UNCLOS needs bipartisan push

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this guest post)

Twenty-eight years ago, on December 10th, 1982, 119 nations signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a convention that the United States has yet to join. It was written recently that the American government can no longer approve treaties, at least not ones of importance. While IntLawGrrls Diane Marie Amann made a convincing counterargument, the case of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (prior posts) could leave one pondering the issue again. (credit for photo of 1982 U.N. law of sea conference in Montego Bay, Jamaica)
UNCLOS is recognized worldwide as one of the great accomplishments in modern international law. Responding to changes of ocean use that were undermining the three-century-old Grotian regime of free seas, negotiators labored for more than a decade to craft a convention that benefited all nations. Then they labored another dozen years to resolve the last of the concerns, enumerated by President Ronald Reagan, which had previously kept the United States from joining the Convention.
Though it can be intimidating in its scope and detail, the Convention has garnered the support of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, the energy, transportation, fishing and telecommunications industries, and non-profit organizations committed to conservation, law, and international engagement. In fact, there is no international agreement in decades that has garnered such a broad and powerful body of domestic support.
In spite of this support, UNCLOS, with its partner agreement on the implementation of Part XI, has been stalled in the Senate for 16 years.
For the first eight years, Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), who chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, refused all requests for hearings. In 2003, when Helms retired and Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) took his place, the Convention moved smoothly through hearings and unanimous approval in committee, but was brought to a halt by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).
After Democrats took control of the Senate in 2007, the Convention was once again approved in committee -- only to have George W. Bush’s support disappear in light of the foxhole conversion of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) to opposition to the Convention during his campaign for the Republican nomination.
The Convention returned to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee again at the beginning of 2009. The new administration of President Barack Obama listed the Convention as one of 17 “priority” treaties, but never placed it above the economy and other domestic issues in the Administration’s legislative agenda. Without active Presidential support, the Senate declined to act.
At the beginning of 2011, the Convention will automatically return to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to start the process once again.
So, should supporters of the Convention be discouraged and turn their attention and energy to other matters in 2011? That would be understandable, but it would be wrong.
The loss of 6 Democratic seats and replacement of several supportive Republicans certainly increases the effort needed to secure Senate advice and consent over the current session, during which the 2/3 majority was assured. Still, the outlook is more promising than in any other session since hearings began in 2003.
The key to approval of the Convention in 2011 lies in mobilizing a bipartisan coalition that includes Senate Democrats and Republicans, leaders of major industries, environmental groups, good governance and international engagement organizations, and respected Republican statesmen and military leaders. Most of these have already endorsed the Convention, but they won’t pull out their big guns and commit their political and financial assets unless and until the President calls on them to make common effort to secure approval.
The downside for the President is that the Convention will be subjected to all the procedural roadblocks that opposing Senators, James Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) can devise. This includes not one but two filibusters and cloture votes -- one for adoption of the Convention and another for adoption of the resolution of advice and consent. These delays would come at the cost of floor time for other legislative issues.
In addition to the Senate battle, another contest will be fought by grassroots groups through faxes and e-mails.
Conservative and libertarian networks such as “FreeRepublic.com” and “GrassFire.org” have deluged Senate offices with thousands of messages on a moment’s notice. These communications are fraught with errors and outright lies, but the number of opposition messages puts senators on the defensive.
In the past, there have been no corresponding efforts to support for the Convention. This has to change. But just as businesses want to know that the Administration is serious before committing their CEOs and their political resources, public interest groups want to know that they will be part of a team effort and will not be abandoned by the Administration along the way.
Two women leaders will be key to success in approving the Convention: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). (photo credit) Both have been outspoken supporters of the Convention, notably during Secretary Clinton’s confirmation hearing (video clip). The commitment recently was repeated Clinton’s comments to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

We're going to prioritize the Law of the Seas next year. It is critical to how we're going to manage the Arctic. It is critical to our credibility in working with nations in Southeast Asia over questions regarding activities in the South China Sea. It is so much in America's interests. And the objections to it are just not well founded. So I'm hoping that we'll be able to get a hearing on it early in the year and get a vote on it as soon thereafter as possible.

