by Gongwer News Service
August 14, 2009

A strange, perhaps grim, poetic symmetry hangs with the words jobs and terror. Those without jobs would likely say they face terror every day, trying to handle the average cost of living. There are those — police officers, military, prison guards — who could say their jobs entail controlling terror. Then terrorists could say their jobs … well.

But when it comes to the state’s maximum-security prison at Standish, which faces closure, and the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, “Gitmo,” which President Barack Obama has said will close next year, jobs and terror have slightly different contexts.

Here in Michigan, debate over whether to jail POWs in the war on terror at Standish has taken on a new political overtone.

For folks in Standish and Arenac County, the issue mostly boils down to jobs. Standish’s prison is closing to save the state money, which means workers there will lose jobs. But if we bring in prisoners from other states, such as California and Pennsylvania, then the jobs in Standish will remain active.

And if we bring in the detainees from Gitmo, we’ll see other jobs. Maybe state workers won’t be the ones guarding suspected terrorists, but the federalis must eat and buy fresh socks, and if they are in Standish they will patronize Standish restaurants and sock emporiums. Standish wins either way by this argument, whether it jails Charlie Manson or Abdul Rathman Uthman Ahmed (well, it wouldn’t house Mr. Manson, since California is considering sending medium security prisoners and Mr. Manson is clearly not a medium risk).

Not according to a lot of politicians, however. Bring in the Crips and the Bloods, they say, but Al Qaeda is another kettle of dangerous fish altogether. These are the folks who targeted the U.S. on September 11, 2001. These are the folks who would make Standish and all of Michigan a new target for terrorist activities if they are jailed here.

That is the essence of the argument that surfaced last month when U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Detroit) suggested Michigan might house the detainees. The issue reached a new level of discussion this week when a House subcommittee heard testimony on the issue and federal authorities toured Standish to see if it could house the detainees. In response to the federal visit, U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Holland) — who is running for governor and was one of the first to blast the idea of jailing Gitmo goons here — called for local officials and reporters to be granted access to the Cuban prison so they can see for themselves the special security requirements held there.

Opposition to moving detainees to the U.S. has flourished ever since the president announced his intent to close Guantanamo. But with a specific locale in mind, that opposition has taken a more specific focus — and local focus, as well. Now that Standish has been named as a specific possible location, how come all those politicians worried about bringing detainees onto U.S. shores when they could have gone to Kansas or Texas or California have suddenly clammed up?

Michigan is no stranger to jailing dangerous people. The state had a number of prisoner of war camps during World War II that held Nazis. Washtenaw serial murderer John Norman Collins certainly is no one any sane person would want to live next door to. The Purple Gang members weren’t renowned for their use of Crayola crayons.

But are suspected terrorists a category of dangerous that goes beyond what the state can handle? Would housing them here really make the state more of a target when terrorists have identified the U.S. as their ultimate target anyway?

For lawmakers and a number of Standish residents, the security issue is defined by job security. Used to dangerous people, they are relatively unfazed at the prospect of new prisoners. They worry more about paying for their houses and less about whether the person behind bars is from Sacramento or Saudi Arabia. There is also a note of pride in their argument, a sniffing bit of insult at the suggestion that they cannot protect themselves, their state and their country.

Because nothing can happen without looking at its political implications, the question has to be asked: does Mr. Hoekstra gain a step on his GOP gubernatorial opponents by vehemently opposing Gitmo detainees in the state? Could Gitmo become a big issue in the 2010 gubernatorial race when all expect the main issue to be the economy?

The hearing this week overall did not do much to answer that question. But the election season has not rendered a verdict, and every political issue is a lifer coming up for review.

For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.