WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) yesterday sent a letter to their Senate colleagues urging against the relocation of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas .  

“My colleagues must be realistic and honest when considering the implications of closing Guantanamo Bay ,” said Brownback.  “ Fort Leavenworth lacks the space and the security arrangements to handle detainees from Guantanamo Bay .”

Roberts said, “Suggestions to place the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay in Ft. Leavenworth are dangerous.  The facilities, which will be filling up with military prisoners as a result of other base closures, are not adequate to hold criminals of this type. We would be placing Americans in harm’s way. It would be a logistical nightmare, costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars to make Ft. Leavenworth even partially compliant with standards at Guantanamo .”

Following is full text of the letter:

“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.”

-30-