Karl Klockars

Between the transfer of Guantanamo Prisoners to the prison in Thompson, Illinois, and conversation today about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed possibly being tried there, I’ve had to endure a lot of handwringing and general, for lack of a better word, terror about what it would mean to have this guy “right in our back yard” as many are putting it.

So I kinda wondered for a second about how things would go if the shoe were on the other foot.  What would it be like if, say, the Republican candidate for President (a generic boilerplate one, not specifically McCain) had emerged victorious in November ’08 and had also, for sake of argument, been from Illinois and decided to move those prisoners to the exact same prison?

Politics is very often nothing more than screaming about what the other guys are doing, even if you don’t particularly care one way or the other about it, just to keep people upset and to score a few points of your own if you can.  Personally, I happen to agree with the Democrats when they say that Gitmo represents what we don’t want the world to see about us, that it’s a recruiting tool and the like.

I also think it’s pretty hypocritical to talk big about standing strong in the face of terrorism, and not even having the prisoners of the war on terror in a place in our own country, not to mention the fact that it’s in a place that we as citizens can’t travel to,  yet it’s okay for the military to house prisoners there.  There’s just something messed up about that.

Anyways, regardless of the politics around it, what would it sound like if a Republican tried to move those prisoners to Illinois?  It might sound a lot like this (and maybe Obama should have sounded a little more like it):

My fellow Americans, I have made an executive decision today to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  It has served for too long as a beacon for the enemies of our country to look to as a reason to plan attacks on American citizens and soldiers.

I have also decided to move the prisoners housed there now to a number of different prisons all across the country, so as to decentralize the prisoners and reduce the risk of a concentrated attack on any one prison.  This is just one part of the process, however – these dangerous individuals are going to have to go somewhere.

That’s why I am moving the most dangerous to my home state of Illinois, to send a message to the rest of the world.  We are not afraid of you, we can handle you, and we will not be scared of your presence.  You have no control over us, and we will stand strong in the face of your bluster.

Now, I’m sure there are many people out there who believe this may be a bad move.  That it may be dangerous.  That it puts American citizens at risk.  And my answer to them is:  Yes.  It might.  But I believe it is a risk that can be managed, and I believe that the risk of what might happen is more preferable to the current risk of negative outcomes from having our prisoners in another country, off of our shores and in a country we are still in a conflict with as well.

This is in no way a reflection on the men and women who have served at Gitmo to guard these prisoners.  It is simply a way for us as a country to say to the world, We will not live as though we are afraid of you evildoers any longer.  We are stronger than you, and having you in America’s Heartland doesn’t frighten us.

This will take effect immediately, and I hope Congress will work with me to achieve my goals.  Thank you, and God Bless America.

Let’s assume that the Democrats want more study or further investigation into the Gitmo closing.  Maybe a bi-partisan commission.  What do you think the Republican followup would sound like? :

“Our president is truly a brave and bold man!  I agree with him, that even though it may be a risk, it is one worth taking and I for one would volunteer space in one of my state’s prisons to do my share for our military effort!”

“When the Democrats say that this is a bad move and needs more study, it is indicative of the weak spine that personifies their party, and shows their fear of these cowardly terrorists.”

“This is something that should have been done a long time ago, and I applaud the efforts of our President.  This is a strong statement to our international community, and I believe will show our continued commitment to fighting the War on Terror while not expecting others to watch our prisoners.”

“The people criticizing this move on the other side of the aisle need to get tough and get with the President on this.  Gitmo has been a burden on this country for so long and such a touchstone for negativity on the international stage that to leave it open for one more second is unfathomable.”

“The prisoners at Guantanamo may or may not be guilty of war crimes, but if we can’t try them in Iraq or Afghanistan, the best thing is to do so within the boundaries of the United States.  It represents the idea that we take care of our problems on our own terms, without fear, and I commend the president’s decision to close the prison.”

“Democrats who are expressing concern over the placement of these potential terrorists should learn that America is tougher than a few hundred men in prison.  If these men represent an increased risk to the people around the American prisons that they end up at, it’s better than having them at a place that terrorists use as a motivator to attack our troops!  And I will not stand in the way of anything that would make our troops safer!”

Sound about right?  Why does this have to be so tough?  Can’t we just show some balls and accept that maybe even if these guys are in northwest Illinois, it’s still probably going to be extremely safe, going by the odds?