Tim Scott, a South Carolina Senator, posted an article at the National Review on Wednesday. In the article he reminds us that President Obama recently vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act because it blocked the transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo to American soil. Senator Scott recently visited Guantanamo and feels that it is the best place on earth to keep terrorists. I would like to add that generally countries don’t release prisoners of war (which terrorists are not, but that is the closest I could come) until the war is over. I don’t think the war on terrorism is over.
Senator Scott points out:
The propaganda war: Opponents of keeping the detention facilities open at Guantanamo believe that by closing it, we can stop terrorist groups from using it as a recruiting tool. This requires you to also believe that any new facility built would not be held up as a recruiting tool. And if you believe that, I have a nice, new bridge to sell you. Here’s what is actually occurring at Guantanamo: 250 assaults on our guards in the past year and a half . . . and absolutely zero retaliations. Our troops are highly disciplined and dedicated to serving our nation, and this proves it. This number is rarely reported on, but it tells you more about what is happening at Guantanamo Bay than anything else.
The Senator also reminds us that compliant detainees have portable DVD players, headphones, satellite TV and PlayStations. Well-behaved prisoners can be out of their cells for 22 hours a day.
The Obama Administration claims that keeping prisoners at Guantanamo is more expensive than it would be to keep them on American soil. The Administration cites a cost of $2.4 million per prisoner per year. Well, not so fast. This supposed cost includes the salaries of the troops guarding the terrorists. These troops will still exist–they will simply be sent elsewhere. The savings are greatly exaggerated. There is also the rather important fact that about 30 percent of the prisoners released have gone back to terrorism. Not a pleasant thought.
There are a number of American facilities that the President feels could accommodate the prisoners, including Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, the Naval brig outside Charleston, S.C., and the supermax facility in Colorado. However, does anyone actually believe that if these prisoners were moved to these locations, terrorists in America would not find a way to get them out? Terrorists have attacked elementary schools, held hostages in order to make prisoner exchanges, blown up things, and generally threatened civilian populations on a regular basis. Why would anyone think they would not do this to free their comrades?
Closing Guantanamo has always been a bad idea. It will continue to be so until the world is free of terrorism. Unfortunately, I am not expecting that to happen in the near future.