In the end, success or failure regarding the Convention on the Law of the Sea rests with President Obama, for three reasons:
► First, he, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), will determine where the Convention fits in the Senate’s agenda;
► Second, military leaders, always strong supporters of the Convention, will not move forward until the President directs them to do so; and
► Third, the heavy hitters of industry, environment and public interest groups will only move as part of a concerted effort with the Administration.
While Clinton and Murkowski will help lead the effort to move the Convention through the Senate, their effort cannot get underway until the President enlists partners inside and outside the government in a bipartisan and multi-sector effort to secure the support of all but the most ideological opponents in the Senate.

Election Day in Atlanta, GA

It's a beautiful day here in Atlanta, GA and so far all reports suggest that there have been no difficulties or delays at polling places. We are here for this conference and have been wandering around Decatur this morning to get a sense of the atmosphere. So far we have seen no delays or lines at polling places and people we've spoken to have reported the same at the polling places around the city. Both yesterday and today we saw a number of people with Obama/Biden tshirts, buttons and posters and no McCain/Palin signs, but that may be a product of the area we're staying in which is very blue. Although Georgia is normally a red state the polls suggest a close race on the presidential ballot here, and there is a possibility that Saxby Chambliss will be a Senate casualty if there is a Democratic sweep today. We're heading into the CNN centre now, where we hope to get some photos, more atmosphere, and some more reports.

A Long Day's Journey Into Night

Well, here we are on the most important day in the 21st century so far. Today is the day we decide where this country is heading. The two presidential candidates could not present a more stark contrast: McCain's campaign devolved into an appeal to our most base human instincts. He relied on a fearmongering, divisive politics that so far has proved successful for the Republican Party. McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for a VP running mate was a calculated and cynical attempt at pandering to the most conservative elements of his party. Obama, while not a perfect candidate, represents a movement for real change in this country. His campaign emphasized the need for all of us to take action to change the status quote. He called out to the best within us rather than the worse. He focused on themes of personal responsibility as well as responsibility for our brothers and sisters. He asked us to sacrifice for our country and for each other. I disagree with Obama's trade policy and I strongly disagree with his position on gay marriage, but an Obama presidency promises to restore this country to a path more inclusive, more thoughtful, and more compassionate than the one we are currently following. The difference between these two candidates could not be more clear.

Which vision do you want for our country?

So, at long last, it is all over but the voting and the counting. It has been a long journey to get us here, and it will be an even longer night to come. Don't forgt to vote!

On November 2

On this day in ...

... 1983 (20 years ago today), in a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House, with Coretta Scott King and civil rights leaders of many races attending, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed legislation that established Martin Luther King Day. (photo credit) A decade earlier, Illinois legislator Harold Washington, who would become Chicago's 1st African-American mayor, had succeeded in making the day a state holiday in Illinois; however, efforts on the national level stalled for many years. Among those opposing the measure was U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), today the GOP nominee for President. As a result of the 1983 U.S. law, the 3d Monday in January now is the only holiday that honors an individual American.

... 1963 (45 years ago today), the military seized power in South Vietnam, killing President Ngo Dinh Diem (below right). Investigating the matter years later, the Church Committee, a mid-1970s congressional group that investigated CIA activities, concluded

that the United States government offered encouragement for the coup, but neither desired nor was involved in the assassinations. Rather, Diem's assassination appears to have been a spontaneous act by Vietnamese generals, engendered by anger at Diem for refusing to resign or put himself in the custody of the leaders of the coup.

All-Inclusive Rights: Resources on International Disability Rights

(Part of a series on human rights and disability.)

“Miss Lou” can’t think about anything but the global economic crisis and the U.S. presidential elections these days. Turns out, though, both are relevant for this series on disability human rights. Persons with disabilities, who already experience high rates of joblessness and poverty, will be further marginalized as federal and municipal governments tighten their belts and cut public programs.
But politicians who dismiss the rights and concerns of persons with disabilities do so at their own peril. There are more than 30 million PWD who are of voting age in the U.S. alone. For the U.S. presidential candidate positions on disabilities, see:
►Americans with Disabilities for McCain-Palin 2008
►Americans with Disabilities for Obama
Full disclosure: Miss Lou is a staunch Obama supporter. Both PWD and non-disabled persons must pressure candidates to maintain or increase their commitment to these issues during difficult economic times. 'Nuff said.

Resources on Disability in International Perspective
The following brief resource list is intended only as an eclectic starting point for those interested in learning more about disability in international legal perspective. It is by no means comprehensive; I encourage IntLawGrrls readers to add resources and citations in the comments section.
Michael Stein, Executive Director of the Harvard Project on Disability and Professor of Law, William and Mary School of Law (above left) is among the growing number of legal scholars who take an international perspective on disability issues. (See also upper right photo of Chai Feldblum, Professor of Law, Director, Federal Legislation and Administrative Clinic, Georgetown University Law Center, a leading advocate who helped draft key U.S. federal legislation on disability, and middle right photo of Wendy Parmet, George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law, Northeastern University, an expert on U.S. disability law and health law.) Many thanks to Northeastern University School of Law student Matthew Moore for his excellent research assistance.

International Law and Disability
►Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol, G.A. res. A/61/611 (2006)
►UN Enable
►UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Disability Rights”
►Disability Rights - International Library of Essays on Rights (P. Blanck, ed., Ashgate, 2005)
► Human Rights and Disability: The Current Use and Future Potential of United Nations Human Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability (Gerard Quinn & Theresia Degener, eds., Geneva, (2002))
►Wendy Scott, Guide to Sources in International and Comparative Disability Law, 34 Syracuse Journal of International Law & Commerce 621 (2007) ( special journal issue on international and comparative disability law) (See photo of Wendy Scott, Assistant Director for Faculty & Outreach Services and Adjunct Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law (bottom right))
►Michael Stein, Disability Human Rights, 95 California Law Review 75 (2007)

Africa
►African Decade of Disabled People (2001-2009)

The Americas
►Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
►ADA Amendments Act of 2008
►Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities, AG/RES. 1608, 7 June 1999
Asia-Pacific
►Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, “Now the real work starts: implementing the UN Disability Convention”

Europe
►European Human Rights Law and Disability – Critical Issues (Gerard Quinn and O. DeSchutter, eds. (2007)

NGO Resources
►Disability Rights Fund
►Human Rights Yes! Action and Advocacy on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (Nancy Flowers, ed. 2007) (training manual)
►Mental Disability Rights International, “Resources”
►Rehabilitation International
►UN Enable, Non-governmental Organizations Accredited to the Ad Hoc Committee

University Resources
►American University, Washington College of Law, “The New UN Disability Rights Convention: Building Support in the United States for Ratification and Implementation” (April 9, 2007) (webcast)
►ArchiveADA (historical materials on ADA and ADA-AA maintained by the Georgetown University Law Center)
►Harvard Project on Disability, Harvard University
►Centre for Disability Law and Policy, National University of Ireland (Galway)
►Center on Human Policy, Law, and Disability Studies, Syracuse University College of Law, “International and Comparative Disability Law Web Resources” (comprehensive site)
►University of California, San Francisco, Disability Statistics Center, “Resources”
►University of Minnesota, Human Rights Law Library, "Rights of Disabled Persons"

Disability in Sport
►Center for the Study of Sport in Society, Northeastern University, “Disability in Sport”
►Human Rights Watch, “China: As Paralympics Launch: Disabled Face Discrimination”
►Paralympic Games (Beijing, China, September 2008)
►Elise C. Roy, Aiming for Inclusive Sport: the Legal and Practical Implications of the United Nation’s Disability Convention for Sport, Recreation and Leisure for People with Disabilities, Entertainment and Sports Law Journal (August 2007)
►Team Darfur

'Nuff said

(Occasional item taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

I'm also troubled, not by what Sen. McCain says, but by what members of the party say. And what is permitted to be said, such things as, 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.'
Well, the correct answer is: 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.'
But the really right answer is: 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?'
The answer's, 'No. That's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?'
Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture, at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards. Purple Heart, Bronze Star. Showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross. It didn't have a Star of David. It had a crescent and the star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11. And he waited until he could go serve his country and he gave his life.
Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way.

-- my transcription of Colin Powell (above left) endorsing Barack Obama for President yesterday. Powell, a Republican and retired 4-star Army General, served as U.S. Secretary of State in the 1st term of President George W. Bush and was the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Video of the full endorsement is here; full transcript here. (credit for photo of Army Cpl. Khan; credit for photo of Khan's headstone)

(Illegal) US operations in Pakistan

On Thursday (September 11th), 7 years after the Bush administration launched an unsuccessful "war" against terrorism, I read Karima Bennoune's excellent post on countering terrorism by enforcing human rights, then went on to read in the Herald Tribune that

President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government ....

Just as I asked myself, "isn't that illegal?" I saw that "[i]t was unclear precisely what legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country." Indeed. Colombia's cross-border military attack on FARC rebels in Ecuador in March was considered by the Organization of American States (OAS) to be a violation of principles of international law, as well as of Ecuador's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
But more than illegality, at a time when the world is remembering and honoring the victims of the 9/11 attacks and the soldiers from numerous nations fighting and dying in Afghanistan because of those attacks, it seems to me the important issue is that "last week's raid achieved little except killing civilians and stoking anti-Americanism in the tribal areas." As Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the US so succintly put it: "Unilateral action by the American forces does not help the war against terror because it only enrages public opinion." So as we voters go to the polls in November, please let us heed Karima's words and vote in favor of secularism and women's rights rather than militarism as a way to counter terrorism. As our favorite French newpaper, Le Canard Enchaîné (which does not publish a full electronic version) reminds us with respect to candidate McCain's appreciation of Teddy Roosevelt's famous "big stick," (image of Thomas Nast's 1904 cartoon recreating an episode in Gulliver's Travels) it can hit hard--like a boomerang (image credit)!

Still "A Woman" in the mix

Turns out "Democratic Party unity" doesn't mean "no more women" in this year's Presidential campaign:

Today the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, tapped A Woman as his running mate.

Got nothing against Sarah Palin (left). Hard to; never heard of her. Do, however, have something against the identity politics that brought her to the fore.

Here's what pundits are saying to make sense of McCain's decision to place in the Presidential mix someone who's 2 years into her 1st term as Alaska governor, whose only other elective post was 6 years as mayor of a city of 9,000:

she gives women who are angry about Hillary being passed over another reason to vote McCain

and

she's an exciting, exotic (yet heartlandish) female pick

and

a pro-life working mom

and

self-styled hockey mom

We have been here, done this. Choosing a person solely because s/he fits "A" category seldom has done us much good.

One can only hope that Palin's better than pundits' soundbites augur. That, for example, it's the fault of this website -- and not a genuine deficit in her qualifications -- that Palin has "[n]o issue stance" on the critical issues of our time: Corporations, Drugs, Families & Children, Government Reform, Jobs, Local Issues, Principles & Values, Technology, Welfare & Poverty, Immigration, Free Trade, War & Peace, or Foreign Policy.

One can only hope.

'Nuff said

(Occasional item taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

I would rather live in McCain's world than Obama's. But I believe that we live in Obama's world.

-- journalist Sally Quinn, in a Washington Post column on the importance of complexity in a President's view of the world.

Conflict in the Caucasus: Restoring Peace and Principle in that Region and the World

Watching for signs of war with Iran, many of us probably took our eyes off other hot spots where President George W. Bush’s imminent departure is a strategic consideration. In this guest post I turn attention to one such hot spot, the Caucasus.
Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili (left) launched his military action to regain control of South Ossetia, no doubt with the departure in mind and probably thinking America’s pro-war administration would back him — that President Bush would tamp down any Russian response while watching the Olympics together with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (above right).
But Saakashvili’s action was unlawful and foolhardy. The world is rightly condemning the disproportionate Russian response. President Bush and both presidential candidates have done so. The McCain and Obama camps have both cited violations of international law — it must, however, be emphasized that among those violations is the Georgian raid.
Georgia’s claim to title of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia is good. Groups in both regions want independence from Georgia on the basis of human rights violations and historic grievances. Violence has erupted among ethnic groups in both places. In the early 1990s, Georgia agreed to the presence of “peacekeeping” troops to keep order. These have mostly been Russian soldiers supporting those who want independence. The agreements clearly do not strip Georgia of title. But they do mean that until they are terminated and foreign troops are given a chance to exit, Georgia has no right to use military force to expel them. These principles were restated most recently in Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo, a 2005 International Court of Justice judgment.
Given its right to be in South Ossetia, Russia also had the right to take defensive action against Georgia. That means, however, only action necessary and proportional to accomplish the purpose of defense (asI detailed here in 2002). Russian bombing beyond South Ossetia, striking civilians — even inadvertently — cannot be justified. (map credit) Israel was heavily criticized in 2006 in its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon for disproportionate force. Israel also had the right to take defensive action against Hezbollah rockets, but bombing far beyond the rocket positions in heavily populated civilian areas was condemned. Surely Russia joined in that condemnation?
Russia’s purpose in its excessive use of force may well be to create a situation where it can make excessive demands in peace negotiations. It may demand independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia and that Saakashvili step down.
The right response to the Russians is to repeat back the arguments they have been making for years with respect to Kosovo — that territory does not change hands because of human rights violations against inhabitants. (IntLawGrrl Elena Baylis posted concerns here when Kosovo declared independence.) Territory should never change hands because of the unlawful use of force. International law mandates other means and mechanisms of protecting human rights. Indeed, the Russian use of such arguments now — so close to the European and American arguments for Kosovo — must be intentional. Europe and America are hardly in a position to renounce them now when it comes to Georgia.
But China can. It joined Russia in arguing that Kosovo’s independence violates international law. China should be encouraged to join the mediation of this conflict — thus supporting the international rule of law. It will be so much easier then for the next U.S. president to remind China of the international law with respect to human rights, the environment, trade, and peace. Much easier than it has been for President Bush.
Indeed, the time is right for a general renewal of commitment to peace and the international law that supports it in the face of yet another unlawful, foolhardy, and tragic conflict.

McCain on Nuremberg redux for bin Laden

CNN reports that the Republicans' presumptive nominee for President supports some kind of international prosecution for Osama bin Laden should that al Qaeda leader be captured. Specifically:

Sen. John McCain on Friday said as president he would consider bringing Osama bin Laden to justice through a Nuremberg-like international trial.

... 'We have various options. The Nuremberg Trials are certainly an example of the kind of tribunal that we could move forward with. I don't think we'd have any difficulty in devising an international -- internationally supported mechanism that would mete out justice. There's no problem there.'
McCain said it would be a 'good thing to reveal to the world the enormity of this guy's crimes, and his intentions, which are still there.'

Unclear what kind of trial the Senator from Arizona (above right) means by "a Nuremberg-like international trial," nor why he'd rule out a domestic trial for a man whom Mary Jo White, then the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, indicted a decade ago. Interesting nonetheless.

Torture and the electorate

And then there was one.

