Virginia Virtucon reports on efforts in Stafford to oppose terrorists being transferred from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Quantico Marine Base. Apparently, the brig is technically located in Stafford; however since the base spans both counties, Prince William County residents and Supervisors should keep a close eye on developments.
Stafford Co. Supervisor Makes The Case Against Bringing Terrorists To Quanitco
Posted on May 7, 2009 by Riley
Stafford Co. Garrisonville Dist. Supervisor Mark Dudenhefer has a great op-ed in today’s Free Lance-Star laying out the various reasons why the terrorists being detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should not be brought to the brig at Quantico. (For the record, the Quantico brig is located in Stafford Co., but the base itself spans both Stafford and Pr. William counties making it a concern for residents of both.)
This is terrible that people want to keep these individuals out of our community. After we have decimated their homelands and unjustly imprisoned them in Cuba for years without trial or due process, we owe it to these people to ensure that they are given their day in court and afforded their constitutional rights. We would be hypocrits to oppose their right to be here while welcoming others to this land.
CLOSE GITMO NOW!!! BRING THEM HERE NOW SO THEY MAY RECEIVE FAIR TRIALS!!!
@Elizabeth Benjamin
Your kidding………right?
Speechless here. I was going to say that I thought the story was right wing paranoia.
Eliz. Lets let them camp out down near your yard. Guess I am a hypocrit. They were engaged in battle against our military. That is enough for me.
Also heard on the radio (on WTOP) on cab ride home from airport – that some place in McLean is also being considered to house terrorists.
No, this is not a good thing. Why anyone would want them in the USA is beyond me. MH took the words right out of my mouth!
That’s right, they were enemy combattants, whether or not you believe the war was proper or not. I wager that if those very same people you want to bring here and have a fair trial – they would have probably chopped off the heads of US soldiers, or tortured them far above and beyond waterboarding, or used them for propaganda and put them on TV and made them say things they wouldn’t want to say, etc. etc. A fair trial is one thing, but let it be OUTSIDE the USA. I don’t care how secure Quantico is, or this place in McLean is (not the CIA, I don’t know what this facility is they are talking about), I don’t want them on US soil. If that makes me a bad person for saying it, so be it.
And I assure you, those people would not “welcome us to their land”, you can bet on that one! The immigration controversy is one thing, this is far outside of that and has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I have spoken to one soldier stationed in Iraq 3 years ago, who is an employee for my company now. He has a far different view of the war and says the press distorted a lot of things (what a shock). He says most other soldiers he knows feel the same way – I can’t vouch for that as it is 2nd hand info. But I don’t doubt him when he said the press distorted things, and also in his unit actually once got in the way of them believe it or not. He also saw one of his good buddies killed, so he speaks from experience and I believe him. Even though one of his buddies got killed and apparently he was there when his buddy died, he still has a far different opinion of the war than the press paints.
Take the above for what you will, but I especially get tired of this half-baked plan to close Gitmo. Did you know Bush administration wanted to close Gitmo but could not find anyone to help take these people in? Obama went ahead and made a promise to do so without any planning. Now that is not a way to do business. First come up with a plan as to where all these people are going to go, THEN close Gitmo. He is doing it the other way around, not a good thing, and people are beginning to notice that.
I forgot to say, that is correct, Quantico is mostly in PWC but a piece of it is in Stafford. I’ve been to Quantico a few times because of work so I know the place fairly well, or at least I know my way around the base. It is a BIG base, probably most people don’t realize how large it is, unless you look at the thing from a map. It houses the FBI training center too, in addition to the Marines. Let’s not turn it into a detention center for Gitmo detainees. Not fair to the families of Marines who live ON the base, which many do.
It would be cool to be able to say you lived with the terrorists next door.
The article is a silly ‘pee your pants’ article. As if the prisoners had some kind of voodoo to affect the surrounding area. They’ll be on a marine base for pete’s sake. If the marines can’t be trusted to keep these guys locked up, the marines should be disbanded.
Everyone calm down.
Quantico IS huge, Gainesville. I agree. I also do not think it should be the place for terrorists. I have no problem with them staying right where they are.
I am not sure I understand the distinction between POW and what they are. I know we had POWs on American soil during WWII. I know that the gitmo guys are there because they will have to be treated differently if they are here rather than there.
I think POW’s are treated in accord with the Geneva conventions. Now, how someone is designated a POW instead of something else, I do not know. It is true that the folks at Gitmo are not considered POWs as far as I know. How that gets determined, I don’t know. Then again terrorists don’t follow the Geneva conventions. In any event, I think most people would not like these people to be on US soil. The problem is, no one else wants them either!! That is something Obama didn’t think of when he made his commitment to shut Gitmo down. That is why it was a “half baked” plan from the get go. The Bush administration wanted to shut it down, and the reason they did not is because they could not get many countries to agree to take these folks in. Who in their right mind would? Well, maybe the lunatic from Iran, I suppose. But that’s the last place we want to send them, as they’ll just use that as a launching pad for attacks on Americans.
You are right though, Quantico is a large place. Pretty big as bases go, although Norfolk is bigger. Then again the place I just was at – Ft. Hood, TX – that army base is 340 square miles. Not sure how many square miles Quantico is – may be close actually. All buildings at Ft. Hood are at the south end of the base, the rest is used for training soldiers as the terrain is hilly and is semi-arid so simulates somewhat conditions in current hot spots. By the way, Quantico even has a nice golf course on the base for military personnel as part of the USO organization. I’ve driven by it, and it looks pretty. I don’t play golf, but if I did and was in the military or retired from the military, that’s the place to play it at. Then again, haven’t seen other golf courses around here, but the Quantico one is pretty nice. Cheaper to live down there too – the builder who built the neighborhood here in Gainesville has one in Dumfries just outside the base – my house is $20K cheaper down there. But would be a heck of a commute for me to Reston, obviously. Forget that!
Your familiarity with Quantico is more noble than mine, Gainesville. Where would they put anyone there? I think the whole point in moving them is change of status. I don’t know all the ins and outs of what makes them different from regular POWs.
I assume the first comment is simply a spoof. Let’s hope so.
As I’ve said on my home base at TC, I don’t get this. Why do we think Virginia should not provide facilities to detain these terrorist suspects? It can’t be because they’re enemies of the United States, can it? Don’t we have some obligation to do our part? Do we have some principled reason why they should go to some other state? Are we really afraid for our safety when some of these cats are put in the brig in the middle of one of the biggest Marine bases in the country? This all sounds Chicken Little-ish and not very responsible to me.
It’s the Obama presidency stupid! (just a phrase) Now how many people are going to admit they voted for him? He said he’d do this if elected. Our military will be diminished, and before you know it we will be back in the same condition as pre 9/11. Watch out folks, history may be ready to repeat itself!
Moon-Howler, Quantico has a brig and has held federal prisoners there before, notably some spies that were tried by the military and in federal court in Alexandria.
So Mackie, you think 9/11 was some sort of freaking video game? If you think it would be ‘kool’ to live next to terrorists, then why don’t you join the army and put in for Irag? Hell, they’ll even give you a weapon. It’s people with your mentality that join gangs, but don’t have the guts to join the military.
Irag, you know, right next door to Iraq!
I can’t believe Iam actually going to defend Mackie on this.
It isn’t that I want the terrorists to beheld at Quantico, but Mackie was right that the Marines will keep them locked down. I don’t think the surrounding community has anything to worry about. No terrorist is going to escape from the brig and bomb the on base housing site or Triangle.
On the other hand, I think people are more concerned with what happens later on in the process. If the detainees are held in Alexandria or Quantico, are they going to have trials eventually? Will bail be a possibility? Or what happens when there isn’t enough evidence to hold them any longer; will they be released into the immediate community? That is a very legitimate worry and it really should be addressed for the public before the government proceeds any further. If any of the above is a possibility, I cannot blame people wanting to send them somewhere else. I am guessing Elizabeth Benjamin is volunteering her home.
@Moon-howler
Anyone brought from Gitmo to Quantico would go to the brig (i.e., prison) on the base. It’s not like they’re going to be relocated to the barracks and allowed to come and go as they please. I think it’s amazing that people are so concerned about having “terrorists” living next door when they’d actually be surrounded by the Marines and an FBI training academy. If we can handle the inmates we lock up for domestic crimes (many who put the Gitmo detainees to shame for their utter disregard for humanity), why do we have such a problem with the ones from Gitmo?
This Daily Show clip from January seems appropriate. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216571&title=guantanamo-baywatch-the-final
My concern is status change. That is the part I do not understand. I am not worried about terrorists escaping the Marines and chopping my head off. I am concerned, as Anon suggests, about what happens down the road.
I know that coming on American soil somehow changes the scenery. That is the part I do not understand. I wouldn’t feel better about this if they were housed in Annapolic, Maryland. I suppose I am questioning the wisdom of closing Gitmo at this point. I am not sure what it accomplishes other than fulfilling a campaign promise. Feel free to attempt to get me to change my mind.
Finally, I did not realize that there was a brig at Quantico large enough to handle a crowd of terrorists.
Are POWs put on trial or just held until the end of any war?
Are these dudes POWs? Enemy combatants? Why do they go on trial?
What has been done in the past and why does our handling of these terrorists cats break rank with how we have always done it?
Other posters are correct about the brig in Quantico. But last night on WTOP in taxi cab I heard it mentioned some place in McLean (not the CIA) was being considered too.
Yes, the bigger concern is what happens when they go to trial. If at Alexandria Fed. Courthouse, will prisoners be held there or will they be transported there? Don’t know Alexandria Fed. Courthouse but assume they have a jail there. Agreed, it is more about what happens down the road as it comes to trial, then when they come here and are locked in brig.
I say let’s put them to work digging lines for Verizon, and standing out around the Coverdale 7-11. But not until they pay a $5000 fine. $700 if they beheaded anyone. Plus an extra $50 for every schoolgirl they ever threw acid into the face of.
That’s the joke answer but one real observation jumps out at me. The question of what to do with these guys, when their home countries don’t want them, is a tricky one. But Obama wants to house them in the US, just for the sake of saying he closed Guantameno? That’s shameful. That’s know as “sweeping a problem under the rug”.
Bush had no reasonable plan of action for dealing with this situation but neither does Obama apparently. If he wants them in the US, let him house them in the White House. Or maybe in that big Chicago House that Reszco got him a deal on.
@Moon-howler
Moon Howler, I believe they are suspected terrorists.
Having them here doesn’t make me feel warm and fuzzy, either.
You made me laugh Rick about the Verizon thing. When Verizon came into my old neighborhood to run fiber, one weekend they took out the phone service. Actually though, once the construction was done, FIOS was really great, for the 6 months I had it before bailing on my old townhouse.
Bush wanted to close Gitmo but couldn’t figure out how. At least he had the sense not to announce he was going to do it before figuring out what to do with the occupants. Talk about putting the cart before the horse! Obama really didn’t think this one out, and made a campaign promise he might now be regretting he made.
Anesthesia – yes you are correct – they are indeed suspected terrorists. All who ended up at Gitmo at least had ties to terrorist organizations. Basically what is at Gitmo is the “worst of the worst” so to speak.
What’s wrong with living next to a terrorist? You need change..This is the Change you need! obey!
I’ve long had the impression that living next to a 9/11 pilot is much preferred to, say, Corey “Dirk Dastardly” Stewart!
Slow, I think I would rather live next door to Corey thank you very much. He might prefer the terrorist to me, however. Just kidding. I can disagree with people politically without hating them. I don’t hate Corey.
Would you rather live next door to the terrorists…or live next door to the Relatives of the Minutemen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGYetyZk9Sw
Minutemen!! No question about it! SOMEBODY has to help protect our porous borders.
@Moon-howler
MH: In general, prisoners of war (POW) are held until the end of the war unless there is a negotiated prisoner exchange. According to the Geneva Conventions (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm), prisoners of war fall are those who have been captured and fall into the following categories:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3) Other categories of non-combatants, which you can read it you want.
The Geneva conventions specifically allow for military tribunals to determine if someone detained on the battlefield is indeed an illegal combatant, which is defined as someone that does not meet the requirements above.
Kelly 3406 is correct. In simplier terms, an “illegal combatant” is someone who fires a weapon, or operates with people who fire weapons but pretends to be a member of the civilian population. The give away is that they usually do not wear uniforms, and typically stash weapons under the floor. A resistance operative is an illegal combatant, and during WWII they were simply shot, not taken to the home country, pardoned and allowed to live among the populace they vow to destroy.
Elizaneth Benjamin is a classic example of the type of democrat or liberal faction in the democratic party I defined previously…one who thinks all humans are good, because they are human.
EB is a “naivist” who does not believe that terrorists cause any harm to the US. Mackie is a bit different, but shares some of the same traits only if the RACE or ethnicity he is talking about is someone he likes. If they are from a different race or ethnicy than he likes, then mackie typically expresses racism speech and even hate speech toward them.
1. The radical “naivists” who believe all men are good and no one is capable of any crime against another, so you should never punish them and always let them do whatever you want. After all because they are HUMAN they are by definition GOOD.
Moon, I’m puzzled
You are FOR AMNESTY for “illegal” immigrants who have negatively affected the US and caused harm to US citizens, but you are AGAINST AMNESTY for prisoners in Guantanomo who have also nagatively affected the US and caused less harm to US citizens than 12 million “illegal” immigrants? 12 million illegal immigrants have caused more US citizen deaths than the number of people killed in 9/11 and the numer of US soldiers killed in IRAQ. So why are you for AMNESTY of one GROUP and not the other?
Why? Is this because the prisoners in GT are muslim, and not Hispanic, or is it because you are convinced that ALL of them are guilty of harming a US citizen, even if only some of them have.
WASHINGTON – While the military “quagmire” in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.
Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
See the math is simple, every illegal immigrant who is deported is one less person who is killed by them in the US. The same is true of everything else an illegal immigrant does to harm even one US citizen, all things that even terrorists cannot do to the average US citizen on a per person, individual basis. Tell me which is the greater threat to US citizens and then I will tell you why amnesty is not acceptable, and deportation is the only acceptable solution.
It is my belief that you, elena and allanna fit into the following democractic “faction” that enables this threat to continue to be perpetuated on innocent US citizens..
2. The radical “pro-ethnic, pro-racists” who believe that ALL laws should be written to benefit specifc races and ethnic groups. All majority rule and democratic voting concepts are EVIL, only minority groups need protection and only ONE ethnic group, represented by their GROUP deserves an advantage over others because they cannot get ahead based on their skills alone. This group does not care about modern law, and changes law only if it suits or benefits their minority interests.
Want some more reasons why every single “illegal” immigrant is a threat to US citizens?
And why my civil liberties are being violated to protect my nation from all factions that would do it harm, both foreign and domestic?
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year’s 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.
A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.
Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.
According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.
While the federal government doesn’t track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:
The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;
36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
“While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators,” states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration.” “That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the ‘good’ in we get the ‘bad’ along with them. The question is, how much ‘bad’ is acceptable and at what price?”
EVERY SINGLE “illegal” immigrant who is deported is one less potential person who is not allowed to be here, but can harm and negatively affect US citizens, and who will increase the risks to US citizens (greater than the risk of EVERY US Citizen that they can DIE due to terrorists or be KILLED in the IRAQ war) that will cause the above numbers to happen THAT DO NOT NEED TO happen if illegal immigrants are not allowed to remain in the country and are simply forced to deport.
Ok, Michael. I am going to attempt to be very polite. I might fail. How dare you say I am for amnesty. You have no idea what my political beliefs are because you come on here and in your arrogance, think you can enlighten all of us.
You can think whatever you want about Alanna, Elena or me. We are three different people so I doubt even you, in your infinite wisdom, can categorize us correctly. No one is forcing you here. Perhaps it would be better to find a blog more to your liking and where the people are more your kind of people.
Actually, I am not for amnesty. I am for seeking a solution where some people will be able pay fines and meet the requirements of our government in order to be able to stay in the United States legally. I also support a guest worker program that meet the business needs of our country.
I hope there will be no more people misrepresenting my point of view.
kelly – thanks for very informative post on Geneva Conventions. Didn’t know that much about them – good to have it in one concise place. Very interesting indeed.
Hey Michael,
Why don’t you write a long post about what happened in Shenandoah?
It’s an event on par with Emmit Till. Especially the horrendous verdict and the cover up by the police.
Since you like to post so much, I thought you’d like to post about something that really matters.
Perhaps we need to start being more vigilant about contibutors who attempt to hi-jack threads.
Back to the matter at hand, terrorists at Quantico….do we approve or disapprove and why? Are they a danger to us or Quantico residents?
Why thank you Moon-howler for steering us around that diatribe. 🙂
Thank you, Gainesville, for trying to bring us all back to topic.
Thanks Kelly for posting the terms of engagement.
