@Sicarius, how come I'm not surprised that these exist... Really f***in' grim. Evil. There is no excuse for something like this. Thanks for posting and spreading the word.

Bad, but not quite as bad as this:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/03/greyhound-station-gulag.html

It sure sounds bad, but I have a feeling greenisthenewred.com isn't exactly interested in objective journalism. There's lefty spin too, you know.

"greenisthenewred.com isn't exactly interested in objective journalism"

Neither is Sicarious.

Call me a fascist, but I'd say limiting the communications in jail of people found guilty of terrorism, serious criminal gang activity etc was a good idea. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that not doing so is a bloody stupid one.

@orathaic: "Have you even heard of the Irish secret service?"

Surely the most effective secret service would be one the public hadn't heard about? Maybe this means Ireland's secret service is the world's most elite and efficient?

Octavious, you're a fascist. haha just kidding, but really, is this something you really want in your country? (assuming you are from US) I mean look at the crimes those spending time there have committed. Talking about vandalizing HLS animal testers.
talking about vandalism. c'mon really?

I would agree that it is highly concerning and disturbing that people convicted of minor crimes should be sent to these places, but that does not make the places themselves a bad idea. It would be madness if someone sent a child to prison for stealing a chocolate bar, but that does not mean having prisons is wrong. (For the record I'm not a Yank, and would never want to be one. But not everything they do is wrong ;) ).

Based on the greenisthenewred website,

"The extreme restrictions on inmate communications, including not allowing them to hug family members at the few visits they are allowed..."

Wow, they can't hug people? Call the ACLU. This is almost like waterboarding. How dare they?! Are you serious Sicarious? This is what keeps you up at night? A prisoner can't hug their family? That's where your outrage comes from?

I really don't care about restricting communication and not allowing hugs.
I DO CARE about a fucking secret prison setup under Republicans and maintained by Democrats.

Come on guys, Sicarius has ample reason to be worried about this sort of thing! With all the posts he has here, he may very well end up in one of these places eventually. ;)

Steevo, that's precisely why I'm ok with secret prisons.

According to this other article in the same website ( http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/communication-management-units-mcgowan/1747/ ), CMUs are actually less restrictive than "super-max" prisons... so, from a constitutional standpoint of cruel and unusual punishment, then, it appears that if we have no problem with super-max prisons then the restrictions at a CMU should not be an issue. (though restrictions at super-max prisons *are* being fought in the courts as being inhumane - it is by no means a settled issue)

But, as Hibiskiss points out: it's secret (or at least largely so) - what's up with that?!? Aren't secret prisons something the soviets did? Why are we doing it?

It's the end of an empire, and every empire displays extreme brutality at its end. We no longer envy US for its culture, freedom or democracy, all that is left is brute force.

Apparently they're not a very good secret...

@Dingleberryjones. Well named. Do you believe that the prison system is there to rehabilitate or just to punish. You spoke about the prisoners not deserving the right but what about their families? Does a prisoners child deserve not to be able to hold their father or mother? Does a father or mother not deserve to hold their child because it's imprisoned? Why? Not everyone who's been sent to a prison is a monster.

C-K," Do you believe that the prison system is there to rehabilitate or just to punish."

I'm not sure what that has to do with this conversations. As for the kids, yes, its a shame they can't see their parents. But no, I don't believe its a right to see your family (for example, a court can put a restraining order on someone forbidding them to see their family - hence not a right). I agree not everyone who is in prison is a monster. We are talking about 1 prison here - are you suggesting the prison population there is representative of the prison population as a whole? Are you fighting for all prisoner's rights now?

Sicarius is back! Hooray! I'm actually glad though. Missed ya buddy, what have you been up to recently?

Also, this is probably more disturbing due to the secrecy of the prisons. Apparently it was brought up earlier and was shot down by civil rights groups, only to have been opened up anyways, but in secret. Serious business.

C-K, I agree with you that rehabilitation would be the ideal solution, though that is not always possible, nor is it cheap (as if prisons weren't already expensive enough). It's not just a dichotomy between rehabilitation and punishment though. Punishing criminals doesn't improve the world in any proximate sense (two wrongs don't make a right, yes?), but the real idea is that you're hoping to deter future criminals. A law is of no use if it cannot be enforced and threats are meaningless if one cannot be reliably be expected to follow through with them.

Chrispi, I can't say I'm as excited as you that Sicaruis is back. I was hoping he was gone for good. Let me predict the future for you. He will find a news story about 1 police officer (out of the hundreds of thousands who hold that profession) who is accused (doesn't matter if convicted) of brutality, he will post that here, and use it as an indictment of every police officer who has ever lived, 'all cops are evil'. Same goes for any soldier accused, indict EVERY soldier because of it. His antics get boring and quite predictable after a while.

Sure it really sucks that these places (yes plural) restrict prisoners so much, I have alot of sympathy with prisoners, like johnny cash. But why I think this is a big deal, is because the american government has secret prisons for political dissidents.
that doesnt strike you as alarming in the least?

