Bringing Gitmo prisoners to Mich. makes sense
(Last updated: 06/07/09 7:01pm)More than 200 of the most dangerous people in the world could be moving to Michigan, possibly for the rest of their lives.
U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, sent a letter to President Barack Obama offering to house the detainees from Guantanamo Bay in Manistique, Mich. If Obama were to approve the site, the prisoners would move into a prison that has been closed since 2007, far from any major cities in the state.
It seems most people were pleased when Obama announced he would close the military prison in Cuba, but when the time came to move detainees to the U.S., states have only looked to serve themselves, saying the new prison should be anywhere but there. Stupak is one of the few to offer a solution.
The prospect of about 240 terror suspects moving to a quiet frontier city in Michigan might be a little startling to many in the area, and that concern is understandable. One of the perks to living in the Upper Peninsula is a low crime rate, and this could shake locals’ ideas of their safety. But the chances of a breakout or an attack on the prison are greatly overstated. These things could happen, sure. But they are — at best — rare. Residents are probably more likely to see Big Foot than they are to see an escaped suspect.
It seems counterintuitive, but bringing in this many dangerous people could actually improve the area’s overall safety. Some of the safest places to live in the state are next to prisons. In the unlikely event an escape were to happen, the prisoners most likely would not choose to stay in the area. They probably would want to be as far from there as possible, as quickly as possible.
Also, reopening this facility would bring in large amounts of military personnel and their presence alone could deter crime. The city would quickly swell with a huge group of people who deal with some of the most high-profile prisoners in the world on a daily basis. Any criminal in the area would take this into serious consideration before attempting anything.
The new workers wouldn’t only provide extra protection. A prison would warrant considerable amounts of government money, both in funding and paychecks, being put into the local economy. This instant injection of money would help businesses in the area and would lay the groundwork for new enterprises. Locals might not be getting security jobs, but there would be employment opportunities. It might be an unfortunate statement about our government, but prisons are decent moneymakers.
The reality of the situation is this prison has to be put somewhere. It can’t be put at another base in another country, because the facility would be open to the same problems that led to its closing in the first place. It’s much easier for a politician to try to push the problem off onto another state. Why not Wyoming? There’s plenty of open space and very few residents.
The truth is, the U.P. has the exact same qualities. In fact, given the wilderness that surrounds the cities, an escaped prisoner is more likely to die on their own in the U.P. than in Wyoming.
At the very least, Stupak deserves some respect for trying to be a part of the solution instead of pawning the problem off to someone else.
Originally Published: 06/07/09 7:01pm
Obama
06/07/09 10:38pm“Residents are probably more likely to see Big Foot than they are to see an escaped suspect.”
Great job, State News. Make light of national security. Obama is closing down an EFFECTIVE prison in Guantanamo Bay to house them in an old prison in northern Michigan. The only thing you can do when people are concerned with safety: equate it to big foot.
Big Foot does not exist. The chance of prisoners escaping does exist. When concern is raised over this, your response is trivial at best.
Macklin
06/08/09 1:08amI say we set up some variation on Alcatraz underneath the Mackinac Bridge and call it good.
Jason
06/08/09 9:27amObama-
We probably shouldn’t house any criminals here in Michigan then, since they might escape. Serial rapists, serial killers etc. are all housed here and in other states and all pose at least as great of a risk as an escaped terrorist. How about Timothy McVeigh, he’s a terrorist? I guess we better ship him off to Gitmo.
Faith
06/08/09 9:36amWHAT? “According to a March 25 article in The Washington Post, the Obama administration decided to end the use of the phrase “global war on terror” likely because of the connotations it gained after former President George W. Bush began using it to describe U.S. military initiatives abroad.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That is exactly what we are facing a GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR! But please let’s NOT hurt anyone’s feelings, NO let’s do the OBAMA FEEL GOOD DANCE. How crazy is this?
Hope
06/08/09 9:43amWhy on earth would we want to bring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Manistique, Mich??? How DUMB is that. They are safest where they already are and they will pose a threat to the US. bringing them here. What are we thinking, WE AREN’T!!!!
Oops Faith Wrong place^
06/08/09 9:46amMoving to another part of the paper, where I meant to put my blog. Well at least my grammar is getting better, knock on wood.
Grandma Taters
06/08/09 12:40pm“More than 200 of the most dangerous people in the world” when Bush was prez these people were mostly innocent people and they deserved constitutional rights and speedy trails in the U.S. Now that Obama has to deal with them they are “the most dangerous people in the world.” What a bunch of crap!
Jason
06/08/09 2:02pmGrandma-
Well, Bush did release around 500 individuals from Guantanamo, so even they recognized that there were a lot of innocent people there or, at the very least, people they could not prove were guilty of a crime.
You are right in the sense that Obama has continued many of the practices that Buch started. Obama has continued the military tribunals and has admitted that there are some individuals who are too dangerous to be released, but against whom we don’t have enough evidence to convict of a crime. He seems intent on keeping them in custody. So there is certainly some hypocrisy, but it’s hypocrisy that should make you happy because it keeps us safe.
Heather
06/08/09 5:44pmHas anyone questioned the residents of Manistique about whether or not they think that the potential jobs are worth the risks of this proposition? It is easy for people living in the Lower Peninsula to offer up the “wilderness” of the U.P. as a place to hold terrorists, but what about the people who already call it home. It is also crucial to note that most cities in the Upper Peninsula depend on tourism for revenue and I personally would not wish to waste a vacation visiting the “new Gitmo” site. My hometown is about 2 hours away from Manistique, MI and this proposal should be considered by residents of the area, not just politicians sitting comfortably far away in Lansing.
SteroidKickAss
06/10/09 1:43pmThis is why we still need alcatraz.
Mandy Smith
06/10/09 2:04pmIf I lived in Manistique, Mich I wouldn’t be very happy, would you?