Unfettered Letters

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

War criminals must be prosecuted

A recent letter writer (1/28) criticized columnist Eugene Robinson’s opinion that a light must be shined upon the truth about torture (1/25, Opinion), saying that it was just the Democrats’ desire to jail predecessors and thus stay in power.

Eric Holder, President Obama’s choice for attorney general, testified recently that waterboarding was indeed torture, a war crime. So far, only a few underlings who performed waterboarding have been prosecuted. The Nuremberg War Trials determined that “the officer ordered me to do it” excuse is not a valid defense.

How many more carried out orders to commit war crimes, and who gave the orders? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Others?

Will our country “stand up” on this point, “dust itself off,” and prosecute all who are guilty, thereby removing the torture tarnish from Lady Justice and making her blind, just and shiny again? Americans ought to demand it.

Byron A. Stewart Jr.
Independence

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 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

Finding ‘truth’ about torture

In the history of bad ideas, columnist Eugene Robinson’s call for a “truth commission” has to be one of the worst (1/25, Opinion, “Light must be shined on truth about torture”).

The idea that any group picked by a Congress dominated by one party could derive the “truth” about anything is laughable and sets a frightening precedent. Americans know how elastic the truth is in Washington.

This is an attempt to persecute political rivals (unlike Mr. Robinson, not all those calling for such a commission are opposed to prosecuting people from the Bush administration). Now that they are in power, the Democrats want to convince the American public that most of the policies of the Bush years were morally wrong. This is classic banana republic: Take power and vilify and jail your predecessor so you can stay in power forever.

Many Americans supported Bush’s efforts to fight terrorism. Apparently in the new Democratic America, there is no room for that sort of wrong opinion, only the truth according a congressional commission.

President Obama should squelch this movement ASAP and address our pressing problems.

Americans are sick of having their interests take a backseat to the two political parties’ election ambitions.

Mark Davis
Liberty

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

Closing of Gitmo

The implication in the headline “Could Fort Leavenworth become the new Gitmo?” (1/23, A-1) is both tragic and false. Guatanamo is not closing because it contains terrorists, but because it symbolizes the immoral and inhumane treatment they received there. The idea that the facility at Leavenworth would or could become a Gitmo is an oxymoron considering that such treatment is no longer to be.

Granted, an initial local defensive position is understandable, and there are huge inherent problems any location or facility must overcome. Yet as a Kansan, I am shamed if our response to this moral issue truly is as the article implied. America has been brought to its current critical point by the “me first” thinking of individuals and of communities and states. Our survival requires that such thinking cease.

If Leavenworth is our nation’s best option, let Kansas show the world that we are a capable leader in forgoing self-interest and in solving problems in order to make possible the moral treatment of prisoners.

Jan Owens
Roeland Park

Kansas finally has a big opportunity to be of material aid to the so-called “war on terror,” and what do our Republican senators do? They cowardly whine and complain about having dangerous terrorists in our backyards. The Republicans are the same people who supported President Bush’s misguided policies on Guatanamo Bay, including torture and kangaroo courts that have made its closure a necessity.

It’s time for the people of Kansas to do their part to clean up the messes made by Bush. After all, they have overwhelmingly supported those policies for the past eight years.

I have zero sympathy for the argument that Leavenworth is not the right place for these detainees. In fact, perhaps if they had been placed there originally, we could have avoided the stain on our history created by the torture and abuse of Guatanamo Bay.

Wendy Lund
Overland Park

Ancient pirates vs. modern terror

Ross Balano (7/26, Opinion, “U.S. wars with Barbary pirates offer lesson”) writes of the Barbary pirates and draws parallels to the current “War on Terror” and to Guantanamo Bay prisoners. There are important differences.

First, the Barbary Pirates were pirates, on pirate ships, attacking U.S. ships. At Guantanamo, we don’t know what many of these prisoners may or may have not done.

Second, the pirates were attacked in a military manner. They were not captured and tortured or interrogated for years.

Thirdly, Thomas Jefferson and Congress’ debates were held in a legal, constitutional manner. No violations of existing treaties, no signing statements, no deals with warlords.

I commend Mr. Balano for recognizing the similarities between the current situation and the pirate situation. But we have been dealing with similar problems for 200 years, and our lesson is to be very wary and concerned when told that this is a new world, with new problems, and that the old laws, principles and paradigms don’t apply. They do. They always have.

Ralph Feik
Raytown

Once again we are treated to the tortured logic of one Ross Balano in the Midwest Voices column. Somehow he makes a connection between the Barbary Coast pirates, al-Qaida, and the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

It’s not until the end of the article that we finally get to the real issue at hand. Once again, it’s the liberals on the Supreme Court who voted in favor of habeas corpus, not the pirates, who are the real cause of Balano’s wrath.

Well, let’s see about those liberal justices. We know four of them are as far to the right as you can get and still remain on planet Earth. So only one of the remaining justices would have to vote against habeas corpus to make Balano happy.

It seems that Justice Souter was appointed by George H.W. Bush. I know he’s not a liberal. Then there’s Justice Kennedy, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Heavens, I really don’t think you could describe Reagan as a liberal.

What on Earth is wrong with this picture? Are you sure it was the liberals who caused your angst, Mr. Balano?

Jim Lullie
Holt, Mo.