My question might have been answer and gotten lost in the diatribe. Have those Gitmo detainees been charged with anything or are they in limbo? Do we know any history on them? Were they picked up on the battlefield?
@Moon-howler
Those are very good questions, MH. The issues are already complicated and are being exacerbated by politics. To a large extent, the answers to your questions depend on one’s political persuasion. Here is my take on the matter:
1) The battlefield is very diffuse, given the nature of this war. I would argue that the detainees should be treated initially as prisoners of war (POWs). Military commissions should then determine whether they were engaged in combat/combat support and whether they were illegal combatants. If they were engaged in combat/combat support (i.e. picked up on the battlefield or supporting those on the battlefield), then they should be held until the end of the war (not as punishment, but to ensure they cannot kill our people). If they are found to be illegal combatants, they should not be given the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
2) The other political persuasion (notice that I did not say Leftist, MH) believes that the detainees should be treated as defendants in a criminal case. They argue that the detainees are in “legal limbo”, because we are holding them, but have not charged them with any crime. They reject the notion of our treating these detainees as combatants and holding them until the end of the war. This side does make the very good point that no war has been declared, so the end of the war may be arbitrary.
I agree that we should pursue charges against combatants who commit war crimes, but our pursuit of any criminal charges should be independent of their detainment as combatants. We already know that some released detainees have killed our soldiers, so we should not repeat that mistake. I concede the point about not knowing when the war truly ends, but the real world is not always neat and tidy.
I also would prefer that the detainees stay at Gitmo. There have been documented cases in which prisoners escaped in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless they are placed in solitary confinement, I can see foresee them scheming to create a diversion (perhaps even sacrificing their lives) to give one an opportunity to escape and kill Americans. These are very, very smart adversaries who are totally committed to their cause — I would prefer to keep them off American soil.
I read an article about this in this week’s Time magazine. Apparently in Hardin, Montana there is a 93,000 sq ft prison sitting empty. It happens to be brand new too. Apparently the prision backers would like to have it be used to house detainees from Gitmo. Of course there is opposition to this, but in the meantime here in the US, a brand new prison is empty. In the article the author writes “On April 30, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate committee there were up to 100 Gitmo detainees who could be neither tried nor released, and he requested an extra $50 million for a new facility on U.S. soil.” I can’t quite figure out why a detainee can neither be tried nor released, but I suppose the gov’t has some reasoning behind this.
MH – no expert on this but here is what I believe about detainees in Gitmo – have not been formally charged with anything and sort of are in limbo. Justice Dept wasn’t sure how to proceed basically. Under some rules, unlike rules for Americans here – even though not charged are allowed to be held indefinitely since enemy combattants and I guess in addition considered possible terrorists – enough evidence of linkage to terrorist groups.
Again, take it for a grain of salt, have no expertise in this area but this is what I have read and heard, and sort of think it to be semi-accurate but could be proven wrong. So take it as my opinion this as haven’t researched with facts to back it up. Anyone who has better knowledge than I – feel free to verify or dispute it – and I’ll defer to them.
DB – interesting about that prison in Montana. Why was it built in the first place? Or is it that it is so new they just haven’t transferred any prisoners to it. I think the “limbo” thing with these Gitmo detainees is the following, and this is just my opinion: US hasn’t figured out rules of trial for these people, also where to try them (think gov’t would prefer not on US soil), or whether it should be more like a non-US tribunal and something along the lines of the Nazi war crimes trials or something. So, they sit in limbo until this is all figured out. Just again my opinion/impressions from what I’ve heard and read, and not a subject I have much expertise in.
According to the article:
Two years ago, the town (pop. 3600)celebrated the completion of this $27 million state-of-the-art private prison, capable of holding 464 inmates. Convinced that the facility would provide employment for more than 100 people and a steady source of municipal income, Hardin and a neighboring town issued revenue bonds to finance its constuction and turned it over to a for-profit prison management corporation. On a 40 acre field on the edge of town…they built it. But nobody came.
The former govenor of Montana had assured Hardin that the state’s department of corrections needed more space, but the burgeoning deal fell through after a new govenor took office in 2005. Then Hardin tried to lure business from other states, only to be told that Montana law prohibited incarceration of prisoners convicted out of state. Despite winning a lawsuit last June that would allow it to accept prisoners from anywhere, Two Rivers remains empty; its $27 million in bonds went into default a year ago.