

It’s great to see Guantanamo Bay closing, but now what? We must decide whether suspected terrorists are considered prisoners of war or suspected criminals. Prisoners of war may be imprisoned during the war with no trials. Prisoners of war are thought to have fought for something their country valued. Do terrorists fit this definition?

Criminals have broken the law and have done immoral things, like murdering civilians. Our country asks that criminals be convicted using strict procedures and with strong evidence. This leaves lots of criminals walking the streets, but we don’t falsely convict very many people.

If we consider terrorists to be criminals, why be worried that we won’t convict them all? Think how many criminals are not convicted in our everyday life. We cope with murderers on the streets. Is it any different to try the suspected terrorists and let the unproven ones go free? It’s the American way.

Bill Stewart
Kansas City

Recently President Obama announced that he intends to close Guantanamo within one year. Immediately Sens. Kit Bond and Sam Brownback announced that they did not want to see any of the prisoners at Fort Leavenworth or in their districts.

Do they know something that the rest of us do not? Do these prisoners have special powers like flying over walls or walking through bars? Or do the senators not have confidence that our prisons are capable of keeping someone within their walls?

I am not certain of the decision to close Gitmo, although I think it has many merits. But I do have a problem with objecting to these prisoners being placed in some of our highest security prisons. Have some confidence in our penal system.

Dean Kelley
Kansas City

The Star’s editorial about the Guantanamo situation (1/24, Opinion, “No ideal solution for Gitmo detainees”) was sensible and constructive, though probably troublesome to the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) crowd, led by the Kansas senators. Of course, both senators supported the Gitmo enterprise every step of the way, until now.

One reasonable option would be to let the Gitmo operation follow its founders to Texas. There it would be convenient to the headquarters of Halliburton, Inc., which should be required to use a minuscule portion of its profits from the “war on terror” to build, operate and maintain the facility.

No, I’m not kidding.

Bob Campbell
Lawrence