John McCain opposes the Constitution and Habeas Corpus

[HeXploiT]

John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is ?one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.?

The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges.

?We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called ? habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,? he said at a town hall meeting in New Jersey.

McCain said he has worked hard to ensure the U.S. military does not torture prisoners but that the detainees at Guantanamo are still ?enemy combatants.?

?These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have,? he said. ?Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.?

Barack Obama released a statement Thursday saying the Supreme Court decision ?ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice while also protecting our core values.?

?The Court?s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration?s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,? he said. ?This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.?

Source: Fox news


The preamble to Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

John McCain claims that a government gives a man his rights.
If rights truly are unalienable and given by the creator, as the U.S. constitution states, then would God give them only to Americans or to all mankind?

 

[OrByte]

?The Court?s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration?s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,? he said. ?This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.?

we have been fed false choice fallacies for a long time now.

reality is so much more complicated. This issue is a prime example of that.

 

[Dari]

iirc, there are American citizens in Gitmo as well.

 

[BoberFett]

What are you talking about? McCain is a war hero and a maverick. Vote for him. It's your duty as an American.

 

[nageov3t]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all white men who own property are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

fixed?

but I agree with Obama on this.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Dari
iirc, there are American citizens in Gitmo as well.

Are there? This would be the first I'd heard of it. Can you recall a source?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Dari
iirc, there are American citizens in Gitmo as well.

Are there? This would be the first I'd heard of it. Can you recall a source?

Yasir Hamdi was held for awhile at Guantanamo, but was later transferred to a military brig in the US. I'm not aware of any more US citizens that are in Guantanamo at this time, but the Bush administration attempted to keep him in the same legal limbo. This was another time Bush was smacked down by the USSC on the issue of indefinite detention.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Dari
iirc, there are American citizens in Gitmo as well.

Are there? This would be the first I'd heard of it. Can you recall a source?

I think we only know about a quarter of the individuals in gitmo due to their habeas corpus petitions. The rest are all secret/unknown. At least last I read.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: loki8481

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all white men who own property are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

fixed?

but I agree with Obama on this.

Why call McCain white trash? You think Obama isn't black trash?
No they are not trash but merely two individuals equally unfit to preside over the nation.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What are you talking about? McCain is a war hero and a maverick. Vote for him. It's your duty as an American.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...error/main645493.shtml

Support the troopers.. err.. or maybe lets let people out so they can kill us again? In theory, all men are created equal.. in the real world, thousands of innocent people die because dictators withhold aid and food; and women get stoned for commit adultery. . A complex situation, where only the shortsighted would recommend a simple and blanket statement of "let all the Guantanamo prisoners go, 'they have rights too!!!'".

Anyways, this thread is "weak sauce"..

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Perry404
The preamble to the United States constitution states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's text from the Declaration of Independence. Not the US Constitution.

And it's 'opposes'. Not 'apposes'.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: loki8481

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all white men who own property are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

fixed?

but I agree with Obama on this.

Why call McCain white trash? You think Obama isn't black trash?
No they are not trash but merely two individuals equally unfit to preside over the nation.

wait, what?

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Perry404

John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is ?one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.?

The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges.

?We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called ? habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,? he said at a town hall meeting in New Jersey.

McCain said he has worked hard to ensure the U.S. military does not torture prisoners but that the detainees at Guantanamo are still ?enemy combatants.?

?These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have,? he said. ?Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.?

Barack Obama released a statement Thursday saying the Supreme Court decision ?ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice while also protecting our core values.?

?The Court?s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration?s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,? he said. ?This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.?

Source: Fox news


The preamble to the United States constitution states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

John McCain claims that a government gives a man his rights.
If rights truly are unalienable and given by the creator, as the U.S. constitution states, then would God give them only to Americans or to all mankind?

Actually, this is the preamble to the constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I agree with McCain on this. Enemy combatants should not be afforded the same legal right that US Citizens are. We all know how screwed up our justice system, we all complain about how inefficient it is. Now we want to throw suspected and known terrorists into our weak and broken legal system? I don't think so.

 

[lupi]

Geneva convention...check
Constitution...extremely murky

But kudos to bringing hype and no substance.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What are you talking about? McCain is a war hero and a maverick. Vote for him. It's your duty as an American.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...error/main645493.shtml

Support the troopers.. err.. or maybe lets let people out so they can kill us again? In theory, all men are created equal.. in the real world, thousands of innocent people die because dictators withhold aid and food; and women get stoned for commit adultery. . A complex situation, where only the shortsighted would recommend a simple and blanket statement of "let all the Guantanamo prisoners go, 'they have rights too!!!'".

Anyways, this thread is "weak sauce"..

Saying "let all the Guantanamo prisoners go, they have rights too!" would indeed be very short sighted and irresponsible. Good thing for us that the Supreme Court didn't say anything close to that, huh?

Having the government have to give a reason before imprisoning a person for their entire life does not equal "let everyone go!" (or if it ends up meaning that, such a monstrous miscarriage of justice has occurred that means we should be throwing a lot of the perpetrators in jail themselves.)

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Perry404
The preamble to the United States constitution states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's text from the Declaration of Independence. Not the US Constitution.

And it's 'opposes'. Not 'apposes'.

oops. Easy mistake. Fixed.

 

[ayabe]

Well ooga booga, the Fear Machine is revving up to redline I see:

Newter Gingrich - "This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you're prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers . . . ."

Does he actually believe that this is still a valid rebuttal?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Perry404

John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is ?one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.?

"We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."
~ George W. Bush

So much for the idea that McCain is not McSame. :thumbsdown:

And they silence the voices arising,
From those who would show us the light,
With their guys with their spies in the skies watching you and your neighbor.

And Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?
Tell me who's telling who's telling you what to do what to do?

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: lupi
Geneva convention...check
Constitution...extremely murky

But kudos to bringing hype and no substance.

The Military Commissions Act was passed when Republicans controlled the House and Senate and was the legislation declared unconstitutional yesterday because it denied the detainees the right of habeas corpus - the ability to ask a court if one is being held illegally.


This is the THIRD time the Supreme Court threw out one of this administration's hastily crafted "laws" regarding Military tribunals.


Nothing murky at all; bad laws get thrown out.

 

[Lemon law]

I can understand that we should detain illegal enemy combatants. But since we are now identifying some group that separates them from the norm, it seems incredibly cruel, arbitrary, and illegal to detain anyone without an iota of evidence that they are indeed illegal enemy combatants.

And how long should we detain them before making a determination. Clearly some time is required to make a determination, for US citizens that period is like 24 hours, at which point they must be charged or released, in more foggy cases like these and with non US citizens, maybe a longer time period would be reasonable.

But when that time period get infinitely extended when all humanity and logic dictates anything past a week is way past unreasonable, we have seen our SC court get tougher and tougher on GWB&co.

 

[idiotekniQues]

its ok because john mccain fought for the freedom to fight freedom!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
its ok because john mccain fought for the freedom to fight freedom!

And obviously, he's still fighting to defeat freedom, which is one reason we have to defeat him in November.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

I agree with McCain on this. Enemy combatants should not be afforded the same legal right that US Citizens are. We all know how screwed up our justice system, we all complain about how inefficient it is. Now we want to throw suspected and known terrorists into our weak and broken legal system? I don't think so.

Then what rule of law should they be held to? Obviously you, McCain, Bush and the conservative members of the SCOTUS don't think that they should be held to US judicial standards even though they are prisoners of the US, being detained in a US facility and under US law.

Does that mean that the GC should be the guiding rules of which they should be held to? If so, then the Bush administration is 100% guilty of war crimes because they have admitted that they have tortured some of these individuals.

What pray tell do you think would be fair and just to these men and future men in their position?

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I can understand that we should detain illegal enemy combatants. But since we are now identifying some group that separates them from the norm, it seems incredibly cruel, arbitrary, and illegal to detain anyone without an iota of evidence that they are indeed illegal enemy combatants.

And how long should we detain them before making a determination. Clearly some time is required to make a determination, for US citizens that period is like 24 hours, at which point they must be charged or released, in more foggy cases like these and with non US citizens, maybe a longer time period would be reasonable.

But when that time period get infinitely extended when all humanity and logic dictates anything past a week is way past unreasonable, we have seen our SC court get tougher and tougher on GWB&co.

As i understand the conditions that Bush is operating under, the determination of who and what classification our enemy combatants are is traditionally determined by the military forces prosecuting the "War". As CIC, Bush has the ability and has personally declared an individual(s) as such, and he posesses this power only as long as the "War" is running.

It would seem then, that it would be in the best interests of Bush, Cheney and the folks these two guys answer to, to sustain the occupation of Iraq and keep the fight in Afghanistan going as long as possible, all to keep the extraordinay powers that the Bush admin. would lose if our troops disenaged and returned home.

Which begs these questions:

1. What conflict(s) are involved in the "War on Terror"?

2. What would consttute the end of the "War" that Bush and Cheney is running, win or lose?

3. Would the end of the "War" somehow affect the status of those being held at Gitmo?

 

[Fern]

John McCain opposes the Constitution and Habeas Corpus

Bad/misleading thread title, and unfair to McCain and others who disagree with this decision.

I've been out-of-town and this decision was rendered while I was away, so I haven't read it yet.

I think this decision illustrates the persistent confusion/disagreement about whether Al Qiada & the Taliban is a law enforcement issue or a military one. Is it a *war* or is it a *crime*?

Habeas Corpus doesn't apply in conditions of war, and POWs are held until the conflict's end. Up till now, everyone has worn a uniform (unless spies. who are tried and executed), to have the judicial system rule on each POW seems stupid and unnecessary to me.

Even the SCOTUS has ruled this a *war* declared by Congress, with this ruling they have shifted rules of the game away from military and back towards law enforcement. IMO, it's a contradiction.

Are they now charging our military with the duties of a DA or prosecutor? I suppose it does or how shall they be able to convince a court that the detainee deserves to be detained. Is it appropriate to charge our military with collecting evidence on the *battlefield*? Seems inappropriate to me; and a burden unsuited for the military.

Are the Justices now creating a new *3rd* way in addition to military v law enforcement standards?

How many of the usual civilian law enforcement standards must be applied to these quasi- military court proceedings? The military would be collecting evidence without a warrant. What about the chain of custody? Do standards of unreasonable search & seizure apply? Perhaps some of these issues are addressed in the ruling. I also note that while police officers (who usually gather evidence) are officers of the court (i.e., under the judiciary) military personnel are not (they are under the executive branch IIRC).

But Habeas Corpus is a civilian concept, and applying it here in a military/war environment sets up all types conflicts in logic etc. Seems a bad decision to me, and until I read it I'll consider it *PC* driven and not based on solid precedent.

Fern

Edited for spelling (trying to watch the web cast of the US Open playoff while typing )