It’s a Q&A with Barack Obama December 20th in the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage wrote the story.

< this section has been updated — due to factual error > – in a continuing effort to post only the truth and verifiable information. Thanks for the heads up -Gordo.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

Obama: It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.

He gets it wrong on who ratifies treaties and who consents to them. He says the president doesn’t have the authority to abolish treaties. And the president does! Bush abolished the ABM Treaty shortly after taking office because Bush said it’s irrelevant. The Soviets are gone. I’m getting rid of this. The liberals went nuts, but they couldn’t stop him because the president does have the authority to get rid of treaties. Obama says here that the president does not have the authority to undermine Congress, the Senate here, which ratifies treaties. The Senate doesn’t ratify, they consent to them. The president makes treaties, negotiates them, comes up with them, for crying out loud.

Andy McCarthy posted an article, National Review Online, discussing the announcement that military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five others who are complicit in the 9/11 attacks. This is the 9/11 Six, and the article raises the issue of what kind of enforcement paradigm we’re going to have. Do we go back to the September 10th approach of treating foreign jihadists as if they were ordinary criminal defendants entitled to all the rights and privileges of the civilian justice system, or should we treat the enemy as a war criminal in a conflict in which it’s vital that we protect the intelligence we depend on to save American lives?

In other words, are we going to go back to the Jamie Gorelick Clinton days where we’re going to treat these enemy combatants as just civilians in court and we’re going to hear testimony and we’re going to divulge intelligence secrets of what it took to nail them, or are we going to treat them as enemy combatants, military tribunals and this kind of thing?

As McCarthy wrote, it’s a real opportunity for Senator McCain to separate himself from Obama and Clinton. We still have the military commission option because Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006, and McCain voted for that. Obama and Clinton voted against it.

What do our three plausible candidates think should be done with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? This is a gift, and McCain should grab it, but he probably won’t, because he wants to shut down Guantanamo. He believes Guantanamo is bad. He believes that torture happens in Guantanamo. But McCarthy is right. This is a golden opportunity for McCain to put into play and demonstrate his vast experience at national security and protecting the country, because Obama and Clinton both want the 9/11 Six and future terrorists like this to be brought home here, put in the civilian justice system, and tried the same as we would try a bank robber, in time of war.

Now, McCain gave an interview to Der Spiegel, a German magazine. This is more from Andy McCarthy.

Here’s the question from Der Spiegel:

“America has lost a lot of friends because President George W. Bush angered, indeed outraged, them. He allowed human rights to be violated at Guantanamo Bay, and he dismissed the joint effort to combat global warming. Under a President McCain, could we expect a change of course?”

McCain’s answer: “Yes. I would announce that we are not ever going to torture anyone held in American custody. I would announce that we were closing Guantanamo Bay and moving those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and I would announce a commitment to addressing climate change and my dedication to a global agreement — but it has to include India and China.”

Folks, if you’re wondering why so many of us on this side of the aisle are disappointed, it’s because this answer is depressing. It’s disappointing. We haven’t violated human rights at Guantanamo. Senator McCain accepts the premise, not only, by the way, accepts the premise, he takes the opportunity to grandstand on torture. He intimates that President Bush has presided over a torture regime.

Der Spiegel says, “The world hates your country, and the world hates your president, President Bush because of torture and human rights violations and global warming.” McCain says, “Absolutely right, but I’m not going to do any of that, that Bush has done that, people hate us for.”

Reference:

Boston Globe: Barack Obama’s Q&A – Charlie Savage
Weekly Standard: Obama Unplugged; Lost Without a Teleprompter – Dean Barnett
Der Spiegel: ‘I Have a Long Record of Working Together with Our Allies’
National Review: Obama on the Executive – John Derbyshire
National Review: The 9/11 Six: An Opportunity for Senator McCain – Andrew C. McCarthy