Welcome to Camp Atterbury: When Military Bases Become Civilian Prisons – A Call to Resistance

For generations, military bases have stood as symbols of national defense, places where our service members train to protect our freedoms and respond to global threats. But now, in a chilling transformation, these very installations are being repurposed as civilian immigrant detention centers. Specifically, Camp Atterbury, a familiar landmark sort-of-but-not-really in my own backyard here in Indiana, is slated to house up to 1,000 people. This isn’t just a policy shift; it’s a profound betrayal of purpose, a morally reprehensible act that demands immediate and widespread resistance.

This is not some distant problem, confined to border towns or far-flung territories. This nonsense is now in our backyard. Military camps are not designed for civilian incarceration; their very layout and purpose are fundamentally unsuited for humane long-term detention. The immediate, visceral reaction is clear: we should be able to help detainees escape, Hogan’s Heroes style. This isn’t a literal call to action from a sitcom; it’s a powerful human response to an immoral situation, highlighting the inherent unsuitability and perceived injustice of the plan. This impulse is a direct echo of the German Underground and the French Resistance in World War II – the “people on the outside” who helped “get people out of those damn camps.” That civilian resistance was a significant part of what brought WWII to a faster end, and it is the same approach we need to take now.

Felonious Punk’s administration is embarking on a morally reprehensible and strategically misguided expansion of immigrant detention, repurposing military bases like Camp Atterbury into civilian prisons. This egregious policy not only violates the spirit of military service and humanitarian principles but also exposes a chilling disregard for human dignity, demanding immediate and widespread resistance, mirroring the vital role of civilian aid in historical struggles against oppression.

The Militarization of Detention: A Profound Betrayal of Purpose

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to utilize Camp Atterbury in Indiana, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, and to significantly expand detention at the U.S. Naval Base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved these moves, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tasked with maintaining a 24/7 oversight presence and providing all care for the migrants.

But these are military bases, designed for training, for readiness, for war. Camp Atterbury, a National Guard base, and McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, a multi-service hub, are built for military operations, not for long-term civilian holding. While Atterbury has previously housed refugees (Afghan, Ukrainian) in temporary resettlement operations, it has never been used for immigration detainees held under enforcement authority. This is a critical distinction. Military personnel lack the necessary training for civilian detention; deploying them for this task “precipitates chaos and confusion” and risks “elevated levels of operational stress, moral injury, and misconduct.” The very layout and purpose of such a camp, designed for military operations, would inspire thoughts of escape and subversion against an unjust system. This is why the spirit of Hogan’s Heroes is so relevant – it’s about the inherent human drive to resist perceived injustice, and the moral imperative to aid those unjustly held.

The legal and ethical red flags are glaring. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act specifically forbids military participation in civilian law enforcement without Congressional approval, raising serious concerns about violations. Humanitarian and legal experts decry military detention for civilians, citing “psychological trauma and long-term mental health risks.” Concerns about access to courts, legal counsel, and protection from arbitrary or indefinite detention are paramount.

Guantanamo’s Shadow: A Legacy of Cruelty Extended Domestically

The expansion of detention at Guantanamo Bay casts a particularly dark shadow over this policy. Guantanamo’s history as an “infamous extralegal prison” for terrorism suspects, marred by allegations of “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment” and “torture,” is a stark warning. Felonious Punk’s administration has ordered the expansion of its Migrant Operations Center there to house “high-priority criminal aliens,” with the first flight transferring migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo taking place in February 2025. This expansion dangerously “reinforces harmful narratives” by conflating migrants with terrorism suspects, further dehumanizing them. Legal experts argue that using military detention facilities for migrants is illegal and lacks clear justification.

The Financial Fuel for Inhumanity: An Investment in Cruelty

This morally bankrupt expansion is fueled by an astronomical influx of taxpayer dollars. The recent tax and spending bill set aside a staggering $45 billion for immigration detention centers and $30 billion for more ICE personnel and transportation. This “unprecedented sum” enables a massive scale-up of detention capacity. The administration cites overcrowding (57,000 detainees vs. 41,000 beds) as the reason, but this funding is a solution to a problem exacerbated by their own aggressive arrest policies. While using military bases might appear to save money, the priority must be on “humane and just solutions,” not cost-cutting at the expense of dignity. DHS has even requested 20,000 National Guard members to assist ICE operations, further militarizing immigration enforcement.

The Unacceptable Justification: “No Negative Effect” on Readiness?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claims that using these bases “will not negatively affect military training, operations, readiness, or other military requirements.” This assertion is met with immediate and fierce condemnation from Democratic congressional delegations, who call it “an inappropriate use of our national defense system and military resources” that “jeopardizes military preparedness” and is “unacceptable and shameful” to use the military as a “domestic political tool.”

Beyond the political rhetoric, the real impact on service members is profound. Deploying military personnel to operate civilian detention camps creates “cognitive dissonance,” risking “moral injury” and misconduct for service members not trained for such roles. This is not what our military is for.

Conclusion: Resistance to Inhumanity – A Call to Action for Freedom

The transformation of military bases like Camp Atterbury into immigrant detention centers is a chilling manifestation of Felonious Punk’s administration’s dehumanizing immigration policies. This is not merely a policy debate; it is a profound moral test. The use of military facilities for civilian detention, especially given the dark history of places like Guantanamo, is a betrayal of American values and a global human rights concern.

We have not seen a lot of this nonsense up close and personal here in Indiana. Now, it’s in our backyard, and not only do we have the opportunity but the moral obligation to make good trouble around that camp until the detainees are free. There are legal ways we can do that, and we have to take action now.

The spirit of resistance, exemplified by the German Underground and the French Resistance in World War II, reminds us that ordinary people on the outside can play a vital role in helping to “get people out of those damn camps.” Such actions were a significant part of what brought WWII to a faster end, and it is the same approach we need to take now.

We must demand that these plans be reconsidered and reversed. We must prioritize humane, transparent solutions to immigration management that uphold civil liberties and do not compromise military effectiveness. The dignity and safety of every individual, regardless of their immigration status, must be paramount. This is a fight for freedom, and it begins with us.