Guantánamo Bay

Re: Conservative Trio Supports Transferring Gitmo Detainees To Illinois
Sam Stein, stein@huffingtonpost.com, First Posted: 11-16-09 09:34 AM   |   Updated: 11-17-09 08:46 AM

The 43rd President

Republicans in Congress are gearing up to fight a new White House effort to relocate detainees at Guantanamo Bay to a prison facility in Illinois. But on Sunday, a group of highly respected conservative figures lent their support to the transfer, calling it necessary to “preserve national security” while simultaneously avoiding “sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition.”

In a joint statement prepared by the Constitution Project, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr say moving suspected terrorists to the Thomson, Illinois prison facility, “makes good sense.” Taxpayers, they note, have already invested $145 million in the facility, which has been “little used.” And the surrounding community, they add, could benefit from increased employment once the prison becomes filled.

“The scaremongering about these issues should stop,” they add, noting that there is “absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities.”

Here is part of the letter that these three (Keene, Norquist, and Barr) released to the press:

Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases. Civilian prisons are the safe, cost effective and appropriate venue to hold persons convicted in federal courts. Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards.

George W. Bush’s policies are at issue here, not the terrorists’ trials.

Bush tried to undue rational thought and create a separate reality by spinning his actions as legal and right. Using patriotism as a shield and fear as a weapon, Bush pushed through a Republican-dominated Congress the Military Commissions Act of 2006, President’s Surveillance Program, the enhanced interrogation techniques, and the Bush Doctrine. With a covey of lawyers behind him, Bush proclaimed that the detainees were taken from the “battlefield”, wherever that was. Because of that, they must be treated as unlawful enemy combatants who are not subject to protections under the constitution. The Bush administration  began looking around for a place to put these detainees away from watchful eyes and their gaze landed on Guantanamo Bay – perfectly nestled inside a communist country, out of sight and out of mind.

Creation of alternate realities, calling things true that were false, that black is white, wore thin on the American public and they voiced those feelings at the ballot box in 2006 and 2008.

Now, President Obama is testing the waters of judicial prudency by bringing detainees to New York for trial in an attempt to judge where America stands on doing what our Constitution dictates. While Obama is utilizing our judicial system which has stood strong throughout history along comes the Bush Republicans to scream and shout that following the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions is dangerous and unjust.

This from Think Progress:

The right has exploited this possible move by fear-mongering to score political points. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) started circulating a letter among state officials telling President Obama, “If your Administration brings Al Qaeda terrorists to Illinois, our state and the Chicago Metropolitan Area will become ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment and radicalization.” Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) claimed that moving detainees to Thomson would make the city a “target for future terrorist activity.”

Be afraid! Be very afraid!

In an interview with Neil Cavuto of FOX Entertainment, former mayor of New York and mistake-prone presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who has further discredited himself with his obsession with “9/11”, has come out with more Bush politics. “I think this is a very dangerous decision, and an irresponsible one,” he told Cavuto emphasizing that we should fear this decision. He went on to say, “And finally, this was an act of war. And one of the things I thought we learned from September 11th was that we were in a state of denial before Sept. 11.” It took him only a few seconds to remind everyone about Bush’s stance on 9/11 one more weary time.

So, now a much respected GOP operative and right-wing talking point coordinator, Grover Norquist speaks out against the Republicans who are gearing up for a fight over Obama’s decision to bring the detainees to the mainland. It appears as though he is speaking out against the very policies of GW Bush; denying due process is necessary for freedom, somehow. The letter he signed stated that, “Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases.”

But why?

On the surface it seems that Norquist has gone over to the other side saying that the “scaremongering” must stop.  But on closer examination I am convinced that there is a political reason behind Norquist’s actions and I am also convinced it has everything to do with the 2012 Presidential Election.

It appears that Norquist, Keene, and Barr are willing to try to turn Republicans away from ideology and back to the appearance of practicality by aiming their letter directly at those Republicans in congress who are willing to spread more hate and fear, reminiscent of Bush. If the GOP is to rebuild and turn their recent huge losses into wins, Norquist implies that a more moderate tone would lure independents away from the left.

In an interview published in CQ Politics and posted at MSNBC yesterday, Norquist said that prospective presidential candidates should do something for the party NOW, instead of bloviating in front of the cameras just to toot their own horn. Norquist said:

“We’re going to put together a list of all the people thinking of running for president and … give assignments to each of the would-be presidential candidates. For instance, if the former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee would like to run and be thought of as a serious candidate he better win that Senate seat in Arkansas (held by Democrat Blanche Lincoln). He can raise the money for it, he can help turn it around. If he’s not willing to do that for the party, why should we spend any time thinking about him?” Norquist said in a Nov. 13 interview.

If former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani “wants to run (in 2012), then he should either run for governor himself (in 2010) or find somebody,” he added.

Who is he not mentioning? Sarah Palin comes to mind.

But Norquist also had an equally strong message for conservative activists — warning that they should not look to enforce ideological purity tests on candidates but rather support the most “Reaganite” person who has a legitimate chance of winning the race…

…Norquist pointed to the results of the recent special election in New York’s 23rd District, where Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman forced Republican Dede Scozzafava out of the race after conservatives hammered her record. Despite heavy spending on the race by outside parties, Hoffman ultimately lost the election to Democrat Bill Owens — the first time the district has been represented by a Democrat in more than a century.

Just to set the record straight, Hoffman did not force Scozzafava from the race – Dick Armey, Sarah Palin, FOX Entertainment, and a host of tea-baggers did. Hoffman lost because he was an idiot who was uninterested in local issues, not for being a tea-bagger. Running a local campaign on national issues, and clueless about local issues when asked, won’t win many hearts and minds in the district.

Norquist is telling us something very important here. He is saying that the GOP will be better served by not looking to “purify” the party and that the GOP needs a candidate who can appeal to the middle, like Reagan. In other words, the more the Republicans shift to the right-wing fringe, the smaller and more geographical they become, and he is right.

2006 and 2008 was a mass movement away from Bush’s alternate reality and toward a more truthful, practical governance. Norquist is telling the GOP to not continue to wander in fantasy land, but rather embrace what’s practical and legitimate to grow and move the GOP forward. This would be a refreshing change.