McCain Slams The Supreme Court's Habeas Decision

That's Straight Talking!

Well, now, what happened to the Republican ideals such as "Rule of Law"?

Another one bites the dust,
duhduh duh duh duh duh duh duh
Another one bites the dust...

No surprise. He's the one that decided Habeas Corpus wasn't quite so sacred after all, what with the MCA.

Did you ask McCain why he's against the priciple of habeas corpus or the other priciples on which the Constitution is based? I'm sure that you didn't.

What a disgrace! How can McCain of all people advocate indefinite detention with no recourse to freedom?

Mike, grab a napkin, wipe the sauce from your fingers and do something.

The senate bill that was passed gave the detainee's rights.

McCain is for shutting down gitmo.

McCain wants to bring those prisoners to fort leavenworth and have military tribunal trials in the u.s.

McCain isn't for them having bin laden's driver have access to classified information.

McCain is worried that now there will be no trials.

All high level detainees will rot in prisons in afghanistan now.

McCain and John Warner worked on a bill that passed the senate. It gave the detainess far more than the Bush administration wanted.

Personally I respect McCain for stating, unequivocally, that he is opposed to one of the cornerstone principles of the founding constitution, and the rule of law.

He shows a lot of courage saying something like that.

JamesRyan:
You mean MCA? The one McCain was for? Before he was against?

This must be all part of the double down the Bush policy, strategy.

McCain's just disappointed that the SCOTUS won't let us run our prisons like the Turks did in Midnight Express.

MS, thanks for posting this.

And "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country"? To put the Supreme Court's defense of Habeas Corpus in the same category as Plessy vs. Ferguson is disgusting. This, BTW, is why I think Obama was wrong to say that McCain would be better than Bush. McCain is more fun on the Daily Show than Bush would be, but he is another dangerous radical who has a fundamentally Un-American view of the constitution.

In fairness to McCain, he probably doesn't care about the decision, and is just saying what he thinks he needs to say to appease the far right. That was why he flip-flopped on warrantless wiretapping, too.

He just really believes that he should be president. Is that so wrong?

The media should get back to refraining from asking any policy questions and palling around with him on the Small Talk Express. It was so much easier and more fun than all this confusing wonkery.

I was waiting for this predictable response from McCain. After all, he voted against Habeas when the MCA was discussed.

Hearing the rants from Scalia and Roberts yesterday about the decision to give prisoners the basic right to ask a judge to determine if the evidence supported their being held was mind boggling. Scalia said, People will die. You would think Justice Kennedy was going to fly to Gitmo today and open all the cells.

The decision was very narrow and helped to bring us a teeny step back toward our Constitution. I don't want another judge or two in the Scalia and Roberts mode.

I hope Obama takes it to him with this. They need to explain clearly how narrow the decision is and how the minority is not "strictly constructing" our Constitution.

Good lord, how can you be against the government having to provide prima facia evidence that a person has committed a crime? So McCain is "against" the Magna Carta?

Clogging the courts is nonsense, the DC judges that will be hearing this are there for that purpose and are very conservative by the way.

Very disappointing.

McCain seems to know as much about the law, as he does about economics.

What a mavericky maverick to buck the Constitution and habeus corpus, one of the oldest civil rights that distinguishes modern society from a feudal one!

How long before he starts questioning the patriotism of those who disagree?

Oh, and what Rose said-- thanks for posting this, this is what reporters following candidates around should be doing.

The "OMG this is the worstest thing ever to happen" rhetoric from McCain isn't a surprise. That's how he views the world: “McCain is absolutely gung-ho and certain that he’s right about whatever his position and ‘principles’ are at the given moment. But they change repeatedly.”

To Derek, how can it be the Bush policy when the Senate bill passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support.

Not having Bin Laden if he was caught be able to see classified documents isn't bush policy. It is common sense.

You left wingers put partisanship before country.

You don't care about rights like the second amendment.

Obama called the DC gun ban constitutional.

Then in a debate in pennsylvania dodged the question.

"You left wingers put partisanship before country."

Jamesryan, you don't OWN patriotism...

How patriotic was Katrina?

And you right wing idjit wrecked it!

To Elvis.

McCain didn't flip flop on warantless wiretapping.

You left wingers can't stop lying like your buddy keith olbermann. You lie about everything. You lied about the context of Clinton's RFK comments.

McCain has always said he will follow the laws passed by congress. He has said and continues to say he will respect the 1978 FISA law passed by congress.

McCain treasures congress and will respect the laws passed by it.

McCain's position has never changed. McCain's advisor was saying he would allow overseas wiretaps under the current law.

