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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT