DukeNukeEm Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 CHICAGO — The Obama administration notified Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn by letter Tuesday that it intends to acquire a rural prison in his state for the relocation of a "limited number of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." The underutilized Thomson Correctional Center is in the small village of Thomson, Ill., 150 miles east of Chicago. It has become the center of controversy over what to do for a limited number of terrorist suspects, about 200, held at Guantanamo Bay. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-1...errorists_N.htm God knows we could use the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 09:35 PM) The underutilized Thomson Correctional Center is in the small village of Thomson, Ill., 150 miles east of Chicago. Sweet, we get money to store them in Michigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 lol, 150 miles east of Chicago, nice work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Some people are against this, and I dunno why. Lots of jobs + lots of money = good all around. I've heard people say this'll just give "them" more of a reason to attack us close to a metro area, but that just seems silly to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 15, 2009 Author Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) Terrorists dont have superpowers. Its not like they're going to break out of a federal prison and float around Chicago melting skyscrapers with their eyes. Edited December 15, 2009 by DukeNukeEm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 06:03 PM) Some people are against this, and I dunno why. Lots of jobs + lots of money = good all around. I've heard people say this'll just give "them" more of a reason to attack us close to a metro area, but that just seems silly to me. Yeah it pretty much is. It's not like there are terrorists sitting around who were on the fence about a terrorist attack and now they're like "oh s*** let's go!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) I dont think you understand the risk of having dangerous terrorists in a prison nearby. What if they all escape, then what will we do? Wont some one please think of the children! That is sarcasm, now if the prison was made to hold Magneto or Sylar, then I might have some concerns about proximity. I dont think any terrorists have that sort of power, and if they do they must be really dumb to have been caught in the first place. Edited December 15, 2009 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 love it. glad illinois won this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Talk about pork barrel spending; nothing like helping his home state. Who will be applying for prison guard positions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 I would hardly call this pork at all. You gotta put them somewhere and you sure as hell have to staff the place to keep it safe. This isn't like giving IL a ton of money to build an empty prison and hire a bunch of people to guard air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 11:02 PM) I would hardly call this pork at all. You gotta put them somewhere and you sure as hell have to staff the place to keep it safe. This isn't like giving IL a ton of money to build an empty prison and hire a bunch of people to guard air. Supposedly a billion(!) federal dollars involved for Illinois. That's pretty significant for a couple hundred inmates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) Some people are against this, and I dunno why. Lots of jobs + lots of money = good all around. I've heard people say this'll just give "them" more of a reason to attack us close to a metro area, but that just seems silly to me. Of course it's silly. But it's a great "OMG We're all gonna die.... unless you elect me" talking point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 Supposedly a billion(!) federal dollars involved for Illinois. That's pretty significant for a couple hundred inmates. I would agree, they are a significant bunch. Dick Durbin said of the 4000 people staffing the place half would be from the surrounding area, meaning the other half are probably people relocating who need homes and amenities built into the community to support the extra population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 A lot of what I'm reading is that this will benefit a bunch of Iowans in Clinton, too, as that's the biggest city nearest the prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I don't think the concern is terrorists breaking out of prison as much as it is terrorists targeting the area because that's where their homies are being detained. Anywhoo the issue for me is why this prison has been vacant for so long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 11:02 PM) I would hardly call this pork at all. You gotta put them somewhere and you sure as hell have to staff the place to keep it safe. This isn't like giving IL a ton of money to build an empty prison and hire a bunch of people to guard air. They could stay in Cuba. They could be housed a military prison. They could be released. There are a lot of facilities that could house them. Do not think for a minute that Obama didn't get this one for Illinois. I was kidding about the pork. It seems excessive, but probably not out of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 They could stay in Cuba. They could be housed a military prison. They could be released. There are a lot of facilities that could house them. Do not think for a minute that Obama didn't get this one for Illinois. I was kidding about the pork. It seems excessive, but probably not out of line. They could stay in what has become symbolic of our imperialism, they could share a prison with incarcerated US military personnel or a bunch of high profile people could disappear in some CIA prison in god-knows-where. Somehow none of those options seem desirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Posted on Sullivan's blog: I work for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The easiest rebuttal -- that I haven't seen used enough -- about having terrorists in our prisons is: we *already* have them. Are any of these terrorists more dangerous than, say: John Gotti, or the Unabomber, or Manuel Noriega, or Tim McVeigh, or Ramzi Yousef & Omar Ahmad Rahman (two who were involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993)? And Noriega and Rahman aren't even in the "SuperMax" prison! In fact, our prisons are probably more secure than that of Gitmo -- has anyone escaped from there? We already house well over 100 terrorists. It's no big deal. Frankly -- gang members are harder to control. In our SuperMax prison (Florence, Co.), not only has there been no escape, there hasn't even been an attempted escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 The difference is that those people don't have XX millions who follow them in a life-time war against an enemy. I think it's a lame argument, but essentially by taking these people away from a military protected institution you're supposedly inviting more of an opportunity for them to attack somewhere in the US. Say by taking over a nearby grade school and holding people hostage until they release them. Say guard number 1 and 2 have kids in that school, they may be more willing to let them go. The chances of something like that happening have to be about .000001% though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 12:47 PM) I don't think the concern is terrorists breaking out of prison as much as it is terrorists targeting the area because that's where their homies are being detained. But that's a ridiculous concern. They're not looking to pull off operations in some po-dunk town in Illinois. Anywhoo the issue for me is why this prison has been vacant for so long? Not enough funding to operate it. There was a prison out west (Montana?) that tried to do the same thing--get the Gitmo detainees because it was a big, expensive empty prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 04:52 PM) But that's a ridiculous concern. They're not looking to pull off operations in some po-dunk town in Illinois. Not enough funding to operate it. There was a prison out west (Montana?) that tried to do the same thing--get the Gitmo detainees because it was a big, expensive empty prison. I think it was a combination of overcapacity and underfunding. And it may not have been fully completed. There are some minimum security inmates there IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 04:31 PM) The difference is that those people don't have XX millions who follow them in a life-time war against an enemy. I think it's a lame argument, but essentially by taking these people away from a military protected institution you're supposedly inviting more of an opportunity for them to attack somewhere in the US. Say by taking over a nearby grade school and holding people hostage until they release them. Say guard number 1 and 2 have kids in that school, they may be more willing to let them go. The chances of something like that happening have to be about .000001% though. What's to stop someone who wants KSM released from taking over a grade school now? Proximity doesn't exactly matter there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) What's to stop someone who wants KSM released from taking over a grade school now? Proximity doesn't exactly matter there. Right. That's why it's a lame argument. I DO think it's ridiculous they are trying him in Manhattan though. Why spend the hundreds and hundreds of millions in security just to do it there? Why not utilize a federal district that isn't in the most congested area of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:14 PM) Right. That's why it's a lame argument. I DO think it's ridiculous they are trying him in Manhattan though. Why spend the hundreds and hundreds of millions in security just to do it there? Why not utilize a federal district that isn't in the most congested area of the world? Politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 06:14 PM) Right. That's why it's a lame argument. I DO think it's ridiculous they are trying him in Manhattan though. Why spend the hundreds and hundreds of millions in security just to do it there? Why not utilize a federal district that isn't in the most congested area of the world? Would it genuinely be cheaper to do so somewhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts