It makes sense to take the air out of the "security-risk" balloon that has been floated. The whole point of Guantanamo was to keep the detainees away from US soil where they would be afforded legal rights. It never was a security issue.

Now that the courts are ruling that the detainees have rights even in Guantanamo, there really is no reason at all to continue to sully our image around the world by keeping it open.

Any chance we would run the risk of people "wanting" to be prisoners in our supermax prisons creating a problem of overcrowding in the far future? You gotta admit that the US's supermax prisons are probably a lot better than some peoples hut or cave.

I'm okay with terrorists in my state. It's Republicans I object to.

As a native Yooper, I approve of this prisoner transfer. Finally, some recognition!

This is stupidity on stilts. If any of those held in Guantanamo *did* escape, what would they do? They don't speak English, the have no money, they know no one. They don't know where they are, where to go or how to get anywhere. Even if they could find a pay phone, the money to use it and knew a number to call, they wouldn't know where they were, so how could anyone rescue them before they are discovered? They are completely helpless and harmless.

All those brave politicians willing to put Guantanamo detainees in super-maximum security prisons where they would be held 23 hours a day in small cells with slits for windows. Such courage! Mind you, these "detainees" have been charged with no crime and have no prospect of release. Your reporter might have noted that a few lily-livered liberals regard such treatment as inhumane, counterproductive and expensive. But no, why go there? Hey, I've got it. Why not just give all those presumed terrorists nooses? And you never know what the rest of mankind thinks. Why not lock up everybody except your close friends and family and give us all nooses?

Perhaps it's time to introduce a new series of questions into the debate. Maybe lawmakers should be asked, "Would you be OK with convicted serial killers being held in a maximum-security prison in your state? How about rapists? Or child molesters?"

Actually, considering the accusations and ads from Republicans, wouldn't it be a more appropriate response to ask them if they approve of serial killers, rapists and child molesters being released in their neighborhoods?

And be sure to put some scary music in the soundtrack...

I'm curious to know, if any of the detainees are actually convicted of terrorism, will they be sentenced to death? Would pretty much take care of where to put them. The others (the vast majority?) would either be acquitted or found guilty of much lesser crimes, so what to worry about? Unless Obama really is planning on continuing the Bush policy of eternal detention. In which case we have a much bigger problem with which to deal.

Do Durbin, Murtha, or Levin expect to have a brand new supermax prison built by next January??

Useless cowardly swine, the lot. Remind me again why anyone bothers to vote Democratic? It sure can't be to accomplish change. The only change these frauds want is nicer offics.

You are supposed to connect the dots, and conclude that the sensible thing to do with the people in Guantanamo is shoot them.

People on their own aren't drawing the inference fast enough yet, and the GOP doesn't have the balls -- yet -- to go there, but they will, because they have to.

what amazes is me is how the repub's are such whimps. they think that a few people scattered in prisons around the country threaten all of us? And exactly how would that be? It's not like the citizenry isn't armed to the teeth, knows their own local terrain and can't figure out how to defend themselves if need be.

The main problem is that in their heart of hearts most of these wingnut NIMBY guys wouldn't have serial murderors or child rapists in their prisons either, they would be happy with summary executions for all of them.

There are very many people who are simply indifferent to the implications of the Innocence Project, the fact that some of the people they have hung, shot, gassed or electrocuted over the years were innocent is a feature not a bug. That is the power of Jim Crow and Nazism, you control by fear and not something as abstract as Justice. There are people out there who think all amendments except the Second and Tenth are in Gonzales word 'quaint'.

If you come at this from the mind-set that all those rapists and killers in the Super-Max should have been executed to start with you are not going to accept the equivalence argument for the Gitmo detainees. I mean there are still people bitter about Gideon and Miranda and legal restraints on police conduct. Back in the 50s and 60s people suspected of being criminals were routinely taken by cops to a back room or basement and given the 'third degree'. That is not something thought up by Film Noir. Cops in big cities and small towns alike used what would today be deemed illegal torture to extract information. Plenty of people my age and older grew up when this was just part of life and are rather baffled by squeamishness on this score.

Talking sweet reason to people who look on 80% of the Bill of Rights with unease is to some extent a waste of time. After all it will never happen to them so why worry.

Perhaps it's time to introduce a new series of questions into the debate. Maybe lawmakers should be asked, "Would you be OK with convicted serial killers being held in a maximum-security prison in your state? How about rapists? Or child molesters?"

I'd prefer this question introduced into the debate:

"Are you ok with holding people who have never been convicted of any crime being held in prison forever?"

