ILNews

Lawmakers: No Gitmo detainees to Indiana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Northern Indiana lawmaker doesn't want any Guantanamo Bay Naval Base detainees to be sent to a high-security prison in Terre Haute once the Guantanamo camp is closed within a year.

Sen. Marlin Stutzman, R-Howe, on Monday introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 25, which urges President Barack Obama and his administration to recognize Indiana's position against accepting any detainees from the prison camp in Cuba, which currently houses about 245 prisoners. The president has vowed to close it.

The resolution notes that about 100 detainees are considered too dangerous to be released from U.S. custody; about 80 could face criminal charges in federal courts; and about 60 have been cleared for release but can't be sent to their own countries because they'd be harmed.

"For the safety of Indiana residents and to avoid making Indiana a target for future terrorist attacks, the Indiana General Assembly respectfully requests that those currently detained at Guantanamo Bay not be relocated to the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute ... or any future facility within the State," the resolution states.

At issue is the Federal Correctional Complex, a maximum-security prison located about 2 miles southwest of Terre Haute and the home for high-security prisoners facing federal death sentences.

The resolution has been referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Transportation & Veterans Affairs. Also signing on to the legislation are: Sens. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo; Greg Walker, R-Columbus; Carlin Yoder, R-Middlebury; Reps. Milo Smith, R-Columbus; Jeff Thompson, R-Lizton; Bill Davis, R-Portland; Cindy Noe, R-Indianapolis; Jackie Walorski, R-Jimtown; Rich McClain, R-Logansport; Matt Lehman, R-Berne; David Yarde, R-Garrett; and Wes Culver, R-Goshen.

Read more in the Feb. 4, 2009, issue of Indiana Lawyer about the orders to close Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and how several Indiana attorneys representing detainees feel about the current events and policy changes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT