Kerry: McCain Bin Laden Argument ‘Phony’
EmailABC 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."
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
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 | June 17, 2008, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
Maybe ole John is confused about what the Supreme Court is and who is on it.
Posted by: JR | June 17, 2008, 4:16 pm 4:16 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 | June 17, 2008, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
geevil what is your point?
Posted by: bhrandon | June 17, 2008, 4:24 pm 4:24 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 | June 17, 2008, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm
Obama did not vote to use force in 2001 and has boasted about his anti-war on terrorism speech.
Posted by: geevill | June 17, 2008, 4:27 pm 4:27 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 | June 17, 2008, 4:32 pm 4:32 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 | June 17, 2008, 4:42 pm 4:42 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 | June 17, 2008, 5:05 pm 5:05 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 | June 17, 2008, 5:19 pm 5:19 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 | June 17, 2008, 5:50 pm 5:50 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 | June 17, 2008, 6:26 pm 6:26 pm
Give me the chance to finish off what Jimmy Carter started. Obama 08!
Posted by: Mack | June 17, 2008, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm
Mack:
What part of Habeas Corpus you don’t understand?
Posted by: shalom | June 17, 2008, 6:47 pm 6:47 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 | June 17, 2008, 7:00 pm 7:00 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 | June 17, 2008, 7:19 pm 7:19 pm
Says who, Ni Hao?
Posted by: Mack | June 17, 2008, 7:21 pm 7:21 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 | June 17, 2008, 7:55 pm 7:55 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 | June 17, 2008, 7:58 pm 7:58 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 | June 17, 2008, 8:02 pm 8:02 pm
The Republicans have no credibility on this issue.
They haven’t held the ones accountable that have been captured, yet; and
They haven’t caught the terrorists at the top of Al Qaeda, yet.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | June 17, 2008, 8:11 pm 8:11 pm
So this Phony is calling the man he wanted to run with a Phony…… what an idiot he is….
Posted by: Vet1973 | June 17, 2008, 9:04 pm 9:04 pm
To: The Commander Guy…I love your posts…you make me laugh and smile .Thanks
Posted by: orange cat | June 17, 2008, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm
You can make $71,000 OR $250,000 in a few weeks
As seen on Oprah and ABC’s 20/20
If we all work together everyone will benefit
Paypal verifies that this $6 investment
program is 100% legal and is a big hit this year see their note below
or ask them directly…
For a simple investment of 15-30 minutes and just $6 it is 100% worth
it to make thousands so quickly. This is not another scam that takes
lots of your hard earned money; this is a no risk investment that will
make you thousands of dollars very easily and quickly.
Follow these directions EXACTLY and $20,000 or more can be yours in 4
to 6 weeks.
This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity
of the participants. Please continue its success by carefully adhering
to the instructions
STEP 1: Take a few minutes to join PayPal: Remember to verify your
account.
STEP 2:
1) Once you have a PayPal account, use PayPal to post $1 to
EACH of the 6 Email Addresses below because you pay people with an
email address in PayPal. Select “SEND MONEY”
What you are doing is creating a service. This is absolutely legal!
You are requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for it!
Here are the 6 individual Email addresses that you have to send $1 to
through PayPal for this to work properly and for you to receive
money.
2) Now Send $1.00 to each of the six people on the list using PayPal,
and in the comment (Subject) section type “Please add me to your
list”. Below are the emails that you transfer the money into:
These groups of email addresses are PayPal IDs or usernames.
Choose any group and send 1 Dollar to:
1) burkhalter.jacob@gmail.com
2) portarthurtx@hotmail.com
3) jeffersoncounty@live.com
4) sherelld@live.com
5) nastyman2k12000@yahoo.com
6) misspapillion@gmail.com
STEP 3:
1) take the #1 Email Address off the list,
2) Move the other Email Addresses up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc.)
3) and add Your Email Address as number 6 on the list.
STEP 4:
1) Now, post your amended article to at least 200 news groups (there
are thousands of groups).
2) And email your message to as many people you can. Remember, the
more you post and email the more money you make! This is perfectly
legal!
But you have to post a minimum of 200!
- When you post 200 letters, it is estimated that at least 15 people
will respond and send you $1 ($15).
- Those 15 will post 200 letters each and 225 will send $1 ($225).
- Those 225 will post 200 letters each and 3,375 people will send you
$1 ($3,375).
- Those 3,375 people will post 200 letters each and 50,625 people will
send you $1 (50,625).
- Those 50,625 will post 200 letters each and 749,375 people will send
you $1 (749,375).
- At this point your name drops off the list, but so far, you have
received $813,615.00.
JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.
When your name is no longer on the list, you just take the latest
posting in the news groups, and send out another $6.00 to Email
Addresses using Paypal on the list, putting your name at number 6
again.
Winners never Quit and Quitters never win.
Posted by: papillion | June 17, 2008, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm
WHO IS KERRY ANYWAY? HE IS ONE USEDLESS SENATOR NO DIFFERENCE TO KENNEDY.
THIS IS ONE REASON WHY OBAMA IS NOT CAPABLE TO BE THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. HE DOES NO HAVE EXPERIENCE. HE IS CLUELESS HOW TO RUN THIS COUNTRY. LEAST ALONE THE ECONOMY AND HEALTHCARE? THIS IS ONE PERFECT REASON WHY CLINTON SUPPORTERS WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN IN GENERAL ELECTION. CAN’T AFFORD ANOTHER BUSH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH OBAMA.
Posted by: James, R, Independent | June 17, 2008, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm
Chapman: ABC for once has it right!
McCain Did Not Approach Kerry,
Kerry Approached McCain!
Posted by: reaganfan | June 17, 2008, 11:56 pm 11:56 pm
Is Obama so weak that he has to
have Kerry defend his position?
He’s afraid to join McCain in a
Town Hall meeting and now he needs Kerry
to defend him! What a Wimp!
By the way the fact that the Supreme
Court made a 5 to 4 decision on this
issue does not make it settled law!
The Supreme Court will have to rule on this issue again, the sooner the better!
Obama and the Dems were wrong on this
in the 1990′s and are wrong now!
Posted by: reaganfan | June 18, 2008, 12:02 am 12:02 am
Memo to John Kerry:
So what happened in 4 years to change
your mind about John McCain?
Could it be that McCain is running for
President in 2008?
Your judgement must be as bad as
Obama’s if you think so highly of a
member of the opposition party that you ask him to be your VP and then 4 years
later you think he’s a bum!
Go away Kerry! Your guy is the naive,
empty suit who has no solutions for our
problems except to say “Change” over and over again!
Posted by: reaganfan | June 18, 2008, 12:09 am 12:09 am
bush hs done much more harm to america than bin ladin and all the so called terroist comined. and he did it with full knowledge of the negatives we americans would suffer and he did for one reason only, big profits for a special group of people. he’s an evil man.
Posted by: jtrace | June 18, 2008, 12:18 am 12:18 am
Do you guys remember that conservatives called Reagan an appeaser when he wanted to talk to Gorbachev during the cold war? Now those same idiots are calling Obama an appeaser simply because he is willing to talk to our enemies and tell them what they have to do to avoid our wrath.
Obama is not weak on anything. McCain would also have to grant the same rights to Osama Bin Ladin if he were caught because of what the supreme court decided recently. So its a bogus argument.
Posted by: Paul | June 18, 2008, 1:16 am 1:16 am
Another sign that MCCAIN had BEER on his mind. The supreme court is not OBAMA. After saying he will veto every single BEER in America, I knew MCCAIN thinks like BUSH, speaks like BUSH, votes like BUSH and will lead like BUSH
Posted by: ankouemo | June 18, 2008, 2:44 am 2:44 am
Look! Kerry is stepping in for Ted Kennedy to give Obama some cred on Iraq.
I don’t care how they spin it, 352 superdelegates and Al Gore are wrong.
Posted by: Sylvia Johnsen | June 18, 2008, 6:43 am 6:43 am
Mack ….Wrong, they allowed 911 to happen as to have a monster under the bed. If Bin Laden were actually responsible, then why did the White House, at least 3 times, tell the military to stand down when they had Bin Laden in the sights of a rifle?
Posted by: Truth Seeker | June 18, 2008, 8:35 am 8:35 am
And Kerry is ready and willing to be Obama’s running mate! The biggest turnoff for Obama is hearing Kerry dribble on. The flashbacks aren’t positive memories.
Posted by: Mary | June 18, 2008, 8:40 am 8:40 am
Mary
I couldn’t agree with you more! Hearing Kerry stomp for Obama is as scary as Kerry is. LOL!
This is the same guy who lost the last election and now he wants everyone to listen to his voice of reasoning about Barack. This is the same guy who couldn’t defend himself from the swift boat attacks……GO FIGURE!
Posted by: Eric | June 18, 2008, 11:28 am 11:28 am
It’s my opinion that the Democrats will take almost any unfavorable news event and twist the facts to blame a Republican; whether Bush or McCain, for it. We want to try Khalid Sheik Mohamad as an enemy combatant and waterboard him into giving us vital information about our enemies (that which are currently plotting to kill Americans at home and abroad) and the Democrats make us sound like we’re ignoring the constitution. The Supreme Court ruling is a disgrace and Obama supports it.
Posted by: Matty | June 18, 2008, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm
To further my point: Al Gore said during his endorsement speech for Obama in Michigan that “if you want T on your B.L.T. then vote for Obama.”
As if President Bush, McCain, or Republicans are the cause of salmonella microbes infecting an isolated batch of tomatoes?!?!? Keep watching Democratic rhetoric because things like this happen all of the time.
They are using fear tactics and demonizing Republican leadership to the core.. their positions are weak, mindless, and downright childish at times, and somehow people hear them and agree! Amazing!
Furthermore, today President Bush asked the Democratic congress to allow offshore drilling in the wake of skyrocketing prices, as a means to increase supply and take pressure off of consumers. This was VETOED by the legislators of the Democratic party, which can then continue to criticize the President (and Republicans) as the source of rising oil prices.
Regardless of truth, Democrats will stop at nothing to oppose Republicans and paint them as the source of our problems instead of working to fix our nation’s problems, just so they can get elected. This makes me sick.
Posted by: Matty | June 18, 2008, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
Wait. Who’s John Kerry?
Posted by: KyleCop | June 18, 2008, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm
The GOP has had about 8 years to get
Osama Bin Laden … The Great Bush said
one Man does not matter…
and this is the Party that wants
Another Term Under McSame or should he
be called Mcshame………
Posted by: Anita Yova | June 18, 2008, 9:35 pm 9:35 pm
If anyone can get the international community to do something like the Nuremberg Trials, where Nazis were convicted, hung and cremated in Dachau concentration camp, appropriately – it’s Obama. Since Osama’s al Qaeda has blown people up all over the world, he and his crew will end up like the Nazis. The whole habeas argument will be moot, as the lawyers say, when it comes to the real terrorists. For the rest of those poor miserable victims of others turning them in just to collect rewards, they’ll finally get their day in court. Fool of a Bush has already had to release hundreds who hadn’t done a thing, including kids.
Posted by: Earthbound | June 20, 2008, 6:36 am 6:36 am