All Nonfiction
- Bullying
- Books
- Academic
- Author Interviews
- Celebrity interviews
- College Articles
- College Essays
- Educator of the Year
- Heroes
- Interviews
- Memoir
- Personal Experience
- Sports
- Travel & Culture
All Opinions
- Bullying
- Current Events / Politics
- Discrimination
- Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
- Entertainment / Celebrities
- Environment
- Love / Relationships
- Movies / Music / TV
- Pop Culture / Trends
- School / College
- Social Issues / Civics
- Spirituality / Religion
- Sports / Hobbies
All Hot Topics
- Bullying
- Community Service
- Environment
- Health
- Letters to the Editor
- Pride & Prejudice
- What Matters
- Back
Summer Guide
- Program Links
- Program Reviews
- Back
College Guide
- College Links
- College Reviews
- College Essays
- College Articles
- Back
Illinois prison could house Gitmo detainees
President Obama has expressed his desire to relocate Guantanamo Bay detainees to a prison on American soil. Thomson Correctional Center, about 150 miles from Chicago, is the leading choice of the Obama administration to house the detainees. The move would fulfill President Obama’s campaign promise of closing Guantanamo Bay.
Built in 2001 as a maximum-security prison, Thomson Correctional Center is largely vacant, housing about 150 prisoners in the minimum-security unit (according to the Illinois Department of Corrections). The maximum-security cell houses have been vacant since the prison opened.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons would increase the security of the prison if they decide to occupy it. The Bureau would also ensure that the fewer than 100 Guantanamo Bay detainees kept in the maximum-security unit would be separate from the minimum-security unit.
The move would economically benefit Thomson, Illinois, where people have been badly hit by the recession. The federal prison would create over 3,000 jobs for the town, as well as lower the 10.9% unemployment rate two to four points in the surrounding county (Carroll County) according to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said, “There are too many people out of work, there are businesses closing down because people are out of work. They need paychecks.”
Despite the economic benefits, the proposal is facing fierce opposition from politicians that are positioning themselves for the upcoming state primary elections in January. Mark Kirk, Republican Congressman of Illinois and a Republican U.S. Senate candidate, said that the move is an unnecessary risk. He said that the Chicago area could become “ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment and radicalization.” He claims that the terrorist suspects housed in a super-max prison 150 miles away from Chicago would jeopardize Chicago’s security.
What was not mentioned by Kirk was that Chicago already temporarily houses suspected terrorists at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, which is within walking distance of the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower.
Additionally, federal facilities on American soil house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists (according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons). In a supermax facility in Florence, Colorado, Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the September 11th plotters stays, as well as Theodore Kacynski, the “Unabomber.” Roughly 330 miles away from Chicago, in southwestern Illinois, the United States Penitentiary at Marion also houses international terrorists. These supermax prisons often confine their dangerous prisoners to solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. The Thomson prison will be run the same way. Terrorists imprisoned in nearby prisons are nothing new, despite current outrage over the move of the detainees.
Kirk, apparently ignorant of the dangerous prisoners already in our prisons, circulated a letter to Illinois’s congressional delegation and state officials that said, “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-Qaeda terrorists to our state.”
Republican Congressman Peter Roskam of Illinois said, “The Obama administration’s utter inability to create jobs here does not somehow make sending some of the world’s worst terrorists to our backyard a good idea.” In response to the strong opposition to relocating the terrorists, Iowa Representative Bruce Braley said, “The time for fear-mongering is over.”
Closing Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp would end what President Obama described as “a sad chapter in American history.” The Illinois politicians that argue fervently against Illinois housing terrorists were described by Durbin as “crossing the line.” Quinn described the relocation of the Guantanamo detainees as being a “great, great opportunity for our state.”
Similar Articles
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
This article has 7 comments.
I realize that the right to a fair and speedy trial applies only to American citizens. But I believe not taking the moral high ground on this issue of how to prosecute people suspected of terrorism would hurt our country . . . its ideals and ultimately, the world's view of us.
Also, in reality, wouldn't it be better to give respect to people suspected of terrorism by giving them a fair trial; I don't think you can argue against the principle that trials should be fair for all.
While you acknowledge the U.S. is at war, I don't see how respecting the enemy is giving the terrorists the upper hand, as you call it. If we respect the enemy--giving proper respect to the Muslim world--they will, in time reciprocate this trust. We should not look at these people as savages, and treat them as such. Your kind, as well as those who you likely idolize, do nothing more than further the problem of terrorism by disrespecting the enemy. They will continue to retaliate, just remember that, if we continue our war on the Muslim world.
As far as 300 jobs per detainee--which you (rightly) voiced your skepticism about--I would agree that that sounds like an inflated number. I, however, did not say this number, but a Illinois politician who I believe I cite in the article.
When you repudiated my claim that your conclusions were based on xenophobia, I thought about how this (important) debate we are having is representative of America's current predicament in the 'war on terror.' Our country sees Middle-Eastern people who have been detained--often preemptively--and just as you said, we "detest the things these terrorists do." I don't think it's fair to make these kinds of assertions about the detainees. Often, they haven't done anything . . . yet, which is the key idea for terrorism hawks.
Now, I don't want to sound combative, and I hope you understand this: I am just debating your ideas, not you. But this brings me to your next point, that these terrorists shouldn't be tried in a court of law, which a whole new issue.
I believe in the ideal that all should be entitled to a fair and speedy trial. When we ignore this principle--one that our nation was founded upon--we lose the authenticity of this great country--and ultimately, the credibility of the so called the American Experiment.
I believe to really understand the ideals behind a fair and speedy trial, we need to go back to one of the defining moments of our history, the Boston Massacre. British soldiers fired into the crowd, which may or may not have provoked them with excessive physical and verbal abuse . . . but that's not the issue. John Adams, against the revolutionary zeitgeist of the times, agreed to defend these soldiers, who without him, surely would have been tarred and feathered: they would have been tried by a mob of angry revolutionaries, and pronounced guilty without defense.
But, John Adams defended these foreigners on American soil--in fact, against the wishes of his cousin and revolutionary leader Samuel Adams. Despite public opposition, Adams did the smart and respectable thing, and stood up for justice.
Now, you could say that 'this situation is different.' But I don't think it is. What has changed is America; I don't believe we as a nation, believe in the perhaps idyllic principles of the Enlightenment, of which our nation was founded upon. This may be a cause of celebration for some, but it benefits nobody, and lowers our respectability as a nation. We no longer have the moral high ground in this debate; or one could phrase that as saying the terrorists have one . . . they have changed America forever.
Second, bringing terrorists onto American soil will give them constitutional rights and would cost taxpayer dollars. Why should we bring them to the middle of our country instead of leaving them in Cuba? They are prisoners of war and have no constitutional rights. Also, how can 100 prisoners create 3,000 jobs? 300 jobs for each detainee?As for your xenophobia comment, I do not have an unreasonable hatred of things or people foreign, I just detest the things these terrorists do. These are the people who blow up innocent men, women, and children and we want to bring them to our country and give them trials and Miranda Rights.
As far as keeping terrorists at Gitmo, our country should not resemble the scum of the world who imprison people outside of the court of law. In Gitmo, also, we don't know what they're doing there.
I appreciate your comments, however your fears are largely based on unfounded facts and xenophobia.
As
1 article 0 photos 61 comments
Favorite Quote:
"Come and Take it!" -citizens of Gonzales, Texas, when the Mexicans tried to take away the cannon used to defend their town.