Guantanamo prisoner transfer to Illinois is a smooth political move
When I first saw this morning that the Obama administration was contemplating purchasing a prison in Thomson, Illinois to house prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, I thought, this is curious. When Illinois is set to have a pitched Senate race between Republican Mark Kirk and and an as of yet crowned Democratic contender to permanently fill the seat Obama gave up upon being elected President, why would he want to make Guantanamo an issue in the state’s election?
Turns out it doesn’t quite work that way. Rep. Kirk has actually come out in favor of transferring Gitmo prisoners to America. Check out what conservative blogger Bill Leubscher at Illinois Review had to say about it:
Last week, we got another slap at reality when Kirk apparently forgot he “supports” the Republican position on keeping Guantanamo Bay open. The U.S. House voted this week on H.R. 2892, transferring prisoners out of Gitmo. A large majority of House Republicans opposed it, but a faction of them did not. In the Illinois delegation, for example, Peter Roskam strongly opposed the legislation. However, Mark Kirk voted with Democrats Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson, Dan Lipinski, Mike Quigley, Danny Davis, Melissa Bean, Jan Schakowsky, Debbie Halvorson, and Phil Hare (as well as nationally known Democrats like Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, and Charlie Rangel) to allow the Obama administration to move foreign terrorist suspects from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States mainland. Like the earlier cap and trade vote, two Illinois Democrats actually voted to Kirk’s right — Jerry Costello and Luis Gutierrez opposed the legislation. Reuters reported that the passage of this bill makes it easier for the Obama administration to deliver on its promise to empty the prison by January 2010.
via Illinois Review: Kirk backs Democrats in Guantanamo prisoner transfer.
By picking Illinois to house Gitmo prisoners, Obama is assuring that it can’t be used in a particular 2010 Senate race. It will be difficult for Kirk to say he favored transferring prisoners out of Gitmo, but not to Illinois where the facility will, if nothing else, create jobs.
More than that, Kirk’s vote in favor of the issue could possibly be used to remind Illinois Republicans of some of their concerns with Kirk’s conservative credentials. That could depress turnout among likely Republican voters.
Possibly something of a political master stroke in that it gives no offense, but could actually help Democrats get ahead in the polls.
Update (11/17): Yes, I understand that apparently Rep. Kirk voted to strike the Gitmo-related language from the bill. Like most motions to recommit, that one failed. Kirk then turned around and voted for the bill in spite of failing to get what he apparently believed was an important provision removed. That means he voted for the bill in its entirety.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Doesn’t the transfer to US soil mean that the prisoners will have a better chance at justice, habeas corpus and all that stuff that Bush/Cheney neatly skirted?
I believe that the supreme court has already ruled that habeas corpus must be applied under current law. The move may be politically clever but it was Kirk who provided the opening however this is by far a pragmatic solution. The only question I have is this unused prison a max facility?
The more chaos Obama creates the more he empowers himself..is there anything this guy does that isn’t political?
[...] a political non-issue for the 2010 campaign because he’ll need to explain to voters how why he voted for it before he voted against it. It’s the same arguments that Republicans have used about voting to begin and end debate on [...]