We’re told the world dislikes the United States for, among other things, holding terror suspects in facilities like Guantanamo Bay. But if the criticism has merit, I wonder why other countries seem unwilling to take these prisoners:

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett last week issued the latest European demand to close down the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The existence of the prison is “unacceptable” and fuels Islamic radicalism around the world, she said, echoing a recent chorus of complaints from Europe about U.S. counterterrorism policy.

Behind the scenes, however, the British government has repeatedly blocked efforts to let some prisoners leave Guantanamo and return home.

According to documents made public this month in London, officials there recently rejected a U.S. offer to transfer 10 former British residents from Guantanamo to the United Kingdom, arguing that it would be too expensive to keep them under surveillance. Britain has also staved off a legal challenge by the relatives of some prisoners who sued to require the British government to seek their release.

Other European governments, which have been equally vocal in assailing Guantanamo as a human rights liability, have also balked at accepting prisoner transfers. A Turkish citizen who was born and raised in Germany was finally permitted to return from Guantanamo in August, four years after the German government turned down a U.S. proposal to release him.

The complaints against America’s policies seem like the tantrums of petulant adolescents. They gripe about living under daddy’s rules, but the last thing they’d do is move out if it meant having to pay their own way in the world.

It’s much easier to take principled stands when there aren’t any consequences.