With the withdrawal yesterday of former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, there remains only 1 candidate to replace George W. Bush as U.S. President who is consistently supportive of Bush's post-9/11 detention and interrogation policies. That fact suggests that voters may be far more concerned about, ashamed about, revolted by, those policies than is typically recognized.

Assumption that the policies don't matter derives from polls like this one, which found last November that 40% of Americans would approve of torture "to try to get information from suspected terrorists." But it's my guess that poll results on such a highly charged question are unreliable. The politics of fear have dominated America's public discourse far too long for pollsters to expect full, honest, rational responses. "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists," Bush declared almost immediately after the attacks of September 11, thus drawing a rhetorical line in the sand. As late as 2004, many judged it unpatriotic to oppose Bush. It seems likely then that when asked their thoughts on detention and interrogation by pollsters, many Americans may hesitate to express concerns they feel lest they be seen as "soft on terrorists" or "too hard on our troops."

Is it only a coincidence that the only candidates left in the running are critics of post-9/11 practices?

Both remaining Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, called for closure of Guantánamo soon after announcing their official campaigns last year. Every time I have heard Obama speak I have heard him repeat this call, to every audience, even in "conservative" areas. It is part of Obama's condemn-torture-close-Gitmo-this-is-not-who-we-are-as-Americans mantra, one that I've yet to hear being met with anything other than bursts of applause. (The only exception came once when he added restore-habeas-corpus to the mantra; then I detected a few vibes of "Huh? Who's Havia Scorpus?")
A question that voters seem to be asking candidates this year goes like this:

Will you bring back civil liberties?

or, phrased another way,

America seems to have lost her way. What are you going to do about that?

The question surely signals disquiet, if not outrage, at the way the United States has treated captives in what the Bush Administration calls the "Global War on Terror."

It is not just diehard liberal Democrats asking the question, either. I heard it repeatedly a couple weeks ago in Nevada. About 116,000 women and men cast Democratic ballots, shattering the Nevada record by 107,000 votes. Many of those I saw and met changed their registration to vote Democratic; it was they who were asking the question, they who cheered in a gymnasium in Reno when Obama proclaimed:

I used to teach the Constitution. I revere the Constitution. And as President I will obey the Constitution.

Look too at what's happened in the GOP.

The candidate who staked his claim on supertough counterterrorism -- Giuliani -- never came close to winning in any state. The candidate who now seems the likely nominee, Sen. John McCain, has, as we've posted here and here, been strong, steadfast, and outspoken in his condemnation not only of torture but also -- in keeping with international obligations the United States assumed on ratification of treaties like the Convention Against Torture -- cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Another still standing, Mike Huckabee, goes back and forth on these issues, and in any event does not center his campaign on preserving current antiterrorism policies.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney does support those policies. He wants others to endure the treatment Khalid Sheik Mohammed has, wants to double Guantánamo, too. He's the only remaining candidate to espouse these views consistently; it thus deserves note that his star also appears to be fading.

Is it only a coincidence that voters seem to be gravitating toward other candidates? Even, at times, away from their traditional party and toward a party more certain to bring an end to post-9/11 excesses?

Wishing KSM's fate on others

No less than one on which we posted back in May, last night's GOP presidential debate revealed much about candidates' views on how the United States ought to combat terrorism. Most notable was this exchange (video here), among moderator Anderson Cooper and 2 candidates, Gov. Mitt Romney (below right) and Sen. John McCain (bottom right), which ensued after a college student noted McCain's opposition to waterboarding and then asked, "[C]onsidering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?"

ROMNEY: Well, he certainly is an expert and I certainly would want to get his counsel on a matter of this nature, but I do not believe that as a presidential candidate, it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people.
I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form.
COOPER: Is waterboarding torture?
ROMNEY: And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use.
And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people.
And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country.
And, by the way, I want to make sure these folks are kept at Guantanamo.
I don't want the people that are carrying out attacks on this country to be brought into our jail system and be given legal representation in this country.
I want to make sure that what happened ...
(Applause)
... to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed happens to other people who are terrorists. He was captured. He was the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 tragedy. And he turned to his captors and he said, "I'll see you in New York with my lawyers." I presume ACLU lawyers.
(Laughter)
Well, that's not what happened. He went to Guantanamo and he met G.I.s and CIA interrogators. And that's just exactly how it ought to be.
(Applause)
COOPER: Senator McCain?
(Crosstalk)
(Unknown): There were reports Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.
McCAIN: Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is.
ROMNEY: I know what waterboarding is, Senator.
McCAIN: Then I am astonished that you would think such a -- such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law...
(Applause)
And, governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people.
We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.
COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds to respond.
(Applause)
ROMNEY: Senator McCain, I appreciate your strong response, and you have the credentials upon which to make that response. I did not say and I do not say that I'm in favor of torture.
I am not. I'm not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we're able to do and what things we're not able to do. And I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.
I get that advice by talking to former generals in our military...
COOPER: Time.
ROMNEY: ... and I don't believe it's appropriate for me, as a presidential candidate, to lay out all the issues one by one...
Cooper: Time.
ROMNEY: ... get questioned one by one: Is this torture, is that torture?
COOPER: Senator McCain...
ROMNEY: And so, that's something which I'm going to take your and other people's counsel on.
COOPER: Senator McCain, 30 seconds to respond.
McCAIN: Well, then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, which were for the treatment of people who were held prisoners, whether they be illegal combatants or regular prisoners of war. Because it's clear the definition of torture. It's in violation of laws we have passed.
And again, I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not "24" and Jack Bauer.
Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else.
My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.
(Applause)

'Nuff said.

Gitmo on the GOP campaign trail

It "revealed a stunning failure to understand" "the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp," wrote 2 Marine Corps generals, 1 the former Commandant of the Corps, the other former commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command. It was a contest "to see who could do the best impersonation of Jack Bauer, torture enthusiast and the central character on Fox's hit show '24,'" wrote Rosa Brooks. "It" was the commentary on Guantánamo -- a term clearly understood to include the question of coercive interrogation -- delivered by candidates at Tuesday's Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina. The remarks of a few were measured, many were not, and all have proved hard to shake. So here's a sampling how Gitmo's faring on the GOP campaign trail:

U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona:

The use of torture -- we could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went -- underwent torture ourselves, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them.
It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know.
It's about us as a nation. We have procedures for interrogation in the Army Field Manual. Those, I think, would be adequate in 999,999 of cases, and I think that if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani:

... I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of -- ... well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because I've seen what -- I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney:

I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.
Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists -- and there's no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States -- not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States -- has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson:

Is your primary concern U.S. lives or is it how you're going to be perceived in the world? And my standard is U.S. lives, and I'm going to do everything within my power to protect U.S. lives, period.
I will do it. I'll move aggressively forward on it. If we have to later ask and say, "Well, it shouldn't quite have been done this way or that way," that's the way it is. But the standard must be protection of U.S. lives.

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California:

I would say to SECDEF, in terms of getting information that would save American lives, even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: Get the information. Have it back within an hour, and let's act on it. Let's execute with Special Operations or whoever else is necessary, and I will take full responsibility. Get the information.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas:

... I think it's interesting talking about torture here in that it's become
enhanced interrogation technique. It sounds like Newspeak.
Nobody's for the torture, and I think that's important. But as far as taking care of a problem like this, the president has the authority to do that. If we're under imminent attack, the president can take that upon himself to do it.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado:

Well, let me just say that it's almost unbelievable to listen to this in a way. We're talking about -- we're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that -- that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a -- a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you.
... I mean, we are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the United States, they go out the window because when -- when we go under, Western civilization goes under.

'Nuff said for today. Gitmo on the Democratic campaign trail tomorrow.