Monday, November 16, 2009

Dems' Idea of an Economic Boost: Fill the Prisons with Terrorists? (UPDATED x3)

As you have probably heard by now, the big job creation idea of the week that has is being pushed by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is to ship around 100 terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay prison to downstate Illinois.

Senate candidate Mark Kirk is strongly opposed to the idea, and has started an online petition that you can sign. The Dems, of course, are shouting "fear monger!" and tell us we have nothing to worry about. Well, read about what's happening in Britain with this same kind of set up.

Durbin is trying to ram this idea through by citing the desperation of people for jobs. Great. Durbin has been the #2 guy in the U.S. Senate for how long now? Obama's economic turnaround plan is basically a failure that has saddled us and our kids/grandkids/greatgrandkids with astronomical debt. The Dems control almost every aspect of state government here in Illinois.

And the best they can do to promote jobs is bring the worst of the worst here to Illinois.

Forget about the political issues. Simply from an economic job creation issue, this fiasco highlights the complete ineffectiveness of Democrats to boost our economy in a way that is sustainable and creates private sector jobs, rather than relying on the federal government to save the day.

The MSM had darn well better get Giannoulias, Hoffman and Jackson on the record as to whether they support this. There's a reason why Durbin, who's not up for election this cycle, is leading the charge on this. Don't let the Dem candidates off the hook.

Mark Kirk has staked out his position, kids. What's yours?

UPDATED 11:40 a.m.: Here's a press release from the ILGOP that answers my questions. Unsurprisingly, the Dems that are brave enough to take a stand on the issue are in lockstep with Durbin. But Alexi doesn't want to take a stand:

Why is Alexi Giannoulias Dodging the Thomson Issue?

Democrat Senate candidate “declines to take a position on the issue” on Saturday, “skips the debate” on Sunday;

IL GOP Chair: “Alexi’s silence is deafening.”

CHICAGO – Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady today called on Democrat Alexi Giannoulias to end his silence on the biggest homeland security question to face the State of Illinois since September 11th.

While Governor Quinn, Senator Durbin and every other Democrat running for U.S. Senate says they support a plan to bring roughly 200 terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to Thomson, Illinois, Giannoulias refuses to take a position.

On Sunday morning, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that while Democrats Cheryle Jackson, Jacob Meister and David Hoffman all supported the plan, “other prominent Democrats, including Alexi Giannoulias, who is running for Senate…declined to take a stance on the issue.”

Last night, the Associated Press reported that the three Senate candidates reiterated their support at a candidate forum in Rockford, but “Alexi Giannoulias, the state treasurer, skipped the debate.”

“If Alexi Giannoulias cannot take a stand on a critical homeland security issue, he is not ready to be a U.S. Senator,” Chairman Brady said. “While Congressman Kirk leads the effort to defend the security of Illinois families and all other Democrats in the race state their position, Alexi Giannoulias declined to take a stance. Alexi’s silence is deafening.”

# # #

UPDATED x2 2:20 p.m.: From The Hill:

A handful of the state's congressional delegation took to the mics on Monday morning in Chicago, where Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) announced his intention to amend the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill.

"I will offer the Kirk Amendment to the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill requiring a ‘Homeland Insecurity Impact Statement’ on the potential impact on O’Hare and the Willis (Sears) Tower in Chicago before federal funds can be used to bring al Qaeda terrorists to Illinois. If we are serious about creating jobs in Illinois, we should rein in spending and reduce regulation, and not bring terrorists to our state," the Illinois Senate candidate said.

UPDATED x3 4:00 p.m.: Here's some coverage of this afternoon's press conference by Kirk, Biggert, Roskam and others.

Also, the ILGOP continues to pound away at Alexi Giannoulias for not having the guts to take a position on the Thomson prison issue with another press release:

Alexi, Just Take a Position on Thomson Already!

Senate candidate still refuses to tell the voters where he stands

CHICAGO – Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady repeated his call for Democrat Alexi Giannoulias to take a position on the biggest homeland security question to face the State of Illinois since September 11th.

Responding to the Party’s release earlier today, Giannoulias released a statement this afternoon that once again refused to tell the voters whether he supported or opposed bringing GITMO detainees to U.S. soil. “I pledge to work with all the parties involved to find a resolution that protects our national security and maximizes job creation,” Giannoulias said in a prepared statement.

“Alexi Giannoulias’ double speak sounds like the worst kind of politician,” Chairman Brady said. “While Congressman Mark Kirk leads the effort to defend the security of Illinois families, Alexi Giannoulias refuses to even take a position. Is he afraid the voters won’t like his opinion? Is that he doesn’t know enough about homeland security to be a U.S. Senator? Alexi, just take a position on Thomson already!”

While Governor Quinn, Senator Durbin and every other Democrat running for U.S. Senate says they support a plan to bring toughly 200 terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to Thomson, Illinois, Giannoulias refuses to take a position.

On Sunday morning, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that while Democrats Cheryle Jackson, Jacob Meister and David Hoffman all supported the plan, “other prominent Democrats, including Alexi Giannoulias, who is running for Senate…declined to take a stance on the issue.”

Last night, the Associated Press reported that the three Senate candidates reiterated their support at a candidate forum in Rockford, but “Alexi Giannoulias, the state treasurer, skipped the debate.”



Anonymous said...

This is an easy one, TA. NO. This is not about not having this in our backyard, so to speak, but it does speak to the insanity of what's being proposed. Mark Kirk is honest enough to tell it like it is. These are not just terrorists, although that's a term that under this administration has become politically incorrect. These are not soldiers from some army. These Al Queda terrorists have one goal: destroy America and Americans. Our senior senator has the audacity to compare these atrocious terrorists with others already in some IL prisons.Sorry, Durbin, there is no comparison at all. The more Durbin opens his mouth the more stupid he sounds and the more dangerous this becomes. These GITMO terrorist killers will bring with them to our area more of the same. Is that really good for Thomson, IL? Is that really good for America? The vast majority of people on the street, whether Democrat or Republican, are quick to say that they are NOT in favor of this transfer of these vicious killers to our area. But TA is right when he says that Durbin isn't up for election. Quinn doesn't have the guts to stand up and be counted as an intelligent guy on this one. Speak up NOW. Sign the Petition: Go to the website and sign the petition against this insane idea.

Publia said...

Business as usual.


IL POL: "Barack, hi, your pals in IL calling. We are so broke; we spent everything and them some. Could you help, please? It's bad. People are listening to Republicans, and that would be people who vote."

BARACK: "Okay, I'll think of something."


BARACK: "Illinois? Got it! Guantanamo people! Tons of dollars!"

IL POL: "Cool, thanks. We're good!"

tikkunolam said...

OK, I know this is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion, and I'll be back later tonight when I have the time to tell you just how wrong you are. For now, I offer some snark.

If you asked the REAL Team America if they thought they could handle keeping terrorists prisoner in America, would they tremble in their bootsies? Hell no! America! F*** yeah!!!

Team America said...

Funny, Tikkun, but yeah, I'll look for that more serious response from you later.

Anonymous said...

Publia-that was a good post, well said good fellow.

Tikkun, the last thing I want on my grandmothers flight in from florida for hanukkah is an al qaeda operative scoping out the b-terminal for future visits. As a jew you should know better. Our homeland doesn't exist today because of boneheaded policies like this.

Team, since Alexi understands foreign relations only in terms of off shore banks and spring break party destinations you might in the future refer to Guantanamo as "near cancun senor frogs" or Afghanistan as "land where they don't serve appletinis with sex and the city reruns".


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...


Please remove my last comment, I had clicked onto the wrong post--my fault. But I agree with Tikkun in that there is a serious issue, yet there are plenty of cases where we are safely housing on American soil people who are equally dangerous. But, I completely understand and symphathize with the worry of 'what if there was a breakout'.

Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial

Anonymous said...

Our President made a campaign promise to close Gitmo. Since he is better at symbolic moves than actual governing, he will close Gitmo, although the time table keeps getting pushed back, because some ugly facts keep getting in the way of the symbolism.

If I understand past history correctly, captured enemy troops were not housed in ordinary jails or prisons, even those with maximum security. They were held on bases in camps under military guard. I don't believe there were civilian trials of enemy troops held in such a fashion. Those captured troops would be held until the end of hostilities.

Some were transported to the USA, the rest were held overseas at various locations. The overwhelming "rest" were in fact held overseas and not on American soil.

