Wednesday the committee approved a defense bill for 2011 that includes language to prevent moving detainees into any US facility inside our borders and also blocked any funding to even study the possibility.

The bill does, however, state that the Secretary of Defense must submit to Congress a full report that “adequately justifies” any such proposal in the future which seems to signal that they haven’t shut the door on the possibility of a later opening of a detainee facility inside US borders.

This would appear to be a case of Congress telling the president that he overstepped his position when he announced that he had the power to transfer terrorists to the states.

You might recall that that in December of 2009, Barack Obama’s Justice Department issued a memo authorizing the transfer to Illinois of terror suspects being housed at Guantanamo Bay. In December, Obama tried to invoke his powers as commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces as the authority by which he could commandeer the Thomson Correctional facility in Illinois and place Gitmo terror suspects there for housing. This was a desperate effort not to make the lie to his 2009 executive order setting a Jan. 2010 deadline for shutting down the Guantanamo facility — a deadline he’s missed badly.

But now Congress is slapping his hand and telling him that “memo” or no, he can’t transfer terrorists to facilities inside US borders and even if he thinks he does have that power, Congress won’t pay for it all.

Amusingly, the New York Times tried to spin this as the Republican’s fault. After noting that Obama missed his own self-imposed, one-year deadline to close Gitmo, The Times tries to make readers think that this newest setback it is all because of those mean ol’ Republicans that are blocking Obama’s valiant efforts.

Mr. Obama had declared he would close the prison within a year of taking office. The administration argues that Guantánamo is a symbol used for terrorism recruitment, so closing it would enhance national security.

But many Republicans have maintained that Guantánamo should stay open, arguing that the Thomson plan would waste money and create a national-security risk. Some libertarians also oppose institutionalizing indefinite detentions without trial on domestic soil.

Newsflash, NYT, this approval to block Gitmo, Illinois was unanimous. If you need help with that big word it means all the Democrats on the committee voted to block their own president’s Gitmo plans. And this is not to mention that the Democrats control Congress and could easily have approved of Obama’s plans if they had wanted to.

The more interesting story, NYT, might be to ask why all the Democrats voted to block Obama on this. I guess that is too much like work for the Times, though.

So, no Gitmo, Illinois any time in the near future. Now, I wonder if the extreme left will begin to call Obama a war criminal and torturer for not closing Gitmo like they did Bush for all those years? Do you hear that? It’s crickets. They love the sound of crickets in the morning.

On January 6, 2010, three prisoners escaped from the Tri-County Detention Center in Ullin, IL. Local schools were immediately closed and communities were put on alert, as the federal prisoners were considered “armed and dangerous.” It seems these three prisoners are still free and on the run.

Yet, just two months prior, Illinois liberals in Congress were pushing to move Guantanamo Bay detainees to a prison in Thomson, Illinois. With three inmates escaping from a federal prison in the same state, one would think that it would make the Thomson prison deal radioactive.

If this issue isn’t radioactive now, it should be.

Press reports about the Thomson facility note repeatedly that it is in “rural” Illinois. What they don’t mention is the Thomson prison is just 25 miles away from a nuclear power plant. Worse, the prison is only 50 miles away from one of the largest military arsenals in the United States.

I could think of a few better places to put Al-Qaeda terrorists.

I know that politicians like to jump into things without thinking about it first, especially when federal dollars are involved, but we as citizens should have a few questions answered before they decide to put terrorists within 25 miles of a nuclear plant.

First, Guantanamo Bay is almost impossible to get to. If one were to actually break out of the facility, there is just about nowhere to go. Still, we should know if there have been prison-break attempts. Have allies of the terrorists tried to organize a strike against the facility? Why does it make sense to move terrorists to the middle of America, where there is easy access and open country to flee into?

Second, Kansas and Michigan chose to turn the same deal down. What was their reasoning for their rejection of Gitmo North? What information were they given that made them turn down the claimed 3,000 high-paying jobs? After all, isn’t Michigan’s economy much worse than that of Illinois?

Third, why is Illinois selling the prison to the feds at a fraction of the cost of its worth? Especially during a time when Gov. Quinn is releasing prisoners due to overcrowding. Aren’t we going to have to build another prison to fix the overcrowding problem? How much will that cost?

Furthermore, the politicians have coated this proposal in honey, by promising 3,000 high paid jobs. Providing 3,000 jobs is going to cost a lot of money. The median pay for a federal prison guard is around $30,000 a year. That means that this plan is going to cost taxpayers over $90 million a year to house terrorists on our own soil.

