Brownback likes prisons. Prisoners, not so much

By David Martin in Martin, Reporter's Notebook

Fri., Jun. 19 2009 @ 3:19PM

Space constraints did not allow me to share a bit of irony in this week's column, which explored one the weaker arguments against bringing detainees from Guantánamo Bay to Fort Leavenworth.

The argument in question says moving the detainees to Kansas will lead Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nations to pull military officers who attend the Command and General Staff College at Forth Leavenworth. The college's International Student Division receives officers from dozens of countries each year.

In the piece, I cite a writer named Chris Bodenner, who, blogging for The Atlantic, questioned how closing Guantánamo and giving detainees fair hearings would make Muslim-majority countries more likely to stage a protest.

Bodenner explored the idea of moving the detainees to Leavenworth in more depth in an article in the National Journal. The story begins with U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback warning about escapees and hostage situations. But as Bodenner cleverly notes, Brownback is insisting that Leavenworth lacks the capabilities to handle the terror suspects from Guantánamo at the same time he's lobbied for funds to expand the military barracks and the federal pen there.

A year ago, Brownback applauded when the Bureau of Prisons announced that Leavenworth was a potential site for new penitentiary. Brownback said Leavenworth was "willing and able" to house a new federal prison facility.

Last summer, military officials broke ground a new prison near the existing military barracks at Fort Leavenworth. J.E. Dunn Construction Co. is building the $84-million facility.

An estimated 25 to 80 Guantánamo detainees will face trial in federal or military courts in the U.S. But to hear Brownback, Leavenworth's willingness and ability to contain dangerous people stops short of the war on terror.