- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Camp Explains Bin Laden's Rights...Again
Email
ShareJune 18, 2008 4:03 PM
ABC News' Sunlen Miller, Teddy Davis, and James Gerber Report: Two more Obama advisers acknowledged Wednesday that Osama Bin Laden would be extended Habeas Corpus rights if the al Qaeda leader were brought to Guantanamo Bay.
The Obama advisers were quick to add, however, that this reading of Bin Laden's rights, which was established by last week's Supreme Court ruling and would be binding on the next president no matter who wins in November, does not mean that the man who claims credit for the 9/11 terrorist attacks would be released.
The decision in Boumediene v. Bush would only guarantee Bin Laden and other terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay the right to request a hearing at which the government would have to establish through due process why the detainee should be held.
Speaking on a conference call arranged by the Obama campaign, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said that if Bin Laden were granted a Habeas hearing before a federal court "the judge would dismiss it" and rule that the United States has "ample grounds to hold him."
Obama foreign policy adviser Greg Craig argued that the question of the Al Qaeda leader's rights was unlikely to arise because "there is an outstanding shoot-to-kill order with respect to Osama bin Laden." He added that the hypothetical question would only come up "if he's captured alive" and "if he's transported out of wherever he's been captured and brought to Guantanamo."
"I have no doubt that there would be no problem establishing a basis, an evidentiary basis, to hold him and try him," said Craig, referring to Bin Laden. "And hold him responsible for murdering 3,000 people."
Obama adviser Susan Rice, who joined Smith and Craig on the call, would not engage the hypothetical question of what rights Bin Laden would be afforded. Instead, she invoked the existing authority to use lethal force against Bin Laden. She also pointed to a 2007 speech on Pakistan by Obama in which he promised to use actionable intelligence to go after high-value Al Qaeda targets like Bin Laden even if, in Rice's words, the "host government is unable or unwilling to act."
Wednesday was the second day in which Obama supporters found themselves explaining what rights Bin Laden would be afforded if he were brought to Guantanamo Bay under last week's Supreme Court ruling. On Tuesday, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D) and former counterterrorism czar and ABC News consultant Richard Clarke offered a similar reading of Bin Laden's rights.
On a Wednesday call arranged by the McCain campaign, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said he was "startled" by Kerry's acknowledgment that Bin Laden would be given Habeas rights at Guantanamo under last week's Supreme Court ruling.
Because Obama agreed with last week's decision and McCain did not, Giuliani said Kerry's remarks on behalf of Obama were a reminder of "what we would have in store for us if we have a Democratic presidency."
June 18, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (235)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
God helps us! Where is Hillary?
Posted by: Marie,TX | Jun 18, 2008 4:21:02 PM
Umm...who is Craig, and who is Smith. I think a quick journalism course would teach these so called "journalists" to introduce the subjects that they are writing about and not call them Smith and Craig out of the blue !!! But of course this is Sunlen Miller !!
Posted by: ncvoter | Jun 18, 2008 4:21:53 PM
This is the constitutional response and the sane response to the question. But McCain won't hesitate to pounce, and voters could get scared when one speaks of Osama's rights.
Posted by: matt | Jun 18, 2008 4:22:11 PM
So what would Mccain do? Ignore the supreme court? Call him and ask him! You guys are some lazy reporters can't you put in this story what Mccain would do as well so we can make an informed decision. I'll just assume that mccain will tell the judges to go to you know were ignore our checks and balances and do whatever he wants. All while he's lighting the constitution on fire!
Posted by: Joe | Jun 18, 2008 4:24:40 PM
Rudi gets startled by process servers, too. So I don't know what his point is.
But this ain't rocket science. There is no reason why there wouldn't habeas rights for UBL. They'd be denied by a court btw.
So this is largely a non-issue.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | Jun 18, 2008 4:25:56 PM
Hillary is on a mounth long vacation but she'll be with Obama on the 26th I think.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 18, 2008 4:26:18 PM
Yes even murdering TERRORISTS have rights. Lets have him move in with Obama and Rev Wright so they can preach to Bin Laden all day
Posted by: Bunyan | Jun 18, 2008 4:27:40 PM
I don't understand why people are so upset about this. Murderers have rights drug dealers have rights. Do you guys really hate our constitution and america that much. I think you really need to be called traitors!
Posted by: Joe | Jun 18, 2008 4:30:43 PM
apparently some Major news is about to break that either deals with McCain or Obama. Anyone know anything about this???
Posted by: jjandall | Jun 18, 2008 4:31:07 PM
Call me old fashioned, but I kind of like our Constitution. I guess Obama does too.
I would certainly prefer that Bin Laden was rotting in jail than running free as he has been for the last 7 years.
In truth, I think this is rubbish. I may not be a McCain fan, but I suspect that he will respect the Constitution (including Habeas Corpus) far more than the current administration.
Posted by: Cornfields | Jun 18, 2008 4:31:21 PM
NO Murdering terrorists DO NOT have rights, are you insane?? The only right bin laden has is to death. He murdered over 3000 people and you want to hold his hand, you must be insane. Give him a trial, ha. Just shoot him or hang him, but first "interrogate" the crap out of him to see if he will give up info. Sure go ahead call me the evil one, say I'm just as bad as he is because your too big of an idiot to know the difference.
Posted by: Dennis | Jun 18, 2008 4:33:15 PM
Even ex-Bush administration flacks have rights too.
Safavian had his conviction for Abramoff related charges overturned yesterday on technicalities. No word on the re-trial, yet.
But there is simply no reason why UBL can't have some sort of trial before he is executed.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | Jun 18, 2008 4:36:09 PM
And dennis what then seprates us from the terrorist? It deffinatly won't be our laws values or constitution. What is it then? And sir it looks like you should direct that idiot remark to yourself.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 18, 2008 4:36:10 PM
Its the Constitution of the United States, not the world. Last I checked bin laden is not a US citizen and therefor not a granted rights under it.
Posted by: Dennis | Jun 18, 2008 4:36:56 PM
Well ncvoter obviously didn't read the piece very carefully as both Rep Adam Smith, D-Mass and Obama foreign policy adviser Greg Craig are mentioned clearly.
On the substance of the piece, I really think the Obama campaign needs to talk about how just holing suspects up in Gitmo does not serve anyones justice and that if and when they do face trial it needs to be seen to be fair.
Posted by: markymark | Jun 18, 2008 4:39:44 PM
So now Americans are terrorists? is that what your saying Joe. Because we want to find and execute this man. This man who would gladly execute your and my children without trial and without remorse? You think we would be terrorist for protecting ourselves? I never flew a plane into his house, I don't want to kill his children. But I'm the bad guy?
Posted by: Dennis | Jun 18, 2008 4:40:46 PM
So then we should just ignore it? He isn't granted rights under it but he is as a pow of the war on terror according to the genvea convention. Hey I don't like the guy ethier but sacrificing our morals as a socitey makes us no better than them. We just have cooler things to blow people up with. If W wanted just to hold all these people he shouldn't have declared war on them and if we aren't going to give them a trial then why don't we kill them all whats the point in detaining them?
Posted by: Joe | Jun 18, 2008 4:42:30 PM
why don't we rename our country into
United States of Islam
Posted by: john | Jun 18, 2008 4:43:12 PM
No you sir are unamerican and don't really belong here. Move to Burma they have a milltary Junta over there sounds more like your style.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 18, 2008 4:44:03 PM
Dennis- you got it exactly right!!! OBL is NOT a US Citizen, and therefore, he has NO rights. He is in a war with us & should be treated as an enemy soldier- shot on sight. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court got it wrong, yet again.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | Jun 18, 2008 4:44:27 PM
Post a comment
