“Our primary concern has always been ensuring the safety and security of Iowa’s families,” Braley said Wednesday during a conference call with reporters. “That’s why, rather than just demagoguing on the issue, I traveled to Thomson on two separate occasions.”

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley

After it was announced that the Illinois facility, just across the Mississippi River from Clinton, was being considered as a possible U.S. holding site for Guantanamo detainees, Braley met with officials from the White House, Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. He also attended a town hall type meeting with the residents of Thomson and has spoke with elected officials from the portions of Iowa geographically closest to the proposed site.

“During all of those conversations, the people I spoke to, repeatedly assured me and the residents in the area that were committed to enhancing this maximum-security prison that already exists — a state-of-the-art facility — and making sure that it would be the most secure facility in America,” he said.

“If you look at the numbers, it is undeniable that it will have a tremendous economic impact on the communities surrounding the prison, many of which have high levels of unemployment, and would bring as much as a billion dollars to the area and create 3,000 jobs. That’s why I’m committed to continuing to work very closely with the White House, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and other appropriate agencies to make sure that my constituents’ interests and concerns about their security are strongly considered as the plan progresses.”

The facility, which has remained mostly vacant since it was opened in 2001 due to Illinois budget issues, is expected to house fewer than 100 terror detainees along with more than 1,000 other extremely dangerous federal prisoners. According to information provided by the White House, federal authorities would purchase the existing facility from Illinois, and several significant upgrades would be made prior to use. Specifically, a courtroom would be constructed on site as well as possible medical facilities. Braley said he is not yet aware of any appropriations figures before Congress in connection with the Thomson site.

While federal authorities can move forward with purchasing the facility, it cannot move detainees to the site unless a law passed earlier this year that prohibits transfer of those individuals to prisons on U.S. soil is either modified or rescinded. Authorities will also need to determine how they will deal with certain detainees deemed too dangerous for release, but lacking sufficient evidence for prosecution in either federal court or in military commissions.

“We have the capacity to make sure that we protect the citizens around these federal facilities, and that is why I believe the transfer of detainees to Thomson is a sound policy and good for the people I represent,” Braley said.

On a conference call just now, senior administration officials provided some details about their plan for detaining Guantanamo detainees at Illinois’ Thomson Correction Center, just across the Mississippi River from Iowa. The facility will be for a “limited number” of detainees, a senior administration official told reporters, for those “who would face trial [in] military commissions.” A different official clarified that “I think the plan would be to hold the military commissions at Thomson.”

But Thomson will not be a way station for out-processing Guantanamo Bay detainees back to their home countries. Nor will it house detainees who will face prosecutions in federal court — those detainees will be transferred the jurisdictions trying them.

Finally, a senior administration official said that while “notionally” it could house detainees for indefinite or preventive detention — the so-called “Fifth Category” of detainees who the administration contends cannot be tried in any forum nor responsibly released — the administration has not yet identified any detainees who fall into that category. Accordingly, neither official told reporters how many detainees at Guantanamo it had identified for transfer to Thomson, saying the process of review remains ongoing.

The Thomson Correctional Center, maximum-security prison built in 2001, is “virtually empty,” the first official said, but inside the prison, non-terrorism detainees will be held in segregation from the former Guantanamo inmates. While the facility is up to the security standards of the Florence, Colo. Supermax prison — with “dual-sided electric stun fencing,” outer and inner towers with armed guards, networked cameras and more –  the U.S. Defense Department will add “extra perimeter security” to make it “the most secure facility in the nation.” Ex-Guantanamo detainees will be allowed to communicate with their lawyers, the International Committee of the Red Cross and law enforcement officials — that is, no friends, and no family.

Finally, the officials couldn’t give a time frame for when the transfers ought to occur — and, accordingly, when Guantanamo will be closed. That will require “some change in law, and some funding, obviously, from Congress.” The officials said they were working with Congress — and particularly the Illinois delegation — to secure that additional money and legal authority, though they did not specify precisely which legal changes were necessary and sufficient for the transfer.

Spencer Ackerman is national security correspondent for The Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site.
]]> http://iowaindependent.com/23757/thomson-will-be-for-%e2%80%98limited%e2%80%99-number-of-detainees-awaiting-military-commissions/feed 0 http://iowaindependent.com/19925/fifty-two-percent-of-iowans-want-grassley-to-compromise-on-health-care http://iowaindependent.com/19925/fifty-two-percent-of-iowans-want-grassley-to-compromise-on-health-care#comments Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:21:52 +0000 Jason Hancock http://iowaindependent.com/?p=19925 U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley should compromise with Democrats on a plan to reform the nation’s health care system, according the latest Iowa Poll conducted by The Des Moines Register.

The poll found that  52 percent of Iowans want Grassley to compromise with Democrats while 39 percent would rather he drop out of negotiations.

From The Register:

Iowans’ politics affect their opinions on Grassley’s role, the poll shows:

• Among Grassley’s fellow Republicans, only 35 percent want him to compromise with Democrats on health reform; 54 percent would rather see him drop out of the negotiations; and 11 percent are unsure.

• Among Democratic Iowans, 70 percent would rather see him compromise; 22 percent would rather see him drop out; and 8 percent are unsure.

• Among political independents, 49 percent would rather see him compromise; 43 percent would rather see him drop out; and 7 percent are unsure.

Those numbers could prove significant. Almost no political observer believes Grassley’s 2010 re-election is in doubt, despite taking heat for several controversial comments surrounding health care reform. There are currently two Democrats vying to take on Grassley, with a rumored third candidate waiting in the wings. However, social conservatives have repeatedly threatened Iowa’s senior senator with a 2010 primary, with much of their consternation involving Grassley being involved in health care negotiations.

With only 39 percent of his fellow Republicans supporting continued involvement in the health care debate, the calls for a primary challenge to Grassley could grow louder if he does eventually vote for some form of health care legislation.

The poll included 803 Iowa adults and was conducted by Selzer & Co. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

The Register promises to release more information from the poll on Sunday, including Grassley’s approval numbers and where Gov. Chet Culver stands compared to the Republicans hoping to unseat him next year.

The ad, which according to Talking Points Memo will run 200 times in four Iowa markets and 100 times in Washington, D.C., over the next week, features Kevin Shilling, an Adair County farmer and retired army veteran, on his farm near Greenfield.

Grassley has repeatedly stated he opposes a government option of any kind in health care reform. He is one of six members of the Senate Finance Committee currently working on a bipartisan reform bill. However,  there have been calls in recent weeks for Democrats to move forward with health care reform legislation with or without Republican lawmakers. Most recently, U. S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, a Blue Dog Democrat from Des Moines, said if Republicans won’t engage in bipartisanship then Democrats have no choice but to pass a bill without them.

Here is the ad running in Iowa:

State Rep. Chris Rants, R-Sioux City, called the health care proposal of Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats a “cure that’s worse than the cold.”

Bob Vander Plaats, right, and Chris Rants

“Obama’s plan spells trouble for Iowa, but the Vander Plaats plan spells bankruptcy,” Rant said in a statement.

Vander Plaats told Radio Iowa’s O.Kay Henderson that he believes Iowa should run Medicare and Medicaid, not the federal government.

“If you left the Medicaid and Medicare dollars that you’re taking from our citizens within the state of Iowa and let the State of Iowa design its health care delivery system, I think we’d be way better off than what the federal government has currently,” Vander Plaats said.

Rants said the idea simply won’t work.

“This idea may sound good in a stump speech, but it doesn’t work in practice,” Rants said. “First, it would bust the state’s budget. It would cost $2 Billion for Medicaid and $3.3 Billion for Medicare. Iowans can’t afford it, not now, not ever.”

It would also raise Iowa’s tax rate higher than neighboring states, Rants said.

“Bob touts his leadership on health care,” he said. “He should know better than this.”

Vander Plaats dismissed Rants’ attack as “more of the same from a career politician.” He said his discussion of Medicare and Medicaid was a discussion of “core principles, not a plan.”

“I’m making the point that they want socialized medicine and I’m saying, ‘What happens if you move the pendulum the other way? What if you take the federal government out of it and leave the money here?’” Vander Plaats said.

Vander Plaats said his approach to health care is to “put the focus on the person not on government.” He favors a greater emphasis on preventive care, more insurance coverage pooling, liability reform, allowing Iowans to put more dollars into medical savings accounts and health savings accounts and other innovations.

This is not the first time these two GOP adversaries have faced off. In June, Vander Plaats criticized Rants’ stance on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Vander Plaats believes the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage can be stopped with an executive order. Rants believes it can only be overturned with an amendment to the state’s constitution.

“With all due respect to Rep. Rants, I believe that’s the kind of leadership that’s brought us from being the majority in the state to being the minority in the state,” Vander Plaats said at the time, referencing Rants’ time as state House Minority Leader. “When you give complete power over to the Supreme Court, you’ll have tyranny not liberty.”

U.S. Rep. Steve King

Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, has been identified as one of four members of Congress who are improperly receiving a homestead tax deduction, according to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

The exemption allows people who own homes in Washington, D.C., to receive a $67,500 reduction on the assessed value of their home. The deduction also caps increases on the assessed value of homes at 10 percent above the previous year’s tax assessment. It is not supposed to be available to those who claim residency in another state even if they have a home in the District.

King, who bought a one-bedroom condominium in D.C. in 2005 for $325,000, told Roll Call he believes “the D.C. tax department made a mistake.” A King spokesman declined further comment to Roll Call.

In 2005, an investigation found that 22 senators were receiving the tax break. District officials blamed a computer glitch and have since audited the program to purge those unqualified to receive the tax break and collect back taxes owed.

At the time, several observers questioned how lawmakers could not know they were receiving the exemption since it is noted on the property tax bills homeowners receive twice a year, including a calculation of any savings.

Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union — a longtime King ally — told Roll Call that accepting the deduction amounts to “tax avoidance.”

“More than the law here is the appearance,” Sepp added. “Constituents already tend to feel that lawmakers spend too much time in Washington and not enough time at home, so how is this going to help improve that image?”

One group upset with King is supporters of allowing the nation’s capitol voting rights in the U.S. House. Earlier this month, the Iowa Republican helped stall a bill granting those rights by attaching an amendment gutting the city’s gun laws. District-based blog DCist chided King for his misstep.

King comes out looking worst of the bunch — not only is he seemingly cheating on his taxes, but he also helped stall the recent D.C. voting rights bill. Tsk tsk.

Others named in the Roll Call story were Rep. Tom Petri, R-Wis.; Rep. Phil Gingrey R-Ga.; and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.

Update: Washington, D.C., officials confirmed King’s story.

In July, the Iowa Independent reported on the Obama campaign’s move to effectively replace the Iowa Democratic Party’s coordinated campaign with a campaign funded by Obama and focused on electing him rather than the entire Democratic ticket.

In other recent campaign cycles, the state party’s coordinated campaign was the method by which Democrats pooled their resources to avoid certain campaign redundancies. Candidates could buy into the campaign, and the state party would provide them with resources they otherwise couldn’t afford.

When Iowa Independent’s story about the largely disbanded coordinated campaign broke, many worried that an intensified focus on the Obama campaign would hurt down-ticket races, particularly state legislative races in areas where Obama was not focusing his efforts.

According to Bleeding Heartland:

… staffers and volunteers in the unprecedented number of Obama field offices didn’t even collect voter IDs for our state House and Senate candidates. Our legislative candidates weren’t usually mentioned in scripts for canvassers and rarely had their fliers included in lit drops.

In the end, Obama carried this state by 9 points, but we lost several excrutiatingly close races:

Incumbent Art Staed lost House district 37 by 13 votes.

Incumbent Mark Davitt lost House district 74 by 163 votes.

Our incumbents almost lost House districts 1 and 8, which the Republicans weren’t even seriously targeting.

Jerry Sullivan lost House district 59 by 93 votes.

Kurt Hubler lost House district 99 by 370 votes

In an interview with the Iowa Independent after the general election, the Obama campaign’s state director Jackie Norris (who is now Michelle Obama’s chief of staff) said more should have been done to educated voters about down ballot races. That would have made Obama’s coattails longer in the Hawkeye state.

The prevailing wage debacle has given Democratic leadership a black eye and has emboldened the state’s GOP. It has raised rifts within the party and hurt the chances of other labor-backed bills later in the session. Democrats were confident they had the 51 votes necessary to pass the bill, but the coalition imploded when an amendment to the measure proposed by Rep. McKinley Bailey failed to win passage. In response, Bailey, a Democrat from Webster City, voted “no” and the weekend-long stalemate began.

Monday afternoon, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy changed his vote to a “no,” a move that will allow him to bring the bill up for reconsideration later this session. Thus the bill failed on a vote of 49-49.

The new background checks are an expansion of those currently utilized which only use state data.

The decision comes after an Ames resident filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the city, asking for the addresses of past and present Section 8 housing program participants, with the intent to correlate that information with neighborhood crime statistics.

The city and a group of Section 8 housing participants filed for a temporary injunction barring the release, citing a fear that it could jeopardize residents safety. A judge issued the injunction.

