by Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

You quoted Geraghty:
"The options discussed so far are right next to a nuclear power plant in Southern California, right next to the facility for educational and training programs for foreign military students at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas*, and right in the middle of northern Charleston, South Carolina, three miles or so from an airport."
So let me get this straight: on the off chance that one of these terrorists somehow manages to escape from one of the most heavily guarded types of facilities in the country (a supermax prison), Geraghty is concerned that they then might mount an attack on one of the other most heavily guarded types of facilities? Are they going to storm a military training facility with homemade shivs? Or maybe he thinks TSA won't notice their orange jumpsuits?
Don't ever underestimate the TSA. More seriously, another reader explains why this whole debate is a distraction:
 
 
We can get them here. We can safely confine them here. We can try them here. We can find a place for the convicted and the exonerated. Logistics is not the issue and the opponents of closing Gitmo know it.
 
What they fear is reality. Right now we are detaining upwards of 300 people quasi-legally at best, but these people aren't "real" to us. They are nameless and faceless for the most part, but all that will change once they enter our legal system. Some of them will be found innocent. Some will tell stories of torture and abuse.
     
Most of the people who went along did so thinking that these people would never, ever see the light of day to tell their story. They want the cat left tightly in the bag.
Detainees were taken to Gitmo for legal reasons – to declare detainees "enemy combatants" – not for security reasons. How many prisoners have ever escaped from a supermax prison? Yeah, that's what I thought: Geraghty is paranoid, confused, or both.
 

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.