Friday, February 23, 2007
By Tony Bartelme
The Post and Courier1

Officials at the Navy's brig in Hanahan developed elaborate plans to dodge public scrutiny of its operations to detain enemy combatants, plans that include destroying "critical info," scrubbing public Web sites, and warning brig staff about the temptations of "high priced offers from news agencies," a Navy report shows.

The 17-page document also describes how, with relatively short notice, the Naval Consolidated Brig created an expensive prison-within-a-prison, in part to prevent regular inmates from retaliating against the detainees. In this separate facility, a brig official said detainees are accorded protections under the U.S. Constitution, "except where curtailed by higher guidance."

The document provides a rare insider's glimpse into what has emerged as one of the most secretive installations in the government's anti-terrorism effort. It reveals new details about the challenges of housing high-profile terrorism suspects. It also comes amid a backdrop of lawsuits alleging that the solitary confinement of detainees constitutes torture, and that the administration's policy of holding terrorism suspects without charges is unconstitutional.

Brig officials prepared the paper "Preparing for Enemy Combatant Detainment" for a presentation last summer in Charlotte at a national conference organized by the American Correctional Association. The Navy supplied the document to The Post and Courier in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

The presentation begins with an introduction by Sandy Seymour, technical director of the brig. He declined to comment for this story. In the presentation paper, Seymour describes how the brig's mission evolved after 9/11. Before, it was a medium-level security prison capable of holding 364 inmates, and that its main focus was on rehabilitating inmates. He touted the institution's low recidivism rates.

After 9/11, the Bush administration declared that certain terrorism suspects were "enemy combatants," more akin to prisoners of war than criminals. As such, the administration argued, enemy combatants could be held without criminal charges until the war was over.

Seymour said that brig officials were given five months to prepare to confine enemy combatants.

The first, Jose Padilla, arrived in June 2002, under heavy guard. Two others followed: Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen by birth picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan; and Ali Saleh al-Marri, who authorities say was an al-Qaida sleeper agent.

Seymour said in the report that security became the brig's overriding concern. "The enemy combatant concept of operations mean establishing two separate facilities on the same real estate," he said, adding later: "There is no rehabilitation mission in detainment." He said one of the brig's challenges was to make sure other inmates didn't come into contact with the detainees.

"Emotional responses by the prisoner population to the events of September 11th made it clear that criminals can be patriots, too," his report said. "We concluded that it was likely, given the opportunity, an inmate might attempt to harm an enemy combatant out of patriotic sentiment." Brig officials paid close attention to such "crossover" contact, making sure, for instance, that staff, instead of regular inmates, prepare and serve detainees' meals.

Seymour said brig officials also had to learn about the detainees' cultural traditions. "Be prepared to explain what some of the basic tools are and the expectation for their use: For example a flushing toilet ... Even which hand is used to deliver food or religious material to a person from a Muslim culture can have great significance."

While the Pentagon has allowed more than 1,100 visits by reporters and others to detention facilities in Guantanamo, Cuba, military officials have denied media requests to tour the Hanahan brig. In fact, much of the brig's presentation was devoted to how officials sealed the facility from public scrutiny.

"Taking on a nationally newsworthy mission brings its own pitfalls," the report said. "High-priced offers from news agencies for information or pictures can be very tempting to staff." (Like most daily newspapers, The Post and Courier does not pay for such information.)

The report said brig officials scrubbed public access documents and Web sites and destroyed "critical info," including information about rosters and internal operations. "Staff training to counter media probes paid dividends on several occasions," Seymour said without further explanation.

The presentation eventually took on the tone of a primer for corrections colleagues on how to dodge reporters and prepare their institutions for enemy combatant missions.

"Defeat surprise queries by preparing standard answers and keep them near common phone access points and available to all staff ... Focus on where the vulnerabilities are for camera footage by interested parties and look for unconventional access to your operation." Doing so will "starve the query."

Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Navy spokesman, said Thursday the report "shows the amount of effort and care taken in preparing for the enemy combatant detainment mission supporting the ongoing war on terror." He pointed out that the document stresses "the requirement to treat all detainees humanely, and summarizes the extraordinary steps taken to provide for the safe confinement of enemy combatants while at the same time protecting those responsible for carrying out the detention mission."

Seymour also touched on the legal netherworld the enemy combatants inhabit. "In detaining American citizens, full constitutional rights are afforded except where curtailed by higher guidance or accepted prison practice," the report said.

Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for the lone detainee in the facility, Ali Saleh al-Marri, said the document shows how the Bush administration is trying to build a separate detention system unbound by the Constitution. "They're saying, 'We'll follow the Constitution, unless the president tells us not to.' That's very significant."

Jacob Hornberger, president of The Future of Freedom, a libertarian think tank near Washington, D.C., added that "the brig officer has it all wrong. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not privileges bestowed by federal officials subject to discretionary curtailment. Instead, they are inherent, fundamental rights and guarantees that the Constitution expressly prohibits federal officials, including those in the military, from infringing."

Plexico said the term "higher guidance" refers to "guidance higher in the military chain of command than the brig and alludes to rights" that are commonly restricted in detention facilities to ensure order. He added that "even active duty military members in good standing do not have the full benefit of the Constitution, i.e., the First Amendment."

The report also touched on the financial burdens of holding the detainees.

The report doesn't specify how much has been spent to accommodate enemy combatants but did say an entire wing was set aside for one detainee. (The Post and Courier has requested information about costs under the Freedom of Information Act. The military has denied these requests, citing national security concerns.)

In the report, Seymour concluded that "the enemy combatant mission is a fluid task without full definition." One thing was clear, he added, "this mission costs money," urging his colleagues, "get access to the money!"


1 Tony Bartelme. "Inside Navy's Secret Brig: Report: Hanahan facility geared to dodge scrutiny, keep inmates apart." The Post and Courier. February 23, 2007. Link. (last accessed: Thursday, March 01, 2007.). Return to text body.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.