Montana: The Last Best Place.......to hold terrorists

The GOP has become very clear on Guantanamo Bay: everyone there is guilty, anything used to interrogate them is fair game short of a gay interrogator, and these men housed there are such criminal masterminds and such a threat to America that they must never be allowed on American soil. Either because we need a super prison, like one we'd build to hold Lex Luthor or the Hulk, they magically gain rights when they tough American soil, or because it would invalidate about eight years of GOP arguments that we can't let these men tough American soil because *mumble*mumble* something something terrorism.

Senate Republicans settled Monday on their first line of attack in the battle over closing the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay: No detainees can come to American soil.

With the blessing of his party leaders, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is expected to offer the language as an amendment to a $91.3 billion wartime spending bill that could come before the Senate as early as Tuesday.

Security concerns. US prisons are good enough to hold the worst of the worst and, given the rate at which we incarcerate our citizens, are given the chance to do so in overcrowded situations. But now they can't handle another couple dozen guys. Because *mumble*mumble* something something terrorism.

But not everyone thinks that way, in fact a Montana town thinks it's up to the job.

It is a long way from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But if people here get their way, up to 100 detainees now held in Guantanamo will soon be living in a brand new prison on the edge of town.
...
It is a windowless, low-slung tan concrete hulk surrounded by a double row of high mesh fence topped with gleaming coils of razor wire.

Earlier this month, Hardin's town council voted unanimously to offer the US government a deal: Send Hardin the detainees that most foreign countries and other cities the US are afraid to take.

That doesn't sound bleaker and more depressing to a terrorist than Cuba? Here's how bad the situation is in Hardin: 1. they have a town economic development director who's only job seems to be filling a prison 2. the people of the town view a opportunity to house terrorists as a chance at an economic boom and a chance at getting "a piece of the American dream." Frankly from the sounds of Hardin, an apt punishment would be to make the terrorists try to eke out a living there, prison be damned.

So come on here. We have a need to eliminate a worldwide blight on our reputation, a chance to economically stimulate a depressed region, an empty prison, and conditions that might be psychologically worse for the terrorists. Win-win-win-win. Big Sky Gitmo. It almost makes too much sense.