The Bush administration treated terrorists as enemy troops and housed them at Gitmo accordingly. Gitmo is on a naval base on the Cuban island. The treatment of these terrorist prisoners at Gitmo wasn't necessarily to my liking, and the Geneva conventions should apply to them like all other detainees. We expect our troops to be treated according to those conventions.

But are they entitled to civilian trials? Civil rights under our constitution? To be held like civilians at maximum security prisons along with other prison populations? Or are they military combat types who need to be held in camps like past history. The Obama crew wants to treat these enemy combatants as civilians. The Bush crew wanted to and did treat them as enemy combatants.

Since terrorists have blurred the historical lines on what is or isn't an enemy combatant, I do not feel that we should reciprocate and pretend that they are not enemy combatants.

Putting 100 or so of them (The Obama Administration is still being vague on this) in one single location in a remote area of Illinois 20 miles from a nuclear power station doesn't sound like good policy or a smart idea.

I am assuming that they will have "visitors" who will drive to that location, hopefully not in car bombs.

I understand that we are holding some other terrorists in other locations, but at least they are scattered in various facilities. Again, they should not in my opinion be held in ordinary prisons or even maximum security ones.

Perhaps the solution would be the old Castro one? Allow all the insane and criminal of his island to "escape" to the USA. The crime rate in Alabama and other coastal regions soared when he pulled that stunt many years ago. Why not just allow them to "escape" to North Korea? That should please "dear leader!" :-)

Once they are "processed" at Thompson, and their numbers drop, then I am assuming that the prison will be closed again or partially closed. All those government created jobs (3,000? to maintain 100 prisoners?) will vanish. From an "economic" standpoint we are better off enticing a few folks to build some factories in that region, but Illinois is so anti-business that Iowa prospers by the Mississippi. Visit the Quad Cities and see for yourself the economic disparity. Their tax codes put ours to shame. And they aren't $12 billion and counting in the hole.

Then check out Pleasant Prairie Wisconsin and compare it Waukegan and Zion.

My vote is a strong "NO" on this.

Louis G. Atsaves

Anonymous said...

King Louis Astaves the Ellen Slayer,

You are right.

The problem with democrats is that they great terrorism as a law enforcement issue. To them these guys are glorified car thieves or drug cartel leaders not mass murderers.

Look at how weak pup and hamas's hamos were in the berkowitz show on Iran, these guys are wimps that would rather see us adopt european attitudes toward terrorism (it's part of life so don't try and stop it) and are afraid that if we leave these bad guys in cuba, that denmark won't like us. They can have the love of the danes, I'll take having the sears tower in one piece.

Fan of King Louis Astaves the Ellen Slayer

Anonymous said...

Off topic, but Hoffman's campaign just posted a "volunteer kick-off" vid, where he's referring to a poll that he says hasn't been published yet. In the vid he states:

“In terms of Mark Kirk’s strength, if he’s the nominee in this race, we’re gonna have a problem as Democrats and that’s what this poll shows. A major, major problem.”

Anyone hear anything else yet?


Anonymous said...

The problem with candidates like david hoffman, and obama before him 10 years ago is that they confuse academic credentials for campaign credentials. To win in politics you need to love the campaign trail, the courting of powerhouse bloggers like team america, love the game like jesus shuttlesworth. Hoffman is too distant and is already at odds with the corrupt core of the democrat party that doesn't like him for going after richie daley.

catwoman is on her blog criticizing the guy for talking about blago which proves that democrats luvvvvve themselves some corruption. To think that ol nut complained for years about abramoff but hey, blago's alright.


Crazy4glf said...

1. Nothing is being 'rammed-through.' In fact, if the GOP did something similar, we'd probably hear about it AFTER it took place.

2. The way I understand it, the Bush Administration didn't charge these folks with any specific crime. We can't even sort out who's the most dangerous (almost like the under-regulated derivative market, that helped lead to the economic crisis that started under the Bush Administration, don't ya think?).

3. I've always been taught that one should not just complain -like Kirk's weekly gripes- but come up with a better answer (i.e. not like the GOP
healthcare 'alternative).' Hence, what would Kirk like us to do with Bush's creation that -yet again- was poorly planned, rammed-through, and defied anything and everything America stands for but Kirk accepted lock, stock, and barrel, the intelligent, thoughtful person that he is.

Anonymous said...

To win in politics you need to love the campaign trail, the courting of powerhouse bloggers like team america, love the game like jesus shuttlesworth.

