August 2, 2009 1:38 PM

U.S. Prisons Eyed to Hold Detainees

(AP)  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 134-year-old military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as possible locations for a heavily guarded site to hold the 229 suspected al Qaeda, 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 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.

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.

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 counterterrorism 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.

(AP Photo/U.S. Army)
(Left: The United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.)

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 in 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.

(WNEM)
(Left: Some locals have petitioned to keep the Standish Maximum Security Correctional Facility in Michigan open, fearing the prison's slated closing would hurt the local economy.)

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.

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."

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 38 Comments
by cbs_tom August 3, 2009 10:33 AM EDT
Let them go! If they are seen on the battlefield, then their fate will be sealed. Otherwise, what are you going to do with them.
Reply to this comment
by nearl451 August 2, 2009 9:29 PM EDT
again.....they are our responsibility and should be managed on US SOil.

Same cast of characters on this blog site again I see....and just as predictable.
Reply to this comment
by Aldymac August 2, 2009 10:18 PM EDT
Since you feel responsible for them why don't you be a good example for the rest of the liberal crowd and take a few of them in your own home and show the rest of us who don't feel like you do, just how timid and nice these people really are.
by thincaboutit August 2, 2009 7:48 PM EDT
What's next for Gitmo?
Find out at http://gitmotourism.blogspot.com
Reply to this comment
by pensacola8-2009 August 2, 2009 6:06 PM EDT
I completely agree with the Obama Administration in the handling of this matter. The Guantanamo Bay location was extremely expensive, inefficient and illegal to use for this purpose. The citizens of this nation already pay taxes for dealing with terrorist and it should be used. The inmates already convicted and housed in our prisons are equally if not, more dangerous than those detainees awaiting trial.

We already house masterminds of attacks against federal court houses, federal buildings, defense buildings and installations. We would have what many label as crazed gun men, who attack schools and universities, but few of them survive long enough to be taken into custody. There are no shortage of dangerous inmates in our prisons.

There is something special about the Guantanamo Bay detainees, since most don't have a country with an active embassy to provide defense counsel, and special defense lawyers will be needed before any prosecution can begin, since loss of rights and life is possible for some of the charges. Every detainee prosecuted will have the critical legal hurdle to climb over and prove they understand their rights, since years of detention has passed without action. It may require a year before the courts can clear the hurdle. The famous Nuremberg trials lasted much longer. The trial against Milosevic lasted years before ending in his own death from Parkinson's disease.
Reply to this comment
by SouthwestisBest August 2, 2009 6:15 PM EDT
We already house these guys at GITMO. Why would we want terrorists anywhere on US soil, even prisons, in the first place.

There is not a reason in the world GITMO has to be more expensive than another prison facility, that is frankly a ridiculous argument. It's only 60 freaking miles off the coast of Florida for pete's sakes.

We could float a rubber dingy over there with the amount of food these terrorists deserve to have to eat.
by SouthwestisBest August 2, 2009 6:25 PM EDT
On second thought we could always bring them over here and put them to work busting rocks. I need a new rock fireplace on my living area patio out in the yard, no problem whatsoever. I'd just borrow one of their children and strap a bomb with a remote detonator on them and let them run around among them while they're building.

Whatta plan!
See all 4 Replies
by hungry1968-16 August 2, 2009 5:58 PM EDT
by Mac August 2, 2009 4:38 PM EDT

As you point out, few of that "international community" are even willing to accept detainees on their soil. And at least some of them will criticise whatever location we choose to keep the prisoners. That leads to my logic that they will criticise us unless we release them scot free. And Al Queda will hate the location we use to detain them.






You use circular logic to defend your reasoning, and then claim that somehow because you can twist and extort an answer out of the provided information, that your twisted and extorted logic somehow makes sense. That's a neat strategy, except that it falls apart in the face of logic and reasoning.
Reply to this comment
by Mac August 2, 2009 6:23 PM EDT
???

