Page 3

so, yeah, i was suprised by this thread and was going to commend hooksaw on some exceptionally informative posts, made all the more valuable by their having come from someone with an insider's point of view.

but alas, old habits die hard and he went apeshit on nutsmackr's apparently thorough and balanced attempt to compare and contrast the various security levels of federal corrections facilities because -- we can only assume -- nusmackr made him mad about something

hooksaw continues to insist that nutsmackr failed to address one aspect that, at least in his mind, is the critical lynchpin to understanding all of it. But since no one here can answer this question, we must turn back to our resident corrections facilities expert:

Quote :

"Can hooksaw simply explain the difference in custody procedures"

sadly, it's not looking good. the question appears to be one that hooksaw is not able to answer. I'm thinking it was just a ruse to try and attack nutsmackr's character, since hooksaw wasnt able to argue the facts.






[Edited on July 27, 2009 at 5:26 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2009 5:21:52 PM

^ You looked up the branch of government for correctional officers, didn't you, schmoe? Just admit it, engineer.

And there's this trinket:

Quote :

"but then you went apeshit on nutsmackr's apparently thorough and balanced attempt to compare and contrast the various security levels of federal corrections facilities -- because (we can only assume) he made some point or other that aggravated you."

1. I didn't go "apeshit" about anything. And I've made the main point about the dangers of keeping the types of prisoners at issue in a domestic prison, but you all have been distracted by nutsmackr's sideshow.

2. "[T]horough and balanced"? His ill-informed posts were nothing of the sort.

3. His "point" was never proved--this is the point.

4. Any of you geniuses feel free to prove me wrong about the "world of difference" between custody procedures at a so-called supermax prison and a maximum security prison. Please--be my guest! I'd love to see you do it!*


* There's one problem: You can't.

7/27/2009 5:32:28 PM

nope, didn't look it up. just went on memory. was actually worried for a moment after posting that maybe BoC officers were somehow managed differently than other LEOs...

but i digress. let's get back to the subject:

Quote :

"Can hooksaw simply explain the difference in custody procedures"

the odds are not good.

7/27/2009 5:40:52 PM

7/27/2009 5:44:11 PM

I will not let Hooksaw lie about my statement. Never once did I mention custody procedures.

This is the statement that sent you off.

Quote :

"There is a world of difference between the Supermax in Florence Colorado and the Maximum Security Prison in Allentown. [sic]"

Quote :

"And I've made the main point about the dangers of keeping the types of prisoners at issue in a domestic prison, but you all have been distracted by nutsmackr's sideshow. "

Where is your concern about these "types" of prisoners who are already housed at ADX Florence?

In fact, here is a list of them again.

Quote :

"Abdul Hakim Murad, of al-Qaeda's Operation Bojinka Ahmed Ajaj, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, Al Qaeda conspirator in several plots, including one to assassinate U.S. President George W. Bush Ahmed Ressam, of the 2000 millennium attack plots Clement Rodney Hampton-El, a.k.a. Dr. Rashid, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera, chief assassin for Pablo Escobar, responsible for the bombing of Avianca Flight 203 El Sayyid Nosair, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Eric Robert Rudolph, 18282-058, terrorist, committed the Centennial Olympic Park bombing and other bombings Eyad Ismail, 37802-054, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Iyman Faris, also of the NYC landmark plot, sentenced to 20 years in 2003 James Ujaama, who tried to develop an al-Qaeda camp in Oregon Jeff Fort, he is currently imprisoned on drug trafficking charges. He is also the only American citizen ever convicted of terrorism for hire John Walker Lindh, dubbed "The American Taliban Jose Padilla, 20796-424, convicted of aiding terrorists Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, participant in the 1998 United States embassy bombings Mahmud Abouhalima, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings Mohammed A. Salameh, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad, would-be financier of al-Qaeda and Hamas, serving 75 years Mohammed Odeh is one of the four former al-Qaeda members sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 for their parts in the 1998 United States embassy bombings. Mohammed Mansour Jabarah A Canadian convicted of terrorism-related offences Nidal Ayyad, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Oscar Rivera, leader of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, a Puerto Rican militant group, for bombing 28 targets in the Chicago area. Received an additional 15-year sentence for an escape attempt (from another prison). Ramzi Yousef, 03911-000, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and Operation Bojinka, senior al-Qaeda member Richard Reid, 24079-038, al-Qaeda's would-be "Shoe Bomber" Terry Nichols, 08157-031, Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Theodore Kaczynski, 04475-046, the "Unabomber" Wadih el-Hage, 42393-054, of the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa Wali Khan Amin Shah Operation Bojinka Zacarias Moussaoui, 51427-054, of the September 11, 2001 attacks"

[Edited on July 27, 2009 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2009 8:50:47 PM

attention Soap Box shoppers: hooksaw has left the building.

7/28/2009 11:06:20 AM

^^ How do you think custody is maintained, dummy? A.: Through custody procedures.

^ et al

Quote :

"Any of you geniuses feel free to prove me wrong about the 'world of difference' between custody procedures at a so-called supermax prison and a maximum security prison. Please--be my guest! I'd love to see you do it!* * There's one problem: You can't."

7/28/2009 1:14:38 PM

Quote :

"Can hooksaw simply explain the difference in custody procedures"

the odds are not good.

7/28/2009 1:31:28 PM

Quote :

"Any of you geniuses feel free to prove me wrong about the 'world of difference' between custody procedures at a so-called supermax prison and a maximum security prison. Please--be my guest! I'd love to see you do it!* * There's one problem: You can't."

7/28/2009 1:38:29 PM

I never said anything about Custody procedures. You are the one who interjected that into the discussion. Again, I said this: "There is a world of difference between the Supermax in Florence Colorado and the Maximum Security Prison in Allentown. [sic]"

So, answer schmoe's question, that is if you can.

7/28/2009 2:42:59 PM

look hooksaw, I'm not claiming to be any sort of expert on prison management. that's "supposedly" YOUR forte. Yet all i've seen for the last 2 1/2 pages is where you have been whining that no one is able to

Quote :

"simply explain the difference in custody procedures"

But it's becoming more and more likely that the reason is not because it's a hard question, but because the question is invalid.

the reason i say it's invalid, is not because i know anything about prison management, but because you've been CALLED THE FUCK OUT on it a number of times, and you REFUSE TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER

if you can't answer your own question that you've been smugly parading around like it's some sort of coup de grace, then we must assume that you're just another insecure little man with sand in his mangina, because someone dared to present a perspective on a topic that you believe yourself to be the only expert

to the non-expert, nutsmackr has thoroughly compared and contrasted the difference between max and supermax prisons. You say you're an expert and that you've got a problem with it? then quit beating around the bush, and prove him wrong.

unfortunately for you, all your grabassing rhetorical tricks amount to nothing, and your avoidance techniques only make you look like some ivory tower liberal arts academic who is short on facts and long on semantic games.

in short: put up, or shut up.




[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 6:27 PM. Reason : ]

7/28/2009 6:19:32 PM

^ I'll answer--I promise. But. . .

Quote :

"I will address the similarities of the facilities at some point--a time of my choosing. I will not operate on the timetable of a bunch of ignorant cackling hyenas that aren't going to believe what I post anyway."

1. In the meantime, feel free to prove me wrong.

2. It won't matter much because (1) some will refuse to admit that they're wrong, (2) won't admit that I'm right, and (3) will let their hooksaw derangement syndrome affect them to a point that they simply will not allow that I could possibly have expertise in any area.

As for the "liberal arts academic" comment, schmoe, if you want to generalize, you already made engineers look like exceedingly ill-informed dunderheads.

[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 7:17 PM. Reason : When you settle down, I'll answer. Deal?]

7/28/2009 7:15:58 PM

Sarah tittiefucking Palin, hooksaw, you have avoided every single question and have asked us to take your word. Put up or shut up.

7/28/2009 7:57:10 PM

Quote :

"Can hooksaw simply explain the difference in custody procedures"

7/29/2009 9:22:13 AM

Ok, no one is pestering you now. It's been four days without a post even. I'd like to know the difference in custody procedures so that this thread can be properly ended. Please?

8/3/2009 10:52:25 AM

Okay, what's job one of correctional staff? To maintain custody. What maintains custody? Custody procedures.

Any correctional facility where inmates are under the gun is just walls and fences. Even if the prison itself is remotely located or surrounded by water or other obstacles, inmates could escape without properly implemented custody procedures.

And I know for a fact that custody procedures at maximum security facilities and so-called supermax facilities aren't that different--because there isn't that much you can do beyond maximum security.

