RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Pushes Back on McCain Camp Terrorism Attacks
June 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Responding to charges by the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, that comments he made to ABC News indicate he has a "naive" pre-9/11 view of terrorism, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told reporters Tuesday that Republicans are not trying to debate issues but instead scare the American people.
Obama on Monday argued to ABC News that the Bush administration has unnecessarily skirted the Constitution in anti-terrorism actions. Citing the example of Guantanamo Bay, Obama cited "the first attack against the World Trade Center, (when) we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.'"
The McCain campaign argued that heralding the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers indicated Obama had a "September 10" mindset and wanted to pursue terrorists purely as a law enforcement matter.
Obama today rejected that depiction.
After this reporter tried to read Obama's quote back to him, Obama interrupted.
"I remember my quote, Jake," Obama said. "I was there, it was just yesterday." This reporter pointed to the section of Obama's quote where he said "the administration has not tried to do" what was done in with the previous World Trade Center bombers, who were prosecuted, and said Republicans were arguing that he seemed to be saying the administration should have tried to do with detainees what they did in 1993.
"Jake, that’s not what they’re driving at," Obama said. "What they are trying to do is what they’ve done every election cycle, which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid – to win elections – that’s what they’re trying to do."
"They are not serious about this," he continued. "Because if they wanted to have a serious conversation about it then they would know for example that the issue of Habeas Corpus is not designed to free prisoners, what it's designed to do is make sure that prisoners who are being held, have at least one shot to say, ‘I’m being held wrongly’."
My quote, the point I was making and I’ve made before, is without giving full blown rights to those who are being held, we can set up a system of due process, and when I said that the administration didn’t even try to do that, what I have consistently said is that rather than figure out how do we effectively hold these folks, detain them, provide them with some due process, try them, lock them up, the administration decided to take a bunch of short cuts."
"What it essentially wanted to do was to be completely inculcated from any checks and balances," he continued. "And my position on this, and a whole host of other issues related to battling terrorism has always been clear. And that is that we don’t have to treat these folks as US citizens. We don’t have to treat them in the same way that we would treat a criminal suspect in the U.S., but we should abide by the Geneva conventions. We should at least follow through on the same principles we followed though when dealing with Nazis during Nuremburg, that is not only the right thing to do but it also actually will strengthen our ability over the long term to fight terrorism."
Obama pooh-poohed those McCain allies making the charges against him, saying, "these are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could’ve pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11. In part because of their failed strategies, we’ve got bin Laden still sending out audio tapes and so I don’t think they have much standing to suggest that rgthey’ve learned a lot of lessons from 9/11."
Obama said that "none of the folks that were speaking for McCain today have given us one bit of information that would suggest that as a consequence of the court’s ruling, terrorists will be able to attack America more effectively. ... This is the same kind of fear mongering that got us into Iraq, that has caused us to be hugely distracted from the war we do have to fight against terrorism and it’s exactly that failed foreign policy that I want to reverse."
Asked by Richard Wolfe of Newsweek what he would suggest be done with detainees, Obama said "we can lock them up in military facilities on U.S. soil in the same way that we locked them up in Gitmo. The reason we set up Gitmo is because the administration wanted to set up a black hole where there was no accountability whatsoever. The Supreme Court has now said you can’t do that. And as a consequence, the whole purpose of Gitmo is defeated. And now we’re gonna, what we need to be doing, is locking these folks up and where there are dangerous individuals, we have to create a system of due process where we can show that in fact they were dangerous.
"It does not have to be before a U.S. district court," Obama said, "but if we provided some modicum of due process, 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."
- jpt
*This post has been updated with other quotes from the press availability.
June 17, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (155)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Re: "Karen. Sorry. No. I don't get it. I think that you are stretching it out!!"
No, I'm not. The Founding Fathers lived under tyranny and wanted to make sure that future generations of Americans would always remain free. If you eliminate habeus corpus, the foundation of our system will crumble.
Why do you think that educated people understand that a vote for Obama means protecting our freedom, while uneducated, ignorant people are for McSame?
Educated people have studied history and the constitution and recognize that we losing what the Founding Fathers fought for. The uneducated people are ruled by fear and ignorance, and think that they can't lose their rights because they are white. Read a history book. It can happen.
No McSame!
Posted by: Karen | Jun 17, 2008 11:56:22 PM
Karen, the Geneva Convention provides a very specific definition of a "prisoner of war." And these terrorists do not fit that description. But they are in fact combatants who have been taken prisoner during war.
Now then you wrote: "If they do this to them, then they can do the same thing to American citizens too. Don't you get it?" Our military personnel fit the description of "prisoner of war." So according to the logic of your statement, wouldn't it also be true that should we try the detainees in our courts, then shouldn't they be allowed to try our military personnel who are held prisoner in Islamic courts. Oh! But wait! Their punishment for being found guilty would be a beheading!
Posted by: James Danley | Jun 17, 2008 11:48:06 PM
Re: "He's saying the US courts are not the ones in which they should be having their day!"
Well which courts then? Some secret Kangaroo Court where the accused don't get to defend themselves? The Supreme Court said those are illegal.
This is why we have the Geneva Conventions and POW status.
But the Chimp wants to do away with all laws and just get to hold people indefinitely without any proof of their guilt.
Posted by: Karen | Jun 17, 2008 11:47:20 PM
I rest my case. Push em out of the plane at 35,000 - no more problem. NITE, NITE!!
