2008 Props to HRC
posted by on February 18 at 13:09 PM
I like this:
If elected president, Hillary Clinton would ask the Justice Department to determine if alleged 9/11 plotters currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be tried in civilian courts or regular military courts rather than face military commissions that have sparked controversy both inside and outside the United States, her campaign says.Clinton’s response to questions about charges filed last week against six Guantanamo prisoners was the most far reaching of the three leading presidential candidates.
Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that the so-called “high-value detainees” at Guantanamo should be tried in federal or traditional military courts, but did not say what actions he would take to move the trials.
Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, said he plans to continue the military commissions even if the detention center in Cuba is closed, as he has advocated.
In general, I don’t think it’s right to ding Obama for lacking specificity. His website is jammed with details (and is, in my experience, easier to navigate than HRC’s)—but equally important, we should recognize that the majority of the candidates’ policy proposals would need to wind their way through Congress before landing, in an altered state, on the president’s desk. This is an exception. Props to HRC, and I hope Obama offers a similarly detailed description of how he would seek legitimate trials for Guantánamo detainees.
(Via TPM)
I'm amazed at Hillary supporters excitement every time she boxes herself on details on whatever the subject of the day is. It's as if the imagine the voter as a pedantic policy wonk pouring over the bureaucratic minutiae of the government. Sure, it's impressive, just like the brainiac kid in class who could remember 20 random numbers in sequence is impressive. But does that make her more electable?
And even if she is elected, what then? She's going have no room to maneuver because every policy detail was already laid out in her campaign. If she finds herself required to deviate from it she'll be attacked for flip-flopping for expediency.
With respect to the Guantanamo fiasco, so much is hidden behind security clearances and official obfuscation, it's a little presumptuous to be declaring detailed policy when you don't even know what the current situation is.
Back in 2002, by controlling what information was available, the Bush administration gamed Hillary and many other Democrats into voting to give the president authorization to go to war. The same situation applies now, with respect to the Guantanamo detainees.
I think we need a president who will get a fair, open and real assessment of the situation first before setting forth with a policy to deal with it.
Hillary can crow about her policy detail now, but she always seems to end up eating crow later.
Agreed, props to Hillary and Obama both.
McCain, alas, is rapidly squandering whatever credibility he had with any independent in possession of a brain and a conscience.
Rod @1 has obviously not read of any of Annie Wagner's other posts.
I was too easy on Rod @1. His comment is pretty clearly a professionally-produced pre-fab rebuttal to be copy/pasted to any and every blog where volunteers can google this news item. No need to wait for a regular reader familiar with context to post something original and well targeted to the audience.
I'm an Obama supporter myself, but that doesn't mean I won't call bullshit where I see it.
@1:
This is her only option. She's terrifically out-gunned on charisma, emotional appeal and eloquence. Her only recourse is to be a policy wonk.
Of course, being this specific has to run counter to every atom in her political being. I anxiously await the day that she explodes from the built-up cognitive dissonance, and sincerely hope that no one is injured by the resulting sensible shoe shrapnel.
Hillary would make a great advisor for President Barack -- hard-working, detail-oriented, she'd do a hell of a job. Or, she could continue to work her magic in the Senate.
This was a very powerful statement by HRC, and I am so glad she made it. Trying 9/11 involvement fairly in the US would be a huge breakthrough for us in terms of human rights.
Since I'm involved in Obama's campaign, I knew I'd seen an article about him and Gitmo a week or two ago: Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama.
"The attorneys praised Obama for being a leader in an unsuccessful fight in the fall of 2006 to block Congress from enacting a law stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo detainee lawsuits. [...] "When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," they wrote. "
Glad to see that something positive will happen in 2009.
@3: I'm flattered that you think what I wrote was professionally produced. Especially funny, considering that I'm unemployed. Maybe I should look into a career in political spin.
I'm not sure why this is an "exception" where it is "right to ding Obama for lacking specificity". He has said that the cases "should be tried in federal or traditional military courts" and presumably would ask the Justice Dept to do so, since Justice is the department of the federal government responsible for criminal prosecution. Clinton has merely said that she would ask Justice "to determine if [they] could be [so] tried." To me this sounds like both candidates are saying the same thing, except that Hillary is making explicit to the press what is implicit to any lawyer or well-informed politico. (How else could the cases be handled in civilian courts other than asking Justice to do it? I don't see how there could have been any ambiguity here.)
The way that the posted paragraph words it, it actually sounds like it was Barack who took the stronger stand by saying that the trials "should" be in real courts instead of these kangaroo commissions--though upon following the article back to its source I see that Hillary's national security director made essentially the same point that Barack himself had made. So no difference there either.
The story here is the difference between Dems and McCain on this crucial issue. If you think either Clinton or Obama looks better here you're seeing this through some kind of lens.
Obama lacks specifics on every issue. People will soon tire of hearing him say the same damn thing about hope and change.
I'm amazed how educated people actually think that Obama is the better candidate. Hello! He has only been a US Senator for three years and he won by beating Alan muthafuckin Keyes! Ugh!
McCain is the next president, unfortunately.
passionatejus @9:
Yeah, people will get tired of hearing about hope and change any day now. They'll all come to their senses soon, you'll see. Yup, any day now...
Real soon now, everyone'll see this hope business for the pipedream it is, you just wait.
Yeah, nothin' to do but just relax and wait for the craziness to settle down. Kids'll get over this idealism. It's just a phase. You'll see...
Yup, any ol' day now...
rod Hearne @7:
You already have one. If you can avoid gaffes like implying that Annie Wagner is a Hillary supporter or trying to defend against lack-of-specifics charge that her post doesn't make, who knows? Maybe you could be paid for it.
Good for Senator Clinton. Hopefully this will push Obama to call for the same thing. It's nice whenever one candidate tries to one-up the other by doing the right thing. It raises the discourse across the board and makes the right action more likely no matter who is elected.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).