Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
The Politics of Interrogation
June 17, 2008 4:56 PM
A strong statement by Sen. Lindsey Graham in this morning's Armed Services Committee that sheds some light on how Republicans are going to approach controversial interrogation policies and terrorism issues in the months to come--as Democrats kick off a series of congressional hearings right in the middle of the campaign:
---Criticize the administration's interrogation policies and "bizarre" legal guidance, but with a reminder that lawyers were motivated by the urgent desire in the years after 9/11 to keep America safe;
---Emphasize Congress and the Courts taught the administration a lesson after it initially -- and disastrously -- insisted on a "go it alone" strategy;
---Remind everyone John McCain (and Graham) have long criticized the administration's interrogation policies, which they say harmed the nation's standing;
---Credit McCain--and the McCain Amendment limiting interrogations--as "restoring America's credibility" and "regaining the moral high ground";
---Blast the Supreme Court (and by implication, people who agree with its reasoning) as "going from one extreme to the other" by granting terror suspects--including 9/11 mastermind Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed--some of the same basic constitutional rights as Americans;
---Argue last week’s Supreme Court ruling treats terrorists as common criminals and now makes America less safe.
It's seems clear from Graham's statement this morning that much of the action is going to be on that Court decision—which the latest ABC Poll makes clear is not at all popular with voters (61 percent disagree; 34 percent agree).
McCain is not willing to justify or defend interrogation policies or lawyers who approved them, and his advisers believe most voters just don't want to hear or know about treatment of detainees.
But last week's Court decision opening the courthouse doors to foreign terror suspects captured abroad gives Republicans an issue to play off of as the interrogation hearings unfold this month. Instead of keeping the focus on controversial harsh interrogations, they can blast the Court for stepping in and "undermining" national security, just as Congress righted the ship and restored credibility.
They’ll have plenty of chances. The Armed Services Committee hearing is the first of several in Congress this month to focus on harsh interrogation policies--and how the United States came to use aggressive techniques on terror suspects.
Today, Senators focused on interrogation policies approved by the Defense Department for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Democratic Chairman Carl Levin said he believed top administration officials ordered up the harsh techniques and got lawyers to approve it.
“The truth is that senior officials in the United States government sought information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees,” Levin said.
Republicans also criticized the administration’s interrogation policies, but said they had to be understood in the context of the time—in they years after 9/11, when officials were desperately trying to protect America from another attack.
“They were motivated to protect the nation. That to me is clear,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham. “However, if the administration had adhered to the spirit and letter of the law, our treaty obligations, and adequately consulted with congress, I do not believe we'd be here today.”
But so far in today’s hearing there were as many questions as answers.
“Who decided that we were going to go down this road," asked Sen. Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, "and when did it get decided?”
“We would like to hold someone responsible,” McCaskill continued, mentioning names like "Rumsfeld" and "Cheney." “But it’s like trying to catch shadows here, because no one will say where this came from.
High ranking officials like former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington certainly will be pressed on that when they testify before Congress later this month.
June 17, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (3)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
None of the terrorist suspects will be released by the courts decision and it does not guarantee the right to a hearing,it only guarantees the right to request a hearing. The court retains discretion over hearings.
Posted by: BTL musings | Jun 21, 2008 11:43:14 PM
Why shouldn't we give GITMO "detainees" the same modicum of "due process" that the Iraq government gave to Sadaam Hussein? Is the Iraq government more in line with the rule of law than Senator Graham and the other critics of the Supreme Court's decision? Why does Senator Graham trust George Bush to decide whether anyone is an "enemy combatant" and if he does, is it OK that Bush has released 500 of these "most dangerous terrorists"?
I once believed that Senator Graham had some integrity on this issue, but his latest flip-flops have shown his true colors.
What a shame that he reduces himself to being just another Republican talking head, spewing the all we have to sell is fear itself campaign of Bush-Cheney and now McCain.
Posted by: Schuyler Cook | Jun 22, 2008 7:27:39 PM
Suppose that the government arrests you. I mean YOU! and then says that you are an enemy combatant, but you really are just someone that Bush and the neocons have decided is a tratior... you know, anyone who disagrees with their foreign policly. Would you like to defend yourself in court? Sorry, you are what Bush and company say you are. No proof offered, no judicial system to weigh it.
Last time I looked that was the Fascist or Communist form of justice. I'd rather live in a Democracy.
Posted by: Bob Cullenbine | Sep 29, 2008 4:59:25 PM
Post a comment