Look it up McCain's position has never changed. McCain has said he will respect the laws passed by congress.

Obama supporters have to constantly lie because there candidate has never done anything.

He spent his life around people like rezko, Father Pfleger, and Wright.

Obama got a sweetheart deal on his house from rezko while Rezko was under investigation.

Obama invited Pfleger to campaign with him even after praised Farakkan and invited him to his church.

Obama couldn't even pass a government background check.

So when you have a candidate who came to the senate and ran for president and has accomplished nothing you are left with lying about his opponent.

"Maverick" McCain habitually sells out to the Republican lizard brain.

He realizes he needs to do that to energize that wacky base they have.

"You don't care about rights like the second amendment."

A LOT more important things are going on JR. The second Amendment is in no danger.

Go move to Waco, or some other shrine of your foul past...

Katrina, read posse comitatus.

Governor Blanco was the chief law enforcement officer in her state.

Read the constitution. It gives the power to the governor not Bush.

Look at how Iowa is dealing with the flooding. Not one casualty.

In Louisiana you had an incompetent democratic governor whose approval ratings were so low she didn't even run again and an incompetent mayor.

jamesryan is either GQ Or Robert Sullivan. Ignore him.

Meant to say "QH or Robert Sullivan".

Why does James Ryan hate the Constitution and America?

Did anyone at the townhall ask McCain about Phil Gramm?

"rail against "unaccountable judges"

I love this. The judges are supposed to be unaccountable. That's how they stay out of the political winds of the day so they can stay impartial and RULE on the LAW rather than REACT to a temporary shift in opinion.

Another flipflop, JJ?

Was he neutrally for being against FISA last week a month ago too?

I know he's against being for torture unless it doesn't not serve our purpose. Except late Friday afternoons when he favors not being neutrally against being for torture, neether.

Or not.

Maybe...

That was this time that year, this was that time last years' position, er, direction.

Jamesryan: McCain changed his opinion at least once within the past six months. See here, and note that "even [National Review writer] Andrew McCarthy admitted the obvious: namely, that McCain has dramatically changed his views on executive power and spying."

All McCain supporters have is lies and innuendo about people they don't like who've hung out with Obama. The instant that any issue comes up, McCain's all-conquering ignorance and unpopularity come to the fore. You're in a rough spot.

I understand why you feel the need to lie about McCain's positions-- it's sure a lot easier than defending them.

@brokenbottle. Thanks for that. It's amazing how many people forget that, though they are, in one way, accountable. They, also, can be impeached -- and the right-wingers tried that tactic on Justice Douglas several times I believe.

MS--

Could you please make clear when you refer to these "town hall" events that McCain's campaign controls who attends?

What a joke James Ryan. After the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 the federal government wasn't tripping all over itself not to impinge on the turf of the governor of California. The feds immediately sent hospital trains and equipment for reconstruction. And this is before radio communication.

Your right wing meme about the constraints of the federal government in the face of Katrina is just laughable. What the hell do my tax dollars dedicated to FEMA pay for, if they can't do their job when there's a disaster?

"You left wingers put partisanship before country."

Gee Jamesryan, I didn't see that coming. The only thing missing is an attempt to instill great fear in me. Orgies of fear travel in company with questions about patriotism.

To 53 what about affirmative action. The leftists ignore how unconstitutional that is. Even Jim Webb disagress with aspects of it. It should be based on class not race. It is reverse racial discrimination. That is why poor whites in appallachia are so bitter.

Let's review--Here's what McCain said about the deicision:

Mr. McCain said here Thursday morning that he had not had time to read the decision but that “it obviously concerns me,” adding, “These are unlawful combatants; they’re not American citizens.”

Here's the 6th Amendment to the Constitution:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Here's my concern--Not only doesn't John McCain not have the time to read the SCOTUS decision, he apparently hasn't had time to read the Constitution either.

The Constitution says nothing whatsoever about someone needing to be a citizen. It refers to "the accused". Period. And it's not like the framers and founders were surrounded by some sort of citizens only brigade. They were very deliberate in their wording or this amendment, which was meant to reflect the Magna Carta, as well as the rights they put forward in their own conduct as lawyers with "enemy combatant" brought before the bar.

It's disturbing to me to have a candidate for election to the highest office in the land, who hasn't read or doesn't understand the Constitution, and the bedrock principle of common law going back nearly five hundred years.

What makes America, America, are the ideas and principles that are the Constitution. No Constitution, no America. The Consitution was written after attack, incursion and occupation of America by the British and others. And still they thought that Habeas Corpus was so integral to our identity as a nation of laws, they phrased this amendment this way.

Absent habeas corpus, you no longer have a nation of laws, but a nation of men. Men who control who gets justice and who doesn't. Men who, completely absent any review whatsoever, decide who gets jailed, and who doesn't, and for what cause.

That, my friends, is not a free country. A nation of men is never a free nation.

> You left wingers put partisanship before country.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you, and thinks Bush and McCain are bad for America is a "left winger"? Left of you, maybe, but not necessarily left of center.

The truth is, those of us who don't agree with you put the Constitution before partisanship. Today's "right" seems to be interested in oppressive government; undeserved tax breaks for rich people; corporate welfare for huge agribusiness, oil and defense companies; and, of course, homophobia. Those are things you want to defend and perpetuate?

So if I understand this correctly, gaffe-prone McCain just stepped into a constitutional argument with a silver-tongued University of Chicago constitutional law professor? While also alienating the Ron Paul/Bob Barr contingent of his own party?

I gotta wonder if his campaign team knows what they're doing.

So if I understand this correctly, gaffe-prone McCain just stepped into a constitutional argument with a silver-tongued University of Chicago constitutional law professor? While also alienating the Ron Paul/Bob Barr contingent of his own party?

I gotta wonder if his campaign team knows what they're doing.

It's very sad to think that John McCain endured what he did in a North Vietnamese hell hole to uphold the right of the American president to do the same thing to others on our behalf without accountability. I thought he held out as a POW because we're different.

To J.J you can't compare san francisco to new orleans. You can't compare louisiana to california. The corruption in new orleans is like that of a third world country.

"Katrina, read posse comitatus."

Libertarian busllsh*t, JR. No laws pertaining to providing aid in natural disasters changed between the time of Andrw and Katrina.

"Governor Blanco was the chief law enforcement officer in her state.

Read the constitution. It gives the power to the governor not Bush."

The Consititution does not address responses in natural disasters. In times of national emergencies, the president has tools at hand, namely 55 military bases, within 500 miles of Katrina landfall.

THE ENTIRE WORLD watched while your party waited 5 days. FIVE DAYS before even acknowledging there were problems.

IN EVERY OTHER disaster of the same magnitude, the 1964 Alaska Earthquake, the 1906 SF Earthquake, Hurricanes Camille and Andrew, the Galvaston Harbor Blast, the federal government responded the SAME DAY.

The SAME DAY, you fool.

"Look at how Iowa is dealing with the flooding. Not one casualty."

Iowa's flooding is far smaller, as a natural disaster, than Katrina. FAR smaller.

"In Louisiana you had an incompetent democratic governor whose approval ratings were so low she didn't even run again and an incompetent mayor."

I see, the Republicans had their hands on the lever of massive recovery and rescue resources, yet it's our fault?

BULLSH*T!

AND HOW, pray tell, can you descirbe our federal government's response to the earthquake in Indonesia, 8,000 MILES AWAY, in less than TWO days?

Eh, JR?

Good post Casey .

Could you please make clear when you refer to these "town hall" events that McCain's campaign controls who attends?

Yes, please. I'm not sure that most people realized that when Bush was swanning around during most of the year before the election that the happy audience they saw on the teevee everynight was carefully picked.

A friend told me she was invited to the McCain event at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Thought it was probably because she was still registered R, because she is pretty apolitical.

Being a citizen has nothing to do with it. Habeas is a restraint on government power, irrespective of who it is exercised against, and a small one at that -- that so-called conservatives would argue so strongly that the state should be allowed to hold someone indefinitely without evidence of a crime just shows you far through the looking glass they have gone.

The corruption in new orleans is like that of a third world country.

Yes, but we are talking about the federal response. And you can't tell me 1906 San Francisco was a bed of roses.

"To 53 what about affirmative action. The leftists ignore how unconstitutional that is. Even Jim Webb disagress with aspects of it. It should be based on class not race. It is reverse racial discrimination. That is why poor whites in appallachia are so bitter."

In case you hadn't noticed, JR, Affirmative Action is NOT the 'Law of the Land'.

It's tiring to go over and over issues that have been mooted already anyway.

To 53 McCain has never been for torture.

Because of McCain's bill all our agencies now must follow the geneva convention.

This is another example of left lying through their teeth.

Because of McCain's pit bull like tenacity he got the military to stop using waterboarding and dogs on prisoners.

McCain worked as hard as anyone has ever worked to get that bill passed.

Then you partisan hacks put up a bad bill and McCain shows great courage voting against it and you accuse him of being for torture.

How dare you.

The feinstein bill had nothing to do with torture.

The CIA stopped waterboarding years ago.

The Feinstein bill would have made the CIA follow word for word the military guidelines. That doesn't mean you are for torture. McCain explicity said on the senate floor his bill already banned waterboarding. His bill already made the geneva convention the rule of law. What McCain was against was having an intelligence agency have to follow word for word mlitary guidelines. It was a bad bill. The CIA would have had to use the same number of interogators as the military. That is what McCain was against having the CIA have to follow word for word the guidelines of the military.

McCain showed great courage voting against a bad bill. It had nothing to do with waterboarding. The dems stuff up a bad bill for politics just like they do with pork barrel bills then when McCain votes against it they take his vote out of context.

The dems love to lie. What else are they going to do. Talk about a politician with no record and shady associates.

And you didn't mention the corruption of the government of Washington, which is rivaling a third world government as well. Torture, war propaganda, trampled civil liberties, crony capitalism, disappearing war funds... Viva Bush!!!

Could you please make clear when you refer to these "town hall" events that McCain's campaign controls who attends?

Indeed. It would be helpful to note the fact that McCain stacks his so-called "town halls" with only people who support him beforehand.

To quote McCain from Meet the Press June 15th 2005:

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I -- the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk -- particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people.

And Mr. "Striaght Talker" can't understand why people are pointing out that his presidency will be a continuation of the Bush Presidency.

OK, here's what I really don't get:

If a citizen of this country is captured by a foreign enemy (be it soldier, marine, sailor or civilian), our government steps all over itself to negotiate to get that person back. At the very least, they attempt to ensure that they receive a fair trial, if they have committed a crime. (See cases like this one: Soldier to be put on trial in Italy )

But when it is someone else's citizen, someone else's "military"- and most of these people definitely aren't any sort of uniformed military- we are supposed to be able to hold them indefinitely?

I would think that Sen. McCain, having been on the receiving end of the lack of habeus corpus, would be horrified that they were denied a trial in the first place, rather than horrified that they might have to actually charge them. What self-respecting POW actually advocates indefinite detention?

"To J.J you can't compare san francisco to new orleans. You can't compare louisiana to california. The corruption in new orleans is like that of a third world country."

YES, YOU CAN!

You need to study your history. You DON'T know a damn thing!

GO read up on it. They are absolutely comparable. What is important in ALL of those disasters, are the following:

Was the local ability to respond disabled?

Yes. In ALL examples, either the disaster was too large, OR, DIRECTLY impacted the local infrastructure. Kartina was both, the 1906 SF Earthquake, Hurricanes Camille and Anderwe were also disasters of this class.

The Galvaston Harbor disaster differed in being simply too large a disaster for local response to handle.

You are using these facts to divert attention from the above facts to try and place blame on those whose rsponse infrastructure was not large enough to mount an effective response.

In addition, FEMA officials would NOT allow aid to travel into the city!

As far as corruption, the Republican party takes the cake.

New Orleans was no worse nor any better then any other AMERICAN city!

Your 'third world' reference places on display that slick, bigoted 'codespeak' that you idiots thought up around the time of Timothy McVeigh, the Montana Militia, and Waco...

"How dare you."

I got LOTS of ammo, JamesRyan.

Piss me off and I will textually kick your ARSE!

Kathy you are not being fair.

McCain did no such thing. The senate bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. McCain's effort was to have them put in military tribunals. Bin Laden shouldn't be allowed to see classified documents.

McCain was for the prisoners to be taken out of the shadows and gitmo to be closed. Now the high level detainess will just rot in prisons in afghanistan.

Kathy, you do know that the supreme court has no juristiction over iraq and afghanistan. They yesterday said they couldn't do anything with cases in Iraq.

This ruling with just force those detaines to sit forever in prisons in afghanistan.

This is what McCain was against.

He knows this isn't a working system.

McCain was for having the military tribunals in the u.s at leavenworth.

McCain was for shutting Gitmo down.

McCain is the complete opposite as you are portraying him to be.

Everything is black and white with you people.

I bet you don't know that McCain is for the U.S joining the international criminal court.

I understand that McCain also claimed at this "town hall" meeting of his supporters that he has never been in favor of privatizing Social Security. A real reporter would follow up on that claim by asking about this statement McCain previously made in 2004 at the Loeb First Amendment Dinner in response to a questioner:

Q: Will privatizing Social Security be a priority for you going forward?

McCAIN: ...Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.

It was on C-Span. The video is out there. Are the media going to follow up on yet another of McCain's flip-flops? Or is all quiet on the BBQ front?

To Florida another lie from the left.

This was one town hall at the last minute put together and had to be rearranged because Obama wouldn't attend.

McCain has protestors constantly disrupting him.

He has taken questions from people asking the most vile questions.

It is Obama who has town halls all the time before hand picked audiences.

He had a planned town hall event in Iowa before the floods with a town hall with only invited audiences.

Obama is the one who gives the press on access.

McCain is the one who takes questions for hours on his plane and bus.

Obama doesn't give the press 5 percent of the access McCain gives them.

The lies never end with the left.

Forida:

That was this weeks postion? Hmmm.

Last time the Republicans tried to move on it, they had unfettered rule and it STILL floated like a lead balloon!

And here's the video evidence of McCain's latest flip-flop on Social Security:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvgBpXPMko

What worries me more than McCain's response is Roberts's actual opinion:

"unaccountable judges" and clogged courts are his concern?

Isn't he an unaccountable judge? And his other argument is "it's just too much work for us robed buffons"? Wow.

Poor jamesryan. The party of Larry Craig, Jack Abramoff, and Mark Foley just continues to swirl down the bowl. But keep tapping that foot, james, and everything will work out okay!

To FlyNavy

McCain is against indefinate detention.

McCain wanted military tribunals to try them.

McCain has said you have to try them or release them.

McCain knows the military tribunals was the way to get them from rotting in afghanistan forever to actually being tried before military tribunals.

If McCain was for indefinate detentions then he could have been for them being in prison forever in afghanistan.

McCain was for bringing them out of the shadows and putting them on trial and end them rotting in prisons in afghanistan with no hearings.

This election is a disgrace. No candidate has ever been smeared as much as McCain.

While I AGREE with the U. S. Supreme Court's "GITMO" majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."

So McCain's position is constitutional guarantees for everyone but people he doesn't like?
I expected him to jettison his independent persona but not this quickly and completely.

Time out, JR.

How exactly are we going to be giving bin Laden "access to classified documents?"

These guys are getting a trial, not a tour around the Pentagon with all the red lights going. American *citizens* don't even get access to classified documents. Why would we be handing them out to who we believe are terrorists?

That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Yes, JamesRyan,

BE an optimist! Take it to a level of blindness never before seen.

THAT'll cure our economic ills!

Looks like JamesRyan is sniffing at other butts, wagging his tail, looking for crumbs.

He don't come near me anymore.

Wonder why...

FlyNavy, it's not even a trial, just a preliminary hearing, and as Justice Kennedy noted in knocking down that government argument, the courts have all sorts of tools to make sure our confidential material stays that way. It's a total canard to argue otherwise.

And McCain should know that the issue with Gitmo was its location -- arguably outside of US jurisdiction -- which provided the legal rationale for not giving these people basic constitutional protections. Being a citizen has nothing to do with anything, another red herring from a guy who I respect far less than I did 10 years ago.

Aha. JR, what you forget is that the "military tribunals" that the prisoners were "allowed" - not that they all were entitled to them, but that they could be put on trial if the government wished - were totally different than the normal military justice system.

The normal rules of law for exculpatory evidence, the defense's right to meet with their client before the trial, and other things which are standard in both the civilian and military courts were totally ruled out in these "tribunals."

Even the JAG lawyers assigned to defend these guys were horrified, as were the military judges at GITMO. I really don't think you want to start impugning the honor of Commanders, Captains, and Admirals in our military, so you might want to take that into consideration. If the "most patriotic of Americans", those willing to serve their country and die for it, believe that this is wrong and un-American (not to mention unconstitutional), how can we argue with that?

FlyNavy:

I think this is the slippery slope presented by not adhering to the rule of law and the rules of war.

What we do to others can be done to us. Witness the concentration camps of WWII.

BTW, my dad was a naval avaitor!

This election is a disgrace. No candidate has ever been smeared as much as McCain

I agree! Why are John McCain's previous statements so mean to John McCain?!?!?

To FlaNavy, that was one of the big issues in the debate when the senate took up the issue.

What access would these terrorists have to documents.

That is why they had to be military tribunals and not your typical civilian trial.

53 - It seems like everyones dad or brother or in-law was a naval aviator. The Navy is everywhere... a bit spooky, actually. No matter where I go, I hear "My son/daughter/father/etc. is in the Navy!"

And I totally agree. Once we start making exceptions in our military justice system for those not in our military, it's a short jump to making exceptions for those in our military, or putting our own civilians on trial in the military courts (which might be the dumbest idea i've ever considered) because it suits the party or individual in power.