So, maybe you put the inmate in a single cell and feed him only through the slot or maybe he goes to a centralized chow hall. Maybe you let him turn the lights off in his cell at night and maybe you don't. Maybe the inmate is under frequent video surveillance and maybe it's constant surveillance. Maybe you let the inmate out of the cell one hour out of 24 or maybe you don't. Maybe you put him in handcuffs and leg irons for movement or maybe you add a waist chain and a black box. Maybe you make the inmate wear a stun belt and maybe you don't. Maybe you have one officer escorting him or maybe you have two officers wearing anti-stab vests and carrying less-than-lethal weapons. Maybe if the inmate makes it to the perimeter fence in an escape attempt you fire a warning shot--and maybe you don't.

Do you see what I'm getting at? These procedures may seem very different to you but they're not very different at all--and they're only as good as the officers implementing them. And we haven't even gotten to the effects of corrupt correctional staff, which I'll address later.

Some of you toss around "supermax" and "ultramax" like you're ordering fries or something. Yeah, I'm feeling strong today--I'll have the ultramax.

First, there is nothing beyond maximum security--other than something illegal. "Maximum" means just that: "an upper limit allowed or allowable by law or regulation," "the greatest quantity or amount possible, assignable, allowable, etc." It is simply a matter of determining how strict the security procedures will be within the range of "maximum" in a given setting.

Second, all camps that are under the gun have various levels of security--this is necessary. What else can correctional staff do? I mean, you can't chop off an inmate's feet like Kunta Kinte if he isn't compliant. So, as a form of discipline you move the inmate through levels of custody, taking even more of his freedom away. When inmates initially enter a prison system, they are also classified into higher security levels based on risk assessments.

Now about corrupt correctional staff, unfortunately, they exist at jails and prisons of every level--including federal. Ever heard of Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen--they were CIA and FBI agents, respectively. Now they're doing time for being traitors to their country and some federal correctional officer(s) could be turned, too.

Hell, I saw an X-ray image once of an inmate who had a derringer pistol in his rectum--the image was sent out to every prison in the country. He simply wrapped it in cellophane, greased it with Vaseline, and inserted it. The point is that all sorts of dangerous contraband and weapons make it into prisons, and a lot of it isn't brought in by visitors.

But none of this addresses a MAJOR point that I made earlier: Correctional officers train to keep inmates in prison, not to keep attackers out. Has anyone even considered this? Not to mention the fact that prisons are major recruiting and indoctrination grounds for Muslim fanatics. I'm guessing none of you has been face to face with a Five Percenter.

Look, I worked at a prison that housed some of the most violent and assaultive inmates incarcerated in North Carolina. They used to joke that Central Prison would send us the inmates they couldn't handle--except it wasn't really a joke. An inmate killed another inmate with a baseball bat while I was working there (I was off that day). And in those days, we didn't even have radios--we had whistles to blow when there was trouble and the hope that we weren't hamburger by the time help arrived.

I've worked up close and personal with all kinds of inmates. I've stared hundreds of robbers and rapists and killers in the eyes--I know what I'm talking about. And if you can't give me that respect, then you can fuck off.

In any event, there's this:

Under a proposal, suspected terrorists would be tried and held in a hybrid 'courtroom within a detention facility' at an existing U.S. maximum-security prison.

Quote :

"The Obama administration is looking at civilian and military detention facilities in the United States."

Quote :

" The task force has been looking at a number of unused or underused civilian facilities, including a soon-to-be-closed maximum-security prison in Michigan."

Quote :

" The Pentagon has also examined the detention facilities at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.; Camp Pendleton; and the Charleston, S.C., naval brig."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo3-2009aug03,0,3474712.story

Sweet Jesus--it's amateur hour.

8/4/2009 2:11:09 AM

Throughout that rambling, you didn't even address your own question.

8/4/2009 9:09:55 AM

That was his point I'm guessing. He's saying there is ZERO difference in the custody procedures.

And just out of curiosity how many successful attacks have been launched from the outside against maximum security prisons. Is it even feasible for this to happen on a large enough scale to even merit worry?

I'm completely ignorant to the Supermax in Florence, CO but I do know that the two NorCal maximum security prisons (Folsom and San Quentin) would be incredibly hard to get anywhere near to attempt to attack from the outside...

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason : x]

8/4/2009 10:43:00 AM

Revenge of the 'Shoe Bomber'
JULY 31, 2009

Quote :

"On June 17, at the Administrative Maximum (ADX) penitentiary in Florence, Colo., one of those albatrosses, inmate number 24079-038, began his day with a whole new range of possibilities. Eight days earlier, the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver filed notice in federal court that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) which applied to that prisoner—Richard C. Reid, a.k.a. the 'Shoe Bomber'—were being allowed to expire. SAMs are security directives, renewable yearly, issued by the attorney general when 'there is a substantial risk that a prisoner's communications, correspondence or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury' to others."

Quote :

"According to court documents filed in a 2007 civil lawsuit against the government, Reid claimed that SAMs violated his First Amendment right of free speech and free exercise of religion. In a hand-written complaint, he asserted that he was being illegally prevented from performing daily 'group prayers in a manner prescribed by my religion.'"

Quote :

"When setting restrictions on inmate religious practice, the Bureau of Prisons need only meet a reasonableness standard, a very low bar in the case of Muslim terrorists. Justice would easily have prevailed against Reid's lawsuit; nevertheless it dropped the security measures on Reid after he missed 58 meals in a hunger strike that required medical intervention and forced feeding in April. On July 6, Justice Department lawyers informed the court that Reid will be given a 'new placement' in a 'post-SAMs setting.' Whether that entails stepped down security in a different unit or transfer to a less secure facility, the Bureau of Prisons won't say, and Justice refuses to comment. Mr. Obama likes to observe that 'no one has escaped from supermax,' but if Reid is moved from ADX Florence, he will be the first convicted terrorist to use the First Amendment to sue his way out. What drove the Obama administration's decision to cave in to Reid's demands? The president after all has repeatedly pitched supermax and the federal prison system as a secure alternative to Guantanamo, citing the fact that it handles 'all manner of violent and dangerous criminals.' Yet the last thing he needs, as his administration engages in its hasty effort to shut Gitmo down by a fast-approaching deadline, is for lawyers and human-rights activists to use a hunger-striking, near-death prisoner to launch a propaganda campaign fashioned right out of the Gitmo detainees' playbook. Lawyers who shamelessly compared Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps would think nothing of casting supermax as the next 'symbol of America’s shame' and a 'rallying cry for our enemies.'"

Quote :

"In January, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado issued a statement saying that conditions at supermax are 'simply another form of torture' worse than Gitmo which 'make a mockery of "innocent until proven guilty."' Last month, the ACLU filed a civil lawsuit mirroring Reid's religious rights claim on behalf of two terrorism inmates held at the Communications Management Unit inside a medium security prison in Terre Haute, Ind."

Quote :

"Mr. Obama has repeatedly suggested that the security challenge of bringing more than 100 trained and dangerous terrorists onto U.S. soil can be solved by simply installing them in an impenetrable fortress. This view is either disingenuous or naïve. The militant Islamists at Guantanamo too dangerous to release believe that their resistance behind the wire is a continuation of holy war. There is every reason to believe they will continue their jihad once they have been transported to U.S. soil where certain federal judges have signaled a willingness to confer upon them even more rights. The position of civil rights activists with regard to these prisoners is plain. 'If they cannot be convicted,' says ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer, 'then you release them.' Meanwhile, in order to appease political constituencies both here and abroad, the Obama administration is moving full steam ahead,operating on the false premise that giving more civil liberties to religious fanatics bent on destroying Western civilization will make a difference in the Muslim world. In a letter sent to his father as he began his hunger strike, Reid provided a preview of how he will exercise his newly enlarged free speech rights, calling Mr. Obama a 'hypocrite' who is 'no better than George Bush.' His lawsuit remains active while the Department of Justice works out a settlement that satisfies the man who declared, 'I am at war with America.'"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052970203609204574317090690242698.html

Holy jumped-up bald-headed Jesus palomino!

But, but it's SUPERMAX.



[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 3:04 AM. Reason : Are you dumbasses happy now? ]

8/5/2009 2:59:33 AM

And you continue to prove my point.

Thanks, dumbass.

8/5/2009 9:31:04 AM

^^ So let me get this straight.

Your entire two page back and forth and eventual novel about custody procedures was your coup de grâce. In that, the basic conclusion is that the there is no level of security higher than maximum security, so that the Florence, CO Supermax prison which is housing (and will continue to house more) alleged terrorists is no different than any other state or federal maximum security prison.

So then to back up that point, you post an article about an isolated terrorist who was kept in said Florence, CO supermax prison who was, in fact, treated more harshly and very much different than any prisoner in typical state or federal maximum security. Further, a main point in your novel about custody procedures (I can only guess this was a main point, because you spent two paragraphs covering it) was the threat of an outside attack. In said follow up article, it is clearly stated that the Shoe Bomber will be "getting out" of the Florence, CO prison because of a legal ruling.

