Home > Politics > Political Radar

« Previous | Main | Next »

Kerry: McCain Bin Laden Argument 'Phony'

Share

June 17, 2008 3:53 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis, Gregory Wallace, and James Gerber Report: Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., suggested Tuesday that Osama Bin Laden would be entitled to Habeas Corpus rights under a recent Supreme Court decision should he be detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay.

Kerry argued, however, that it is wrong for the McCain campaign to ascribe this reading of the al Qaeda leader's rights to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., since any president would be bound by last week's 5-4 ruling  on the rights of Guantanamo detainees to access federal courts.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights," said Kerry, referring to all terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. "This is not Barack Obama. This is the Supreme Court of the United States. If John McCain were president, he would have to give them those rights. This is a phony argument."

Kerry, who made his remarks on an Obama campaign conference call with the media, was responding to comments made by McCain adviser Randy Schuenemann on an earlier conference call. The McCain foreign policy adviser urged reporters to ask Obama "if he believes that if Osama Bin Laden were captured and taken to Guantanamo whether he should have Habeas rights."

Tuesday's dueling conference calls were triggered by Obama's Monday interview with ABC News' Jake Tapper.

Asked by Tapper how Obama could be so sure that certain controversial domestic anti-terrorism policies instituted by the Bush administration were not instrumental to the protection of U.S. citizens, Obama said that he did not necessarily oppose all the efforts, but “it is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution.”

Obama then cited “the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center -- 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 seized on Obama's ABC News interview to characterize him as favoring a "pre-9/11" law enforcement approach to terrorism.

The arguments were reminiscent of arguments that the Bush campaign made against Kerry in 2004 when he was the Democratic presidential nominee, a point that was not lost on the Massachusetts senator.

"This is exactly what they tried to say back in 2004," said Kerry. "This is a completely fraudulent, fear tactic, scare tactic, play to the lowest common denominator strategy by John McCain and his colleagues." Kerry's fierce denunciation of McCain stood in marked contrast to four years ago when he unsuccessfully approached the Arizona senator about crossing party lines and joining him on the Democratic ticket.

Kerry went on to argue that McCain's claim was unsubstantiated because Democrats joined Republicans in authorizing the use of force in 2001 against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He also chided McCain for ignoring Obama's willingness to go into Pakistan unilaterally if the U.S. obtains actionable intelligence against Bin Laden.

Kerry was joined on the Obama call by Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar and ABC News consultant, who argued that the question of whether Obama favors Habeas rights for Bin Laden is "largely a fake issue."

"They haven't used the existing lethal authority that President Clinton created," said Clarke, referring to the Bush administration. "So there is lethal authority to be used against him if he is found."

While Clarke said that the U.S. has authority to kill Bin Laden, the former counter-terrorism czar suggested that the al Qaeda leader would have a right to go to federal court and ask the government to release him or show through due process why he should be held in U.S. custody.

"[I]f he were to be brought back" to Guantanamo, said Clarke, "the Supreme Court ruling holds on the right of Habeas Corpus."

June 17, 2008 in Hunter, Duncan, Kucinich, Dennis, Tancredo, Tom, Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (40)

User Comments

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

McCain claims that he is a new kind of Republican, but I can't see any difference between the Bush campaign in 2004 and the McCain campaign in 2008... same ideas, same words, same people.

Posted by: Cornfields | Jun 17, 2008 4:16:28 PM

Maybe ole John is confused about what the Supreme Court is and who is on it.

Posted by: JR | Jun 17, 2008 4:16:36 PM

McCain said he'd go to the gates of Hell to get bin laden, but this does not mean he'd go to any cave in Pakistan to get the job done.

Now if bin laden would just hide in Irak, McCain could come up with a strategy to get him.

Posted by: The Commander Guy | Jun 17, 2008 4:19:55 PM

geevil what is your point?

Posted by: bhrandon | Jun 17, 2008 4:24:08 PM

My point is kerry is still a dolt. obama is weak on terror and an appeaser. Bin Laden would not have any such rights. I suppose Obama thinks Bin Laden is innocent then.

Posted by: geevill | Jun 17, 2008 4:26:50 PM

Obama did not vote to use force in 2001 and has boasted about his anti-war on terrorism speech.

Posted by: geevill | Jun 17, 2008 4:27:55 PM

So McCain is against blowing bin laden up in his cave; and

If we capture him, McCain is against giving bin laden a trial before he is executed.

Anyone else having a hard time figuring out McCain's position?

McCain seems mixed up, again.

Posted by: The Commander Guy | Jun 17, 2008 4:32:15 PM

I wish journalists would press the McCain campaign on what McCain thinks giving bin Laden habeas rights means, or else more clearly define habeas in their articles. It certainly does not mean he will go free, if that is what McCain is implying. Habeas is meant to prevent the president from arbitrarily detaining innocent persons -- so if we manage to capture bin Laden, who is certainly not innocent, a court would reject his habeas petition, and he would be brought to justice. It really doesn't change the outcome in any significant way.

Posted by: otc | Jun 17, 2008 4:42:01 PM

Obama is wrong about 1993. If it had been taken as an act of war instead of a criminal act, we would have been ahead of the game in protecting the country. It's 2008, he should be able to see that clearly by now.

Posted by: hopesprings52 | Jun 17, 2008 5:05:22 PM

PS: "Kerry's fierce denunciation of McCain stood in marked contrast to four years ago when he unsuccessfully approached the Arizona senator about crossing party lines and joining him on the Democratic ticket".
It would appear your crack team missed the reports about McCain having actually approached Kerry.
I've come to expect such partisanship from ABC.

Posted by: Chapman | Jun 17, 2008 5:19:19 PM

So if they hate us because of our freedom, we should eliminate our freedoms?

What is McCain afraid of in simply letting due process play out?

If the Republican say "we must reject the rule of law to protect the rule of law", the Republicans are hypocrites who have no moral right to run the country. Period.

Posted by: Jay | Jun 17, 2008 5:50:50 PM

Anytime people criticize McCain he says they are talking of his age, this is amazing, this man is old that he now reasons like a baby, this is the time to turn the page now, open your ears and see what the world is saying about McCain.

We all talk about security, just watch what will happen to us if McBush wins, we'll be expose to more danger cos of his idiotic anger.

Posted by: Cole | Jun 17, 2008 6:26:37 PM

Give me the chance to finish off what Jimmy Carter started. Obama 08!

Posted by: Mack | Jun 17, 2008 6:32:23 PM

Mack:

What part of Habeas Corpus you don't understand?

Posted by: shalom | Jun 17, 2008 6:47:15 PM

Well, I do know that we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, so whatever they're doing must be working.

Posted by: Mack | Jun 17, 2008 7:00:46 PM

Chapman's right, on all counts.

And it was McCain that approached Kerry, not the reverse as ABC wrote.

Either Kerry was smart enough to reject the overature, or McCain chickened out. Either was speaks well of Kerry, and causes me to question McCain. (again)

Posted by: Ni Hao | Jun 17, 2008 7:19:56 PM

Says who, Ni Hao?

Posted by: Mack | Jun 17, 2008 7:21:45 PM

"But a June 2004 article in The Times reported that Mr. Kerry made his first direct overtures to Mr. McCain about the vice presidential spot about three weeks after Mr. Kerry locked up the nomination that March, according to a person who had discussed the issue with both men. "
Am I missing something?

Posted by: Mack | Jun 17, 2008 7:55:58 PM

McCain's reaction seems legit to me. If it didn't go down the way Kerry said, McCain would have simply dismissed it as fantasy. His excessive response shows me that it was real, and the stakes are high.

It also shows he is too reactionary to have his finger on the button as Commander in Chief. We need a calm person at the helm, that won't make rash decisions the country will come to regret later.

Posted by: Ni Hao | Jun 17, 2008 7:58:38 PM

Yes, there are conflicting reports. That's why I trust Kerry's response. It would be pretty outrageous for him to stick his neck out like that if it were not true. His Swiftboat "friends" would be all over him.

Posted by: Ni Hao | Jun 17, 2008 8:02:25 PM

Next Comments »

Post a comment