I think we have different definitions of 'political dissident'. To me, a dissident is someone who protests, someone who speaks out against the government. The guy highlighted in the article was a terrorist, using violence and intimidation to cow people into changing their ways. He used 'terror' to try to get people to conform to HIS view of how the world should work. I hardly count that as a 'political dissident'. It is terrorism. Full stop.

ok let me re-word that then.
I think this is a big deal, because the american government has secret prisons.
that doesnt strike you as alarming in the least?

The government, is set up to manage certain aspects of our lives that we dont want to deal with, so we give that power to the government. I dont want to help my neighbors fix our road, so lets let the government do it. I dont want to confront the heroin dealer down the street, he seems dangerous, let the government do it. I dont want to deal with all these people who "I" have deemed criminals, let the government do it. But the bottom-line is, the government is supposed to working for us (in a statists perfect world) their power is derived (in theory) from a mandate of the masses, an agreement of all those governed to be governed by those in power (government). So the government works for us. ideally. So it's a little disturbing when the people who work for us, keep secrets from us. They keep secrets about our money, thats worrying, they keep secrets about our military, thats worrying, but it's really fucking worrying when they decide that they dont like some peoples ideas and send them to cages underground without telling anyone.
Is the world ending because some guy who wanted to break out huntington life science's windows cant hug his mommy? no. But secret prisons are a very large step in a very bad direction.
People always muse about nazi germany, or other fascist states, how does this happen? This is how it happens.

@chrisp same shit, mostly. just dont feel the need to be on the computer as much.

As I've said before, people have been using the 'slippery slope' theory for centuries now. I don't just don't see it.

I absolutely think the government should keep secrets from the general population. If every thing the government discusses behind closed doors was available for all, it would be a terrific boon to our enemies. "Mr President, I think we should threaten China with sanctions if they don't devalue their currency, but if they refuse, there isn't much we can do." I don't want that released on the internet. "Mr President, if China invades Taiwan, we really can't stop them." I don't want that released on the internet.

Suggesting otherwise is akin to treason. You just can't have a totally transparent government.
Imagine a DA. "Ok, lets go talk to the prisoner. We think he did the crime, but we don't have a lot of evidence. Lets tell himhis partner is also being questioned and is singing like a canary." So you would rather have "Lets go tell the prisoner 'we think you did it, but we have absolutely no way to prove. will you please tell us anyway?' "

Sorry Sicarius, you live in a fairy tale. They didn't send people there because they didn't like their ideas. They sent them there because they were terrorists that were blowing things up - which I believe they freely admit.

Maybe I didn't read the article right, but these are prisons for people who have been convicted of crimes. How can this be secret if they're in the system like that? It's not like the ones in Europe where we just grabbed the terrorists from the field and held them. These people had trials.

I share Sicarus's concerns about these prisons. The fact that they were being kept a secret is very worrying.

I agree with Dingleberry that there are, unfortunately, some things which a government has to keep secret. However I don't see why, in this case, the secrecy would be justified. Dingle, can you suggest a reasonable case for keeping the very existence of such facilities a secret?

I'm not saying that certain details relating to the security arrangements at the prison or whatever should not be classified, just that it seems unreasonable to keep the fact of their existence a secret.

Also, according to the article (assuming it is accurate), the people in these prisons are transferred into them without prior notice, and are not told why they are being transferred there. I think this is worrying, because I think even if someone is guilty of a crime and therefore is in prison for a legitimate reason, they ought to have the right to an explanation when they are moved from one prison to another, or other major changes to the way they are being held take place.

How 'secretive' is it? The wife in the article states she can visit her husband, she just can't touch him.

"They didn't send people there because they didn't like their ideas. They sent them there because they were terrorists that were blowing things up - which I believe they freely admit."

@ dingleberryJones Andrew Stepanian is an animal rights activist who was convicted of smashing the windows of a fur store on Long Island, New York. Not setting off dirty bombs in the subway. There is a marked difference between petty vandalism and conspiring to blow up the capitol building or something similar.

First, I wouldn't describe it as 'petty vandalism'. Petty vandalism is spray painting your name on a build. However, spray painting 'Jews must die' on a synagogue is no longer petty vandalism, but is considered a hate crime. This wasn't petty vandalism. This was an attempt to intimidate, to terrorize, people engaged in a legal business.

Second, you want to quote websites? So can I. He was encouraging people to violate the law, violate others civil rights and encouraging terrorism. Hmmm, I can't say I'm sad he can't hug his wife.

"while he was awaiting sentencing Stepanian distributed a letter over the Internet calling on animal rights activists to engage in acts of violence and property destruction in solidarity with him....Andrew Stepanian was convicted on a charge of conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act while a member of the SHAC-7. They operated a website that advanced terrorism and helped to spread it via communiques. In the process, families were targeted and threats were made."