December 20, 2009 2:09 PM

Gitmo Detainees Headed to Illinois Prison

(CBS/AP)  Updated at 6:55 p.m. EST

President Barack Obama has ordered the federal government to acquire an underused state prison in rural Illinois to be the new home for a limited number of terror suspects now held at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The federal government will acquire Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., transforming the prison in a sleepy town near the Mississippi River into a prison that exceeds "supermax standards," according to a letter to Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair.

Those departments "will work closely with state and local law enforcement authorities to identify and mitigate any risks" at the prison, the letter said.

The decision is an important step toward closing Guantanamo Bay. Thomson, about 150 miles from Chicago, is expected to house both federal inmates and no more than 100 detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin and Quinn touted the plan Tuesday after receiving briefings on the plan at the White House. They both highlighted the more than 3,000 jobs the prison would bring to their state as well as the security of the facility.

"This will be the most secure prison in America … of all time," Quinn said.

Administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they could not yet lay out a timeframe for when a transfer of detainees from the Navy-run detention facility to Thomson. They said the administration would have to work with Congress to amend laws and secure funding before any prisoners are brought to U.S. soil.

The officials said military tribunals for potential detainees would be held at Thomson. They also said that the facility could house detainees whom the president determines must be held indefinitely but can't be tried.

Republicans were quick to criticize the administration's plan.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the American people "already have rejected bringing terrorists to U.S. soil." He accused the administration of failing to explain how transferring the detainees would keep the public safer than keeping them offshore in Cuba.

With only 200 minimum security inmates in a facility built to house 1,600, the prison has a modern surveillance system, enough room to segregate terrorists and hold them indefinitely, plus a courtroom for trials, reports CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds.

And though it's only a mile from Main Street, not many in Thomson are worried.

"I think the town will probably be safer than ever before because of the prison," store manager Bev Smith told Reynolds. "I think it'll be very safe. I don't have any concerns about that at all."

In Thomson - where the hope is that new jobs will come with the prisoners - reaction to the plan is almost uniformly popular.

Village President Duke Hebeler called the popularity "about 98 percent" and said he envisions an economic boost for the town - "housing and groceries, gas … construction work."

Indeed, Illinois estimates the move will create some 3,000 new jobs and inject possibly $1 billion into the battered local economy over the first four years of operation.

An administration official told CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller that closing Guantanamo "is essential to protecting our national security" and would deprive al Qaeda of a "deadly recruiting tool."

Senior administration officials said security would be the "number one priority" for the White House and said Defense Department upgrades would make the Thomson facility "the most secure in the nation" - akin to the federal "supermax" prison in Florence, Colo.

The officials also noted there are currently 340 inmates in the federal prison system with ties to terrorism, including Ramzi Yousef and the blind sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman - two men convicted for their roles the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York.

Any detainees at Thomson would not be allowed visits from friends or family, the officials said.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is promising that Guantanamo Bay detainees brought into the U.S. for trial .

A detainee tried in this country would be treated for immigration purposes as though he is at a U.S. border trying to get in - and he won't get in, Napolitano said in Dec. 11 letter to Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee. The letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

The facility in Thomson had emerged as a clear front-runner after Illinois officials, led by Durbin, enthusiastically embraced the idea of turning a near-dormant prison over to federal officials.

Officials said the prison would create more than 3,000 jobs, half of which would be filled by local residents.

Durbin called it a "great opportunity" for Illinois at a time when "people are desperate for good jobs." Illinois' unemployment rate is currently 11 percent.

Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., said he had "full confidence that the facility will hold these terrorism suspects safely and securely." In a statement, Burris also said the transfer will be "a great economic benefit to the state."

The Thomson Correctional Center was one of several potential sites evaluated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to potentially house detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Officials with other prisons, including Marion, Ill., Hardin, Mont., and Florence, Colo., had said they would welcome the jobs that would be created with the new inmates.

The Thomson facility was built by Illinois in 2001 as a state prison with the potential house maximum security inmates. Local officials hoped it would improve the local economy, but state budget problems have kept the 1,600-cell prison from ever fully opening. At present, it houses about 200 minimum-security inmates whom Illinois officials have said can easily be transferred to other state prisons.

Under the plan outlined Tuesday, the Thomson prison will be purchased by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and run primarily as a standard federal prison. A portion of the facility would be leased to the Defense Department to house a limited number of Guantanamo detainees.

The Thomson facility will receive upgrades that take it beyond the security level at any current U.S. prison. Already built to maximum security standards, the 146-acre Thomson facility will receive more upgrades from the Department of Defense including additional fencing and other security technology.

Some Illinois officials have not supported the idea. GOP Rep. Mark Kirk, who is seeking Mr. Obama's old Senate seat, said Tuesday he believes moving Guantanamo detainees to Illinois will make the state a greater threat for terrorist attacks. Kirk has lobbied other officials to contact the White House in opposition to using the facility.

Thomson will not solve all the administration's Guantanamo-related problems. There still will be dozens of detainees who are not relocated to Thomson, other legal issues and potential resistance from Congress.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 169 Comments
by cimeron63 December 15, 2009 10:42 PM EST
Once again, the 911 victims get screwed. This Gitmo (North) is nothing but a passoff of responsibility from Obama to the Courts, which will likely confer Citizen status to the detainees, utimately leading to show trials and then their release. If the the rest of the World doesn't want them, why then should IL? Stupid IS as stupid does. If jobs are the motivating factor in moving the Gitmo detainees to IL, let's round up all the Illegall Aliens in the US and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Reply to this comment
by 50BMS13 December 15, 2009 8:32 PM EST
These enemy combatants should be kept in Guantanimo. Why bring these terrorists into America and give them full rights as US citizens? They declared war on us. Not happy with Obama on this point. I am satisfied how he is handling other military matters though.
Reply to this comment
by finkfurst December 17, 2009 10:25 AM EST
by 50BMS13 December 15, 2009 8:32 PM EST
These enemy combatants should be kept in Guantanimo. Why bring these terrorists into America and give them full rights as US citizens? They declared war on us....
--------------------------
Exactly how did they declare war on you? I bet you don't answer......
by gravdggr December 15, 2009 6:36 PM EST
I apologize if I offend anyone....these are only my opinions I reealize you all might not agree.
Reply to this comment
by retm-w December 15, 2009 8:56 PM EST
That's OK gravdggr I think we still have freedom of speech.
by knowdalaw December 15, 2009 6:35 PM EST
Not everyone in Illinois is thrilled about this sudden announcement to make Guantanamo the new prison for terrorist. We were not able to vote about this decision. We were not allowed to have hearings on this decision. We were not allowed to voice our opinions about this decision.

When Chicago did not get the Olympic bid, it seems that the next best way to get federal dollars was to act with haste, to get this prison in Illinois. People in that town say they are desperate for jobs. They are willing to ?sell their souls to the devil? to have this prison put in their city.

What a shame.
Reply to this comment
by davlar2 December 15, 2009 6:26 PM EST
I understand there is an UNUSED prison in Montana. Why would they opt for a prison near a river known to flood, and near residential centers when there is a brand-new, unused, prison out in the middle of nowhere crying out to be used?
Reply to this comment
by leeanna59 December 15, 2009 6:33 PM EST
Because Obama is obviously paying back a favor in Illinois.
by gravdggr December 15, 2009 6:03 PM EST
Here is another one of my "un American" thoughts too...since I think harsh punishment is needed for anyone regardless of race, religion, color, creed, sex or what have you who commits acts of terror or war against us should be punishable be death, period. Go ahead and give them their trial, military trial only though. They should not get 30 yrs + or life to get 3 squares a day, free health care and free education paid by the US taxpayers much like our current prison system works. Unfortunately these 2 wars were necessary...can't have our freedom without fighting for them. I would just assume keep our troops here at home to defend our borders but I am grateful to them for fighting for us on foreign soil and not having to do the same thing here at home. Here is another that'll ruffle people up...I think that 8/6/45 and 8/9/45 were effective dates in history....ethical? Not so much but definently effective haven't had a problem in 64 + yrs now have we? Maybe I am a sick SOB...O well!
Reply to this comment
by Brokennews December 15, 2009 4:27 PM EST
Exploit captured prisoners for fun & profit!! Learn how today!!
Just send a self addressed stamped envelope & $50 to:

The Economic Development Dept.
1600 Pennsylvania St. Washington DC.
Reply to this comment
by Empire-George December 15, 2009 4:02 PM EST
by slownewsday_ December 15, 2009 1:24 PM EST
So you advocate sinking to their level, and ignoring the Geneva Convention?
_________________________

Slownews...here's a little post from someone on the subject of un-uniformed combatants.

"As I understand it, the Geneva Convention only applies to regular, uniformed combatants who carry arms openly (see especially article 4.A.2 of the Geneva Convention), it does not apply to non-uniformed, irregular fighters engaged in hostile acts like terrorists, guerrillas, and spies. The Geneva convention was designed to encourage the use of conventional warfare over and against unconventional warfare and to protect non-combatants. As far as the Geneva Convention is concerned, you can line terrorists and spies up against a wall and shoot them, or hold them indefinitely, without a trial. That is not to say that we should, or that it would be humane, but Gitmo is not a violation of the Geneva Convention so please stop saying that it is. These are not uniformed combatants of a regular army, they are terrorists who do not carry their arms openly, do not were obvious identifying insignia, and do not conduct warfare in accordance with the laws and customs of war (again, Article 4.A.2 (b)-(d)). Now, you can argue that even though terrorists are not under the Geneva Convention, we still should extend its protections to them, but that is a different argument than simply saying that the US is violating the Geneva Convention by the way we are treating captured terrorists."
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01 December 15, 2009 5:03 PM EST
As I understand it, the Geneva Convention only applies to regular, uniformed combatants who carry arms openly (see especially article 4.A.2 of the Geneva Convention), it does not apply to non-uniformed, irregular fighters engaged in hostile acts like terrorists, guerrillas, and spies.
================================================================

Whoever had that understanding was wrong. We have rules regarding POW's and (in this case, unlawful combatants) covered under LOAC or LOW.
Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC or LOW and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC or LOW violations.
You can't simply line people up against the wall and shoot them without due process. They are protected via the fourth Geneva convention.

The problem that has arisen is the previous administration's attempt to fabricate a new distinction falling outside the already established terms of lawful and unlawful combatants. No such thing exists.
by differnet December 15, 2009 7:00 PM EST
Even unlawful combatants cannot be killed off out of hand after capture. You obviously don't know the Geneva Conventions (yes, there is an "s" at the end), nor do you understand the law of war. Even someone found to be an unlawful combatant is afforded a trial after capture. However, there are even questions about whether this group of people are unlawful of combatants. Many of them were not captured on the battlefield or in the act of acting as a combatant. Many of these men were handed over by Afghanistans for the bounty we were paying. Many decent military lawyers have fought for a more balanced hearings for these men.
by reveal4 December 15, 2009 3:59 PM EST
Close Gitmo, Obama promises...Close Gitmo, it will be...Another Presidential promise will soon be fulfilled.
Reply to this comment
by stormerF2 December 15, 2009 4:43 PM EST
Was there a first? Is this not like moving Gitmo?
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01 December 15, 2009 3:54 PM EST
by gravdggr December 15, 2009 1:22 PM EST
....if you don't agree you are un American.
========================================================

Talk about un-American. You can't get any worse than this. Oh, and not to mention immature. 'You guys did bad stuff so you anyone associated with your ilk doesn't deserve anything resembling rights. Waaahhh!'

And Atta being pardoned? When did that happen? Unless you mean martyrdom (which is totally different).

And who said anything about letting them go? I mean sure, we've done it in the past and guess what? They did go back to fighting us. But please, don't be going around calling Bush a bleeding heart.

Oh, now back to your un-Americanism. (Yes, you are by far an evil person that doesn't deserve to be associated with the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. Too many people like you take them for granted.) So you're for capital punishment; nothing inherently wrong with that if it's deserved, but who are you to be judge, jury and executioner? Yeah, let's all be un-American and suspend the ideals this country was founded on instead of getting back to them.

Pig
Reply to this comment
by Empire-George December 15, 2009 4:06 PM EST
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01 December 15, 2009 3:54 PM EST

Guns, Don't get too sentimental and all Judicial about these guys....you say "but who are you to be judge, jury and executioner?"

Don't forget, many terrorists get a trial by Hellfire Missle from a UAV(drone)slamming into their safe-house, which makes Obama the Judge/Jury/Executioner....at any time he chooses to strike.....is THAT un-american, because we didn't have a trial ?
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01 December 15, 2009 4:33 PM EST
is THAT un-american, because we didn't have a trial ?
========================================================

You're starting to catch on.

You should know about ROE and ensuring use of force in an operation occurs according to national policy goals, mission requirements, and the rule of law.

The use of force in self-defense must be necessary and limited to the amount needed to eliminate the threat and control the situation.
Deadly force should only be used in response to a hostile act or a demonstration of hostile intent. Deadly force
is defined as force that causes or has a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.

Although missiles are indescriminate, once someone is captured and detained, the threat they impose is severely mitigated and the ROE change.
See all 169 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook