Grading PolitiFact: President Obama on supermax security

Where PolitiFact again picks and chooses between literal truth and the underlying argument.

Fact-checking the fact checkers

The issue:

Here's the PolitiFact framing of the issue, somewhat out of tune with the headline placing full emphasis on the lack of Supermax escapees:

In a speech defending his plans for the detainess at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, President Obama said Americans should not be concerned about them being transferred to the United States because federal prisons are secure.

"Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety," Obama said. "Bear in mind the following fact: Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal 'supermax' prisons."

The fact checkers:

Catharine Richert: writer, researcher
Bill Adair: editor


Analysis:

Sometimes the entries at PolitiFact place emphasis on the literal truth of a statement, like Obama's use of hyperbole regarding enforcement of labor law with respect to undocumented workers. Other times they ignore literal truth in favor of the underlying argument.

This one by Richert takes the former route, despite the fact that she had little difficulty identifying Obama's underlying argument: Supermax facilities are so secure that Americans should not concern themselves over bringing Guantanamo detainees to the continental United States.

First, we should note that Obama's comment suggests there is more than one federal "supermax" facility. But there's actually just one, the Administration Maximum Facility in Florence, Colo., according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Some states have built their own maximum security prisons, but it's clear Obama was referring to federal facilities because they would be the ones to house the suspected terrorists.

Oh. So by implying that there is more than one federal supermax facility, Obama was misleading his audience. Another day, that might automatically drop a political statement to the "Mostly True" level, described as "The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information." In this case, the problem is apparently solved by completely ignoring the context of the statement and placing the focus entirely on whether supermax prisoners have ever escaped.

The security of the "Alcatraz of the Rockies," as the Florence prison is known among correctional program professionals, has been cited frequently by Democrats as lawmakers and the administration battle over where to relocate the detainees. Obama is seeking to close the Guantanamo prison by January 2010.

Colorado hosts the lone federal prison with a supermax block, then.

Given the number of prisoners at Guantanamo, should we be concerned that the Florence facility will have trouble handling the transfer?

Supermax's approximately 480 concrete cells already are jammed with the likes of Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols, Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph and other notorious domestic criminals. There also are 33 international terrorists, including Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef and failed airline shoe bomber Richard Reid.

Only one bed was not filled Thursday at Supermax, U.S. Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Tracy Billingsley said.

(Denver Post)

Is it torture if we make all the transferred prisoners bunk together?

Cast such thoughts out of your mind! Bush is no longer in the White House. We are the ones we are waiting for, and this is change.

Let's get back to Richert, joining her after she has described objections to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo:

As for Obama's statement, federal prison officials confirmed that he is correct. No prisoner has ever escaped from the only federal supermax facility since it was opened in 1994, no doubt thanks to the $10 million perimeter fence and the remote-controlled steel doors. We find his statement True.

Move along. Nothing to see here. Even if Obama left stuff out and his underlying argument does not make much sense, PolitiFact rates his statement "True."

But seriously, what if we can't fit all the Gitmo detainees in the supermax facility in Colorado? Doesn't that undermine Obama's reasoning?

PolitiFact: Shut up.

OK, then, what if we do fit all of the Gitmo detainees into the Florence supermax facility but have to move other dangerous criminals to less secure locations? Is that a reason for concern?

PolitiFact: Shut up.

What if he has a pointed stick?

PolitiFact: Shut up.

If PolitiFact uses different criteria from one instance to another in rating political claims, then of what use are their lists grouping various ratings together and/or graphically showing how the collected statements of a given person stack up?

Answer: not much.

If Obama was trying to make the point that Americans have nothing to worry about from detainees transferred to the United States because our one supermax prison facility has never allowed a prisoner to escape, that reasoning is only applicable if all of the transferred prisoners end up in the supermax facility and no dangerous supermax prisoners are transferred to less secure locations to make room for the Gitmo imports.

Isn't that obvious?

There is no point to grading the literal truth of a statement if one completely ignores an underlying argument hanging on that supposed literal truth.


The grades:

Catharine Richert: F
Bill Adair: F

Both are flunked for the tunnel-vision focus on the "nobody has escaped" angle while ignoring the way the president was trying to use that information to reassure the American people. PolitiFact aided and abetted deceit. That is not what we want from fact-checking.


Afterword:

I was surprised that President Obama's statements were not available at the whitehouse.gov domain. But the full speech was available online at a .gov domain, and here is the relevant paragraph:

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”
(useu.usmission.gov)