Rights of Detainees -- What do you think?

[Steve James]

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

[shawnsegler]

I think politicians are worthless pariahs.

S

[steelincotton]

To truly be a leader in the world, we must operate on our highest moral regard.

[Steve James]

Well, I agree. The only thing I can try to do is honestly compare my values and beliefs with those of the politicians. I don't mind so much when they disagree; I just hate when they flip. Or, when they say they profess "American" values, then go on do what seems like the opposite.

For ex., "habeas corpus"... was one of the principles we based our fight for independence on; it was suspended once when we were in the midst of a Civil War (and Congress determined that it shouldn't happen again); it was not suspended during WW2, afaik, but we still rounded up "foreign agents" and "unfriendly citizens" and put them in camps --at least until the end of the war, and we had to pay them back.

But, iirc, one of our goals of invading Iraq was to give them (Iraqis) an opportunity to have a just, democratic/republican system (well, something that's not Islamic or like Saddam's gov't. Btw, fwiw, the success in Iraq now is ironic given that part of it is due to the fact that the Iraqi parliament has allowed former members of Saddam's Baath party to participate. Ok, that might not be a bad thing; but, it seems like we'll end up where we started, except that oil will be more expensive).

Anyway, when I think of Saddam's regime, I think of the people who were just taken off the street for disagreeing with him and then tortured. I mean, that was part of the reason that we were given to get rid of him, no? Then, we let the Iraqis give him a fair trial, before they executed him. But, at least he got a trial.

So, I can't understand why a politician wouldn't want us to follow the rules of law that we invade other countries to protect.

[Darthwing Teorist]

It's really disgusting. I respected McCain at the time, I am really disapointed in this. Obama seems to change positions on NAFTA too. It seems that something is happening behind scenes that makes them change position. It's either opportunism or maybe someone twisting their arms.

[shawnsegler]

It seems that something is happening behind scenes that makes them change position. It's either opportunism or maybe someone twisting their arms.

It's too far fetched to think that things are being controlled behind the scenes by people we have never heard about...if they were really out there working us and thinking ahead so that they could continue to work us until the end of time, we'd surely have heard about it right?

Nah...too far fetched.

S

[Steve James]

Yeah, I'd be worried about any politician (or person) who didn't change his or her position. It's true. I can't always tell whether he does it because he's actually changed his mind or is just trying to gain points with the public. ou can't tell, and it might not even be clear to the candidates. People have a tendency to fool themselves when it comes to their motives (i.e., they see everything they do in the best possible light, even in retrospect).

However, what I can do is judge where a candidate stood/stands with where I stand now. I'd vote for an ex-KKK member, if I believed that he'd sincerely changed. Similarly, if a candidate shifts on NAFTA because he/she sees that it is damaging or didn't have the desired effect, that's a good thing. Otoh, if a candidate who has been "pro-oil interests" suddenly claims to be "green", I might think it was political, but would applaud it anyway. However, if Obama, for ex., would start to say "give an oil-tax vacation", I would call that hypocrisy because "he" called things like that "political ploys."

When it comes to basic human rights, though, there's little room for compromise. Everything might be shades of gray, but ya can't trust anyone who doesn't believe that there is right and wrong. It's like lying. It might be necessary, but watch out for the person who thinks it's right.

[Dmitri]

It's really disgusting. I respected McCain at the time, I am really disapointed in this. Obama seems to change positions on NAFTA too. It seems that something is happening behind scenes that makes them change position. It's either opportunism or maybe someone twisting their arms.

No, no, not opportunism, -- they're honest people with lots of integrity!! It's that Change (TM) they were talking about, beginning to show itself.

By that measure, people like Ron Paul and Kucinich don't even know the meaning of the word "change", apparently.

Go, mob, go! Cast yer doctor-prescribed vote! All fired up and stuff.

Exactly.

[Michael]

Ex-State Dept. official: Hundreds of detainees died in U.S. custody, at least 25 murdered

At today’s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights hearing on torture, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody, with up to 27 of these declared homicides:

NADLER: Your testimony said 100 detainees have died in detention; do you believe the 25 of those were in effect murdered?

WILKERSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the number’s actually higher than that now. Last time I checked it was 108.

A February 2006 Human Rights First report found that although hundreds of people in U.S. custody had died and eight people were tortured to death, only 12 deaths had “resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official.”

