Prof. Althouse is trying to make sense of Barack Obama's rhetoric on Guantanamo and civil rights for terrorists, and good luck to her. Let me flag this:
So he's talking about what he isn't saying I'd like him to be clear about what he is saying. He won't give them "full privileges," but what portion of privileges does he favor? (And why is he saying "privileges" and not "rights"?)
I won't try to guess what he is saying but he said it at length in 2006 in his Senate floor statement objecting to the Military Commissions Act (excerpted in this recent post).
Whether his 2006 statement is still operative and consistent with is 2008 rhetoric is a question for others.
My guess as to the most relevant part of the 2006 statement is excerpted after the break.
In this war, where terrorists can plot undetected from within our borders, it is absolutely vital that our law enforcement agencies are able to detain and interrogate whoever they believe to be a suspect, and so it is understandable that mistakes will be made and identities will be confused. I don't blame the Government for that. This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person.
But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance--even one chance-- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.
Let me respond to a couple of points that have been made on the other side. You will hear opponents of this amendment say it will give all kinds of rights to terrorist masterminds, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But that is not true. The irony of the underlying bill as it is written is that someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial, with all of the bells and whistles. He will have counsel, he will be able to present evidence, and he will be able to rebut the Government's case. The feeling is that he is guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Conventions. I think that is good, that we are going to provide him with some procedure and process. I think we will convict him, and I think he will be brought to justice. I think justice will be carried out in his case.
But that won't be true for the detainees who are never charged with a terrorist crime, who have not committed a war crime. Under this bill, people who may have been simply at the wrong place at the wrong time-- and there may be just a few--will never get a chance to appeal their detention. So, essentially, the weaker the Government's case is against you, the fewer rights you have. Senator Specter's amendment would fix that, while still ensuring that terrorists like Mohammed are swiftly brought to justice.
You are also going to hear a lot about how lawyers are going to file all kinds of frivolous lawsuits on behalf of detainees if habeas corpus is in place. This is a cynical argument because I think we could get overwhelming support in this Chamber right now for a measure that would restrict habeas to a one-shot appeal that would be limited solely to whether someone was legally detained or not. I am not interested in allowing folks at Guantanamo to complain about whether their cell is too small or whether the food they get is sufficiently edible or to their tastes. That is not what this is about. We can craft a habeas bill that says the only question before the court is whether there is sufficient evidence to find that this person is truly an unlawful enemy combatant and belongs in this detention center. We can restrict it to that. And although I have seen some of those amendments floating around, those were not amendments that were admitted during this debate. It is a problem that is easily addressed. It is not a reason for us to wholesale eliminate habeas corpus.
Finally, you will hear some Senators argue that if habeas is allowed, it renders the CSRT process irrelevant because the courts will embark on de novo review, meaning they will completely retry these cases, take new evidence. So whatever findings were made in the CSRT are not really relevant because the court is essentially going to start all over again.
I actually think some of these Senators are right on this point. I believe we could actually set up a system in which a military tribunal is sufficient to make a determination as to whether someone is an enemy combatant and would not require the sort of traditional habeas corpus that is called for as a consequence of this amendment, where the court's role is simply to see whether proper procedures were met. The problem is that the way the CSRT is currently designed is so insufficient that we can anticipate the Supreme Court overturning this underlying bill, once again, in the absence of habeas corpus review.
I have had conversations with some of the sponsors of the underlying bill who say they agree that we have to beef up the CSRT procedures. Well, if we are going to revisit the CSRT procedures to make them stronger and make sure they comport with basic due process, why not leave habeas corpus in place until we have actually fixed it up to our satisfaction? Why rush through it 2 days before we are supposed to adjourn? Because some on the other side of the aisle want to go campaign on the issue of who is tougher on terrorism and national security.
Does anyone remember the snark President Bush got for referring to terrorists as "folks"?
Wonder why Obama doesn't get the same?
Posted by: Mars vs Hollywood | June 19, 2008 at 04:19 PM
Can't say "empty suit" fast enough, when it comes to Obama, and his pronouncements that get overturned or contradicted.
Shall we count the ways:
Habeas rights for enemy illegal combatants, or not.
Endorsement of public campaign finance, or not.
Undivided Jerusalem, or not.
Immediate withdrawal from Iraq--or no steps that would upset security and stability gains achieved.
Renegotiate NAFTA, or never mind.
Couldn't disown Rev. Wright, until he did.
School choice--OK for his kids, not so for yours.
Unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, et al., but can't find the time for Gen. Patreus.
I'm sure there's more that I've missed.
Posted by: Forbes | June 19, 2008 at 04:38 PM
Rasmussen reports that 50% of DEMOCRATS in Fla approve McCain's call for offshore drilling.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2008 at 04:48 PM
Nice catch Clarice. There's even more good stuff at the Rasmussen link:
Posted by: Porchlight | June 19, 2008 at 04:56 PM
Forbes - he can't vet the vetters, so the vetter better quit of his own accord.
No preconditions for talks, just things the other side needs to do first.
McCain's call to visit Iraq was a cheap political stunt, following which Obama is planning on visiting Iraq.
The Tony Rezko going to jail isn't the Tony Rezko he knew.
Posted by: bgates | June 19, 2008 at 05:06 PM
Geez, bgates, the folks Obama knew who aren't the folks he knew, would require an entire, separate post by TM.
Posted by: Forbes | June 19, 2008 at 05:45 PM
I'm fairly certain we're going to need, you know, *judge* for this increased amount of caseload...
... it looks to me like Obama is trying to pack the Federal Judiciary.
.
.
not really. But, hell, it's as plausible a reason as there's been for anything He has said.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | June 19, 2008 at 06:19 PM
Hey Rich and Rick, check out Vinod K. Dar in 'Right Side News', also available through icecap.us
He has a marvelous article about energy resources.
====================================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 06:37 PM
In a continuing illustration of why McClatchy is going the way of Countrywide;
their recent expose of the Cuban gulag: no
not Combinado del Este, or Villa Marista silly,Gitmo, they let the former Taliban ambassador (yes the gang who blew up Buddhas, stuffed women into potato sacks,
crushed gays under brick walls, and uh yes
also gave sanctuary to AQ)testify of his evolution as a prisoner rights advocates,
while the sidebar had Gen. Taguba, accusing
the administrators of Bagram and Gitmo of
'committing war crimes' nothing he could actually put in his report, but more of the same testimony of the "Ctesias of the age, Seymour Hersh" as impeachment happy unacredited law school dean, Lawrence Vervel
put it. By the way, Effendi Zaef, has been out of Gitmo, the Dachau of the West, and under house arrest since 2005; because he was as innocent as Von Ribbentrop and Count Ciano, right. There's something extremely wierd going on in these circumstances.
Also, Stuart Taylor's (usually solid legal acumen)failed in his piece in NewsWeek; saying basically, the administration
'deserved Boumedienne' because they didn't observe Geneva Conventions rules; never mind that the detainee conduct, voided that obligation.
Posted by: narciso | June 19, 2008 at 07:17 PM
kim-
The article is pretty long, and will try to get to it later on his evening. Your point about "climate change" being a part of the run up is well founded and I did some poking around and sure enough, the European Climate Exchange is up and running.
However, I think that the US driven "peaker/warmer complex", and the major exporters* indulgence of them, has more to do with the Apocalypse Soon mentality regarding oil supply.
__________
* Here I'm thinking more of the contest between Russia and KSA to become or maintain the position as global swing producer-and to what extent. If it becomes Russia, they can extend their hegemony over Central Asia, bully Europe, and influence Asia. If KSA can maintain it, they can prevent Iranian hegemony of the Gulf and reduce Russian and Iranian influence in Central Asia and also maintain their Wahhabist prostelyzing globally-esp. in Europe and Asia. The wild card in this is Iraq and going forward how developed their oil fields become. I heard some Iraqi official say recently that the Anbar area and the western desert is full of oil and that they may raise their reserves estimate to 350 billion up from the current 115 billion.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2008 at 07:19 PM
Thanks for the link, n; the one comment he has so far is pretty ignorant. The article itself is masterful.
=========================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Bamiyan, oh Bamiyan.
I hear they are going to try to reconstruct one of those. I've a copy of 'Between Oxus and Jumna' by Arnold Toynbee with a lovely colorized photo of the valley but not of the Buddhas.
===================================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 07:27 PM
narciso-
There's something extremely wierd going on in these circumstances.
Yes there is. Don't forget, progressives make long lists.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2008 at 07:29 PM
"and that they may raise their reserves estimate to 350 billion up from the current 115 billion."
What a no shocker. Re Russian games - AGIPs delay of production in the Kashagan field in Kazakhstan (1 mbd production) dates from 2004. A suspicious mind might wonder if the Gazprom - AGIP connection might play some part in the foot dragging. A 1 mbd production increase in 2007 would have been enough to obviate the peaker's hysteria. I would note that the Oil Drum drumbeaters finally tossed in the towel on their "it's all down hill from here" garbage quite recently.
The Dar article is pretty good. A bit polemical but very much in line with real "reality" as opposed to the MSM's inability to note that the 500 year floods on the Mississippi might have been caused by a snowpack buildup caused by the coldest winter in ???
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 19, 2008 at 08:11 PM
Yeah, Rick, that point never does seem to come through; I guess they'll chalk it up to global warming; like that "Day after Tomorrow" where the planet, boils then freezes in the course of a week. Mind you. it was based on an Art Bell script so take that as you will.
What did happen with the Kazakh and Azeri oilfields; Armitage and Powell's long desired investments, as well as Tom Kean
through Amerada Hess; which usually does sell their gas about a nickel less than others. It is there and in Iraq, where any new oil is likely to come from. Not from the more deplete Ghawar fields of Arabia
Desertica; as Doughty would have called it.
In the category, of shameless hogging of credit, that isn't yours and "no good deed
goes unpunished" The Time piece on the
Obama 'antismear cite' is taking the credit
for discovering that the supposed tape bandied about by Larry Johnson, who was a gungho CIA man as recently as in a BBC program about operations in Latin America
in 2000; came from Steven Frey's novel "The Successor".
Posted by: narciso | June 19, 2008 at 09:52 PM
My husband bought the Day After Tomorrow for $8.50 the day after Thanksgiving one year, and he insists on playing it over my objections. He really likes that scene at the beginning, where the fissure opens up in Antarctica, and Dennis Quaid leaps over it to get the ice cores. He shows that scene to his students -- tells them that, yes, their data is more important than their lives!
Posted by: cathyf | June 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM
TM: Did you see this piece on the Obama-Ayers relationship over at Global Labor? Here's the intro:
For a shorter version, Pundita summarizes Diamond. All courtesy of Rezko Watch.Posted by: JM Hanes | June 20, 2008 at 01:48 AM
Just as with the birth certificate, in the relationship with Ayers, it seems that Obama is trying to hide something. Surely the odor will attract journalists.
=================================
Posted by: kim | June 20, 2008 at 05:43 AM
Good Morning peeps! Apparently Henry Waxman is waxing over whether or not to hold hearings on the COuntrywide 6. Gee, I wonder what he will decide.
Meanwhile the MSM hasn't mentioned the scandal because (according to Fox) they don't want to interrupt the Obama coronation.
We need a revolution. Can't one of you smart people figure out how to start it?
TGIF
Posted by: Jane | June 20, 2008 at 07:42 AM
I'll work on it Jane..We'll make Hit field commander.
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 08:04 AM
I'll work on it Jane..We'll make Hit field commander.
Then success is assured.
Posted by: Jane | June 20, 2008 at 08:26 AM
Have you good people seen J Taranto's cite of TM this morning? See: http://tinyurl.com/3stbbq
Posted by: Sdferr | June 20, 2008 at 09:51 AM
Ah, sorry about that. WSJ best of the web.
Posted by: Sdferr | June 20, 2008 at 09:54 AM
Henry Waxman has time to talk to Scott McClellen this morning. It's on FOX. Waxman just asked for him to explain how the WH ordered him to cover for Scooter Libby.
Posted by: Jane | June 20, 2008 at 09:57 AM
Waxman is asserting that Libby was "involved in the leak".
Posted by: Jane | June 20, 2008 at 09:58 AM
Obviously this is much more important than the Countrywide scandal. After all, we are in the process of bailing them out.
Posted by: Jane | June 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Jane,
Waxman won't look at the Countrywide6 - doing so might call attention to Obama's sweetheart mortgage with Northern Trust, banker to billionaires. Nobody wants to look at the intersection of Rezko, Obama and al Sammarae any more than they want to look at Michelle's raise at the hospital - or the connections between a number of doctors at both UC and Stroger Hospitals back to Rezko.
If you look closely, the Clinton's financial shenanigans seem spring fresh in comparison.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 20, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I am going to puke. We are wasting my taxpayer's money listening to Scott McClellan's opinion.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Asked about Armitage, McClellan can't speak to that. I'll just bet he can't. Ruins the narrative, doesn't it Scotty?
