Last week, Assistant Attorney General David Kris and Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to talk about Military Commissions. David Kris got into a little bit of a discussion with Sen. John McCain because McCain was shocked to learn that the Constitution may operate in ways that apply to non citizens. In his defense, McCain is not a lawyer, but I didn’t think this was a novel concept. Yet, Kris had to patiently explain the fundamentals:
Ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned Assistant Attorney General David Kris about his remarks on the appropriateness of administering the Miranda warning to terrorist suspects captured abroad. "It is the administration’s view that there is a serious risk that courts would hold that admission of involuntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings is unconstitutional," Kris said in his opening statement.
"Does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights?" McCain asked Kris.
"Ah, yes," Kris answered.
"What are those constitutional rights of people who are not citizens of the United States of America, who were captured on a battlefield committing acts of war against the United States?" McCain asked.
"Our analysis, Senator, is that the due process clause applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government sets on such commissions …" Kris said.
"So you are saying that these people who are at Guantanamo, who were part of 9/11, who committed acts of war against the United States, have constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States of America?" McCain asked.
"Within the framework I just described, the answer is yes, the due process clause guarantees and imposes some requirements on the conduct of (military) commissions," Kris said.
Joseph Lieberman took an even more radical view: that acts of murder committed by terrorists on US soil should somehow be immune from prosecution under Title 18 of the US Code (Title 18 is the federal criminal code). I’m sorry, that’s a "WTF?" moment for me. (Please note, I did NOT say "blowjob.")
Until President Bush decided to IGNORE warnings that terrorists wanted to use planes as bombs against major US targets and waived it off with a dismissive "you’ve covered your ass" to his briefer, the FBI and the Department of Justice, and particularly Mary Jo White’s USAO SDNY, did an astoundingly good job of prosecuting terrorists who committed crimes against US citizens at home and abroad. They even managed to prosecute terror plots BEFORE they were executed, such as the Millennium bomb plot and the Day of Terror plot.
Yet, Joe Lieberman thinks that where it is possible to hold fair trials in open court and put murderers in prison, the DOJ should be prohibited from doing that:
"Why would anyone prefer to try people apprehended for violations of the law of war?" Lieberman asked. "The fact is that from the beginning of our country, from the Revolutionary War, we’ve used military tribunals to try war criminals, or people we have apprehended, captured for violations of the law of war.
"Again, I think the unique circumstances of this war on terrorists, against the people who attacked us on 9/11, have taken us down, including the Supreme Court, some roads that are not only to me ultimately unjust but inconsistent with the long history of military commissions," Lieberman said.
"Why would you say the administration prefers to bring before our federal court system instead of military commissions that are really today’s version of the tribunals that we’ve used throughout our history to deal in a just way with prisoners of war?" Lieberman asked.
"I applaud this committee’s initiative to reform the military commission act. I think the military commission should be a viable ready alternative for national security reasons to deal with those who violate the laws of war, and I’m glad we’re having this discussion right now, and I thank the committee," Johnson said.
"When you’re dealing with terrorists whose, and I’m going to say this on behalf of the administration, one of their fundamental aims is to kill innocent civilians, and so it is the administration’s view that direct violence on innocent civilians, let’s say in the continental United States, it might be appropriate that that person be brought to justice in a civilian public forum in the continental United States," Johnson said.
"Because the act of violence that was committed here was a violation of Title 18, as well as the law of war, so we feel strongly that both alternatives should exist," Johnson added.
"Well, I respectfully disagree," Lieberman said.
You can’t make this stuff up.
I am gratified to see that New York Times thinks Messrs Kris and Johnson have provided good legal counsel to the Committee. From the Times editorial page:
After years of watching government lawyers undermine the rule of law, it has been especially gratifying to see President Obama’s lawyers urging senators to do even more to create a system that will fairly try prisoners and no longer shame Americans.
At a hearing last week, Defense and Justice Department lawyers suggested major improvements in the Levin bill, which seeks to replace the 2006 Military Commissions Act. Most important, they said tribunals may not violate the Constitution’s due process requirements.
[emphasis added]
What is disturbing to me is the notion that, in order to avoid admitting what horrible assaults were committed on the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the notion of Rule of Law, members of Congress are willing to continue the abuses of the past. All so they don’t have to admit their own past, rubber stamping, mistakes. Here, Obama administration lawyers are doing something to return our country to a sound legal footing, and they are getting spluttering flack from senators who have been around long enough to know how bankrupt their support for continuing the illegal and immoral abuses of the past eight years really is.
I hope Chairman Levin was taking notes during the Kris and Johnson testimony, and that he incorporates their wise advice into the bill currently in committee.
Oh, and Jeh and David: Nice job. Big attaboys all around.



22 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Gonna hijack my own thread here.
Walter Cronkite has died
total contempt for joe lieberman *shaking head* and so glad that mccain is not president
dayam – i wish there were more like him in journalism today
Thanks….had just heard. Truly grew up with him + his announcement of Dallas and JFK. Peace.
RIP
interesting–wiki has already been updated, but it still hasn’t hit yahoo news or newzjunky.
I guess members of the legislative branch created by the Constitution have no need to know what limits that Constitution places on the actions of the executive (or even the judicial) branch of government. McCan’t and Lieberman call themselves “lawmakers”. Guffaw.
so glad that mccain is not president
mixed feelings.
I’d read a lot of good stuff about Costa Rica….
his last Friday News Dump.
Too soon?
Lieberman is always, always, always wrong in matters of warmaking. McCain too.
re: McCain and Lieberman – unbelievable, appalling, shocking – but, sadly, unsurprising.
My “favorite” part of the quoted parts is that, as usual, McCain and Lieberman speak of the prisoners at G’mo as if their guilt were proven, slam dunk, no question about it.
Teddy, are you saying there really is something in which Lieberman is sometimes right??????? : o
What really bugged me about leiberman’s position, thosugh, is that it cheapens the loss of our fellow citizens.
SOmebody murders a Fitzgerald Cantor borker and Leiberman thinks we cannot go after that person for a REAL crime, b/c Leiberman and his buddies created these constitutionaly suspect psuedo crimes?
Well if that takess the real crime soff the table, what happens to the criminals if SCOTUS comes to the conlcusion–which is not far fetched–that the psuedo crimes are unconstitutional.
Cause don’t forget, Double Jepardy will now ba an issue.
Oh, but it’s more important to keep trying to stick that fig leag back in place than to admit that Shrub era terror legislation ain’t got d**k.
Please note: I did not say blowjob.
bush chose to ignore… uhh yeah. if only clinton had assassinated bin laden, right? oh wait.. us liberals dont want the cia to assassinate anyone
Honoring the K Street Oath of Office
If the corporations that buy and pay for McCain, Lieberman, Feinstein, etal.’s senate seats insisted that they preserve, protect & defend the U.S. Constitution, these hacks couldn’t get away with flaunting their ignorance so proudly.
Well, Lieberman needs to take a look at the Milligan case before he goes around saying that our history has been to use military commissions for non-uniformed purported members of secret organizations seeking to sabotage and kill civilians during a time of war.
The general scope and reach of military commissions has been for use with respect to uniformed military and with respect to members of military who are non-uniformed and acting as spies and saboteurs. It’s not the case that we have never had non-uniformed, non-state sponsored, groups espousing terroristic destruction and killing.
From the Anarachists to militant groups like the Black Panthers, to Lambdin Milligan’s secret society, for non-uniformed, non-spies, we have always used the BETTER THAN, SUPERIOR TO, civilian courts for trial. An option, btw, that opens up more avenues for prosecution, as under the laws of war something like money laundering (or material support under the MCAs) is not a war crime.
And in particular, when a commission is not being conducted in a battle theatre (defined by the courts as a place where the courts are unable to be open and operating due to battle conditions)to address exigencies, but instead in a setting where those to be tried have been held for years and civilian courts have already been intrinsically interwoven into the handling of their cases (via the jurisdiction, Raul, habeas, Hamdi/Boumediene etc. decisions) there is not only no reason to use military commissions, but they both limit the scope of the crimes that can be charged AND THEY DIGNIFY MURDERS as being “soldiers.”
Not only that, but to the extent we are going to start sentencing “their” criminals as war criminals, we will have to accept the comparison on our front. A crazy Zubaydah who helps handle travel arrangements and isn’t even a member of al-Qaeda and what will be done with him vis a vis US soldiers who took an Iraqi general’s family hostage, then when he turned himself in to see his boys, proceeded to torture him directly and to hand him over to CIA and non-domestic affiliates for more torture, abuse his juvenile family members, stage a mock execution of his 15 yo son that he did not know was mock right before they finally suffocate him to death.
How do you hold up the result of that military commission (finding, I believe, that under the Laws of War a 60 or so day period spent at home and in church with a penalty was the sufficient penalty) with what has already been done to Zubaydah, much less what will be requested and implemented?
Leiberman and McCain don’t bother to mention one of the biggest problems with commissions – that most of those we have taken into detention are not only not Al-Qaeda operatives who attacked the US, but most were not detained in any kind of combat proceeding – most were not combatants to ever become illegal combatants.
Long winded, of interest to few, but still offered fwiw, from part of the argument in the Milligan case, with respect to the issue of military commissions for non-uniformed insurgent members of secretive societies plotting against the country:
emph added
There’s more there and despite the age of the text and stylings of the language, the bones are all assembled for what should happen under a rule of law.
McCain is one dumb bunny. You must not have been around here when I was explaining that during the election. Well, welcome to FDL anyway Ms. Kouril!
Quite a ticket, weren’t they? McCain & Palin. Ahh, good times.
whatever else could be said about him, it is clear that John McCain does not know the difference between the meanings of the words “infer” and “imply.”
The Grammar Police
We are a better country when we apply the same rules to everyone who commits crimes against our citizens….what’s so hard for Lieberman/Bush to understand? Let me guess – they really, really don’t want these people to have their day in court, nor want the legal actions of discovery to occur….why is that? Maybe it would incriminate their actions?
Mary, I always look for your and bmaz’s comments. Thank you! And thank you bmaz and Cynthia. There is still only one set of laws in this country, based up the events that led to the Declaration of Independence, the formation of the United States of America and the Constitution, all established by the very people who opposed military “justice”. Let’s all work to keep it that way.
Remember back when McCain seemed like he’d actually be a standup guy when it came to torture, and he said, “It’s not about them; it’s about us”?
That was awesome. Too bad he can’t remember that now.