Even more, according to a public memo released from Congressman Don Manzullo’s office, the 3,000 jobs will not be given out to locals or people in the surrounding area. In fact, it is estimated that 1,500 of these jobs will be filled by the U.S. Army. The politicians are also not telling the public about the special requirements needed to be a federal prison guard. Instead they act like these jobs are going to be handed out like candy at the Fourth of July parade.

Last, how will transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to Illinois, make our country safer? Is a name and location change going to make our enemies hate us less? Even if Guantanamo Bay is erased from history, Al-Qaeda terrorists will still be busy recruiting more and more terrorists to attack America.

In a recent statement, Rep. Phil Hare, my opponent in November, smeared me for choosing “fear mongering” over a promised 3,000 jobs. Am I fear mongering? I guess you could call it that. I fear putting a terrorist prison next to a nuclear power plant and a massive military arsenal. I fear surrendering one of our state prisons to the feds could result in more criminals being turned loose because of overcrowding in other facilities. And, I fear for my ten children and wonder what kind of America they will inherit from my generation.

It is sad to note that some politicians are more concerned with making a headline about bringing jobs, rather than our own security.

Bottom line: even if the promised 3,000 jobs actually materialized, it is not worth the thousands of lives we are putting at risk by bringing Al Queda terrorists onto our turf.

Again, Sen. Graham, please stop trying to negotiate away our security in Illinois. In return, when I’m elected to Congress in November, I promise to not try to move terrorists to Charleston.

Ultra-liberal activist Dawn Johnsen, currently a professor at Indiana University School of Law, is President Obama’s nominee to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). As the OLC chief, Johnsen would shape the legal positions of the Obama administration on every issue. OLC is the elite legal team for the federal government, giving legal advice on every important issue to the attorney general, other department heads in the government, and to the president himself. That’s why the head of OLC is called “the attorney general’s lawyer.”

The problem is that Johnsen is a radical. As the former legal director for the extremist abortion-rights group NARAL, Johnsen argued in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that denying a pregnant woman the right to demand unrestricted abortion is to subject her to slavery, which was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment after the Civil War.

She also argues that wiretapping a known terrorist is illegal without first obtaining a warrant, that military detention of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields is illegal, and that being commander-in-chief gives the president no constitutional authority to use wartime measures that would not be allowed against U.S. citizens during peacetime.

And finally, she believes in “economic justice,” which is the euphemistic term of the Radical Left, referring to the concept that government should confiscate and redistribute personal wealth to create a more “just” society. In one word, it’s socialism.

Even worse, Johnsen passionately argues that liberals should, “focus on the courts as the vehicles for desired change.” In other words, her legal advice would not only be advice; she intends to craft legal strategies to cram ultra-left outcomes down America’s throat through judicial activist court decisions.

The normal rule is that the Senate should give tremendous deference to any president when it comes to whom that president wants to assist him in the executive branch. Such appointees serve only at the pleasure of the president, they are there solely to carry out the president’s directions in steering the government, and they go out the door the instant the president does, if not before.

But even tremendous deference is not unlimited deference. The Senate defers, but they do not give a blank check. Otherwise there would be no Senate confirmation process; the Constitution would instead just empower the president to appoint anyone he wants to all executive-branch departments and offices.

And for low-ranking officers, called “inferior officers,” the Constitution does allow for the president to directly appoint without the Senate. But for senior executive officials, called “principal officers,” the Appointments Clause of Article Two of the Constitution requires Senate confirmation as a check on the president’s power.

This is one of those extraordinary circumstances where the Senate should reject a nominee. Comparing being pro-life to supporting slavery is a grossly offensive statement, especially to African-Americans, and her other extremist views are so radical that she is a textbook example of someone who must be denied confirmation.

What’s so important about the head of OLC is that it’s also a stepping-stone to top judicial positions, including the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia was the head of OLC before he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then on to the Supreme Court. Samuel Alito was the deputy chief at OLC, before he went on to be U.S. attorney, then a judge on the Third Circuit, and now serves on the Supreme Court.

But former Chief Justice William Rehnquist is the best example. He was the head of OLC in the early 1970s, and then was nominated directly to the Supreme Court. The assistant attorney general at OLC is prestigious enough that a person can go straight from that position to our highest court.

That may be Obama’s plan for Johnsen. She’s a dream judge for the Radical Left. Although she likely wouldn’t go straight to the High Court, she looks like someone being groomed for our nation’s second-highest court, the D.C. Circuit, from which she would be on the top of the short-list for a Supreme Court vacancy.

And even if she never makes it to the Supreme Court, she could do terrible damage to national security and other issues as a judge on the D.C. Circuit. Several former OLC chiefs serve on our nation’s appellate circuit courts.