Really? Is that how it works here?

Well, at least he seems to have a great, inclusive volunteer organization going for him. That should help.

Anonymous said...

FOKLAES, how's your "courting" of powerhouse blogs like CapFax that reach out to the State and the media working out for Kirk?

Didn't you just recently (since Kirk started running for Senate) start posting there? Under "shore", right?

Do you post on Illinois Review, too?

Just wondering since you know so much about courting the blogs.

Anonymous said...

Oh, BTW, the last three "anonymous" postings should have been signed "Anonymous?".

I post on CapFax--and have been for years under "Anonymous".

I also post on Illinois Review as "?".

I also posted on the Illinois Reader as "Lost Generation".

Great little blog that was. Taught us alot about blogging and the impact same could have on campaigns. We did some other good stuff on there, too.

I think the longest blog in the Leader's history was on Cavel International in DeKalb. I was up for days on that one.

Definitely off topic for us back then, but worthwhile.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. That should have been "Illinois Leader". Typing too fast.

Anonymous said...

I don't court anything because I am not a candidate. A number of candidates came to team america to meet the fine fellow and let him introduce them to the base. This is what candidates do. They introduce themselves to the media and local political leaders since it's hard to just show up on a ballot and win. Hoffman doesn't seem to love the game and campaigning which is what you have to do to succeed at any job and why he's getting destroyed by alexi who makes sarah palin look competent.

Illinois review is its own thing, the abortion stuff and gay and immigrant bashing isn't why I am a republican and i don't drink conservative koolaid for breakfeast lunch and dinner. I read this, capitol fax, and realclearpolitics, that's it.

I have a lot of problems with the congressman as all followers of any candidate should. For 10 years he's had no cohesive message, no vision, no effort in building the local brand or a national moderate brand like the blue dogs, and that's just to start. but he's better than 95 percent of everything else so I support him. I am not on his staff and not involved with his campaign, but do consider myself a fan of king louis, aaron lawlor's misspelled badly timed campaign press releases, and anything he does that agitates holier than thou north shore liberals.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "courting" the blogs. I obviously misunderstood.

I don't believe Hoffman has a very good chance, but seems to be getting much more comfortable with what he's doing very quickly. His campaign also seem to be using vids in an interesting way that I've never seen before, ranging from instructional vids on how to get signatures to rallying his volunteers.

Anonymous said...

No worries, Team is married, and I'm straight. Courting I meant grassroots outreach when candidates go on conservative radio or do edboards or meet with bloggers.

Hoffman would destroy Alexi in a debate which is why Alexi's people will be smart to avoid all debate contact with Hoffman. If they have one, it will be good for Mark because Hoffman is a lot like Mark and would give the vaunted aaron lawlor communications machine good insight into ways to go at Alexi. My only fear with Mark in a debate with Alexi is that t.v. era debates are all about perception and visuals and Mark is much more cerebral than alexi who is a braindead bimbo that will play to the crowd with his usual b.s.. On the north shore cerebral is good, other places they like their politics more cable news trashy than the washington week with gwen ifill that wins the day in wheeling and winnetka.


Anonymous said...

No worries, Team is married, and I'm straight.

lol I ?guess? the blogs will be happy to hear that?

Anonymous said...

Interesting analysis re: debates. I think the Ds will avoid them for as long as they can. And whatever Cheryle Jackson's chances are, it's been really tough to find recent vids on her.

Anonymous said...

it's a senate seat with power to vote on war, filibuster and vote for SCOTUS, they will have to, and Alexi will get destroyed if he doesn't.

they are going to need to bring an ambulance when Mark and Hughes go at it. Hughes better start studying now.

hoffman fired a short range icbm at alexi today, it won't be his last, grab your popcorn because it's never a good sign for democrats when they are bragging about who is behind mark by a smaller deficit.


Team America said...

Hey FOKLAES- you noticed that Alexi and Hoffman don't talk about Hughes, too, huh?

Gee, wonder why?

How to annoy a Hughes Supporter: Ask him/her what is Hughes' plan to win the general.

Team America said...

=== tikkunolam said...
OK, I know this is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion, and I'll be back later tonight when I have the time to tell you just how wrong you are. ===

Tikkun, where you be? It's been some time now and I've been waiting for your biting analysis...

tikkunolam said...

Sorry for the delay, it's finals week here at DePaul, so I got caught by surprise with some end-of-quarter work. But, you are correct, I did make a promise I didn't keep, so please except my utmost apologies.

I have quite a lot to say on this subject, your post, and some of the comments, so this post will be one of my longer ones. I'm going to go top-to-bottom and respond to everything I want to comment on, then there'll be some flavor of summary at the bottom.

==to ship around 100 terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay prison to downstate Illinois.==

I know this is piddling, but it's also an annoying trend in Illinois politics. Thomson isn't in downstate Illinois. It's in the northwest part of the state. I know the habit is to split the state between the Chicago metro and "downstate," but I happen to leave a fair amount of my heart in Galena (across the river from Dubuque), and they don't particularly appreciate it.

Your referenced Fox News article is not applicable. The article describes the inmates as taking classes with the general population and having unregulated internet access, things that would not happen if the DoD took over a wing of Thomson and turned it into a military brig.

It's very cynical of you to describe this proposal as the "best they can do" to bring jobs to Illinois. There are many different projects creating jobs in Illinois, both from the capital projects bill form the General Assembly and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In fact, earlier today I passed a group of workers doing much-needed work on the Clark/Lake Blue Line Station, courtesy of the ARRA.

Also, don't underestimate the economic value active prisons can bring to rural communities. Thomson itself, including its Republican representatives, are very happy with the idea that this state-of-the-art, but still empty prison will finally come on-line (see CapitolFax for the full quote, it's too long for me to cut-and-paste). Also, remember Pontiac?

As for the Democratic candidates, you're right that they should all state their positions on this, and they all seem to have done that. Of course, a Dem taking a position on this blog is a bit of a lose-lose-lose situation. If a Dem agrees with Durbin on this, you hit them. If a Dem doesn't take a position, you hit them. If a Dem were to agree with Kirk, either you or FOKLAES would hit them for phony opportunism. Praise-where-praise-is-due is hard to come by here.

tikkunolam said...

As for comments-
FOKLAES, your hypothetical is totally bunk. As the White House has said (and you all are free to scream "you lie," but I have no reason to doubt their veracity), there will be no visitors allowed in the proposed deal. The DoD would buy that wing of the prison and run it like a super-max military brig, which amongst many other policy differences from regular prisons does not allow visitors.

To suggest that these prisoners will make Chicago a bigger target is troublesome in several ways. First of all, Illinois already plays host to and al-Qaeda-affiliated prisoner. Also, no matter how many terrorists are in Illinois, the tallest building in the country will continue to be just that. Its level of risk won't change if terrorists are brought into the state. Miami is much closer to Gitmo than Thomson is to Chicago (to the tune of an approximately 60 mile difference), yet Miami has never been considered a target of opportunity for its vicinity to Gitmo.

Also, to invoke Israel implies geopolitical similarities that simply don't exist. Thankfully, the United States is under far less threat. The forces that threaten Israel are in the hundreds of thousands, and all live within a 3-hour car ride of Jerusalem. Those that don't live in Israel itself live in bordering countries. And that only takes into account non-state actors like Hamas, Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood. The dangers posed by countries like Syria, Lebanon and Iran wouldn't be included in what I just described.
The mainland United States, on the other hand, is being targeted by a small group of ragtag criminals, most of them on the run in between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now al-Qaeda does certainly pose a threat, and one that needs to be opposed intelligently and comprehensively, but the comparison to Israel is not proper. Rather, it seems to be an emotional appeal to my Judaism, which isn't the lens through which to view an issue of this complexity.

Your history is accurate, but incomplete. In the past, enemy troops were those of a state with which we were in a state of declared war. These prisoners of war were treated under international law to the letter and spirit. Also, in many cases, these prisoners were returned to their home country after peace was achieved, a paradigm that certainly doesn't apply to the present.

The most fascinating aspect of your comment was this paragraph:
==Since terrorists have blurred the historical lines on what is or isn't an enemy combatant, I do not feel that we should reciprocate and pretend that they are not enemy combatants.==

To begin with, using the phrase "enemy combatants" is indeed blurring historical and, more importantly, legal lines. Historically and legally, prisoners have either been criminals, entitled to our court system, or prisoners of war. "Enemy combatant" is a term invented by the Bush administration to circumvent this paradigm.

So, using your sentence, we are in fact reciprocating, in that we are blurring historical lines. Historically, we have treated foreign, non-state actors who break American law, even organized ones like Yakuza and La Cosa Nostra, through the civilian judicial system, and that has been undisputedly effective. What is being proposed here is a change in that historical policy, because al-Qaeda is an organization with political instead of financial goals. Basing our judicial philosophy on the rhetoric rather than actions is not a particularly American way of handling disruptions.

As a side note, differentiating judicial treatment based on what's in an actor's head is incoherent with the opposition to hate-crimes laws most of you hold.

FOKLAES, the purpose of closing Gitmo is not to court the Danes. Rather, we're seeking to deprive al-Qaeda of a useful recruiting tool. It's not a sign of weakness or pandering to say that we're not afraid to hold terrorists in our own prisons.

tikkunolam said...

That brings me to my second-to-last last point (exhale), which isn't addressed to any specific concept. There's no question that in America, if we're good at one thing, it's holding prisoners. No one has ever escaped from a modern supermax prison. Ever. it just doesn't happen. Especially when that supermax prison is owned and operated by the United States military. I'm surprised you guys would be so willing to denigrate the ability of the U.S. military to operate such a facility. I'm not as surprised to see Kirk make such accusations, because he's denigrated so many other individual veterans in the past (Duckworth, the Seals vet supporters).

My final point concerns my original snark. While it was meant to entertain, there was a serious point as well. Republicans, in recent history, have been the party of chest-out, testosterone-based national security policy. I've wanted, for a long time, to believe that this was an intellectually honest position, that the GOP really believed in American exceptionalism. However, the entire party's reaction to bringing less than 100 men in shackles into a supermax prison has been entirely at odds with previous bring-it-on rhetoric. The GOP's reaction, were they to be intellectually coherent, would be to say, "Yea, bring those terrorists to my district. We have an amazing, perfect-record prison, and would be happy to do our part for the security of this nation. We're not afraid of a group of men in orange jumpsuits and shackles. F*** fear!"

I apologize for the length of this post, to a certain extent. However, the length itself also goes to prove a point. Issues of this seriousness and complexity ought to be handled in thoughtful, comprehensive ways, not pillaged for campaign sound bites.

tikkunolam said...

TA, sorry for occupying your blog tonight, but I've got one more thing, off-topic.

I just saw your comment on CapFax on the Zion nuke plant. My step-father was an EMT for the security team there for a while, after it was decommissioned. It's still kept under tight security because the waste from when it was active hasn't been moved.

I'm not sure why, but I'm having trouble getting this up at CapFax, so I came back here. Do you think you could mention it over there?

Anonymous said...


1. there wouldn't be nuclear waste in this area if it weren't for dick durbin. 10 years ago Mark pledged to get rid of all of it but that plan was shelved by dick durbin because his boss, harry reid didn't want the federal government to use yucca mountain in his state. WE might ask durbin why nevada can't hold our nuclear waste but he wants us to hold america's terrorists. Durbin's idiocy has cost us 50 billion taxpayer dollars and left us less secure.

Team America, hughes is going to look about asgood as jay cutler's passing game in the red zone-ugly.

Tikun, I'm glad you yook a poli sci class at depaul and got some good walt and mearsheimer or even thucydides in your system, maybe one day you'll run for congress like the pup and lose twice and then screw up the location of your alma mater in your campaign video. I'll give you that the rest of the Illinois republican political class which has no foreign policy experience and which is filled with people that really don't know what they are saying probably is using this for political gain, but Mark does and has better credentials than anyone in the state on this issue.

There are 2 ways to fight the global war on terror. Way number 1 is the bush/israel way. Hunt capture, kill, no exceptions. It's war and we win it. It recognizes the constitution but realizes the nature of what we are facing and accepts its better to have live Americans than dead americans. Option 2, is what obama and the europeans (who for the first time in several centuries this week saw the world shift away from the atlantic permanently while they bicker over lisbon and their uncompetitive economies rot) do which is law enforcement. It reads well in european capitals and it makes you warm and fuzzy but the fact remains its not what makes us safer. FOKLAES has many friends in the u.s. intelligence and national security community and they much prefer to not be told by aclu lawyers how the can and can't kill terrorists. Either we are at war and the president is authorizing assasinations with drones or we are playing meter maid.

That's issue 1.

Issue 2 is the fact that there is no substantial economic development plan that has come out of this administration in springfield or d.c. prisons are some of the worst job creation plans in america as they are expensive and don't lead to serious jobs-this is something republicans and democrats agree on but in fairness both parties screw up thanks to thugs like ryan and quinn. We'd be better off using the money to ensure we have a single non crappy public research university here in Illinois. As a young buck,I'm sure you'd agree 150 million is better for life sciences at uic to develop new research technologies than plaster walls for prisoners in hickville.

Issue 3 is your party's well earned well documented level of incompetence and corruption. You haven't been able to pass ethics reform, balanced budgets, appoint senators or do anything else and now you wnat to be entrusted with some of the most dangerous men alive.

The president can do this and hand the state gop a major campaign issue for a party with fewer ideas and solutions than a drunk frat boy at 3 a.m or he can find some random western state where it won't potentially cost him a humiliating defeat in his homestate.

the best thing for the gop is for this to succeed. if it does we get a major issue for next year. if not we get no al-qaeda. win win.


Team America said...

Tikkun, no worries about multiple/long posts, as long as you stay on topic and contribute thoughtfully to the discourse, which you have, mostly. I'll let FOKLAES's response speak for itself.

As to the Zion waste issue, I hear you, but I don't think a clarification is necessary as the fact that the waste is still there (as you point out) is the whole point. It seemed to me that Carl Nyberg over at Cap Fax seemed to think that even if the waste was removed, it is still a terror target, which I think is wrong, since it is no longer operating, which I what I pointed out to him at CFB.

Publia said...

Would I be less than intellectual than to say, NIMBY, NIMBY, NIMBY? Probably. I didn't ask these people to make plans to kill Americans. Take them away!

Illinois should not sell its soul, and should insist on politicians who will work for REAL economic opportunity not this fake stuff trafficking in the cesspool of humanity. Don't allow yourselves, Republicans, to move off message. If we are Republicans here we shouldn't be pushing for moving the Guantanamo people to mainland USA.

Anonymous said...

Tikkun confirmed what I had suspected all along. HE/SHE is a very young person with little to no knowledge of what the US/Israel relationship has been until this damn administration. I hope you do take some time to go to Israel, to get to understand the issues that make this a really complex matter. You immaturely state that Israel's enemies are in the immediate area. Boy, are YOU off base. Your buddies in this administration are proof positive that never have we witnessed a more Israel bashing group of haters, some who are sadly born of the Jewish faith. I'd suggest you go on a Birthright trip but I'm not sure you'd get the significance or truly appreciate that great nation's value to the world. As for Durbin. Talk to him about the spent nuclear waste in Zion. He is the force behind stopping the removal to Yucca Mountain in NV. I'd like to see the prisoners from GITMO join the nuclear waste at that very same location. Think about it.

tikkunolam said...

TA, I just went and reread the comment thread over at CapFax. I officially declare "My Bad." I definitely misread it last night.

FOKLAES... "maybe one day you'll run for congress like the pup?" I think it's a backhanded compliment, so I'll take it as such... thanks. Though I should point out that I took all my poli sci in high school, I've tested out of college political classes.

As for your issues:
Issue 1- I don't grant your Manichean dichotomy on anti-terror strategies. The military and law enforcement both have significant roles to play in eradicating terrorists. The truth is, law enforcement officers have some skills the military doesn't that have been incredibly helpful in fighting terrorists. There is a need for forensic banking, domestic surveillance (of the warranted type), and similar tasks that the military can't do. I'm not saying the military doesn't have a role. But, it is still more coherent with our values as a nation of laws to, whenever possible, process terrorists like we would any other foreign mayhem-maker in the United States.

Issue 2- There's a long and complicated fight to be had here on the effectiveness of the stimulus and other recent economic measures. I'm not going to bite on it, though, because it will almost certainly distract from the issue of terrorism. I will only point out that you continue to dismiss, with insults, the needs of small rural towns like Thomson.

Issue 3- I actually agree with you on some of the problems with Illinois government. Thankfully, this prison wouldn't be administered by Springfield. Ownership and operation would go to the Department of Defense, and the prison would be an outpost of the US military. I'll reiterate here the surprise I expressed in my previous posts that Republicans would be so quick to doubt the military's capacity to keep these terrorists from escaping a supermax prison.

Your last paragraph is very troubling. You claim to have strong objections to housing terrorists in Thomson, because of the terrifying threat it would pose to the lives of the people of Illinois; yet you say it would be best to go through with the plan because it benefits the GOP politically. I appreciate your honesty in saying that the GOP's success is more important than the lives of Chicagoans, but I have to condemn your shameless politicization of national security. I guess living in DC takes the skin out of security issues in Illinois.

Anon 10:14-
I've actually been on the Birthright trip; I was in Israel for 10 days this January (during the Gaza conflict). I absolutely appreciate the importance of the trip and the nation, and for you to ignorantly suggest otherwise is pretty insulting. If you would look at my section about Israel, you'd see that the proximity comments only applied to non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah. There are certainly nations threatening to Israel all over the region.

As for my age, that's certainly something I've never hidden, and you wouldn't have merely suspected it if you have been reading regularly. It's comments like yours, dismissing young people as stupid and uninformed, that resulted in your party losing the votes of young people all across the country last year.

Anonymous said...

To Tiki: you keep stating:

"I'll reiterate here the surprise I expressed in my previous posts that Republicans would be so quick to doubt the military's capacity to keep these terrorists from escaping a supermax prison".

It escapes me. Why do you d's think the issue (concern) is about "escaping"? Because it's Durbin's defense? Think, dude, think. Terrorists don't escape....

Anonymous said...

Kirk is dead-wrong on this issue. Moreover, he is sacrificing a base of support in some strong GOP counties and among GOP State Reps. Other commenters repeatedly dismiss smaller cities and state representatives, but they speak out of ignorance. Already, the GOP chairs of Whiteside, Carroll, Lee and Ogle counties have voiced their support of this prison plan and their disappointment with Kirk's knee-jerk reaction. Kirk is obviously speaking on behalf of Washington D.C. GOP money and not the interests of the Illinois GOP.

Recall, also, that it was Pate Phillip and Jim Edgar who rammed this prison down the throats of Illinois taxpayers. It was a boondoggle to begin with and is now, thanks to Kirk, an open wound in the Illinois Republican Party that is oozing votes at an alarming rate. Good play, Mark.

Anonymous said...

Once again, Tiki, you show your immaturity regarding the Israel issue. You chose not to respond to the actions of this current administration. That you went on the Birthright trip is good. Now what are you going to do to live up to your name of tikkunolam? You were a strong Seals supporter because your postings were very telling and that's how I knew you were a very young person with very little background and knowledge of the issue you think you know. Please think about what your posting name represents and then let me know what it means to you.

tikkunolam said...

Anon 11:48, are you the same as Anon 10:14? I'm not sure if I'm in a conversation or not.

I'm not sure where I show immaturity on Israel in this post. There hasn't been a single substantive rebuttal of my statements about Israel on this post.

Also, "the actions of this current administration?" I'm not sure how that observation applies to what I was saying.

While I would love a debate on Israel with you as much as I would enjoy a conversation with FOKLAES about economic stimulus, it's not entirely applicable to the subject at hand, so I'll forego a lengthy conversation about Israel in this space.

The rest of your paragraph was really rather patronizing. I'm not sure from what position you lecture me on a tenet of my religion. "Please think about what your posting name means and then let me know what it means to you" sounds like your assigning me homework. I'ts appropriate to be so condescending while posting anonymously.

tikkunolam said...

Sorry, meant to say it was inappropriate, not appropriate.

Anonymous said...

the prison comes here, mark gets elected to the senate no question about it. 30 seconds of they killed jobs, they were corrupt and now we have to house al qaeda should get him 6 years. it doesn't and we don't have to worry about that funny lookin dude at baggage check who's just "in for for some sightseeing".

HIRC legal counsel/lse ma/georgetown law/8 year foreign ops appropriator/world bank/IAF special assistant or a depaul undergrad glass in foreign relations. I'm going to go with mark over tikun on this one.


tikkunolam said...

FOKLAES, saying I'm unqualified is an argument that might be appropriate if I were running for office. I'm not. I'm just discussing the issues of the day. If my arguments are incorrect, either through poor reasoning or factual misstatements, than point out those errors. My arguments are not illegitimate simply because they come from me.

Also, it still strikes me as craven that you'd rather see a policy enacted that you say will put Chicagoans in danger than see Kirk lose the Senate seat.