It seems to me you would rather argue about some wording I chose than the issue. What exactly are you trying to say? Whould we release them scot free? Should we hold them indefinitely? Should we grant them rights BEYOND the Geneva conventions?

I have debated you before on this subject and it always seems to go no where. You prefer to badger us who have an opinion that differ from yours instead of understanding why we have it and convice us we should change. Ive made my position clear. Those are bad guys down there and I prefer to treat them in a manner that protects the rest of us. Other countries dont have much to say about it because they wont engage on the problem. Kinda like you are doing.
by Aldymac August 2, 2009 10:10 PM EDT
The detainees don't fall under Geneva convention rules, they are terrorists. Perhaps hungry should take them into his home to show his wisdom in the care and treatment and hospitality of the liberal religion.
by vuenbelvue August 2, 2009 5:24 PM EDT
Our Federal Government at work. Let's see. We have a maximum security available for immediate use in Michigan. The feds have done a drive by inspection and determined that they need to spend $100,000,000 to bring it up to speed for 170 prisoners.
I thinking that the State of Michigan will just lease the existing building to the government and been the benevolent citizens that they are since the USA just gifted them $15 billion to save their jobs the per prisoner cost to occupy the existing jail will be about $600,000 each. That does not include any services after the federal government begins imprisioning these alledged terriorist. I think it would be cheaper to make a deal with Raoul Castro who is looking for some cash.
Reply to this comment
by the_majesty August 2, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
Obama strikes again.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 August 2, 2009 5:05 PM EDT
Thankfully.
by SouthwestisBest August 2, 2009 4:13 PM EDT
So on once again the geniuses with the overbloated brains just submit some plan to make it look like they're doing something when they're not.

These prisoners are safely contained at GITMO off of US soil.

Why should we care what the national community thinks of GITMO, when they certainly do not want these men on their soil.

Liberals would have us send them all on vacation to Bermuda with $50 milllion dollars each of US taxpayer dollars. So the international community won't be upset...which frankly I don't believe for one minute that is true, except in the Middle East where these terrorist trash came from.

GITMO is already established. Why should we spend dollars to house them elsewhere, and why the heck on US soil? There's apparently a reason Obama wants them on US soil. Something we should all be suspicious of.
Reply to this comment
by woeisme1 August 2, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
You think it does'nt cost the taxpayer money to keep the prisoners at Gitmo? We DO already spend dollars to house them so what is the difference except that as a nation we make a collective statement that we will not continue with the aggregious violations of international law that the last administration obviously favored.

BTW, it is good to see nations now beginning to once again warm to the U.S. now that Obama has been diplomatically making a positive difference in the international community.
by hungry1968-16 August 2, 2009 4:49 PM EDT
Why should we spend so much EXTRA money to ship the food and other supplies by air or sea, when we already have established prisons on US soil, which are many times easier and much more cost effective to supply?

No one has EVER escaped from a US federal penitentiary, (at least not since we got off of horse back), so why are you so terrified?


And really man, do you honestly think Obama wants them on US soil, os that he can help them escape and attack us?

What a STUPID comment.
See all 4 Replies
by hungry1968-16 August 2, 2009 4:05 PM EDT
by Mac August 2, 2009 3:50 PM EDT
Please spare me the innuendos about Rush and Hannity and Ill spare you the ones about the Daily Koss. I think fo rmyself, very well thank you.

But since you ask. The claims of need to close GITMO are usually accompanied by statements of how "the international community" feels. from this article: "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."

So, did you read my post and understand it? Or just prefer to attack it because it sounds conservative?

One more time. We either turn them loose, scot free, or someone is goign to be angry about it. It seems to me that they can hate us for GITMO or Michigan or Kansas. It doesnt matter, they dont like that we captured and held them (and dont waste your time with that tired Daily Koss argument that these 289 are innocent. What is there now are hard core).

So, someone decided to close GITMO without knowing all the facts. I say they acted STUPIDLY.







As much as you and your handlers want to make it out to be the "international community", the fact is that by operating this gulag in Guantanamo, we became NO BETTER than any other third world nation, that uses torture and brutal, oppressive tactics.

They were captured on the battle field, so they should be considered prisoners of war, detained and tried as such. What's wrong with the Geneva Conventions? Why did we unilaterally abandon them?

And again - what makes you think that a nation is going to be PO'd about us keeping them in custody, when NO NATION on earth wants to take custody of these inmates, themselves?

You KEEP making the assertion that, "we either turn them loose, scot free, or someone is going to be angry about it", yet you can't -- or refuse -- to explain WHICH NATION is going to be mad about their detention, or WHY.

And if the 289 that are STILL being detained are "hard core", then WHY aren't they being tried for their crimes, particularly the "crimes against humanity"?
Reply to this comment
by Mac August 2, 2009 4:38 PM EDT
So, your handlers want you to call it a "gulag in Guantanamo". And they seem to encourage you to use personal attacks instead of logic and rational arguments of principle. Is it more fun for you that way? Do you feel better if you are able to marginalize me inyour mind? Remember, these are the tactics of a social cripple. But I will do my best to pcik the salient points from your post and answer them fairly.

1. Im not the one who says "international community". I took the quote from the news article, from John McCain, and Barrack Obama. It seems they are all concerned with what the "international community" thinks. I am not as much as they are. As you point out, few of that "international community" are even willing to accept detainees on their soil. And at least some of them will criticise whatever location we choose to keep the prisoners. That leads to my logic that they will criticise us unless we release them scot free. And Al Queda will hate the location we use to detain them.

2. Now, please put away that tired old argument about torture and our moral values. MOST Americans a. dont agree that it was torture and Obamas policial arguments dont convince us, b. would do it anyway if it MIGHT save one innocent life, and c. are aware that harsh tactics were used on very few of the detainees. But you can believe whatever you like. Just dont force it on the rest of us. Obama can act stupidly if he wants but I dont have to.

3. Ok, they were captured on the battlefield and deserve treatment as POW. that says keep them locked in a POW camp until the end of the war. This stuff about trials and such have nothign to do with POW.

4. Your logic confuses most people. If they are POW then keep them until wars end. Subject them to war tribunals if you want. But why on earth do they need to come to the US? Keep them at GITMO.

Finally, what I believe: Our president, in an effort to court votes from the left wing, publicly decried GITMO. Then, after taking office took the easy, flashy answer of signing an order to close GITMO with no idea what that meant to the rest of us. In my opinion, he acted stupidly.
by mnbrant August 3, 2009 1:54 AM EDT
Dude how can you even have this conversation when there are babies being aborted every day!
by hungry1968-16 August 2, 2009 3:34 PM EDT
by Mac August 2, 2009 2:18 PM EDT

Of course. What did we expect? We either release them, scot free, or endure the wrath of other countries, at least some other countries. I say keep them in GITMO so those other countries can hate GITMO. Otherwise, put them in Michigan so they can hate Michigan.

Someone decided to close GITMO without knowing all the facts. I say they acted STUPIDLY.







Which countries are we going to "endure the wrath of", if we keep these detainees in our custody?

And why in the world do you think we have to "endure that wrath" or keep them locked up in our jails?



Did you misunderstand the talking points that Rush and Beck gave you?
Reply to this comment
by Mac August 2, 2009 3:50 PM EDT
Please spare me the innuendos about Rush and Hannity and Ill spare you the ones about the Daily Koss. I think fo rmyself, very well thank you.

But since you ask. The claims of need to close GITMO are usually accompanied by statements of how "the international community" feels. from this article: "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."

So, did you read my post and understand it? Or just prefer to attack it because it sounds conservative?

One more time. We either turn them loose, scot free, or someone is goign to be angry about it. It seems to me that they can hate us for GITMO or Michigan or Kansas. It doesnt matter, they dont like that we captured and held them (and dont waste your time with that tired Daily Koss argument that these 289 are innocent. What is there now are hard core).

So, someone decided to close GITMO without knowing all the facts. I say they acted STUPIDLY.
See all 38 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook