Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

McCain, Obama, Giuliani -- and the Rights of Detainees

June 18, 2008 9:54 AM

After a visit to Guantanamo Bay, on December 12, 2003, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. -- along with Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, Maria Cantwell, D-Wash --  wrote to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asking for information about the disposition of detainees being held at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay.

They wrote of their "serious concern arises over the disposition of the detainees - a considerable number of whom have been held for two years. Given this concern, we respectfully ask that you provide explicit information on two critical issues. First, we ask that you advise us as to when you will make a determination on the final disposition of the detainees' status. Second, we request that you state specifically when you will begin the process pursuant to the Order of the Military Commissions that the President signed in November 2001, and how it will work in practice.

"Mr. Secretary," the senators wrote, "our recent visit to see the detainee situation for ourselves provided an enormously useful opportunity to understand the essential work that has been done there, which we have supported. Yet, we firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action."

In an interview with the New York Times, McCain said, "They may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I'm concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.''

**

This morning, on a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign, I asked former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani how McCain's desire -- as stated in the 2003 letter -- to have the detainees receive some sort of judicial process differed from what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said to me on Monday about fighting terrorism while not ignoring civil liberties, or his further discussion of the issue yesterday where he said that his point was the need to provide detainees "some modicum of due process, (so) we can have confidence that we’ve got the right people, that we’re not wasting time on the wrong people. We can send a message to the world that we continue to abide by the standards of rule of law, and we can actually be more effective in our pursuit of terrorism."

Giuliani said that McCain's push in 2003 was for there to be a procedure created -- and there was. "Congress did create a procedure...so detainees in Guantanamo could have a hearing before a military court...and could appeal" before U.S. District court. There was nothing wrong about "grant(ing) to terrorist and accused terrorists the existing panoply of rights," he said. "But what the Supreme Court did was extend new rights to them" in its decision last week. "Sen. Obama said he's in favor of that."

McCain, added Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign's director of foreign policy and national security, "has always maintained that there needed to be adjudication and a process for adjudication….and there was a good faith effort to put a process in place" that gave adjudication rights to detainees while also protecting intelligence information. Obama voted against that process, Scheunemann said, and the Supreme Court struck down elements of that military commission law.

**

So it would seem Obama and McCain both think detainees should have the right to adjudication, though they disagree about the extent of those rights, a chasm seen in Obama's support for, and McCain's opposition to, the Supreme Court decision of last week.

So what's this debate about? What did Obama do wrong -- in Giuliani's view -- by mentioning the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers?

"The real problem is his having said that in essence the 1993 situation was really correctly handled," Giuliani said this morning, "by the criminal prosecution and these people being incapacitated." Au contraire, the former New York Mayor said, "it was a terrible mistake not recognizing the full dimension of what we were involved in."

"He seems to think 1993 -- that is the paradigm," Giuliani said, taking some liberties and making some assumptions about Obama's thinking. "There's a failure to recognize that you had to go farther than that."

Said Giuliani, in familiar language, "he wants to go back to being on defense."

He pointed to comments made by a fellow New Yorker as evidence of this view. "We could point to many, many examples during the debates where the words 'irresponsible' and 'naïve' were applied to Senator Obama -- but not by a Republican but by Hillary Clinton," said Giuliani. "So I know she’s probably in a different position now, but these are issues Hillary Clinton very dramatically pointed out during the Democratic primary."

The erstwhile GOP presidential candidate also said "the remarks made yesterday by several people in the Obama camp that If Bin Laden were taken to Guantanamo he would be given Habeas Corpus rights is startling. And again, a reminder of maybe where they are going on the Democratic side and what we would have in store for us if we have a Democratic presidency. The reality is that there seems to be more concern about the rights of terrorists, or alleged terrorists, than for the rights that the American people have to safety and security."

- jpt

June 18, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (29)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

if you guys really think that the detainees in GITMO are being tortured maybe you should go there and see what really goes on. This is what you will see, grown men crying because they got vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate. Then you will see guards walking up and down the tiers enduring crap being throw at them and being called every name in the book. So who is really being tortured?

Posted by: noname | Jun 19, 2008 7:16:44 PM


The question is, what is the definition of 'workable'?

Posted by: len | Jun 18, 2008 10:31:10 AM
___________________

A "workable" solution is giving all suspects the right to challenge their detention in a court of law - it's called the Great Writ - the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Posted by: rhbate | Jun 18, 2008 9:36:01 PM

I'm not sure why everyone is SO concerned with the rights of a terrorist! You know, I am so sick of hearing about how their being treated.

Posted by: Pigletjay | Jun 18, 2008 11:20:04 AM
___________________

No one is a "terrorist" merely because someone says they are. Until they are proven to be terrorist in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, they are only suspects. In other words, they are no more terrorist than you are.

Posted by: rhbate | Jun 18, 2008 9:31:02 PM

And another thing.

If the Guantanamo detainees really are enemy combatants, and the administration case prove it, why is the administration so worried about having to do so in a habeas hearing? Answer: Because it wants to detain people at whim, without proof.

Posted by: MikeinPhilly | Jun 18, 2008 2:52:18 PM

PigletJay -- The whole problem is that the "evidence" these detainees are enemy combatants is merely that the Bush administration says so. The Supreme Court, quite rightly, is not willing to trust known liars (Bush et al.), and so wants to make sure that people are not detained for no good reason. Needless to say, if you trust this administration, you're a complete fool.

Posted by: MikeinPhilly | Jun 18, 2008 2:32:29 PM

Rudy was present on 9/11 to say "thank God George Bush is our president." That constitutes his "leadership." Rudy is a self-promoting, self-righteous embarrassment. His emperor's clothes are so completely off after his ill-fated compaign (9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 like a skipping record) and wife maltreatment that all he's doing by opening his mouth is helping Obama, so I hope Rudy keeps on talking!

Posted by: MikeinPhilly | Jun 18, 2008 2:26:51 PM

Rudy is a waste of skin.His only talent is wearing various baseball caps during the 9-11 aftermath.His political opinions are particularly important when considering his razor-sharp decisions during his fabulous presidential run this year.

Posted by: bskahn | Jun 18, 2008 1:31:57 PM

Gee Jake

Guess the paid Obama bloggers are busy with there constant smear campaign. Watching them try to reinvent history and listening to the low rated majority in Congress try to follow the empty suit into a brave new world.........

Makes me want to vote McCain 2008

Posted by: Jackie | Jun 18, 2008 12:39:33 PM

We've had those people at Gitmo for nigh onto six years now.  The Nazis at Nuremberg were all tried and sentenced within four years.
This would never have even come to the Supreme Court if the Bush Administration hadn't tried to evade the Geneva Conventions by trying to imagine up a brand new category of prisoner who was not covered under ANY law.  They tried to create a place and a category of people where the law couldn't reach but they, by virtue of their supposed virtue, could.

That is completely un-American.  America does NOT work that way.  We are a government of laws and not of men, even if the men who temporarily hold the highest offices do appear to think they've been selected by God Almighty himself to place themselves above the law.

Posted by:    Lee C.   ―   U.S.A.    | Jun 18, 2008 12:26:18 PM

This is the same person, Guiliani, who did a very poor job, to say the least, when this city was attacked. Actully it was not only New York, but the whole of our society, that was attacked. Nevertheless, Guiliani, did not react to situation as a person with the ability to lead. Next, he runs for president, and again missteps were made,proven him to have no sane idea about how to us good sound judgement. Therefore, "close it"! I leave it to you

Posted by: We The People | Jun 18, 2008 12:25:31 PM

Rude', rude', rude'

is this the guy who bet the farm on
flordia, had a crook for police chief,
the no help mayor? The photo op king?
i really don't think he is a player!

good luck in you private law pratice and
hope it is better than your political future

Posted by: noti | Jun 18, 2008 12:03:08 PM

They are presumed to be terrorists in this war on terror, they are therefor POW's. Let the terrorists end the war or we shall end it for them, one at a time if need be.

Posted by: Dennis | Jun 18, 2008 11:58:52 AM

Well hanna we can just keep borrowing money from china. If thats cool with you. Then we can use that money and spread peace and democracy with our guns. Makes perfect sense if your crazy!

Posted by: Joe | Jun 18, 2008 11:52:10 AM

They are not terrorists, they are suspects! Is it right to torture SUSPECTS indefinitely and without charges!?! Is this even America anymore, or have we become something else while we were watching Britney Spears and Fox News!?! Anything upto but not including organ failure sounds like torture to me. Here's a simple way to put it, if they can do it to your kids, it aint torture. Anything else, pretty bad, my friends. Google and read the Taguba report to know what we have been really doing to the suspects in Getmo. If you can live with doing that to civillians, then I wonder if you are even human, since you left sanity a long time ago!!!

Posted by: heresy | Jun 18, 2008 11:45:11 AM

Compared to McCain, John Kerry was a paragon of consistency.

Posted by: AkaDad | Jun 18, 2008 11:36:12 AM

The '93 WTC attack was a federal sting operation that was allowed to continue. They were supposed to substitute fake powder for the explosive in the bomb but were ORDERED NOT to!!! And the WTC was attacked with live ordinance. (And for you tin foil accusers, this comes from the New York Times and ABC, NBC, and CBS news, so it must be true) See Martial law 911 on Google for more info on the '93 WTC attack. They were NOT terrorists, they were operatives... Sound familliar.

Posted by: heresy | Jun 18, 2008 11:27:34 AM

Here is how I look at it...
Lets say you live in Afganastan.. No power, t.v.,internet, local news. Then some foriegners show up in a tank and open fire on you. You return fire. Then you are arrested and thrown in Gitmo. You had no idea there was a war or who you were shooting at.. But now your an enemy combatant held in Gitmo forever, or untill the kill you.

Posted by: Joe | Jun 18, 2008 11:26:27 AM

I think Mccain is a lot like Kerry.. Flip flop... On everything so far. I mean where the heck does this guy stand for now. Next thing you know he'll be in gitmo waterboarding people right next to the CIA. He's getting so bad I wonder if Bush wears him to the beach..LOL!!

Posted by: Joe | Jun 18, 2008 11:22:59 AM

I'm not sure why everyone is SO concerned with the rights of a terrorist! You know, I am so sick of hearing about how their being treated. They came to our country to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. So now we want to give them the right to appeal? What's next? Citizenship? Healthcare? Social Security? Welfare?

Posted by: Pigletjay | Jun 18, 2008 11:20:04 AM

So it took McCain this long to figure out that these POW's have rights, and whine that Obama shouldn't want them to have rights.

If McCain gets elected, my opinion of my fellow Americans will diminish slightly.

Posted by: DAVID NH | Jun 18, 2008 11:19:09 AM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS