McCain, Obama, Giuliani — and the Rights of Detainees
EmailAfter 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
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
If Guiliani is so smart, why did he so poorly equip the brave men who were the real heroes of 9/11?
Posted by: MIguy | June 18, 2008, 10:08 am 10:08 am
brave men and women…
Posted by: MIguy | June 18, 2008, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Rudy,
No wonder you lost. Can you provide us more insight into Obama’s and Democrats thinking? It is amazing you know how I think.
Amazing that you were able to pass law school. What class taught you that the government could violate civil rights in the name of “security”? With that type of thinking the terrorist have won because the terrorist main objective was to destroy our way of life. Check, thanks to Rudy and the GOP. Thanks for surrendering civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Bye Bye America. Welcome to the tyrannical empire state.
Posted by: geevil | June 18, 2008, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Tough call. Giuliani is right that playing defense only emboldened the terrorists. On the other hand, a process of disposition has to be put in place for the detainees. All Obama is doing is criticizing without offering a workable solution.
The question is, what is the definition of ‘workable’?
Posted by: len | June 18, 2008, 10:31 am 10:31 am
Dear American Voters, reporters and political professionals, and let us believe in Family, Friends, Fellows, Faith. Funds, Foundation, Fun, with Fairness & Freedom and without Fear, Favor, and Failure. This is for Mr. Jiulani.
Hon. Senator McCain and Obama, besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences between the two of these presidential presumptive nominees are as under:
1. Presidential “Temperament and Composer”.
2. Little Washington “insider Versus outsider” experience.
3. “Vision and mission” for our nation future rather than past.
4. American policies, ” first U.S.A Centric” than any other country [ ies ] centric.
In my professional opinion Senator Obama leads in all above qualities.
The need of our next movement and generation is a change. The Change in ” past Washington and its Leadership”. A change we can believe in and not the seductive, deceptive, and confusing slogan of “leader we can believe in” [? Effexor ?".
Our Greatgrand Nation has to address many present and future challenges and start with new clean "Slate and Senator".
God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.
Our Greatgrand Nation is needs the CHANGE at every level and for long time.
I am sure Senator Obama with the help of Senator Clinton and her supporters, can deliver that CHANGE.
Please stay involved, stay engaged, and stay informed. Please do not allow any seduction, deception, and or confusion by some partisan media and leaders effect your vote [ Psychological Terrorism ]..
Yours truly,
COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
Disabled American Veteran
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas
PS: Please talk about the ” Presidential Temperament And Caliber ” of our presumptive presidential Nominees. Thanks.
Posted by: COL.[retd]A.M.Khajawall | June 18, 2008, 10:36 am 10:36 am
“If Guiliani is so smart, why did he so poorly equip the brave men who were the real heroes of 9/11?”
Low blow, MIguy. Procurement policies prior to 9/11 were a grab bag driven by each agency and jurisdiction without any real efforts by the public safety industry toward interoperability. It is a late adopter industry that ignored the web, ignored telecom, and ignored customer efforts to push for standardization. Standards were dirty words in public safety prior to 9/11 because the major vendors were hell bent on market domination as the means to achieve interoperability.
Efforts since then to provide interoperable systems based on the National Response Plans, NIMS, NIEMS, and so on have made progress because the requirements were pushed into the RFPs for public safety systems. Even then, we are only now fielding real NIMS-compliant command and control. No city, agency or jurisdiction in America was prepared 2001. They are only marginally better prepared now.
BTW, let’s see, who was it that did show up on site with breathing equipment for the clean-up crew? Why, that was Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York.
Posted by: len | June 18, 2008, 10:38 am 10:38 am
@Len:
The point was to be a low blow. Guiliani was there in NYC and in a position to prepare after a terrorist attack in his city in 1993. Obama was not. I think you present very good points, and I let Obama speak for himself and defend his own words. On the other hand, Guiliani seems to be in poor standing here.
Posted by: MIguy | June 18, 2008, 10:47 am 10:47 am
The problem MIGuy is unless he was a procurement official for ALL of the districts, there are limits to what he could do.
On the other hand, his work with COMPSTAT was and is the cornerstone for the NIMS/NIEMS/police RMS systems for analytics. He was quite good. Had such systems been used in Florida, the plot could have been uncovered because the connections in the data were there. The problem was not a matter of will; it was a matter of regulations. The CFAR for sharing that information among agencies is very restrictive.
The trends are now to regional data fusion centers where the information collected and shared from the municipality to the FBI is focused on terrorist activities. In terms of incidents, it is still pretty weak but there is a balance that has to be made between privacy as a traditional right if not in fact a right by law and the needs for security.
Giuliani actually has a good record in the industry. The policy issues far outweigh faults by any individual. If you want a case where the systems ARE in place and the people failed, look at Katrina.
Posted by: len | June 18, 2008, 10:56 am 10:56 am
All Republicans or most are liars. I do not trust any of them, especially mccain. Talk about a flip flopper just to get votes.
In 2000 he asked that all detainees either be charged or released.
And on this crap about off shore drilling. Please, it would be almost 5 to 7 years before we save a penny on gas. Another bunch of crap. Plus what about the environment, the ocean?
Then we have the scare tactics of the war. Anything that comes from his mouth or Bushes I will never believe. He voted for this war, he pushed for this war side by side Bush, he still pushes for this war, We do need to fight the terrorist but not his or bushes way. All of them are stupid people who wants the american people to believe we are just as stupid. Got news for them, we have only gotten smarter. NO MCCAIN IN 2008!
Posted by: Becky | June 18, 2008, 11:14 am 11:14 am
So it took McCain this long to figure out that these POW’s have rights, and whine that Obama shouldn’t want them to have rights.
If McCain gets elected, my opinion of my fellow Americans will diminish slightly.
Posted by: DAVID NH | June 18, 2008, 11:19 am 11:19 am
I’m not sure why everyone is SO concerned with the rights of a terrorist! You know, I am so sick of hearing about how their being treated. They came to our country to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. So now we want to give them the right to appeal? What’s next? Citizenship? Healthcare? Social Security? Welfare?
Posted by: Pigletjay | June 18, 2008, 11:20 am 11:20 am
I think Mccain is a lot like Kerry.. Flip flop… On everything so far. I mean where the heck does this guy stand for now. Next thing you know he’ll be in gitmo waterboarding people right next to the CIA. He’s getting so bad I wonder if Bush wears him to the beach..LOL!!
Posted by: Joe | June 18, 2008, 11:22 am 11:22 am
Here is how I look at it…
Lets say you live in Afganastan.. No power, t.v.,internet, local news. Then some foriegners show up in a tank and open fire on you. You return fire. Then you are arrested and thrown in Gitmo. You had no idea there was a war or who you were shooting at.. But now your an enemy combatant held in Gitmo forever, or untill the kill you.
Posted by: Joe | June 18, 2008, 11:26 am 11:26 am
The ’93 WTC attack was a federal sting operation that was allowed to continue. They were supposed to substitute fake powder for the explosive in the bomb but were ORDERED NOT to!!! And the WTC was attacked with live ordinance. (And for you tin foil accusers, this comes from the New York Times and ABC, NBC, and CBS news, so it must be true) See Martial law 911 on Google for more info on the ’93 WTC attack. They were NOT terrorists, they were operatives… Sound familliar.
Posted by: heresy | June 18, 2008, 11:27 am 11:27 am
Compared to McCain, John Kerry was a paragon of consistency.
Posted by: AkaDad | June 18, 2008, 11:36 am 11:36 am
They are not terrorists, they are suspects! Is it right to torture SUSPECTS indefinitely and without charges!?! Is this even America anymore, or have we become something else while we were watching Britney Spears and Fox News!?! Anything upto but not including organ failure sounds like torture to me. Here’s a simple way to put it, if they can do it to your kids, it aint torture. Anything else, pretty bad, my friends. Google and read the Taguba report to know what we have been really doing to the suspects in Getmo. If you can live with doing that to civillians, then I wonder if you are even human, since you left sanity a long time ago!!!
Posted by: heresy | June 18, 2008, 11:45 am 11:45 am
Well hanna we can just keep borrowing money from china. If thats cool with you. Then we can use that money and spread peace and democracy with our guns. Makes perfect sense if your crazy!