Again, Steve, why, oh effing why do you ALWAYS buy into wingnut frames?

All of this is correct of course, although, in complete fairness, the fact that Murtha supports an idea based on its benefit to his district does not actually tell us anything about the merits of the idea.

How any blogger can post about craven politicians and Gitmo without mentioning the Boneless Wonder by name is quite an oversight. He's the majority leader of the U.S. senate, for crying out loud. The majority being the democratic party, remember?

The idea that we should be afraid of these detainees is laughable. What is truly worrisome is that we're importing the legal system that created their detention along with them, and institutionalizing a national embarrassment as part of our approach moving forward. Are there any senators who have mentioned that?

The interesting question is not where to hold the Gitmo detainees, but whether to hold them and for how long.

Obama seems to have come around to the Bush administrations's view of looking at this through the prism of the law of war. In other words, enemy combatants captured on the field of battle can be held indefinitely, until the end of hostilities, to keep them from returning to the field of battle. This principle in the abstract is not controversial. However, apparently a lot of liberals had trouble seeing 9/11 and our response to it in Afghanistan and elsewhere as a war and so had trouble seeing those captured in that war as "enemy combatants." It's nice to see that Obama no longer sees the struggle against the jihadists as purely a law enforcement problem and has come around to the Bush administration's legal interpretation.

dbl...

right...

and saddam had nukes..

and this is a mental recession...

and obama is a muslim...

gop assessments: we got a million of them

lol...

Back in the 50s and 60s people suspected of being criminals were routinely taken by cops to a back room or basement and given the 'third degree'.

Continued in Chicago into the 90s.

DBL is right.

enemy combatants captured on the field of battle can be held indefinitely, until the end of hostilities, to keep them from returning to the field of battle.

and the entire world is a battlefield, so any brown-skinned cab driver anywhere in the world can be disappeared. USA USA!

The possibility of escape is only one of the fears an not even the greatest one, especially in the areas where prisons abound and people don't meet escapees in their neighbourhood bodegas... A fascinating article in yesterday's NYT lists some other fears, which really had my eyes pop.

For example: if you house them in our supermax, it'll become a magnet for all the terrorists in the world. Presumably, like Iraq, but in reverse; we'd have to fight them over here, no longer over there. How they're gonna get here is not explored. I suppose they'll just go to the Green Zone in Baghdad and apply for visas.

My favourite argument was this: if you house them here, all their families will come and there goes the neighbourhood; the house values will plummet. Again, there's nothing about how that's likely to happen but fears and reason don't mix.

The only argument that made sense to me was: our supermax is full-up already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/23supermax.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Um, the conditions in supermax prisons are recognized as torture by international human rights organizations. This is not an improvement....

The obvious solution is to sentence all felons to death. No need for them to be "in our communities" then! DUIs and litterers we can tolerate.

Um, the conditions in supermax prisons are recognized as torture by international human rights organizations. This is not an improvement....

Shhhhh....

This blog is all about accepting wingnut frames. Reality is unwelcome here.

Any legislator who's from a state with a super-max prison and refuses to accept these prisoners should have any the federal funding cut for their state.

Or maybe, we could take the Ann Coulter approach and have them tried for treason. Actually, Coulter would probably skip the trial.

Have you noticed yet that freshman Senator Mark Begich (D) of Alaska votes consistently with Republicans? Would be nice of you and TPM and others would shine a light on that. Dems who voted for him and without whom he would not have squeaked out a victory over convicted felon Ted Stevens are very disappointed at Begich's currying favor with the base Republican constituency instead of with those who actually voted for him. Begich voted against funding closure of Guantanamo, for guns in National Parks, etc. His website doesn't list his votes. When I asked why, a clerk told me that information is available elsewhere. Would be nice if the national bloggers would take notice of what Begich is doing.

It's like the water-boarding thing. Repubs say it's great, but when it happens to them they freak like anybody would.

Now they're all over terrists in their neighborhoods. If the prisons are so easy to get out of, then maybe we should put a whole lotta those Republicans in and let them prove they can get out. I say we give 'em 10-20 years to try.

Good grief! We don't need any more prisons, Super Max or not. We have far too many people in prison now. We need to change our 'drug' policies, and reduce the prison population not increase it.

Do Republicans think we're holding Magneto in Gitmo?

What cowards.

At some point Democrats will start calling the Republicans pussies and that will get the media on our side.

"What, are you afraid of these guys ya big sissies? I believe in American prisons and think our prisoners can scare the shit out of these guys."