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2764
http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=454

[Steve James]

Well, ideally, all we'd need to do is compare R.Paul or D.K's position to those of the candidates. But, I just had to look up the NAFTA stuff and found this on msnbc.com

"MCCAIN: Hitting Obama on NAFTA
In a Detroit Free-Press op-ed -- battleground state of Michigan -- McCain criticizes Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric during the primaries. “At a time when Michigan's auto industry faces serious pressure, $11 billion of vehicles and parts were exported to Canada. The task for the next president will be to build on these ties in order to make North America more secure, more prosperous, and more open to opportunity for all our citizens. The North American Free Trade Agreement has provided our economy with a framework in which we can become more competitive…”

“U.S. Sen. Barack Obama does not understand this. He has called NAFTA ‘devastating’ and ‘a big mistake,’ characterizations that are out of touch with the reality of NAFTA in Michigan. What truly would be devastating is to jeopardize the trade expansion of NAFTA through a misguided, isolationist impulse that would inevitably and understandably alienate a key partner like Canada.” "

So, regardless of the change, what is the opinion on the positions?

[Michael]

Regarding my copy and paste above, these are figures from 2002-2003. If you read the rest of the article from the link provided, you'll find that these people were tortured to death beginning in December 2001. Believe it or not, there was an article on the front page CNN.com front page where the CIA was actually complaining that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA, wow just one letter off from CIA) was doing this. Can you even begin to imagine how bad things must have been 6.5 years ago, at the beginning of the "war on terror", for the CIA to complain that the DIA was killing too many prisoners?

Do you remember the prison revolt in Afghanistan at that time when a former Marine cum CIA agent was killed by prisoners? Wonder what was going on?

Does anyone think that CIA and DIA agents who had tortured to death at least 25 prisoners 6.5 years ago would even hesitate to do the same to a US citizen if they were ordered and didn't think they would be caught? As I mentioned in another thread, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfed/Ashcroft/Gonzales passed legislation pardoning themselves from these crimes.

[Dmitri]

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfed/Ashcroft/Gonzales

Oh man, what a cool bunch of guys... I'm getting verklempt.

I'm not sure we've ever had such an exquisite collection of human excrement being present/active simultaneously in office, in the entire US history.
This is Guinness Book of Records material, I tell ya!

[Michael]

It's really disgusting. I respected McCain at the time, I am really disapointed in this. Obama seems to change positions on NAFTA too. It seems that something is happening behind scenes that makes them change position. It's either opportunism or maybe someone twisting their arms.

Yes, but twisting their arm is kind of an understatement. They change their positions because they are compelled by the people who control their $$$, the people who selected them for office, such as the recent Bilderberg meeting where Obama and Hillary met with their paymasters and made their arrangements on how to perform the rest of the stage drama of election 2008.

Men like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have long, established histories of following specific principles regardless of trends and shaping their politics to these principles, and have managed to maintain their integrity, and yet they are marginalized by the mainstream media. In 2004, Nader was going across the country holding rallies where his supporters were paying basically the cost of a movie ticket to hear him talk. The money was just to cover costs and create seed money for the next rally. AFAIK, other candidates did nothing like asking normal, working class people to pay just to hear them speak, $1000/plate dinners notwithstanding. When Nader got to NYC, he sold 20,000 tickets in Madison Square Garden and it was scarcely even reported. None of the other candidate had held rallies like this.

Obama, Hillary, and McCain are long since bought and paid for. Nothing significant will change after they are placed into office, just as almost nothing has changed (for the better) in the past 20 years except the increase in the size of the govt, military, prisons, inflation, and number of wars.

[Michael]

MClatchy has detailed stories and articles on the topic.

General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

One of the Iraqis, identified by the pseudonym Laith, was arrested with his family at his Baghdad home in the early morning of Oct. 19, 2003. He was taken to a location where he was beaten, stripped to his underwear and threatened with execution, the report says.

"Laith" told the examiners he was then taken to a second site, where he was photographed in humiliating positions and given electric shocks to his genitals.

Finally, he was taken to Abu Ghraib, where he spent the first 35 to 40 days in isolation in a small cage, enduring being suspended in the cage and other "stress positions."

He was released on June 24, 2004, without charge.

[ninepalace]

gitmo seems like the ultimate terrorist training camp. they have to let a lot of those people go. i'm sure they will harbor no ill will to their captors. if you read antonin scalia's dissenting opinion he talks about the terrorist acts of people released from gitmo who were not considered enemy combatants. he uses this as a rationalization for his dissent. essentially: see how bad these guys are. even the ones we didn't classify as that bad are terrorist.

fucknut, we just turned them into terrorists.

it's so ridiculous i can hardly discuss it w/o getting a headache.

george bush as captain of the titanic:
"do not worry about us hitting this iceberg. we must run into them out here so we don't have to run into them at home."

stay the course.