To the extent that she can be exposed now, she may become too much of a liability for a lifetime judicial appointment. And if she can be stopped now, then she’ll likely never wear a black robe.

Senator Orrin Hatch, who as a principled statesman is consistently deferential on executive-branch presidential nominations, is one of the senators leading the charge against Johnsen. Hatch, the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, knows all too well how OLC is a springboard to our top federal courts, and this is doubtless driving part of his opposition to Johnsen.

Finally, it’s poetic justice to note that this is also Johnsen reaping what she has sown. Johnsen has called on the Senate to refuse confirmation to any judicial nominee who believes in the slightest restriction to abortion, or even to any person who belongs to the legal debating group called The Federalist Society, a mainstream conservative/libertarian legal studies organization. Having taken such a rabid and militant stand against others being confirmed, she can hardly cry foul that the Senate is now applying an even less-severe standard in opposing her.

Dawn Johnsen is a radical who has no business heading OLC. The Senate should stop her from being confirmed to this vitally-important office.

Thompson memo –

Presumably, the inmates at Guantanamo Bay are there because they are believed to be a threat to national security. How moving them into the United States then is a good idea is beyond our powers of reasoning. While we are well aware of the Corleone advice to keep one’s friend close and enemies closer, we’re pretty certain it wasn’t meant as national security advice.

Check back for further developments. Must credit Big Government.

Favorite son Barack Obama has so muddled his administration policy on terror detainees that we are left with an approach that nearly everyone eight years ago agreed was to be avoided.  That is, incarcerating terrorists on American soil.

An issue like this is always bound to elicit histrionics from both sides of the partisan divide—and no one has disappointed.  This new policy won’t lead to mass escapes of terrorists who will roam the heartland bombing at will.  Jihadist camps won’t spring up along the Mississippi River and Al Qaida is not likely to launch an assault on a rural Illinois prison.  But neither is this a simple economic development project that will create jobs and boom times for rural Illinois.  It is not an inconsequential relocation away from the politically charged Gitmo to a morally superior prison that  will win favorable international opinion.

What this is, however, is a poorly thought out proposal, that panders to the far left, and markedly improves the footing of the radical terrorist network dedicated to destroying America.

At its core, this proposal is a poor security decision.  The simple fact is that the American public is safer with hundreds of known terrorists imprisoned on a foreign island surrounded by five thousand Marines and the Caribbean Sea, than it is with those same prisoners housed within our shores.  No matter how unlikely an escape, insurrection or attack on such a prison may be it can never happen to our injury at Guantanamo Bay.

It is also a certainty that the moment these terrorists set foot on the mainland, their ACLU and other leftist legal shills will be assaulting the courts with litigation intended to win them rights, privileges and, eventually, freedom, based on sacred rights guaranteed to American citizens who are accused of a crime.  Just as placing terrorists on trial in New York will undermine the (apparently abandoned) war on terror, the litigation that will result from domestic incarceration of terror suspects will force the disclosure of intelligence and could win prisoners privileges that further undermine our safety.

It is also laughable that Democrats like Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois seem to morally equate this proposal with building a new General Motors plant in a small Illinois town.  His position ignores the pathetic state of his state’s finances (created by his own party’s criminal mismanagement) that makes renting rooms to mass murderers a sound revenue enhancement strategy.  Durbin is also playing the pliant locals for fools in implying that they will benefit from great new jobs as a result.

If the Department of Defense, which is slated to run this mainland terrorist prison, does anything other than bringing in a crack unit of highly trained troops to run and guard this facility, they will be guilty of dereliction of duty.  The local folks, fine as they are, will not be staffing this prison.  The troops will spend some money in the local economy.  But this won’t be Fort Bragg or Newport News.  They won’t buy houses and cars.  It will be a temporary billet and (something the locals ought to remember) it will eventually go away.

There are sound legal reasons why we don’t want terror suspects brought to our soil.  It provides them with the ability to lay claim to rights they currently cannot.  Those rights may be granted by the right judge (read: Clinton or Obama appointee).  More liberty for terror suspects, even while behind bars, razor wire, electric fences and a moat with sea monsters, is less security for everyone else.  Add to this even the very remote chance of escape or attack and that is enough to recommend against this idea.

In this case, the incompetence of the administration in not developing a cogent and safe policy for bringing these terrorists to justice, coupled with the fiscal morass Democrats have created in Illinois that makes this financially attractive, should steel the resolve of residents of the Land of Lincoln to defend their sovereign state against this unwarranted and unwise encroachment by the federal government.