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I tell ya' what, I am almost ready to start the revolution. I cannot believe we are still wasting money that could be used for all those needy projects that democrats keep telling me about on Wilson/Plame.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I can't believe Scott McClellen. What a child. And I actually blame Bush for being so naively loyal.
Posted by: Jane | June 20, 2008 at 10:26 AM
"needy projects"? The farm bill is so porked up the WaPo reports that urban areas like the District of Columbia are getting pork out of it--in our case $10 million.
If Obama is elected you can be sure taxes will rise tremendously,, inflation will soar and the economy will be a hellacious mess.
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 10:35 AM
It is kind of funny. I have been searching the blogs to find someone discussing the hearing, and so far, I'm coming up zero. I'm sure there are some out there, but I haven't found one yet.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Well, not to disappoint, they have Christy liveblogging the hearing over at the swamp.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 10:43 AM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/why-you-can-never-trust-the-associated-press>AP bilgewater
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 10:51 AM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/why-you-can-never-trust-the-associated-press>AP bilgewater
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM
See what he does with the "Restoring the Constitution Act" he narrows the scope to only 9/11, not acts committed before or after,http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=s110-576> than in this part:
Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 - Amends federal provisions concerning the prosecution of unlawful enemy combatants by U.S. military commissions to, among other things: (1) repeal the authority for civilian trial (prosecution) counsel in a commission proceeding, but authorize civilian military defense counsel; (2) exclude statements made by coercion; (3) authorize the Secretary of Defense to make exceptions to commission procedures and rules of evidence as required by unique circumstances of military or intelligence operations during hostilities; (4) provide for self-representation by the accused, while requiring assistance by military defense counsel; (5) authorize the military judge to order trial counsel to disclose to defense counsel the sources, methods, or activities in which witnesses or evidence against the accused was obtained; (6) require commission decision review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces rather than by the Court of Military Commission Review; (7) provide the scope of review of detention-related decisions; (8) repeal a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 prohibiting invoking the Geneva Conventions (Conventions) or similar protocols in any habeas corpus or other action to which the United States is a party; (9) require the President to notify other parties to the Conventions that the United States expects members of U.S. Armed Forces and other U.S. citizens detained in a conflict not of an international character to be treated in a manner consistent with the Conventions; (10) include as War Crime offenses the denial of trial rights and the imposition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; (11) restore habeas corpus for individuals detained by the United States; and (12) provide for expedited judicial review of civil actions that challenges any provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Makes it virtually impossible to try the suspect. Did Gleen write this bill?
Posted by: narciso | June 20, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Nice precis over there at Sweetness and Light. Thanks.
Where's TCO when I want him to read something?
===================================
Posted by: kim | June 20, 2008 at 11:14 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DT0D8Q&show_article=1>Not one word about Armitage in this article.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 12:01 PM
(10) include as War Crime offenses the denial of trial rights and the imposition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;
They are pretty much gonna get it down to the point where if the military shoots somebody it's gonna be a war crime. Enough, already.
Posted by: Pofarmer | June 20, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Well if he can part the waters I guess he can convey rights to foreigners. But try as I might I do not find the rights of foreigners mentioned in the Constitution.
I do realize that it only takes five demigods to channel the founding fathers and tell us poor fools that we and all like us have been mistaken about the Constitution and its contents and only they can devine its true message.
Just remember this is the court that curtailed your freedom of speech, told us sodomy is legal, put its stamp of approval on politicians stealing your property and giving it to their cronnies and of course now deciding that the courts have the right to orchestrate and wage war.
This is the kind of change Snobama believes in. I believe Hitler did so with his directives superceeding the German Constitution. Ah history does repeat itslef. The National Socialists here are spreading out from their Nuremburg rallies at Wrights nexus and are now trying to spread it to the White House.
Lets see if National Socialism can happen here.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson | June 20, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Jane/Clarice/Jane:
We need a revolution. Can't one of you smart people figure out how to start it?
I'll work on it Jane..We'll make Hit field commander.
Then success is assured.
I most likely will be NOC'd for this mission.
Like the last one.
And yes -- this, too, will be a success.
Once I go dark, if you need to reach me, contact Kristoff.
Posted by: hit and run | June 20, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Then success is assured.
After we publish the Encyclopedia narcisica, I'm thinking we can follow up with The Art of the War Room by Jane Tzu.
Posted by: Elliott | June 20, 2008 at 05:40 PM
I love Jane Tzu. Who knew I was named after the sun.
Posted by: Jane | June 21, 2008 at 04:36 PM