A Military-Civilian Terror Prison In US Eyed By Obama Administration: AP

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - A Military-Civilian Terror Prison In US Eyed By Obama Administration: AP stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

LARA JAKES | 08/ 2/09 09:29 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Gitmo

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities at a single maximum-security prison.

Several senior U.S. officials said the administration is eyeing a soon-to-be-shuttered state maximum security prison in Michigan and the military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as possible locations for a heavily guarded site to hold the 229 suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and foreign fighters now jailed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.

The officials outlined the plans – the latest effort to comply with President Barack Obama's order to close the prison camp by Jan. 22, 2010, and satisfy congressional and public fears about incarcerating terror suspects on American soil – on condition of anonymity because the options are under review.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Friday that no decisions have been made about the proposal. But the White House considers the courtroom-prison complex as the best among a series of bad options, an administration official said.

To the House Republican leader, it's an "ill-conceived plan" that would bring terrorists into the U.S. despite opposition by Congress and the American people. "The administration is going to face a severe public backlash unless it shelves this plan and goes back to the drawing board," said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.

For months, government lawyers and senior officials at the Pentagon, Justice Department and the White House have struggled with how to close the internationally reviled U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo.

Congress has blocked $80 million intended to bring the detainees to the United States. Lawmakers want the administration to say how it plans to make the moves without putting Americans at risk.

The facility would operate as a hybrid prison system jointly operated by the Justice Department, the military and the Department of Homeland Security.

Story continues below

The administration's plan, according to three government officials, calls for:

_Moving all the Guantanamo detainees to a single U.S. prison. The Justice Department has identified between 60 and 80 who could be prosecuted, either in military or federal criminal courts. The Pentagon would oversee the detainees who would face trial in military tribunals. The Bureau of Prisons, an arm of the Justice Department, would manage defendants in federal courts.

_Building a court facility within the prison site where military or criminal defendants would be tried. Doing so would create a single venue for almost all the criminal defendants, ending the need to transport them elsewhere in the U.S. for trial.

_Providing long-term holding cells for a small but still undetermined number of detainees who will not face trial because intelligence and counterterror officials conclude they are too dangerous to risk being freed.

_Building immigration detention cells for detainees ordered released by courts but still behind bars because countries are unwilling to take them.

Each proposal, according to experts in constitutional and national security law, faces legal and logistics problems.

Scott Silliman, director of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, called the proposal "totally unprecedented" and said he doubts the plan would work without Congress' involvement because new laws probably would be needed. Otherwise, "we gain nothing – all we do is create a Guantanamo in Kansas or wherever," Silliman said.

"You've got very strict jurisdictional issues on venue of a federal court. Why would you bring courts from all over the country to one facility, rather than having them prosecuted in the district where the courts sit?"

Legal experts said civilian trials held inside the prison could face jury-selection dilemmas in rural areas because of the limited number of potential jurors available.

One solution, Silliman said, would be to bring jurors from elsewhere. But that step, one official said, could also compromise security by opening up the prison to outsiders.

It is unclear whether victims – particularly survivors of Sept. 11 victims – would be allowed into the courtroom to watch the trials. Victims and family members have no assumed right under current law to attend military commissions, although the Pentagon does allow them to attend hearings at Guantanamo under a random selection process. That right is automatic in civilian federal courthouses.

"They'll have to sort it out," said Douglas Beloof, a professor at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Ore., and expert on crime victims' rights. He said the new system "could create tension with victims who would protest."

The officials said that another uncertainty remains how many Guantanamo detainees would end up housed in the hybrid prison.

As many as an estimated 170 of the detainees now at Guantanamo are unlikely to be prosecuted. Some are being held indefinitely because government officials do not want to take the chance of seeing them acquitted in a trial. The rest are considered candidates for release, but the U.S. cannot find foreign countries willing to take them. Almost all have yet to be charged with crimes.

Two senior U.S. officials said one option for the proposed hybrid prison would be to use the soon-to-be-shuttered Standish maximum-security state prison in northeast Michigan. The facility already has individual cells and ample security for detainees.

Getting the Standish prison ready for the detainees would be costly. One official estimated it would cost over $100 million for security and other building upgrades.

Several Michigan lawmakers, including Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin and Rep. Bart Stupak, both Democrats, have said they would be open to moving detainees to Michigan as long as there is broad local support.

But the political support is not unanimous. Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee who is seeking the GOP nomination for governor next year, is against the idea.

Administration officials said the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth is under consideration because it is already a hardened high-security facility that could be further protected by the surrounding military base.

It's not clear what would happen to the military's inmates already being held there. Nearly half are members of the U.S. armed forces, and by law, cannot be housed with foreign prisoners.

Kansas' GOP-dominated congressional delegation is dead set against moving Guantanamo detainees to Leavenworth. Residents told Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., at a town hall meeting in May that 95 percent of the local community opposes it. Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Lynn Jenkins planned a news conference in Leavenworth on Monday to "discuss opposition to any efforts to move detainees to Fort Leavenworth."

Administration officials say they are determined to keep to his promise of closing Guantanamo in January as a worldwide example of America's commitment to humane and just treatment of the detainees.

Glenn Sulmasy, an international law professor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., said the prison-court complex will "be difficult, but it's logical."

"This is all based on Closing Gitmo by 2010, which seems to be a priority, and if we are going to do it, we have to step up to the plate and find solutions to the conundrum we're facing," said Sulmasy, who agrees with the administration's efforts. "And this seems to be the most pragmatic way ahead."

___

On the Net:

Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks: http://tinyurl.com/ln3ef9

Standish, Mich., Maximum Correctional Facility: http://tinyurl.com/len83g

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities a...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities a...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
1064
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (13 pages total)
photo

Oh yeah Michigan is a wise choice...............errrrrrrrrrr NOT! Has the biggest Arab population in the US
( Dearborn ). Geez.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

Many Muslims in Dearborn are Hezbollah ( sp) supporters and have connections to them. debbieschlussel.com has extensive info on Dearbornastan ( as she calls it ) in the archive sections.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 08/02/2009
- Kingstone I'm a Fan of Kingstone 5 fans permalink

No more wars Obama!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 08/02/2009
- samjung23 I'm a Fan of samjung23 10 fans permalink

This is going to be the best terror-prison ever.

It's even going to have luxury suites.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

As long as the court in the prison isn't some kangaroo, drum head, tribunal joke I think this is perfectly reasonable. Detainees finally get full access to lawyers and a proper chance to mount a defense in a facility that is no longer some shadowy no man's land outside the rule of law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 08/02/2009
- dennisrs I'm a Fan of dennisrs 32 fans permalink
photo

Why they are POWs not criminals. I think the Geneva Convention applies here. Were the WWII POW treated under Criminal law or POW regs?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:43 PM on 08/02/2009
- ohiomark I'm a Fan of ohiomark 130 fans permalink

This is how liberals fight a war. They treat it like a law enforcement issue instead of a war.

They will have to give these enemies of our country and way of life an ACLU attorney after they read them their "Miranda Rights" when they are captured.

This is why Democrats are percieved to be weak on defense.....................because they are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 08/02/2009
- mick7191 I'm a Fan of mick7191 36 fans permalink
photo

You mean weak like WWII?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 08/02/2009
- ohiomark I'm a Fan of ohiomark 130 fans permalink

I meant the Democrats of today.

If FDR (Japanese internment camps) and Truman (dropping nukes on our enemy) did what they did today, they would be attacked by the looney left.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

They are criminals. It is a law enforcement issue. And if those we capture are guilty why are you so afraid of due process? You take them to court and convict them. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Oh, but you're on that cowboy, wanna be Billy Bad@zz bent, huh? You think a country of 330 million could fight a war with the other 5.7 Billion people on the planet cuz "America Rulz", right? Democrats are only weak on defense cuz they feel the need to cow tow to Republican ideas. Ideas which just happen to be the reason people want to blough us up in the first place.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 08/02/2009
- dennisrs I'm a Fan of dennisrs 32 fans permalink
photo

Explain just how they are criminals Brothaman2K?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 08/02/2009
- mick7191 I'm a Fan of mick7191 36 fans permalink
photo

Or weak like continuing drone attacks in Afghanistan?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 08/02/2009
- mick7191 I'm a Fan of mick7191 36 fans permalink
photo

Or weak like increasing the DoD budget 14 billion dollars?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

There aren't laws in war?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 08/02/2009
- ohiomark I'm a Fan of ohiomark 130 fans permalink

Al Qaeda doesn't follow any "rules" or laws.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

Why not just send them back to where they came from!.Close up GITMO for good,and save the tax payers money.America is a STUPID place!..Now i see why china is 5 years ahead of us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

Yeah, China is a real beacon of hope and freedom. Boy do they love civil rights. Example: Tibet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 PM on 08/02/2009

why can't they use alcatraz? it seems that it would put people to work & isn't it just sitting there?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:29 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

That place is so old there's no telling whether it could be retrofitted or if it'd be cheaper to knock the whole thing down and start from scratch. That said the idea would at least make for a cool sequel to "The Rock"...lol

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 PM on 08/02/2009
- dennisrs I'm a Fan of dennisrs 32 fans permalink
photo

What's wrong with just leaving them in GITMO cicibean?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:47 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

Does anyone else think this sounds like taking all of GITMO and just plopping it down somewhere in the US?

Nothing changes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 08/02/2009
- avchavis I'm a Fan of avchavis 234 fans permalink
photo

I respectfully disagree. This problem was created by an American President (HINT GWB) - so now it's become America's problem. No thanks to GWB & RC. I don't blame other countries for refusing to take the GITMO detainees. It's up to the US to workout this problem now.

We have terr.o.rristas right here in the US in supermax prisons and living in our nice suburban neighborhoods.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 08/02/2009

Also, if they are guilty of involvement in terrorist plots -- and it can be proven in court -- where should they be imprisoned? In a third country, where they might escape to do more harm, or face even worse conditions than in the U.S.? What do the Republicans want and expect? That terrorists be allowed to run free in a third country. or innocent people be imprisoned interminably at a foreign U.S. military base?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

In many cases it's not clear who these people are, why they were detained in the first place, and (most importantly) whether we even have a right to detain them or put them on trial. So I don't think it matters much _where_ we put them, as long as we move as swiftly as possible to do our best in each case and to never, ever end up in this situation again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 08/02/2009
- sviolette I'm a Fan of sviolette 107 fans permalink
photo

If there is any doupt then you have to release them. If you don't have real proof they did anything illegal let them go just like we do to anyone else.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 08/02/2009
- Mauiboy I'm a Fan of Mauiboy 6 fans permalink
photo

The Gitmo fiasco was dropped in Obama's lap and there are no easy answers. People were picked up and questioned illegally, so trials could go badly politically if judges are forced to let them off and go back to their home countries. Leaving Gitmo open merely prolongs the problem. The sooner we close it the better. If we can't incarcerate these people properly then I want my money back for all the installations that we have built and where few people have ever escaped. There is a town in Montana that has a new facility and have asked to take these people because they need the jobs. Let's get this thing moving and close Gitmo for once and all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

Easy answer.

Close Gitmo.

Put the accused on trial.

Follow the Constitution.

Watch "The Obama De...cep...tion"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 PM on 08/02/2009
- sarnold15 I'm a Fan of sarnold15 9 fans permalink

Why are we still at war? Are we still looking for WMDs?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

Answer:

The Military Industrial Complex.

Go Google it.

Watch "The Obama De...cep...tion"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 08/02/2009
- avchavis I'm a Fan of avchavis 234 fans permalink
photo

Terrible video- this is just another attempt to smear President Obama and spread fear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 08/02/2009
- sarnold15 I'm a Fan of sarnold15 9 fans permalink

What's wrong with our current courtrooms to try people? What are we trying to hide with these 'courtroom-within-prisons'?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:19 PM on 08/02/2009
- GaBu2 I'm a Fan of GaBu2 70 fans permalink
photo

It seems repubs/conservatives pretty much like the U.S.A. as it is, with the structures and programs that made it the most powerful nation on earth by far, and they want to maintain the status quot, feeling that any deviation from the 'past successes' will weaken the U.S.

Dems/libs accept the fact the we are still a world powerhouse but some things can be changed to make things better for all concerned if we just alter some of out practices from our past, and adopt 'the best' policies from other industrialized nations.

Repubs/conservatives seem to believe that adopting policies from other nations will take away the essence of what makes the U.S. the U.S., while dems/libs believe that it is what the US should be.

Both sides seem to want the best for the US, but differ on exactly what is best, and what makes the U.S. the U.S. The opinions are so diametrically opposed that we end up in a situation where political posturing and in fighting prevent real change.

..or something like that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 08/02/2009
- Matrsnot I'm a Fan of Matrsnot 31 fans permalink

You mean like adopting UN (American) policies? Those policies that kill and rape the people they are there to "protect"? Those policies? Or the ones Koh wants to institute which include theocratic views from Islam? The Constitution is our document and does not need to be abbreviated or diluted by the policies or laws of other countries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

I believe gabu is referring to the far superior healthcare that many nations have.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

I haven't seen the aforementioned video. I'm not a big fan of the Obama bashers, or Obama.

Anyway...

Watch this short video by the late comedian Bill Hicks on the parties to understand politics in America -- "I think the public on the left shares my views, I think the puppet on the right shares mine, wait a minute... there's one guy holding both puppets! Go back to sleep America."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-UINt3tPlg

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 08/02/2009
- tinman1967 I'm a Fan of tinman1967 2 fans permalink

Please, not in my neighborhood.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 PM on 08/02/2009
- SMolloy I'm a Fan of SMolloy 5 fans permalink

What makes you think that they would be any less safe to keep here than the mur derers, rap|sts and terr0rists that we're already holding in our prisons here?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 08/02/2009
photo

That's way to step up and do something for your country

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 08/02/2009
- SMolloy I'm a Fan of SMolloy 5 fans permalink

By the way, I always thought conservatives were the more "macho" group in our society. You guys have displayed more fear on this board than any liberal has.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 PM on 08/02/2009

Maybe we could "well organize" a militia under the NRA to guard the prison. That would undoubtedly ease conservatives' fears.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 08/02/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (13 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect