Feinstein Says California Prisons Can Hold Gitmo Prisoners
Probably the only issue on which conservatives have made real headway so far this year is in pushing the preposterous idea that it’s somehow dangerous to hold terrorism suspects on American soil. This doesn’t make a lick of sense—we have many very secure prison facilities—and it has nothing to do with the original reasons offered for holding prisoners at Gitmo. But NIMBYism is a powerful force in politics, and now everyone’s freaking out. Dianne Feinstein hit back today:
Yes, we have maximum security prisons in California eminently capable of holding these people as well, and from which people — trust me — do not escape. So I believe that this has really been an exercise in fear-baiting. I hope it’s not going to be successful.
I wonder if there isn’t a promising potential plan here. You could do something that gave California federal funds in order to house some terrorism detainees in California state prisons. That would help, to some extent, alleviate the state’s budget problems.
45 Responses to “Feinstein Says California Prisons Can Hold Gitmo Prisoners”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 20th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
So we’re going to bribe California, over and above the cost of housing the inmates, to accept them into California facilities? And to such an extent that it will “alleviate the state’s budget problems”? Why not just keep them in Guantanamo and save the money?
May 20th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00196
I have no idea what’s going on…
May 20th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Diane, you fool!
Don’t you know that al Qaeda members have the strength of ten men, and can bend steel with their minds?
May 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
The Dems are feckless, buying into the GOP blather about not bringing dangerous terrorists to our country. Somebody pointed out that we had hundreds of thousands of German POW’s here during WWII, many of whom wanted to do our country harm, and we weren’t afraid of them. How can there be such fear of housing a few hundred in maximum security?
I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again. When did the right-wing become such a bunch of pu**ies?
And why are the Dems joining them?
May 20th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
It’s the baby-boomers, LFC. They remember holding the much-more-popular anti-war position during the last half of the Vietnam War, getting destroyed by Reagan a few years later over their alleged peacenik ways.
No matter what, Democrats Harry Reid’s age are going to quake before the possibility of a Republican calling them soft.
Who hear can name this sound?
*thwup! thwup!*
That’s the sound of Harry’s Reid’s testicles sucking up into his abdominal cavity because a Republican said something mean about him.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
who would have ever thought that dianne feinsten would be the voice of courage and reason an issue of this sort?
i applaud her for her fit of sanity.
unfortunately, while this show of utter cowardice from harry reid should be the cause of his removal as majority leader, it probably will not.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Fuck California, bring them here to Colorado. We have the only Federal SuperMax prison. We already hold damn near every terrorist that’s ever been caught. And we’d love some more federal money. So let’s turn this into a fight. Let the states battle over who gets to keep them while Republicans claim nobody wants them.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
What they’re worried about, frankly, is cases like the Uighurs who ended up in Guantanamo because the Chinese played George Bush like a fiddle.
The people who have been locked up for seven years and won’t be charged deserve to be given political asylum in the US, and most Dem senators are too fucking lame to deal with that, on top of the question of housing the ones who will be charged.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
She just voted to prohibit moving Gitmo prisoners into the U.S. so who’s she crappin’?
(via TPM)
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00196
May 20th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“You could do something that gave California federal funds in order to house some terrorism detainees in California state prisons. That would help, to some extent, alleviate the state’s budget problems”
Great idea. At $100,000,000 per year per terrorist, CA could run a surplus.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“So we’re going to bribe California, over and above the cost of housing the inmates, to accept them into California facilities? And to such an extent that it will “alleviate the state’s budget problems”? Why not just keep them in Guantanamo and save the money?”
That makes the assumption that keeping the prisoners in Guantanamo is cheaper–which is actually not the case.
Guantanamo currently holds 245 prisoners at a cost of about $90 million annually, or about $370k per prisoner per year.
The California prison system holds 170,000 inmates at a cost of $10 billion a year, or $60k/inmate–one-sixth the cost of Gitmo.
Some of the costs from Gitmo might transfer to a domestic prison holding the same prisoners as well, but it would seem hard to believe that it increases the cost sixfold. Would be cool to hear from someone savvy on the issue of cost.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites about “keeping Americans Safe” – They are deathly afraid of a few dozen alleged terrorists being held in a supermax prison, but they move mountains to make certain that actual convicted criminals and mentally disturbed people have easy access to assault weapons.
And isn’t Guantanamo technically US soil? It sure ain’t under the Cuban government’s jurisdiction.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
plus, Arnold can guard them. By the time this gets off the ground he’ll be looking for a new job.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I’m from NYC. If George Bush had managed to catch Osama bin Laden I’d have gladly stashed him in my basement.
But, you know, I guess it’s much more dangerous to our national security that Barack is gonna maybe possibly let a couple accidentally rounded-up Chinese goatherders drive cabs in midtown.
Whatever.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Why not use the market and have a kind of reverse auction for terrorism detainees? Rpublicans love love the market!
I can see it now: each detainee is put on the auction block and the state offering the lowest bid will be paid that amount per year to house that detainee in a federal prison in their state!
May 20th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Wow. Feinstein defends our ability to detain Guantanamo Bay prisoners in the US, but then votes to keep Guantanamo open anyway.
But nothing beats Harry Reid’s incoherence:
“…the American people, and certainly the Senate, overwhelmingly doesn’t want terrorists to be released in the United States.”
“Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.”
And then a “I think I’ve had about enough of this” after journos kept grilling him and seeking clarification of his nonsense.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
And remember that the 9/11 linked Moussaoui is already in a federal prison in the USA. Now many things about him are different from those of people at Guantanamo, but he’s along the same lines as those guys.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I think you are on to something: “We’ll give you $35 billion to house the Gitmo inmates!” I’m sure California voters would vote it down, regardless.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
When we are terrified of holding terrorists in our own prisons, it seems that the terrorists have won.
I don’t thing the emotion here is NIMBY in the sense that we are afraid they’ll escape. The propaganda I’ve seen shows ‘Welcome to Missouri’ kind of images, Osama on Main Street kind of stuff. Was it Ried who was going on about how he’d not allow terrorists to be released onto Main Street.
I think the idea is that they’ll be unwanted guests, that we are honoring them and validating them by letting them into the country, into our states, and yes, laughably, vainly, honoring them by ‘letting’ them into our prisons.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
this is also an indication of the perils of triangulation.
while most folks have not discussed it much, the fact is that obama has been aping the clinton strategy of triangulating, in order to burnish his own standing with the voters.
i’m sure this has not gone unnoticed by congressional democrats.
why should they have obama’s back on sensitive issues of this sort, when obama has been more than willing to sell them out, for his own benefit?
i hope this will make both obama and congressional democrats rethink their respective positions, and realize that they will all be better off if they think of themselves as being on the same team.
they could take a lesson from republicans in that regard.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
‘Cause there are a few things wrong with keeping them in Guantanamo besides the price tage?
May 20th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
The obvious solution is to take Schwarzenegger up on his offer to sell San Quentin – but instead of selling it for housing sell it to the Feds as the new Guantanamo Bay. After all, San Francisco Bay sounds so much less toxic internationally than Guantanamo Bay – even though it probably contains more toxic pollution.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Gotta love the disconnected from reality conservative movement. Why, our military is so incredibly superior that we’ve got that dastardly COBRA, er, Al Queda, on the run. YET, these suspected Al Queda prisoners are cartoonish super villains that will somehow, um, escape from Max Prisons that have never had escapes?
When did this country become such a bunch of fucking cowards?
May 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
What LFC said. I wish the Democrats would start pointing out that the Republicans have turned into a bunch of scared little bedwetters. (And when the Republicans say “no we’re not” they just reinforce the perception that they are a bunch of bedwetters).
First rule of fighting terrorism: don’t act terrified.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It’s not the danger of a prison breakout; it’s more that these people have not been captured under the rules that criminals are held under, so if they were held in regular jails, there’s a concern that normal criminal rules would apply – and yes, I realize that’s what many people would like to see. Under regular criminal rules, many of these people could not be held, as the charges against them involve evidence that would be hearsay or inadmissable.
If they are to be held on American soil, the best thing to do would be to classify them as POWs. I’d be curious to know why that’s not on the table, as it would take the issue of having them be a release danger off the table.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Ndm: San Quentin is not in San Francisco Bay – that’s Alcatraz. And no, Arnie wouldn’t want to give up the tourist income.
Having BEEN in Federal prison – indeed, even Alameda County Jail, which is more of a Supermax than Leavenworth (which isn’t a Supermax, just a high security penitentiary) – trust me, these guys are going no where if they get put in there.
One of the original World Trade Center bombers (the truck bomb case) was in the same “Hole” I was in at Leavenworth.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
This debate is asinine. Just call Mr. Fantastic and be done with it.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
“Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.”
Reid is right about this, though. He manages to sound like a moron the way he puts it because explaining the whole thing sounds really ugly, but it’s true.
Or rather, James Robertson is right. Once the prisoners are on American soil, they can appeal. A lot of trials were a sham and a lot of the evidence is a joke, so they’d win their appeals. Some of them don’t have countries to be deported to – that is, their home countries don’t want them any more after spending a few years being traumatized and radicalized – so there’s a very good chance they’d wind up staying here.
If they are to be held on American soil, the best thing to do would be to classify them as POWs. I’d be curious to know why that’s not on the table, as it would take the issue of having them be a release danger off the table.
Because POWs get released back to their home country when a war with that country is over. This “war” will never be over, and at any rate we aren’t at war with the home country of any of the Gitmo prisoners. There is no Terrorismstan.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
One WOULD have thought that classifying the prisoners as POWs would have avoided the spectacle of trying KSD in a Federal Court. But, of course, the POW designation would have prevented the US from torturing the prisoners.
I am especially fond of the idea that all the extralegal activities of the Bush crowd was justified by our “state of war”, yet we had to come up with convuluted ways to avoid actually calling these guys POWs
May 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
cyrus,
I’d say that POW status would be the “perfect” political policy, because it makes them “legal” prisoners with no release date (there’s no country to send them back to). It seems like just the thing for a politician who seems to enjoy voting “present” a lot
May 20th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
On the other hand, the prison system in California is dreadful and currently under the watchful eye of a federal judge because of its abuses – if I were a terrorist in Guantanamo, I’d want to avoid Pelican Bay.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Richard Steven Hack -
San Quentin is very much ON San Francisco Bay. Alcatraz is, as you point out, IN San Francisco Bay. Of course, since the Feds already own Alcatraz they could just move the residents of Guantanamo Bay there.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
If they are to be held on American soil, the best thing to do would be to classify them as POWs. I’d be curious to know why that’s not on the table, as it would take the issue of having them be a release danger off the table.
See Part IV of the Geneva Convention on POWs for the terms by which contracting parties are expected to release and repatriate prisoners of war — the term “cessation of active hostilities”, in particular.
(there’s no country to send them back to)
One reason to give the uncharged detainees political asylum is so that they can be housed down the street from James Robertson. Hahahahaha.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Huh?
Every single one of the detainees is from some country or other. Mostly Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, I gather. Last time I checked, all of those countries still exist.
No, it’s the “cessation of active hostilities” bit that can keep them in prison camps indefinitely. When the Taliban stops their act, we repatriate the Afghan and Pakistani prisoners. When al Qaeda goes out of business, we repatriate the al Qaeda prisoners.
Could be a while.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Every single one of the detainees is from some country or other. Mostly Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, I gather. Last time I checked, all of those countries still exist.
Obviously, but a lot of them – I’ve read this somewhere, but am too lazy to find the links, sorry – come from countries which no longer want them and aren’t willing to take them back. Like I said. Of course, if I’m wrong about that this is simpler than I think.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Cyrus, here’s a link:
May 20th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
i don’t think they caved to the republicans. i smell AIPAC. maybe showing obama their power with the senate after the meetings this week.
cc
May 20th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
[...] of the few voices of reason through this is – of all people – Diane Feinstein. I’ve had many issues with her in the past, but she deserves some credit for saying [...]
May 20th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
There are also Uzbeks in Guantanamo who were part of the political opposition to Karimov. Yep, the US locked up a bunch of dissidents whose authoritarian governments wanted off their hands, because said authoritarians said “look, terrorists!”
May 20th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
[...] California By L.C.J. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/feinstein-says-california-prisons-can-hold-gitmo-... [...]
May 21st, 2009 at 2:24 am
All of you bleeding heart liberals should have a sleepover for any Gitmo detainees. But don’t turn your back on them.
Maybe we should bring them here and hope they get the swine flu at Pelosi’s and Feinstein’s homes. You care more about the rights of these pigs than you do about the safety of your friends, country and family.
Put your tye died t-shirts, incense and grass away and wake up.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:25 am
“Gotta love the disconnected from reality conservative movement. Why, our military is so incredibly superior that we’ve got that dastardly COBRA, er, Al Queda, on the run.”
Ah-huh. The “disconnected from reality CONSERVATIVE movement”. This from the guy who compares saturday morning television cartoon villians to the people that murdered 3,000 people in an hour.
And you wonder why conservatives think the left are not to be trusted with anything to do with national security?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:36 am
[...] Progress: Matt Yglesias says that “the only issue on which conservatives have made real headway so far this year is in pushing the preposterous idea that it’s somehow dangerous to hold [...]
May 21st, 2009 at 9:49 am
If someone were to read these comments without knowing the background, they would think the US military had been actively engaged in kidnapping peace-loving people from their own beds.
What none of you seem to want to remember is that all of these “goatherders” were in terrorist training camps being run by people who participated in flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people in an hour.
My advice for Mr. Obama: Setup guillotines in the main prison yard in Gitmo. Give their home countries a week to either take them back or have them beheaded. Sure, there will be a little bit of outrage, but Obama can afford a point or two with approval ratings in the 60s. And this way, he could beat his own closure deadline by 6 months. A couple of weeks and a couple of speeches and the media will move onto the next issue.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:20 am
I suspect that any GOPer who parrots the “too dangerous for the mainland” is both an idiot and suffers from milk leg. Or maybe dropsy. The world has gone mad, I tell you. Mad. We probably won’t survive the summer.