Friday, March 30, 2007

Are They Nuts? They Want to Put Who in My Backyard?

Democrats, liberals and completely spineless types on the national scene have been bad-mouthing Guantanamo Bay as a permanent location for holding the worst of the worst al-Quaida leaders collected during the first four of our 100-year war. These progressive leaders put a great deal of weight on favorable opinions of similar sorts from other countries, obsessing about "respect" from the likes of the French, the Germans and other superior beings.

Today, however, an even more powerful principal intruded: NIMBY.

Not in My Back Yard appears to apply every bit as strongly to a discussion of housing terrorist killers as it does to locating nuclear waste or coal-fired power plants. The list of 17 potential holding sites under consideration has rocked on its heels the conversation about when or whether to close Gitmo.

In the real world, the one we ordinary people populate, Gitmo is unarguably the near-perfect location to dump forever the murders who remain intent on killing you, me and everyone we know, men who lack for the moment only freedom to repeat their evil. Guantanamo Bay is our oldest overseas Navy installation, perfectly situated for such a mission. It is surrounded by Cuban land mines and eight miles of cactus barriers on the three sides facing that country and otherwise fronts the Caribbean Sea. The Falklands would be even better, but would impose a real hardship on the guards. Ditto, Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians. So, Gitmo is fine. It's nearly impregnable. Escape is impossible. The bad guys are contained. We are safe.

Until now. Until the brain-dead, ego-led, spineless liberals in Congress decided Gitmo is too harsh a location to imprison men who would destroy all of western civilization given the chance. Now they want to move them. Into my backyard.

They're nuts!

The list of 17 locations have one trait in common: they are all military bases in mostly red states: California, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington. The California location is in the red south, not the blue north.

To really level the field and make the discussion all that it can be, let me add a few places we should consider, backyards that I think are better than mine.

Certainly San Francisco should be high on the list. Alcatraz is sitting there, wasting away. That Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer could visit in person to assure themselves of humane treatment—no torture in San Francisco!—is frosting on the cake. How about Governors Island in New York? I'll bet it could hold 50 or 60 of these guys. Schumer and Clinton could visit on days off from Senate business.

Martha's Vineyard would be a little small, but Nantucket might work. Ted could sail in whenever the need might arise.

New Jersey has a number of underutilized former industrial sites that would be perfect. Besides, if one of these guys did get loose in NJ, how would you ever tell? Same for New Orleans. Lot's of open space there, too.

Actually, come to think of it, perhaps the city that is already the crime capital of the country fits the bill the best… Lots of security already in place… Federal facilities everywhere… 535 congresspersons just up the street.

We'd all share the pain equally.

The District of Columbia… perfect!

Or maybe Guantanamo Bay isn't so bad after all.

H/T Kirby Wilbur on KVI 570 Talk Radio

No comments: