Gitmo in Illinois?

[southsider2k5]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11...next-gitmo.html

 

A near-empty prison in rural Illinois has emerged as "a leading option" to house suspected terrorists from Guatanamo Bay -- an idea welcomed by people in the tiny river town of Thomson but sharply criticized by Republicans in Congress. PHOTOS

 

The congressman representing the area in northwest Illinois says he wouldn't mind the federal government buying the maximum security prison -- which has sat largely unused since completed eight years ago -- but he strongly opposes any plans to house suspected terrorists there.

 

House Republican Donald Manzullo acknowledged "extraordinary unemployment" in northwestern Illinois--he put the rate at 17 percent--but added: "The issue is: 'Are you going to exchange the promise of jobs for national security?' National security trumps everything. That's the safety of the people."

 

The lawmaker, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he was concerned that "al-Qaida would follow al-Qaida" to northwestern Illinois if Thomson became the prison to replace Guantanamo Bay, which he belies is perfectly adequate.

 

"It's not a dingy, dirty hole," said Manzullo, who has not visited personally but has spoken with colleagues who have. "There's a lot of room for the prisoners to exercise. They're allowed outside. It's a very safe area, not only for the prisoners, but for the American people.

 

Manzullo, a lawyer serving his ninth term in Congress, said he was buying paint Saturday in Rockford, Ill., and chatted with three other customers about the proposal. "Their mouths literally fell open," he said. "They were stunned. They were stunned to think that their government would move these people closer to them."

 

House Republican Mark Kirk of Northbrook, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, is circulating a sharply worded letter among the state's congressional delegation and state officials, urging the White House not to transfer suspected terrorists to the prison. (To read the letter, click HERE.)

 

"If your administration brings al-Qaida terrorists to Illinois, our state and the Chicago metropolitan area will become ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment and radicalization," Kirk, a five-term congressman, wrote in the letter to President Barack Obama.

 

"Furthermore, since Thomson is located in the (federal Justice Department's) Northern District of Illinois, any civilian prosecution of al-Qaida terrorists would occur in Rockford or downtown Chicago. As home to America's tallest building, we should not invite al-Qaida to make Illinois its number one target," Kirk wrote.

 

"The United States spent more than $50 million to build the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to keep terrorists away from U.S. soil. Al-Qaida terrorists should stay where they cannot endanger American citizens," Kirk said in the letter. "As elected officials in the state of Illinois, we urge you to put the safety and security of Illinois families first and stop any plan to transfer al-Qaida terrorists to our state."

 

One high-profile GOP lawmaker, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, believes what still is needed is a "comprehensive means of addressing the detainee issue and an overall plan to handle the detainees from Guantanamo," Brooke Buchanan, his spokeswoman, said Saturday.

 

Asked for a response to the Chicago Tribune's report on Thomson, she added: "The news you are referring to again lacks an overall plan."

 

McCain, a Vietnam prisoner of war, is the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and lost to Obama in the presidential race a year ago.

 

Another member of Congress who also weighed in on the proposal Saturday was House Republican Aaron Schock of Peoria, who also is against using Thomson. He favors keeping the Guantanamo Bay open. He visited it for a day in May with other lawmakers and found it state of the art, even better than the medium-security federal prison in Pekin, which is in his district.

 

"I don't care if it's Dick Durbin and the president of the United States himself, Thomson is a state asset," Schock said, adding that the state legislature would have to sign off on handing it over to the federal government.

 

Schock said the prisoners being held in Cuba represent the "largest operating al-Qaida cell in the world."

 

But in Thomson, about 150 miles from Chicago, residents generally believed the security risks were worth the jobs the prison would bring.

 

"It would help the businesses here, and God knows we could use that," said Kay Lawton, 59, a Thomson resident. "It doesn't matter to me who they bring here."

 

Gov. Pat Quinn's administration also considers the use of the prison an economic development and job creation tool.

 

The prison would generate 2,300 to 3,200 jobs in the area, and pump $790 million to $1 billion into the local economy in its first four years, according to a White House document generated at the request of Quinn and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

 

An Obama administration official wouldn't say how many of the Guantanamo detainees could transfer to Illinois, describing it only as a "limited number." The official also wouldn't say whether the administration envisions Thomson as the sole domestic prison for the former Guantanamo detainees.

 

Quinn's office released a statement Saturday saying only that "senior officials of the Obama administration will be visiting the Thomson Correction Center to see if the virtually vacant, state-of-the-art facility can be better utilized by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Overcrowding in federal prisons is a serious issue and one of the reasons why the Bureau of Prisons is interested in viewing Thomson Correction Center.

 

"As always, Governor Quinn's first priority is public safety and security, an issue that will definitely be part of any future discussions with federal prison authorities regarding Thomson. In addition, the Quinn administration is interested in utilizing Thomson to create many new jobs and generate greater economic development for Illinois."

 

Durbin said he and Quinn will be holding several news conferences on the issue Sunday. One of those news conferences will be held at Midway Airport in Chicago.

 

"They will be talking details and announcing next steps," Durbin's spokesman Joe Shoemaker said. "Until then we will not be commenting."

 

Officials say they are still contemplating the details -- including how they would persuade Congress to change a law that bars Guantanamo detainees from the U.S. unless they are here for trial.

 

If Obama can manage that, the Illinois prison could figure prominently in the complicated matrix for closing the infamous prison. Guantanamo has become a worldwide symbol of unpopular U.S. anti-terror and detention policies, and ordering its closure was one of Obama's first acts in office.

 

The shutdown has proven easier said than done, however, mainly because of the difficulty of finding other places to incarcerate the more than 200 people currently detained there. The Obama administration has appealed to allies around the world to house some of them, a request complicated by significant political opposition to accepting any of the detainees on American soil.

 

But officials in a handful of towns around the country have expressed interest in hosting such a federal prison, a prospect some remote areas welcome as a means of economic development at a time of hardship.

 

The Mississippi River town of Thomson, on the Illinois border with Iowa, has suffered more than most. In 2001, the state completed construction of the $145 million maximum-security institution to house the most dangerous inmates. A state budget crisis has left the prison practically unused for eight years, though. The prison has 1,600 cells yet is holding only 144 inmates.

 

Thomson Village President Jerry Hebeler was among the first to publicly raise the idea of housing Guantanamo detainees there, telling an ABC reporter in May that, as prison management goes, "they can't be any worse than any murderer."

 

In a recent letter to Quinn, Hebeler made a more general case for selling the institution to the federal government, which already operates a prison in the downstate Illinois town of Marion.

 

"If the Illinois Department of Corrections has no need for this facility, perhaps the federal government would be interested in locating a prison similar to the one in Marion," Hebeler wrote in an open letter published in local newspapers.

 

The plea found an audience in the state capital. Quinn has made $1 billion in cuts to his state budget in recent months, carrying out the task in part by sending layoff notices to Illinois prison employees.

 

Quinn recently discussed the prison with Obama, a fellow Illinois Democrat.

 

The prison is surrounded by a 12-foot exterior fence and 15-foot interior fence, which includes an electric stun fence, Quinn pointed out in a follow-up letter to Obama's secretary of defense and attorney general this week.

 

"I understand that you are still considering other options," Quinn wrote in the letter, obtained by the Tribune's Washington Bureau, "but the federal Bureau of Prisons would be hard-pressed to find a similar facility with such extensive safety and security measures already in place anywhere in America."

 

Now the federal Bureau of Prisons is looking into purchasing the site and running it as a federal institution. The bureau would also lease a portion of the prison to the Defense Department to house "a limited number of Guantanamo detainees," the official said.

 

The early glimmer of support from Quinn and Hebeler could help Obama navigate the obstacles ahead, but only if it is the precursor to a more sweeping local response.

 

Congressional opposition has been a looming obstacle for Obama as he contemplates the Guantanamo closure because current law says the detainees can only be moved to the U.S. for "purposes of prosecution."

 

But administration officials say they have been told by congressional leaders that they would consider lifting the restriction if the administration presented a final plan to close Guantanamo that included the location and its site.

 

The White House understanding is that they'll need to work things out with Congress if this is to proceed.

 

Detainees transferred from Guantanamo to the U.S. would not be released domestically. The president recently signed a sweeping appropriations bill that included a provision barring the release of Guantanamo detainees on American soil.

 

Julian E. Barnes of the Washington Bureau contributed to this report.

 

--Christi Parsons and Katherine Skiba

 

Click HERE for a WGN-TV report on this story.

[bmags]

I really feel this "national security threat" is incredibly overblown.

[southsider2k5]

I really feel this "national security threat" is incredibly overblown.

 

Especially when the state of Illinois could be looking at a billion dollar influx...

[bmags]

Especially when the state of Illinois could be looking at a billion dollar influx...

 

Yes. But, even with that.

 

I feel like we look at these lowlifes like they have superpowers, or something. I really doubt, if a play is made to release them, that just because the jail is off U.S. shores, this means the U.S. would not be hit in that "play."

 

How many countries have needed an offshore jail for their most heineous criminals?

[BigSqwert]

How many countries have needed an offshore jail for their most heineous criminals?

The country of San Francisco.

[bmags]

Well done.

[Balta1701]

They couldn't hold Magneto, how can they expect to hold these guys?

[DukeNukeEm]

I have no idea why Mark Kirk thinks putting a bunch of terrorists in a prison that's guarded by a veritable army will turn northern IL into a hotbed of Al-qaida recruiting. You wont even know the terrorists are there except for all the money the federal government will be pouring into the region.

Edited November 15, 2009 by DukeNukeEm

[HuskyCaucasian]

I really feel this "national security threat" is incredibly overblown.

beyond overblown.

[Balta1701]

beyond overblown.

But funny.

[bmags]

Yglesias doin what he does...sayin s*** better then meeeee

 

Criminals and Warriors

 

kahlidmuhammad1 1

 

Alongside the various nonsensical efforts to convince people that KSM is too scary to be put in trial, the right objects to bringing him to justice on the grounds that this represents a problematic “law enforcement” approach to terrorism. I think it’s pretty clear that international terrorism has some dimensions that go well-beyond ordinary law enforcement, but if you have to put the whole thing in either the “crime” box or the “war” box, there’s a pretty strong case for erring on the side of crime.

 

In political terms, the right likes the war idea because it involves taking terrorism more “seriously.” But in doing so, you partake of way too much of the terrorists’ narrative about themselves. It’s their conceit, after all, that blowing up a bomb in a train station and killing a few hundred random commuters is an act of war. And war is a socially sanctioned form of activity, generally held to be a legally and morally acceptable framework in which to kill people. What we want to say, however, is that this sporadic commuter-killing isn’t a kind of war, it’s an act of murder. To be sure, not an ordinary murder—a mass murder—but nonetheless murder. It’s true that if al-Qaeda were something like the “blowing up train stations” arm of a major country with which we were otherwise at war, it might make the most sense to think of al-Qaeda as fitting in with spies and saboteurs; criminal adjuncts to a warrior enterprise.

 

After all, do we really want to send the message to the world that a self-starting spree killer like Nidal Malik Hasan is actually engaged in some kind of act of holy war? It seems to me that we don’t. A lot of people in the world are interested in glory, and willing to take serious risks with their lives for its sake. Insofar as possible, we want to drain anti-American violence of the aura of glory. And that means by-and-large treating its perpetrators like criminals.

[Texsox]

Yes. But, even with that.

 

I feel like we look at these lowlifes like they have superpowers, or something. I really doubt, if a play is made to release them, that just because the jail is off U.S. shores, this means the U.S. would not be hit in that "play."

 

How many countries have needed an offshore jail for their most heineous criminals?

 

 

The country of San Francisco.

 

 

Well done.

 

well done indeed I love those posts.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ok, i need to vent a little here. Those whole "dont bring the terrorists to America" thing really honks me off. It's such a typical American response: "We want to fight the war, but hold no responsibility for it". They are basically saying "we need to catch the bad guys, and prosecute them (preferably with no due process so we can feel better about killing terrorists), but don't bring them to MY back yard. oh no. I want them caught, just not near me". It's such crap. Suck it up.

[lostfan]

It's really unfair to expect the military to do all the things the right expects them to do. It's just not possible, and by that standard the military is failing miserably. Used properly it can do just about anything it's supposed to be able to do, but if you break things down into individual parts it's really easy to see the idea of a global campaign to rid the world of terrorism is absurd on its face. We've been going at it completely the wrong way. I kind of thought it would be obvious to most people by now but it's not.

[lostfan]

Ok, i need to vent a little here. Those whole "dont bring the terrorists to America" thing really honks me off. It's such a typical American response: "We want to fight the war, but hold no responsibility for it". They are basically saying "we need to catch the bad guys, and prosecute them (preferably with no due process so we can feel better about killing terrorists), but don't bring them to MY back yard. oh no. I want them caught, just not near me". It's such crap. Suck it up.

I hate to say it but that's pretty par for the course for America. It's someone else's burden and we'll just pass it off to them, and don't worry about the bills for it, they'll never come due, so let's cut taxes and celebrate. Running out of troops you say? It's the same guys on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th tours? Those guys volunteered for it. Suck it up.

[southsider2k5]

Ok, i need to vent a little here. Those whole "dont bring the terrorists to America" thing really honks me off. It's such a typical American response: "We want to fight the war, but hold no responsibility for it". They are basically saying "we need to catch the bad guys, and prosecute them (preferably with no due process so we can feel better about killing terrorists), but don't bring them to MY back yard. oh no. I want them caught, just not near me". It's such crap. Suck it up.

 

Its the same reaction people have when anything major is about to happen by them. Talk about building any kind of a prison by people and they will have the same reaction. Heck if you talk about building a homeless shelter in an area, and the neighborhood will throw a fit. Add in the fact that you are talking about terrorists in this case, and that isn't going to change.

 

Or are you volunteering to have a dump built in your backyard?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Or are you volunteering to have a dump built in your backyard?

If they wanted to close the Motorola campus in Schaumburg and build a max security prison, good on them.

[lostfan]

Every thinking person should read the book "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism." It's like having a bucket of cold water poured over your face.

[jasonxctf]

lets see...

 

1) we've got 2 nuclear power plants here within 100 miles of Chicago and no one is concerned about terrorist threats there?

2) if somehow one of these guys did escape a supermax facility (something that's never happened) what the fu*k are they going to do anyway? They are in the corn fields of Illinois, in an area that they've never seen/been to before, and can't speak the language?

 

 

[lostfan]

lets see...

 

1) we've got 2 nuclear power plants here within 100 miles of Chicago and no one is concerned about terrorist threats there?

A prison isn't going to change that. If it's a threat now it's a threat then. If it's not a threat now, it won't be a threat then.

[bmags]

that was his point lost

[southsider2k5]

lets see...

 

1) we've got 2 nuclear power plants here within 100 miles of Chicago and no one is concerned about terrorist threats there?

2) if somehow one of these guys did escape a supermax facility (something that's never happened) what the fu*k are they going to do anyway? They are in the corn fields of Illinois, in an area that they've never seen/been to before, and can't speak the language?

 

Seriously that is a terrible analogy. We have one potential threat, so what does it matter if you have more?

[lostfan]

Except it's not a potential threat, it's completely irrelevant. Unless somebody thinks a terrorist will break out of a maximum security prison and go hitchhike over to a nuclear power plant and umm... break into it and uhh... do... things to make it blow up.

[Balta1701]

Except it's not a potential threat, it's completely irrelevant. Unless somebody thinks a terrorist will break out of a maximum security prison and go hitchhike over to a nuclear power plant and umm... break into it and uhh... do... things to make it blow up.

Unless one of these guys is in fact Magneto...you're at a much bigger risk from the New Madrid fault system than you are from any of them escaping and pulling off a massive terrorist attack.

 

I'd live near a supermax.

[bmags]

Josh Marshall´s clearest, most thought-out post in a while (apparently there is news worth covering besides the Moons and Palin)

tpm

Why Is It a Problem?

Josh Marshall | November 16, 2009, 11:25AM

A lot of people -- mainly but by no means exclusively Republicans -- were on the Sunday shows yesterday denouncing the administration's decision to jail and try KSM and four accused 9/11 plotters in New York City. And most of the criticism comes under three distinct but related arguments: 1) civilian trials give the defendants too many rights and protections and thus create too big a risk they'll get acquitted and set free, 2) holding the prisoners and trial in New York City puts the city's civilian population at unnecessary risk of new terror attacks, and 3) holding public, civilian trials will give the defendants an opportunity to mock the victims, have a platform to issue propaganda or gain public sympathy.

 

The first two arguments strike me as understandable but basically wrong on the facts. The third I find difficult in some ways even to understand and seems grounded in bad political values or even ideological cowardice.

 

Let's start with the idea that civilian trials have too many safeguards and create too big a risk these guys will go free. This does not hold up to any scrutiny for two reasons. First, remember all those high-profile terror prosecutions where the defendants went free? Right, me neither. It just does not happen. The fact is that federal judges are extremely deferential to the government in terror prosecutions. And national security law already gives the government the ability to do lots of things the government would never be allowed to do in a conventional civilian trial. (People who really think this is an issue seem to base their understanding of federal criminal procedure on watching too many Dirty Harry movies, which, as it happens, I'm actually a big fan of. But remember, they're movies.) KSM is not going to be able to depose or cross-examine CIA Director Leon Panetta or President Bush or Vice President Cheney or anyone else.

 

The possibility that a judge would suppress evidence obtained through torture is a real one. But Eric Holder made clear he and his prosecutors believe they have more than enough untainted evidence to obtain convictions. So that should not be an issue.

 

Finally, even in the extremely unlikely case that any of the five were acquitted of these charges, the government has a hundred other things it can charge them with. Indeed, the government could as easily turn them over to military commissions or indefinite detention post-acquittal as it can do those things with them now. That may not make civil libertarians happy. But it is the nail in the coffin of any suggestions that these guys are going to be walking out of the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan saying they're headed to Disneyland. It's simply not going to happen.

 

(The best argument against what I've argued here is probably the case of El Sayyid Nosair, the murderer of Jewish extremist leader Meir Kahane, who received a partial acquittal when he was tried in 1991. Here I would say that the case came prior to modern counter-terrorism law in the United States, which I'd date to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. And the Nosair example actually proves my larger point since a subsequent terrorism conspiracy trial got Nosair a life without parole plus fifteen year sentence, which he is now serving at the SuperMax facility in Florence, Colorado.)

 

We can imagine a different set of facts, where all the most damning evidence was obtained through torture, and acquittal seemed at all a reasonable possibility. In that case there might be a real question as to whether it was worth taking the risk when military commissions which have been used in the past are available. But this 'risk' simply doesn't appear to exist so you do not even need to get to the constitutional or deeper rule-of-law questions.

 

Next we have the question of danger to the people of New York City. As I said in my first post on this question, just on the facts I don't think al Qaeda terrorists are holding off on attacking New York now because they lack or incentive or feel we haven't pushed things far enough yet to merit another hit. The symbolic value of hitting New York might increase a bit. But it's already so high for these people that the increase seems notional at best. And more to the point, I choose to trust the people already charged with keeping the city safe.

 

On a more general level, however, since when is it something we advertise or say proudly that we're going to change our behavior because we fear terrorists will attack us if we don't? To be unPC about it, isn't there some residual national machismo that keeps us from cowering even before trivially increased dangers? As much as I think the added dangers are basically nil, I'm surprised that people can stand up as say we should change what we do in response to some minuscule added danger and not be embarrassed.

 

And finally we come to the fear of what KSM and the others will say. I don't see what factual dispute there is here. And at some level I don't even understand the argument. Logically I understand it; I understand what they're saying. But it's so contrary to my values and assumptions that at some level I don't get it. I cannot imagine anything KSM or his confederates would say that would diminish America or damage us in any way. Are we really so worried that what we represent is so questionable or our identity so brittle? (Some will say, yes: torture. The fact that some of these men were tortured is a huge stain on the country. But it happened and it's known about. To the extent that it is a stain it is the kind of stain that is diminished not made worse by an open public accounting.) Does anyone think that Nuremberg trials or the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961 or the war crimes trials of Slobodan Milosevic and others at the Hague advanced these mens' causes? Or that, in retrospect, it would have been wiser to hold these trials in secret?

 

At the end of the day, what are we afraid these men are going to say?

 

What we seem to be forgetting here is that trials are not simply for judging guilt and meting out punishment. We hold trials in public not only because we want a check on the government's behavior but because a key part of the exercise is a public accounting and condemnation of wrongs. Especially in great trials for the worst crimes they are public displays pitting one set of values against another. And I'm troubled by anyone who thinks that this is a confrontation in which we would come out the worse.

 

Again, I really don´t think this is a republican/democrat issue, there is no clear line drawn between those who support this and not, and why. This is a new perspective fostered since a great tragedy. But, again, I think we should remember, these men are not special. They are evil. And now we show how petty and silly they are. They are murderers, evil murderers, not symbols, not martyrs, just low-lifes who will now spend the rest of their lives in a 4x8 cell learning just how nice American hospitality can be.