“If you take the crime data, and if you map it as a layer over the Section 8 housing data, then you can see if there’s any correlation whatsoever between crime and Section 8 housing,” [said Joe Monahan, who filed the the request]. “Now, if there is correlation, then the city should be aware of it, and they should address it. If there’s not a correlation, then the people who are constantly blamed for every crime that’s committed in town need to be vindicated.”

The Iowa Independent reported in July on Ames’ ongoing work to create a more inclusive community after a surge in criminal activity with some ties to the city’s Section 8 housing program. The city soon became one of several Iowa cities to institute the Iowa Crime Free Multi-Housing Program, a partnership between police officers and rental property managers to help keep a lid on illegal activities.

Rumors and innuendo were stirred again early this month when two homicides were committed in an Ames apartment complex. The local paper, The Tribune, worked quickly to dispell any rumors.

The reader response to the double homicide reported in The Tribune has already soared to predictable conclusions. Why is Ames becoming so violent? Who are these people? Is 1103 Pinon Drive subsidized housing?

Part of us recoils at what we see as thinly veiled racism implied by these questions. But we’re journalists, too, and a question is a question. For the record, the two people killed this weekend in Ames, Shakena Varnell and Michael Odikro, were not participants in the Section 8 Housing and Urban Development subsidy program.

Should it matter?

“He knows production agriculture, and he knows the changes we need to ensure its profitability and future, including for young and beginning farmers and ranchers,” Sen. Tom Harkin said in a statement.

Iowa’s Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said in a statement that he was pleasantly surprised by the Vilsack pick.

“This comes as a surprise since about three weeks ago Gov. Vilsack stated that he was not in contention for the job, but it sure isn’t a surprise because of his qualifications. As Governor of Iowa he had a firsthand look at the role of agriculture in our global economy,” Grassley said. “I’m happy for him, happy for Iowa and this is welcome news for agriculture.”

Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union, told the Washington Post that Vilsack was a “great choice” who “has an understanding of the challenges and opportunities that exist in rural America.”

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, told the New York Times that Vilsack’s understanding of the biofuels industry would serve him well in his new position.

“The big issue for him and any incoming secretary is going to be biofuels, that’s the sector that right now is in such a volatile position,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group that is a leading critic of federal farm subsidies. American farmers, Mr. Cook said, are “hitched to both the food system and the energy system, both of which are oscillating.”

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, a Republican, said Vilsack’s pick would be good for Iowa.

“It’s nice to have an Iowan in this job,” Northey said. “He understands what’s going on in agriculture. He’s a quick study, and I think Iowans will have good access in the USDA.”

Of course, not everyone will be pleased with Obama’s pick. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), a Minnesota-based non-profit organization advocating for organic and sustainable agriculture, pointed to Vilsack’s support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, his ties to The Monsanto Co. and his support of corn and soy based biofuels as reasons why he isn’t qualified for the position.

Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocates across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack’s history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid.

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to formally announce the Vilsack pick at 10:45 a.m. today in Chicago.

Members of the 1133rd and 1168th Transportation Companies will report immediately to their mobilization station at Fort Riley, Kan. for additional training and preparation before departing for the Afghanistan theater of operations. In Afghanistan, these soldiers will operate as a Regional Corps Advisory Group Embedded Training Team (“ETT”) to provide mentorship and advanced training to the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police.

The units are medium truck companies which transport equipment and supplies in a theater of operations and both served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.

Community send-off ceremonies have been planned for Thursday, Oct. 30 in five different communities:

Aububon– Detachment 2, 1168th Transportation Company (approximately 65 Soldiers) -sendoff at 4 p.m., Audubon High School gymnasium, 800 3rd Ave., Audubon.

Iowa City – Detachment 1, 1133rd Transportation Company (approximately 25 Soldiers) -sendoff at 4:30 p.m., Regina High School gymnasium, 2150 Rochester Ave., Iowa City.

Mason City – 1133rd Transportation Company (approximately 115 Soldiers) – sendoff at 6 p.m., Mason City High School gymnasium, 1700 4th St. SE, Mason City.

Perry – 1168th Transportation Company (approximately 65 Soldiers) – sendoff at 7:30 p.m., Perry High School gymnasium, 1200 18th St., Perry.

Marshalltown – Detachment 1, 1168th Transportation Company (approximately 40 Soldiers) – sendoff at 7:30 p.m., Marshalltown Community College gymnasium, 3700 S. Center St., Marshalltown.