A debate is raging in Illinois over the possible transfer of terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay to a nearly empty prison facility in Thompson, Illinois (which is roughly 150 miles west of Chicago.)
Mark Kirk, the frontrunner to be the GOP nominee for President Obama’s old Senate seat, pounced on the opportunity to display his conservative bona-fides on national security to a base that seems deeply skeptical of his generally moderate social views.
If ever there was an issue that a Republican candidate would be safe taking a hard line on, the Thompson prison debate would seem to be it. Yet Kirk’s criticism of Democrats has generated considerable backlash from the normally Kirk-friendly mainstream Chicago press (the Chicago Sun Times, and the Chicago Tribune) and has given Kirk’s Democratic rivals grounds to rip into him for playing partisan politics (a dirty word these days in Illinois) over the possible jobs which would be created by the prisoner transfer. If taking a hard line on literally keeping terrorists out of Illinois generated this sort of backlash…one can only imagine the kind of heat Kirk will take if he has to move right on his more moderate social positions (the news that Kirk’s campaign had sent a basic memo to the Palin camp when she was in town caused a considerable uproar).
The conclusion (I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again): the right should leave Mark Kirk alone if it cares about Republicans winning the Illinois Senate seat.
5 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Nov 19, 2009 at 12:15 pm
The dilemma is that if a Republican has to agree that the Obama Administration is doing anything right … this will erode the unified front that the Republicans are trying to advance.
Next, it no longer becomes doctrine that we have to fear locking up a detainee in a SuperMax prision.
After that, independents, and even some Republicans, start wondering if the Republicans who are opposing locking detainees up in our SuperMax prisons are actually serious people.
After that, it’s game over.
Once the Republicans have started down a path like this, it’s pretty much no turning back, and hang together or hang alone.
2 JohnMcC // Nov 19, 2009 at 1:28 pm
If you look at the transfer of the Gitmo Detainees to Thomsom’s prison as only a state-wide issue it changes a couple of things. It is more easily assumed that the usual law enforcement will be vigilant and effective–and that the mayor of Thompson needn’t fear for his daughter’s safety. And the benefits of having them and the jobs they bring becomes worth considering. So it’s easier for a state politician to be in favor of incarcerating the Detainees @ Thompson. That Kirk took the opposite position shows he is playing to a bigger audience than the mere voters of Illinois. He’s already playing to the national wingnuts like Club for Growth and Family Research Council. Those are the people he’s planning to represent in the Senate.
3 sinz54 // Nov 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm
balconesfault:
We conservatives are serious.
It’s just that you never agreed with us about the legal status of these terrorists.
The whole point of keeping them in Gitmo was that they’re not common criminals. They are enemy combatants, just as much as the Japanese civilians armed with spears whom our troops would have faced if the A-bomb had not been dropped and we had invaded the Japanese home islands. (IIRC, our troops faced some of those on Okinawa. And slaughtered them all.)
Gitmo was set up as a detention camp for enemy combatants. Being on territory leased from Cuba rather than U.S. territory, the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to it. As the number of prisoners increased, Bush was also looking into other venues for them: Nuclear submarines that operate secretly in the depths of the oceans; uninhabited islands; etc.
But we conservatives have always believed that putting these combatants in U.S. jails (even supermax ones) implies they’re nothing but common criminals, fully entitled to Constitutional protections. Sorry, we don’t believe that.
And the history of wars, both U.S. wars and European wars, supports our contentions. There is ample precedent.
4 Ploughman // Nov 19, 2009 at 5:20 pm
How many jobs does a prison really bring into a community like Thomson? In other Illinois towns where (state) prisons were built, the economic boost has been minimal, even though Democrats like to try to hype them up. The jobs angle to bringing terror detainees to NW Illinois will mostly appeal to hard-core union Democrats who are unlikely to vote for Kirk no matter what position he takes. The fact that Kirk advocates have to lean so hard on editorial support from the Trib and Sun-Times makes me think that Kirk’s chances of winning a general election statewide are problematic to start out. Kirk will have to turn out near 100% of Republicans in ALL parts of the state, not just “moderate” collar-county Republicans if he is to have a ghost of a chance of winning a general election. I do not believe Kirk can get enough independents and crossovers to win if the conservative Republicans don’t turn out for him.
5 JohnMcC // Nov 20, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Well, Mr Ploughman, you only need to ask. You see my computer has this “GOOGLE” device that answers simple questions like how many jobs would a prison really bring….at least, how much money and how many prisoners For example, one could learn that the prison is in fact a State Prison right now. And that the actual plan (as opposed to what ’some uninformed people who don’t have “GOOGLE” think) is for the Federal Govt to BUY the prison. For $85 Billion. Which would employ a fairly large number of people if spent wisely by the State of Illinois. And that the prison will not be only for Detainees but will hold 1600 prisoners, all told. Which would give quite a few people work if you think of supplying them with bread, milk, bologna and clean sheets and towels is actually work. It’s not banking of course. But something.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/rural-illinois-prison-wants-gitmo-detainees-006430
And by the way: In my post above I followed the Original Poster (Mr Golinkin) in spelling the name of the town THOMPSON. (Altho I accidentally did not “correct” one of my uses of that town’s name). And wouldn’t you know it! Mr Golinkin seems not to have a “GOOGLE” attached to his computer either. The town spells it’s own name THOMSON. Without a ‘P’. They will soon change the spelling of course. As soon as FOX News uses “THOMPSON”.
You must log in to post a comment.