In his Nov. 24 column, âÄúKeeping Guantanamo Open,âÄù Andy Post dubiously lashed out at the vast swath of our nation who have become increasingly concerned with the erosion of our tradition of civil liberties and the tarnishing of our image abroad. His assertion that such concerned individuals are unaware of the troublesome nature of the classification of detainees and the legal significance of GuantanamoâÄôs location in Cuba is not only false, but is also logically bankrupt. I believe that a great number of those in favor of the closing of Guantanamo are very aware as to how its location has blurred the question regarding what set of standards authorities are to adhere to in their dealings with detainees. But this simple fact is not what is most frustrating about PostâÄôs misguided thinking. His statements have suggested that concerns for our civil liberties and world standing are somehow extricable from the fact that we have opened a detention center in a foreign country in order to evade our own laws. Such an idea is hopelessly ridiculous. His referencing of the need for an overseas facility to simplify the question of classification of detainees as a counterargument to those wishing to protect our civil liberties reveals an unspeakable degree of callousness on PostâÄôs part âÄîwhether he realizes this. Such an argument suggests that the argument for civil liberties is no longer applicable within the context of Guantanamo because we have moved our operations to a location where civil liberties no longer apply. Simply inhuman. I am writing on behalf of myself, as well as the University of Minnesota branch of Amnesty International, a student group that works to forward the human rights agenda right here on campus. If you want information on how you can help us fight for causes such as the closing of Guantanamo, please contact us at [email protected]. David Zemler University student