Posted by: Jimbo | Jun 17, 2008 11:43:37 PM
Karen:
McCain isn't saying these prisoners shouldn't have their day in court.
He's saying the US courts are not the ones in which they should be having their day!
Big difference!
Posted by: eyes wide open | Jun 17, 2008 11:38:36 PM
I too deplore the way the Bush Administration has run rough shod over the Constitution. We must be able to safeguard our ideals while also protecting our lives. But Obama is very wrong to hold up the 1993 trial as an example of how to deal with terrorists.
I read a great piece which outlined how Muslim fanatics interpreted our measured legalese response to the killing of Meir Kahane in 1990 and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as signs of weakness and a practical invitation to try again.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | Jun 17, 2008 11:35:31 PM
Enemy combatants who are allowed a public trial could through testimony be aiding and abetting the enemy - which could result in more American deaths and a prolonged war. NO, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUPREME COURT DECISION. I EXPECT THIS TO BE OVERTURNED IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!
Posted by: Jimbo | Jun 17, 2008 11:25:44 PM
Karen. Sorry. No. I don't get it. I think that you are stretching it out!! McCain/Romney 08
Posted by: Jimbo | Jun 17, 2008 11:19:39 PM
Either these men are POWs who get treated under the rules of the Geneva Conventions, or they are accused criminals who get their day in a US court. If you don't want them to go to court, then make them POWs.
Republicans just want them to be held indefinitely without a trial
or rights even if they might be innocent.
If they do this to them, then they can do the same thing to American citizens too. Don't you get it?
McSame is wrong!
Posted by: Karen | Jun 17, 2008 11:13:34 PM
I love how the media has this quaint term for when Obama attacks. It's not an attack, no, it's an ever so dainty "pushback". He does it so neatly and cleanly it's not even an attack, it's just a push. Oh jolly good. Please take another pillow Sen. Obama and make yourself comfortable let us dispose of Sen. McCain for you while you nap!
Posted by: hopesprings52 | Jun 17, 2008 11:10:56 PM
James Danley. Touchdown!!!!
Posted by: Jimbo | Jun 17, 2008 11:05:51 PM
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but when was the last time we had a terrorist attack in this country? Don't some of you libs think that is at least worth a HOT DIGGIDY DOO!! Kudos to the men and women in our armed forces who have kept the bad guys OVER THERE!! MCCAIN/ROMNEY 08
Posted by: Jimbo | Jun 17, 2008 11:03:19 PM
Brush Lintball, actually I already gave the answer. But let me try again. This is WAR. You don't want the enemy to know what you know. And in these civil trials everything is public. The defendants have a right to see all of the evidence. When they see the evidence, it is not long before the information gets to their leaders. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing trials is a great example of that. The names of 172 unindicted co-conspirators had to be made public during the trial. They are unindicted because they cooperated with the authorities and probably became informants. But once their names were made public Usama bin Laden knew who he could no longer trust. In addition, it was during this trial that it was made public for the first time that we were actually listening in on Usama bin Laden's cell phone calls. When that became public he shut it down and we lost track of him for a period of time.
Again this is WAR. During WWII we didn't tell the Japanese that we had deciphered their communication codes. Had they learned of that they would have changed their codes. Instead we were able to intercept and decode every message. So we knew the who, what, when, where and how of what was being planned. The war was shortened by several years because we knew their every move.
THAT IS THE RISK OF LETTING THESE TERRORISTS HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT.
Posted by: James Danley | Jun 17, 2008 11:00:39 PM
The issues raised by ABC writers require an analysis of deductive and inductive reasoning. Most business people, at least the ones who start and maintaining successful businesses seem to have those abilities and are predominately conservatives. They are really the movers and shakers of this country. Liberals tend to think with their feelings which is OK as as long as THEY DON"T LEAD!! The liberals can be found mostly in academia and in the social sciences. That is why it is so difficult for cons and libs to agree on much of anything as per this web site!!
Posted by: Jimbo | Jun 17, 2008 10:40:40 PM
Any students of the Geneva convention around? What does the convention say we should do with captured combatants? What if they are combatants but not in uniform. What does this esteemed agreement say about habeus corpus?
What habeus provision were made pre trial for the Nurenberg defendents by the tribunal of victors?
What proceedures did we use with captured German Troops imprisoned in the US during WW11
Posted by: smith | Jun 17, 2008 10:28:12 PM
Can any of you Obamaites answer why Obama has not gone to Iraq to get first hand in formation? Don't you think that would be an primary prerogative? McCain has been there a number of times.
Posted by: Jimbo | Jun 17, 2008 10:20:54 PM
"IRAQ IS NOW SAFER THAN CHICAGO."
Whatever THAT means.
Posted by: Unfaithful Servant | Jun 17, 2008 10:07:28 PM
How about actually learning to speak a foreign language and find some TRUSTOWRTHY allies to help us w/ our intelligence, instead of playing John Wayne and throwing their cousin in Gitmo.
Posted by: Fredo | Jun 17, 2008 10:06:42 PM
WOW! it ain't me you guys are really good at hammering my ideas so what do you think? We should just hold people in Gitmo untill they die? why don't we just shoot them? much cheaper since you repub conservative types are all about saving money
Posted by: Joe | Jun 17, 2008 10:04:38 PM
did Obama really say "inculcate"?
Posted by: MayBee | Jun 17, 2008 10:02:54 PM
Post a comment
