EDITORIAL:
Until Barack Obama declared unilaterally that we were no longer in a war on terrorism (ie surrendered) the people of the United States pretty clearly understood that Islamoterrorists had declared war on us, attacked us and according to the best intelligence, were actively planning more attacks.
We also pretty clearly understood that in war some combatants are killed, some captured. We also clearly understood that as long as the war was underway, those who were captured on the battlefield could be held in prison as military detainees (used to be called 'prisoners of war'). And I don't think too many of us were terribly upset that the prisons in which these bad guys were being held were located on the coast of Cuba, rather than in the midst of our own country.
So please tell me again, why are we moving them to Illinois? Why are we forking over millions of dollars to convert a state prison to a federal facility? What again is the difference between holding prisoners in one prison versus holding them in another prison?
Oh, wait, I get it. The President is from Illinois and the millions of dollars in federal money will go to union labor in Illinois to build out the new prison. And in those millions will certainly be enough money for some of his political cronies to siphon off.
Oh and that's right, it's so much harder for protesters to camp out and wave signs and light candles and sing songs and get press attention on the coast of Cuba, what with all that water between Miami and Guantanamo Bay.
And oh yeah, that's right, federal prisons are more accessible to the press than military bases, so interviews with the prisoners are more likely.
But aren't these guys still in prison? I mean, if keeping them locked up is the real idea, aren't they pretty secure surrounded by United States Marines? Will prison guards be an improvement in security?
I'm confused. Would someone please explain the "Gitmo" problem for me a little better?
Comments