And then follow it up like some kind of victory by posting:

Quote :

"Are you dumbasses happy now?"

And your patented rolly eyes.

** EDIT: Oh, I see... you wanted a place to post the quote about comparing Obama to Bush and used this thread as a launching pad just to be able to post that. My bad...

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 10:26 AM. Reason : x]

8/5/2009 10:25:19 AM

1. Prison riots can and do happen anywhere, anytime:

Hundreds Hurt in California Prison Riot
Published: August 9, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/us/10prison.html

Investigations begin into Ky. prison riot

Associated Press • August 23, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/m3uvv6

2. And there's this news:

Senate Takes First Step To Blocking Cell Services At Prisons
Aug 7, 2009

Quote :

"A Senate panel has given preliminary approval to legislation that would allow individual states to jam or block cellular signals at prisons. Prisoners aren't allowed to use cell phones, but manage to get their hands on them anyway -- sometimes leading to deadly outcomes."

Quote :

"At issue is this: Only the federal government has the right and authority to block/jam cellular signals. Other governing bodies, including states and local municipalities, don't have the ability to jam cell signals. The states want this to change, and it looks like the senate just might agree."

Quote :

"A few thorny issues remain. Jamming cellular signals isn't an easy or perfect thing to do. Areas surrounding prisons could be left without cellular service if the jamming equipment is not set up properly. The Federal Communications Commission will be placed in charge of overseeing the process, the equipment, the set-up and other details to make sure citizens and local governments aren't deprived of cellular signals and left in the dark."

http://tinyurl.com/m2as6n

Troubling on a number of levels.

8/31/2009 6:08:13 PM

and?

8/31/2009 6:14:47 PM

^^ that's an interesting development but probably worth starting its own thread.

you really should let this trainwreck of a thread die, anyhow. really, i'd be embarrassed to dig this one up if i were you.




[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 6:27 PM. Reason : ]

8/31/2009 6:27:29 PM

^^ "And" piss off, troll.

^ I'm not at all--not in the slightest. You see, I know what I'm talking about. And I can't help that some of you simply won't accept facts--if anyone should be "embarrassed," it's you and your cohorts for having a complete inability to admit when you're wrong.

Now, are you going to address my legitimate post above or are you just going to continue to shit in this tread?

8/31/2009 6:44:09 PM

Are you going to add anything to that post as a form of discussion on it, or are you just a serial linker?

8/31/2009 6:46:34 PM

^ I won't address you further, troll. You don't want serious "discussion"--you never really have--you just want to sit your fat ass behind your computer screen and snicker as you attempt to ruin yet another thread.

In any event, I made my position clear--if concise--above. Furthermore, I can post in any manner that I choose--whether you like it or not.

8/31/2009 6:52:27 PM

pot meet kettle

8/31/2009 6:54:33 PM

What's troubling? The congress debating cell phone jamming in prisons, or the idea that they would even need to discuss means of preventing cellphone communication by prisoners?

You didn't make goddamned concise.

8/31/2009 6:55:04 PM

^^ Pot meet mongoloid (yes, you). STFU.

8/31/2009 7:03:02 PM

Such a serious informative discussion.

8/31/2009 7:12:24 PM

okay: state govt agencies and/or the private prison industry contractors they farm out having the ability to enact regional cellphone jammers?

bad idea.

and: continuing this trainwreck of a thread into FCC jursidictional issues?

another bad idea.

9/1/2009 12:49:22 AM

Is anyone else dubious about FreedomWorks and The Heritage Foundation being totally on-board the bipartisan First Step Act?

I haven't seen anything too concerning about the act, but their support for it makes me wonder if there's some catch to it, like federal funding being allocated to private prisons.

Is there an obvious reason why they would support it as much as they do?

11/26/2018 12:27:14 PM

Spitballing here...

Perhaps the extra money and requirements for halfway houses, training, rehabilitation, etc. offer opportunities for vertical integration within the prisons-for-profit sector. Now, a prisoner can move from a Koch prison to a Koch rehab center to a Koch halfway house and finally to a Koch occupational training program at one of the Koch Industries companies. And, of course, we shouldn't underestimate the potential mark-ups on tampons.

Isn't workforce growth projected to decline for the foreseeable future? There are a lot of able bodied people in prison who could make up a low-wage labor pool.

11/26/2018 7:30:38 PM