Brownback Concerned by House Bill Suggesting Enemy Combatants Could be Located in Kansas

Press Release

Brownback Concerned by House Bill Suggesting Enemy Combatants Could be Located in Kansas

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today responded to a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Harry Brown (D-SC) concerning the prospects of moving detainees from Guantanamo Bay to facilities in the United States.

"I share Representative Brown's concerns about putting detainees in medium security facilities near population centers," stated Brownback. "Those contemplating the closure of Guantanamo Bay should be aware that the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth is also primarily a medium security facility, with very limited space for maximum security prisoners. The small post also lacks the land to build a new maximum security facility that could meet security requirements for separation from the general public."

Brown suggested that Fort Leavenworth would be suitable even though there are farm houses directly across the street from, and a public street just outside, the Disciplinary Barracks with dense neighborhoods bordering the base to the South. The Disciplinary Barracks is also less than half a mile from a public airport and the City of Leavenworth also lies within the Kansas City metropolitan statistical area.

Brownback continued, "It is also important to note that Fort Leavenworth's primary mission is to host the Command and General Staff College. We should not take any steps to interfere with that vital mission on post or in any way endanger the Army officers who attend classes there. The Commanding General of the post, Lt. Gen. Caldwell, has indicated that he does not think the detainee mission is appropriate for Fort Leavenworth.

"Department of Defense officials have informed me that Fort Leavenworth is not a good place to house detainees. In addition, the continuing resolution that Congress passed in September instructs the Secretary of Defense to study options related to the possible transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay. I am confident that when that study is completed in March 2009, the Secretary will identify the numerous problems associated with putting detainees at Fort Leavenworth and oppose taking such actions."

In September, Brownback voiced concerns over locating terrorist suspects in Kansas and in June, along with Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, sent a letter to all senators detailing the reasons Fort Leavenworth is an unacceptable option. The full text of the letter follows:

"The Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush has rekindled the debate over the status of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Many of our colleagues have suggested that the Guantanamo detainees be transferred to the Disciplinary Barracks (DB) at Fort Leavenworth. We write to warn the Senate that not all prisons are created equal and that the DB is not equipped to perform this mission.

"First, the DB does not provide the level of security found at Guantanamo Bay. Only one wing of the DB meets security requirements for housing detainees, and that wing is far too small to accommodate the Guantanamo Bay population. As you can imagine, it would be wholly unacceptable to house detainees with or near incarcerated soldiers, and DoD has no other location to which it can transfer the 438 military prisoners currently incarcerated in this space.

"Other security problems emerge outside the walls of the DB. Though it is a military installation, Fort Leavenworth does not provide security equivalent to the Federal Bureau of Prisons Administrative Maximum facility in Colorado. Its perimeter is not secure enough to encompass the detainee mission. The installation is also surrounded by the City of Leavenworth and Fort Leavenworth, making it impossible to house detainees at a sufficient distance from the general public and the Intellectual Center of the Army.

"Members should also understand that Fort Leavenworth is a small post relative to the size of other Army installations. It does not include a 24-hour hospital or an emergency room, so after-hours medical emergencies would require moving detainees off-post and through the City of Leavenworth - an unacceptable security risk. Nor does Fort Leavenworth have the space available to house, feed and care for the approximately 750 additional security personnel required to manage to the detainee population. Further, to truly mimic the quality of care provided at Guantanamo Bay, facilities such as hospitals, food service, recreational facilities and the same for a large support staff would need to be built on the premises. Not only is there simply not room, retro-fitting and building new structures would be cost prohibitive.

"We also believe that placing detainees at the DB raises significant legal questions. Not only would placing detainees in the DB with other military prisoners violate basic incarceration policy, it would raise international legal questions about co-location. Such legal concerns would undermine any improvements to America's image that might come from closing the Guantanamo Bay facility.

"Finally, we urge our colleagues to remember that the DB represents the gold standard for military corrections across the Armed Forces. While we appreciate the Army's can-do spirit and willingness to accept any challenge, we do not believe it is fair to ask our best corrections officers to disrupt the mission they perform so well in order to take on a detainee mission that will not improve on arrangements at Guantanamo Bay. Nor is it fair to ask the Kansas community to assume the responsibility associated with being located immediately adjacent to these detainees.

"Whatever final decisions are made regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees, we hope that they are rooted in an honest assessment of the physical realities of housing and securing a detainee population. This includes the careful consideration of perimeter and the current benefits provided by geography at Guantanamo Bay. We hope that the next president and any concerned member of Congress will visit Fort Leavenworth to make such an assessment. We are confident any visitor would conclude that the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks is not capable of handling these detainees."

Source