Posted by: Joe | June 18, 2008, 11:52 am 11:52 am
They are presumed to be terrorists in this war on terror, they are therefor POW’s. Let the terrorists end the war or we shall end it for them, one at a time if need be.
Posted by: Dennis | June 18, 2008, 11:58 am 11:58 am
Rude’, rude’, rude’
is this the guy who bet the farm on
flordia, had a crook for police chief,
the no help mayor? The photo op king?
i really don’t think he is a player!
good luck in you private law pratice and
hope it is better than your political future
Posted by: noti | June 18, 2008, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
This is the same person, Guiliani, who did a very poor job, to say the least, when this city was attacked. Actully it was not only New York, but the whole of our society, that was attacked. Nevertheless, Guiliani, did not react to situation as a person with the ability to lead. Next, he runs for president, and again missteps were made,proven him to have no sane idea about how to us good sound judgement. Therefore, “close it”! I leave it to you
Posted by: We The People | June 18, 2008, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
We’ve had those people at Gitmo for nigh onto six years now. The Nazis at Nuremberg were all tried and sentenced within four years.
This would never have even come to the Supreme Court if the Bush Administration hadn’t tried to evade the Geneva Conventions by trying to imagine up a brand new category of prisoner who was not covered under ANY law. They tried to create a place and a category of people where the law couldn’t reach but they, by virtue of their supposed virtue, could.
That is completely un-American. America does NOT work that way. We are a government of laws and not of men, even if the men who temporarily hold the highest offices do appear to think they’ve been selected by God Almighty himself to place themselves above the law.
Posted by: Lee C. ― U.S.A. | June 18, 2008, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
Gee Jake
Guess the paid Obama bloggers are busy with there constant smear campaign. Watching them try to reinvent history and listening to the low rated majority in Congress try to follow the empty suit into a brave new world………
Makes me want to vote McCain 2008
Posted by: Jackie | June 18, 2008, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
Rudy is a waste of skin.His only talent is wearing various baseball caps during the 9-11 aftermath.His political opinions are particularly important when considering his razor-sharp decisions during his fabulous presidential run this year.
Posted by: bskahn | June 18, 2008, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
Rudy was present on 9/11 to say “thank God George Bush is our president.” That constitutes his “leadership.” Rudy is a self-promoting, self-righteous embarrassment. His emperor’s clothes are so completely off after his ill-fated compaign (9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 like a skipping record) and wife maltreatment that all he’s doing by opening his mouth is helping Obama, so I hope Rudy keeps on talking!
Posted by: MikeinPhilly | June 18, 2008, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
PigletJay — The whole problem is that the “evidence” these detainees are enemy combatants is merely that the Bush administration says so. The Supreme Court, quite rightly, is not willing to trust known liars (Bush et al.), and so wants to make sure that people are not detained for no good reason. Needless to say, if you trust this administration, you’re a complete fool.
Posted by: MikeinPhilly | June 18, 2008, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
And another thing.
If the Guantanamo detainees really are enemy combatants, and the administration case prove it, why is the administration so worried about having to do so in a habeas hearing? Answer: Because it wants to detain people at whim, without proof.
Posted by: MikeinPhilly | June 18, 2008, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
I’m not sure why everyone is SO concerned with the rights of a terrorist! You know, I am so sick of hearing about how their being treated.
Posted by: Pigletjay | Jun 18, 2008 11:20:04 AM
___________________
No one is a “terrorist” merely because someone says they are. Until they are proven to be terrorist in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, they are only suspects. In other words, they are no more terrorist than you are.
Posted by: rhbate | June 18, 2008, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm
The question is, what is the definition of ‘workable’?
Posted by: len | Jun 18, 2008 10:31:10 AM
___________________
A “workable” solution is giving all suspects the right to challenge their detention in a court of law – it’s called the Great Writ – the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Posted by: rhbate | June 18, 2008, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm
if you guys really think that the detainees in GITMO are being tortured maybe you should go there and see what really goes on. This is what you will see, grown men crying because they got vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate. Then you will see guards walking up and down the tiers enduring crap being throw at them and being called every name in the book. So who is really being tortured?
Posted by: noname | June 19, 2008, 7:16 pm 7:16 pm