|
|
|
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Topeka, at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing reiterated his objection to suggestions that enemy combatants be relocated to Fort Leavenworth.
“Those who advocate moving terrorist detainees to Kansas should fully assess the physical realities of housing and securing a detainee population,” Brownback said. “I have toured the facilities at Fort Leavenworth, and know it is not equipped to handle these non-military detainees. I am confident any visitor to the facilities also would conclude that the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks is a poor option for our detainee policy.”
Brownback was reacting to suggestions that the United States close the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and relocate individuals being held as enemy combatants to the Disciplinary Barracks on Fort Leavenworth.
“The maximum-security wing at the Disciplinary Barracks is near capacity with military prisoners, and Fort Leavenworth does not have the ability to house and feed the large number of personnel necessary to secure a detainee population,” Brownback said. “Leavenworth cannot sufficiently separate detainees from the rest of the prison population, which would violate laws and policies against co-mingling.
“I’m also concerned that the Disciplinary Barracks does not have 24 hour-a-day medical facilities — this would require transporting detainees off-site for after-hours or emergency care,” he said. “Finally, it is unwise to put detainees on the same installation with the next generation of Army leaders studying at the Command and General Staff College.”
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Topeka, at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing reiterated his objection to suggestions that enemy combatants be relocated to Fort Leavenworth.
“Those who advocate moving terrorist detainees to Kansas should fully assess the physical realities of housing and securing a detainee population,” Brownback said. “I have toured the facilities at Fort Leavenworth, and know it is not equipped to handle these non-military detainees. I am confident any visitor to the facilities also would conclude that the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks is a poor option for our detainee policy.”
Brownback was reacting to suggestions that the United States close the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and relocate individuals being held as enemy combatants to the Disciplinary Barracks on Fort Leavenworth.
“The maximum-security wing at the Disciplinary Barracks is near capacity with military prisoners, and Fort Leavenworth does not have the ability to house and feed the large number of personnel necessary to secure a detainee population,” Brownback said. “Leavenworth cannot sufficiently separate detainees from the rest of the prison population, which would violate laws and policies against co-mingling.
“I’m also concerned that the Disciplinary Barracks does not have 24 hour-a-day medical facilities — this would require transporting detainees off-site for after-hours or emergency care,” he said. “Finally, it is unwise to put detainees on the same installation with the next generation of Army leaders studying at the Command and General Staff College.”
