tv [untitled] CSPAN June 29, 2009 7:00am-7:30am EDT
re-drawing of congressional districts. "washington journal" is next. host: first day of the fourth of july recess for a lot of folks, including congress. it is monday, june 29. president obama will meet with the president of columbia today in the supreme court will wrap up their session with three likely decisions. we will start with thoughts on an editorial in "the washington post" with a story about the guantanamo bay detention policy. should the approach of the administration be more like that of the george w. bush administration, or that of fdr? we will explain in a moment.
you can always reach us online. you can also reach us at twitter. and for e-mail id is c-span.org. -- it is c-span.org if you have called in the past 30 days please give others a chance to call this morning. here is where we are basing our question. it is an op ed in the washington post. the author is from the brookings institution. it refers specifically to detention policy. on september, soon after 9/11 attacks the bush administration face a choice about terrorist
detainee's commission to get congress on board or should it go alone? president bush bypass the legislature for seven years, based u.s. detention policy on his own constitutional authority. working with congress would be hard, the administration officials reasoned. the legislature might constrain executive flexibility in the president had powerful arguments that he did not need additional legislative support. that is worthy editorial begins. we will read more of it in just a moment. the issue is between the approach of the bush administration and the executive authority for that of fdr's administration and working through the legislation. the supreme court is wrapping up its session. the ap is reporting, wrapping up the session with several decisions expected today in
three final cases, including a closely-watched discrimination lawsuit by white firefighters who said they have been denied promotions and fro. an appeals court ruled that officials in new haven act improperly in turnout exams because of racially skewed results. one of the other cases involves campaign finance law. the court is considering whether a movie that was critical of hillary clinton during her presidential campaign should be subject to the same regulations as campaign ads. finally, a third case concerns state's ability to investigate alleged discrimination in lending by national banks. two weeks from today the judiciary committee begins in the u.s. senate. to mount carmel on at the democrat's lead. what are your thoughts? caller: yes, i favor probably
fdr's policy. i watched a bush. he invoked the power of the unitary executive and basically he had a lot of trouble with the commissions to set up. and also not giving the prisoners lots of rights, on the other hand i would not like to go all the way for there would have middlmiranda rights. i like to see something in the middle ground. on the other hand, i like to see them tried in civilian courts. but i'm not very comfortable with them being housed in the united states. those are my ideas and i would really like to hear more about how fdr handled the situation. host: lechery more from this article this morning -- let's
read more from this. the alternative which would be going to congress would be painfully political. you would have the budgetary machinations limiting the president's discretion on closing guantanamo. the president can still get what he needs on the attention a few works from congress's bipartisan center. if he releases more information and speaks often about the need for stable rules to govern non- criminal detentions -- and at the right here that when franklin roosevelt sought congressional authorization for the lend-leas program in 1941 the isolationist-leaning mission was evenly split. after two months of sharp congressional argument almost two-thirds of the country supported the program.
yes, the decisions of our democracy may be slow, but when the decision is made it is proclaimed not with the voice of any one man but with the voice of 130 million spent a it is binding on all of us and the world is now left in doubt. roosevelt's approach should be president obama's model, they write. the democrats line, welcome. caller: think about this a little more. think of the bush approach -- although i do not agree with a lot of his policies a think you have to go into it with a presidential decision. it is not one man's decision. he is basing that on advisers, military generals and so forth. once you get congress in this and involved you go through legislation. the congress is voted in every
two years, the senate every six years, so your constantly dealing with a wave of political public opinion which is skewed by held the story is told, how it is written about, what political pundits think. these opinions are based on not having the same information that the president or others would have. host: do you think that president bush might have been able to get some of the policies he wanted implemented done by going through congress? specifically here in the area of detainee's? caller: it all depends on how the media reports it, how they had lined these articles. the headline them let's face it without top-secret information. there could be things going on that only certain leaders would be privy to. it is like what we're going through with nancy pelosi. i think the president is best
off going with his advisers with senior cabinet officials in the military to make the decision. plus, he is dealing with other world leaders he has to enter 2. host: doesn't it also weigh on how much or how well any president gets along with congress? caller: no, i do not think so. that will always be determined by what bill is coming down the pike next, who once the vote from their constituency, so that will be the only thing considered just like we consider the funding of the troops bill. -- we had added in this comments from the imf -- the funding for the imf also with the troops bill. caller: this is typical of the media who always says either/or in do not look at the whole subject in history. this compares apples and oranges.
we're talking about being attacked within our country, not from downside as in the second world war. you do not compare what roosevelt did then and what bush does not. you have to find another president in the current era of terrorism to compare. so, the comparison is poor to begin with. host: they're using a national security issue taken through congress. caller: national security -- at 05 am answering your question and not -- national security is extremely important in both cases, but this is a whole new global situation. now we are being attacked from within and could be attacked more from within. i agree with what the previous caller said, whether your for or
against obama, you have to listen to what the military and thesay. -- what they say. if you go to congress today there is a lot of political stuff. you will not come up with what is absolutely right because there will come up with what keeps them in office. the president has the power and ability to make a decision. you do not compare the tension to then. what did roosevelt do with the japanese? to put them into detention camps within this country. host: that is a good point. this page writes about some of the decision making going on over detainee's. a new rift opens on the rights of the denny's. here is a story in "the wall street journal" this morning. -- of the detainees.
he says the the justice department has determined that the detainee's tried by military commissions and the u.s. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through course of interrogations'. justice department officials warned that the -- defense department officials, rather, warned that justice department position could reduce the chance of convicting some defendants. the bomblet justice department's view is a sharp turn from that of the bush administration which argued that detainees have no constitutional rights. to memphis, tenn. on our republican line. caller: these individuals down
in guantanamo are not covered by the geneva convention. these people would be classified -- it would be under the laws of armed conflict -- these people are unlawful combatants. they're not prisoners of war. they could be shot on sight on the battlefield and the fact that they are not is a testament to our leniency. they're not wearing a uniform, fighting for a flag. these are like the germans who came into new england in the second world war and we executed them. host: so, do think that george bush was right in his detention policy? caller: yes, but he squandered an upper to do with his family congress. he could have gotten this through them. -- with his friendly congress. caller: this is hamilton,
montana. host: excuse me, my mistake. caller: there is a telecom appear that once every one of them. we have a prison that is ready and waiting. we could take care of them right there. the way this whole thing started -- everything seems to be contracted out. you usually their people over there doing their laundry in running their mail. a have turned it into a big business for that pay everyone, other people but hardly pay, the common people anything. the blackwater people, the halliburton people are getting mountains of money while the people doing the fighting are getting nothing. host: you mentioned you are in
montana, a small town which you say will take detainees. where is that? caller: it is in harden, montana, east of billings. it is open and a brand new. they are not afraid of these cuts. the whole town is armed to the teeth. if anyone breaks out there will shoot them up like hamburger. we're not worried about these guys appear. we can hit them from two sides right and the head. host: this is from the paper about tomorrow's deadline in iraq. troops will withdraw from iraqi cities. there are two articles here, one on iraq and the other on afghanistan, writing about the withdrawal in iraq. the top u.s. commander said on sunday that the u.s. faces, the forces are already out of the cities in iraq. it is time for them to take up
responsibility inside the cities, odierno said yesterday on fox. an unspecified number of troops are staying in cities to advise and trained the iraqi forces. the u.s. troop levels are not set to decline significantly until a gradual drawdown begins this fall as part of the security agreement calling for all u.s. combat forces to be out of iraq by august 31, 2010. all will be gone by 2011. on afghanistan the column here on the other were challenges in "usa today" -- it's as this is a critical phase of the summer underdo commander. it's important to start to turn the tide in the next 12 to 18 months.
it says not giving the tell betn the freedom of movement they have for the past three years. it says that the taliban has gotten more violent. more from a caller comparing the bush administration with the obama administration with regards to detainees. caller: when fdr was president it was an overwhelming congressional majority. s the post portrayed he was no great humanitarian, enemy combatants were shot under roosevelt as evidence to wet the previous caller said about the germans. and he incarcerated all the japanese just for being japanese. host: clear lake, texas on our independent line. caller: thank you, i do not
think that bush was mistaken in using his executive authority. i do not think close in guantanamo is going to solve anything, and moving them to another location. they must be processed in some kind of trial. just changing the location will be an expense to the taxpayer and will not address the core issue of having their day in court and what kind of justice system will be used. but guantanamo has turned into this poster child for america's foreign policy and is a red herring. i do not think the world is inflamed over the few detainees we have in guantanamo. i think that we need to be focused on the money we give israel and other issues i think are inflaming the muslim world, much more than guantanamo.
host: glen falls, n.y., next up on the democrats' line. caller: this is the perfect segue to the previous caller. i would suggest viewers who are interested in why obama cannot follow through on his promise to put these people on trial revoke "the dark side," by jane mayer. i believe you had her on "q &a" one evening. we cannot put them on trial because the information we got was elicited by torture which is not illegal to use as evidence. obama came in with this great idea that he would be able to process these people. they cannot be processed because if they are what happens to them will be revealed. then they will not be able to be
held accountable because illegal tactics were used to get the information from them. host: the underlying question is how much he should work for congress to implement his policies, and how much should he use executive authority as the bush administration did? caller: this is a can of worms that will have to be opened, so i don't think he should use executive authority. i was watching last night about some of the nazi trust which did not take place until 20 years after the event. this will be a slow boiling pot, but it must come to a boil. host: this is a twitter from texas -- from kentucky. next to lafayette, indiana.
caller: yes, sir, i am a vietnam vet. these bleeding hearts that one of these detainees -- no one says anything about the americans whose heads they chopped off. we need to start being more like other countries and i think it would stop 90 percent of what is happening in this country. host: about 10 more minutes of your phone calls on the issue presented in this editorial about the obama administration approach to the detention policy. the writers call for more of an fdr purge. it says that the obama administration seems poised for a nearly wholesale adoption of the bush administration's
unilateral approach to detention. it says that the attraction is simple. the legal arguments for unilateralism are strong and very. it says that past presidents and shorter works did not seek specific congressional input on the attention. it's as the unilateral approach lets the president define the rules in ways that are convenient for him and then there's the course to say no -- dares the courts to say no. caller: good morning, i agree with the caller from lafayette. we say that people cut their heads off. in world war ii we incinerated people. we incinerated people sitting on their bicycles. host: what are you speaking about specifically there? caller: in world war ii, the
caller from lafayette said we are wrong because the cut people's heads off and we at what we are self righteous. when we set the bomb off in hiroshima and people were incinerated. host: baltimore is next on the democrats' plan. caller: i am sort of a democrat/independent, and i actually voted for ralph nader. i think that we should do neither. if the are blocked of german- americans, italian-americans, one of the largest -- i think that i mean in tournament -- intermnment.
the bush administration was shockingly run. this was not an attack of war. it was a terrorist attack. if we lived in europe we would be used to this. the reason more people die this because we have more people living here. in britain they detain people and put them under house arrest. they have a bracelet and and anklet and the the come up for periodic review. they do have some problems with it but i think it would be more humane. it does not matter how the other side treats you. that is like the sending to the same level they do. it is like saying that two rights make a wrong. it is argument to the masses, illogical. but i think we should take the moral high ground here. we are already locking up people and detaining people in
afghanistan. i think it is awful. host: thanks for your call. this is a look at "the detroit free press" about the life of john conyers. it's as he took cash and jewelry, says an ex-aide. this is a story about monica conyers who has admitted accepting bribes. but the detroit councilwoman's political advisor and onetime chief of staff to the free press she receive cash and jewelry for brokering other questionable transactions. it says that conyers even helped draft a letter sent by her husband, congressman john conyers, to help a man with whom she had financial ties. to buffalo, new york on the the republican caller: line good morning, thank you for taking my call. this concerns the previous
cobbing of the geneva conventions were said not to apply to the detainee's we have now. in july george w. bush said plainly that the geneva conventions would not be extended to the detainees and no one spoke against it, not even nancy pelosi. she is now against the techniques that were used. i think of it as advanced course in. host: did you say it advanced coercion? caller: yes, we're not breaking their fingers are doing physical harm to them. host: how much of a say should congress have compared to executive authority? caller: if obama was look for advice that might be wise, but
to have them make decisions for him -- there is a difference between the two branches, but to have congress decide what should be done, i did not agree with that. host: here is a story on the iraq as u.s. troops began to move out by tuesday. this is our reuters report. tennessee, good morning on the independence line. caller: good morning, and thank you to all of the cable companies for providing c-span. it is the only form other than the internet where we can hear both sides. that editorial on "the washington post" is just another
example that the entire subject is being pulled up a blind alley. the issue is that we are america and their several hundred detainees, some of whom have been there up to seven years, who have never had a hearing at all. some may be the meanest people in the world and some are totally innocent. they should have their day in some kind of court. they should have a just and fair hearing. host: thank you, jerry. the next call comes from the republican line in tampa. caller: good morning, when obama gave his first executive order and knew we were in trouble. the reporters asked him questions and he knew nothing about it and had to turn around to his lawyer and ask, how will guantanamo is closing work? and his lawyer said they were
working on it. that should have been cut and dried. but he has to wait until his committee besides what they will do until he knows what his plan will be. i think that is said. he should have known how everything would be done. obama had no idea and his lawyer did not either. now he is suffering with the leftovers. no one knows what to do, no one wants them. host: president obama meets today with the president of columbia. it's as the uribe faces a more wary u.s. the white house ceremony in january -- at this ceremony, president george w. bush awarded the colombian president the presidential medal of freedom and praised him for his
immense personal courage for taking on his country's fight against marxist guerrillas. this time uribe will encounter an administration pushing to expand its alliances in latin america and an increasingly worried about colombia's abysmal record for human rights. one more call regarding detainee policy, this one from michigan. caller: good morning, i have been listening to these people calling in saying that these detainees are some some kind of super-humans cannot be kept safely in an american prison, if in fact they're guilty of anything. the person who called and claimed we did not try the nazis until 20 years later for war crimes does not have the right. nuremberg happen very shortly after the war. and for the very