The constitution isn't partisan. Why can't we just follow it? (I kid. I know there's interpretation and all that. But it's a nice thought.)

FlyNavy:

I hope you don't mind it, but I guess maybe you could consider yourself a 'rock star' of sorts. They're great people, though...

I was talking to my brother in law about the constitution yesterday, and to me, the decision by the Supreme Court isn't so surprising.

Some on the Court are constructionists, but that doesn't prevent them from interpretation, and can sometimes lead to quixotic decisions because our countrie's forfathers didn't have issues in mind that we face nowadays.

That leaves room for making partisan decisions, but I do have to say, that this isn't one of them. Bush has made a lot of decisions that don't reflect well on his party's respect for the constitution.

For example, the inability to fix the 'no fly list'. Once one gets on it, it's impossible to get off. Why is that? Isn't due process part of the consitutionality of things?

It's questions like these that make me shiver at the thought of another four years of destructive management...

Casey Morris forgot to emphasize ALL criminal prosecutions. Not just the prosecutions we feel like treating differently.

As far as the justices go, only 2 of the 5 justices in the majority decision, were democratic appointees.

Stevens - Nixon appointee
Souter - Sununu, er GHW Bush appointee
Kennedy - Bush appointee

As far as Roberts unaccountable judges tirade, he, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are just as unaccountable as any other judge in the US Federal Judiciary.

Jamesryan can't be a real commenter. No one is that completely deluded. I mean, QH spins the hell out of everything, and Rustydog just doesn't care enough to attempt to rebut most of the stuff said here with anything other than paranoid substanceless rhetoric, but Jamesryan spews out delusion after delusion after delusion to the point of the surreal.

It is doubtful that grandpa read anything other than the dissents. He would not understand the majority or concurring opinions since they diverge from the Bush doctrine and pretty much tell McCain's biggest booster, Lindsay Graham, that the legislative centerpiece of his first term is crap.

Why does James Ryan hate the Constitution and America?

More importantly, why does John McCain hate America?

He has more than once sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

But apparently his 'straight talk' doesn't extend to that particular oath.

Notice also how he had to wait a day to see how it was going to focus-group.

Remember that, next time you're tempted to write about how 'true to principles' he thinks he is.

"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," McCain said.

Based on what John? Your zero years of legal experience? Right wingers think that every ruling that doesn fit their ideology is some sort of travesty carried out by "activist judges." They can never accept that sometimes the law just isn't what they think it is.

Ironically, the conservatives on the Court are now the most blatant "activists". Conservatives secretly love activist judges - they love conservative activist judges. Why this "strict constructionist" myth has been allowed to carry on as long as it has is beyond me.

The GOP will rue their systematic undermining of confidence in the judicial branch. Their unending assault on the judiciary is going to come back and bite them hard on the ass one of these days. It's primary effect is the undermining of faith in the Rule of Law. Do conservatives really want to live in such a country? Apparently so.

Michael do you have an opinion on this? I'm just curious, his outrage seems kinda of silly. It doesn't seem like he's even trying to defend his position on constitutional grounds. He's basically just screaming if we let them have trials the terrorists will win. What do you think?

Michael,

So McCain's position on this is going to be pretty much this. We have detained you and we not going to tell you why, we have evidence that supports you being a terrorist but we are not going to tell you what it is or show it to you, we have witnesses that will testify against you but we are not going to tell you who they are or what their testimony is and finally we are going to convict you based on the aforementioned and not give you any right to challenge the proceedings at any point along the way.

My question is: If one of our soliders, agents, diplomats or citizens is arrested in any other country around the world on what basis will we have to seek their immediate release? And why couldn't any other country holding our people not claim that they are holding a enemy of the state, so we are keeping everything secret.

Jamesryan, you say McCain is for all these things. Would you mind posting links? Here are instructions in case you need them.

The things you say McCain stands for seem far too nuanced for someone who doesn't understand Iran's involvement in Iraq, who thinks that $50/hour is the prevailing wage for picking lettuce, who thinks that Czechoslovakia is still a country, etc.

If you would post links it would enlighten me and others.

Thanks

Habeas Corpus of course is a basic human right that is acknowledged by the Constitution as applying because of being a person, not from being a Citizen, the same as all the Common Law stuff.

That's why we have it as Habeas, rather than as the Nth Amendment.

Somebody send McSame to a civics refresher before his next town mall

Here is my problem with the decision. Terrorists are not criminals. They are enemy combatants, and they haven't committed a crime. Rather they are either planning or have already committed an act of war. You cannot give criminal protections to enemy combatants that have committed acts of war. I believe the SC way overstepped its bounds on this and here is how I wrote about it...

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/06/detainees-to-get-habeus-rights.html

"Jamesryan, you say McCain is for all these things. Would you mind posting links?"

No it doesn't work that way. james/QH/ and all her various personalities follow their golden rule--Assert never demonstrate.

Rather they are either planning or have already committed an act of war

Unless they haven't.

It is well documented that many people who ended up Guantanomo we NOT in fact hostile forces. Many have already been released.

All that has been granted is the ability to request a second opinion on whether someone has been appropriately detained.

Any discussion that talks about granting terrorists the same rights as citizens or trials in civilian courts is a deliberate lie.

mr mccain,

please read this pasage again and decide if you really want to be president of a nation based on this principle. we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.....
notice that these inalienable rights are not listed as American only.

"We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government"

That's right, motherf---er!

"By the way, 30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again, one of them just a couple weeks ago, a suicide bomber in Iraq."

One - has anyone fact-checked that?
Two - maybe they were pissed about being held without trial for years on end?

milkevolpe; Here's the problem with your view:

"Now, do we really want the government to only detain someone like Padilla only after they have enough to criminally charge him?"

Once habeas is gone, what's to stop a malicious executive from holding someone like YOU without enough evidence to support a charge? If you can ignore limits on authority just by labeling someone a terrorist, even if you can't prove it, why can't you just label your political opponents as terrorists and lock 'em up? The underlying justification for this radical expansion of executive power is the same.

Are you for McCain, or Mugabe?

mikevolpe:
Here's my problem with your statement:
"Terrorists are not criminals. They are enemy combatants, and they haven't committed a crime."

You're presuming that they're guilty before proved innocent. Without the burden of proof placed on the government, anyone can be labelled a terrorist, which makes them an enemy combatant, which allows us to skip due process of the law.
If this occurs, then America is no longer built on the rule of law, but the rule of the government's whim.

Shorter McCain:

I'm against an independent judiciary.

Damn, FlowOver, you beat me to it!

Cliff:

Yahtzee!

Posted by KYJurisDoctor | June 13, 2008 12:55 PM

The power to suspend habeas corpus is not something that Roberts enumerated as a separate and new finding of this ruling.

The power to suspend habeas corpus has resided solely with the Congress since it was affirmed in Merryman. The illegality of the MCA is also evident in Milligan.

To clarify, Roberts isn't breaking ground here. He just affirming what was upheld when Abraham Lincoln illegally suspended habeas during the Civil War and affirming ex parte Milligan (though only in part). It's stare decisis, no?

"Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material."

Would anyone care to explain how that works?

This is an odd statement: McCain wanted military tribunals to try them. Absent a declaration of martial law, that would be illegal.

And to clarify, it's not civilian courts. It's civil courts. There's a difference. Civil courts are required absent something which prevent civil courts from operating.

Your claim is that McCain supported MCA's because of the secret documents issue. That's just silly. The State Secrets provision has been adjudicated and reaffirmed very recently in the failure to grant cert. in the Foster v. US, so to use that as a reason, is to ignore the right which was just upheld.

Courts, such as FISA courts, deal with the issue of state secrets all of the time. This is simply an unsupportable and ex-constitutional reason for holding Military Commission Tribunals. This is what SCOTUS is saying in its decision.

The fact that Scalia says "people will die" is laughable.

People are already dying.

People have died. And frankly, a lot of people died to uphold the right of habeas corpus. Far, far more than have died at the hands of terrorists.

Here's some interesting poll stuff:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/13/poll.republicans/index.html

Take it with a grain of salt...

Independent:

A prisoner, with not much better to do, files suit claiming that his/her confinement is illegal because he/she doesn't like the menu or the available reading material.

An assistant US Attorney has the nearest intern cut & paste a response saying the suit is without merit.

The judge throws the suit out as being meritless.

The Republic endures.

I can't believe that you could post this quote and not point out the pretty simple fact that it exposes Senator McCain as an idiot who has no idea what habeus corpus even is.

Seriously. McCain apparently thinks that you use a writ of habeus corpus to complain about the food in prison.

That is truly, truly shocking ignorance from a man who sits in the Congress. It's remarkable.

This quote is the worthy of being on the Tonight Show as part of Jaywalk Allstars. You couldn't lampoon McCain as an idiot any better than this quote does.

And by the way, to anyone who thinks that McCain opposes torture: McCain engineered the passage of the Military Commissions Act, which immunized anyone who committed torture under Bush's orders, and allows the President to subjectively define torture based on his own conscience - as long as the President says a procedure isn't torture, under McCain's bill, it's not. The demented charade he engaged in to pretend to stand up against torture, and then to facilitate passage of this atrocity, effectively put the lie to McCain's pretense of being against torture. McCain disgraced his own military service and pissed all over his own legend as a POW when he helped the President obtain immunity for his torturing henchmen.

mikevolpe: They are enemy combatants...

When I am Leader of the United States, I'm going to start some ill defined military action and get my lawyers to call the people I capture, "Coconut Prisoners." With that name, I won't have to be bound to any legal constraints. I can break the Geneva convention and centuries old settled law without having to worry. Screw the founding fathers and what they intended. It's good to be king.

Thanks, FlownOver.

I agree, BrianScheetz, that McCain's statement stems from either shocking ignorance or a strong desire to mislead.

BrianScheetz, I am a lawyer and I have to agree with you. I don't think McCain (or whoever wrote that for him) is an idiot, I think we have purposeful and intentional deception on the prison food=habeaus point.

that McCain's statement stems from either shocking ignorance or a strong desire to mislead.

You can't rule out the possibilty that it's both.......

Now it's perfectly clear -- the upcoming election, among other things, pits the US Constitution against McCain, Bush and the neocon radicals who don't believe in the most central founding principles of our republic.

These un-American (yes! let's say it!) usurpers are taking King Gorge's side in the American Revolution.

Among the results of that Revolution was the forbidding of bills of attainder, in which a legislature passes a law that says someone is guilty -- no trial.

In the Bush administration's case, the cowardly Congress has passed a bill that allows kangaroo courts to issue de facto bills of attainders. No evidence, lawyers in name only, pre-set for a guilty verdict.

Time for the Americans to restore the freedoms our forefathers died for. .

@53 - Unfortunately, I myself don't get to be a rock star. I'm strictly civil service, but my civil service is Navy jets. ;) That makes me more like the roadie in that analogy.

I just got here and haven't even read all of the story or any of the posts, but it is something I feel so strongly about that I am plunging right in. Forgive me if others have beaten me to it.

This is a debate that I am sure Obama is biting at the bit for. It concerns democracy, freedom and the US Constitution. He is a constitutional attorney and professor.

Here is the deal...the Constitution defines democracy and freedom in our country. The Bush admnistration ignnores it, yet claims to be teaching the Middle East how to have democracy and freedom. A basic element of that freedom is habeas corpus. The administration finds that element not to be convienent and dispenses with it, not only in Guantanamo, but in the "extrodinary renditions" (what demented political writer dreamed that up?), and torture.

What kind of democracy and freedom is this administration exporting? It's sure not one I became familiar with in 7th grade civits class. And anybody who has been to law school knows better than the dissenting judges opinions, and they know better too. The dissent is a fraud...a little wink at Bush and his neocon clowns.

I will spend no time here because I don't give a damn what anybody thinks about the Constitution. This decision is absolutely, totally correct, and while I am happy for it, the dissenting justices should cause some alarm for all true believers in democracy and fredom. Shrub's time will be up, but we are stuck with these nitwits for as long as they please.

Senator McCain states:
"We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. "

He appears to have lost his bearings again. This was a case about habeas corpus. He is referring to section 1983 suits brought by prisoners about conditions of confinement. Habeas only deals with the fact of confinement.

The decision in no way does or could provide section 1983 rights. Nor does it follow at all that an analogy can be made frlom this case to 1983 cases. This case was based on the Constitutional provision barring suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that either the senator or his staff are not up to the task.

FlyNavy:

AND you don't get the pay either. My dad flew A3's during the Korean war.

james:

We are going to have to get rid of the Nintendo Neocon strategists out of the Pentagon, too!

james - most of us here agree with you 100%
The comments from the dissenting judges are extremely alarming.

I don't think the constitution allows for the removal of Supreme Court justices for any reason. Would it be legal to appoint an additional justice who pledges to always oppose another justice? If so, I'd happilly volunteer to alway oppose Scalia, without pay, and promise to resign once he's out of power.

These wingnuts always bring up the "fact" that
30 released detainees have been found back on
the field of battle.
I've got some news for them. They were not released because they enjoyed the benefit of
habeas corpus. They were released under the
rules the wingnuts are so enamored with.

"The comments from the dissenting judges are extremely alarming."

Agreed, Scalia's comments are the most disturbing to me. He really shouldn't be concerned whether or not "people will die" but concerned about the Constitutionality of the law. Isn't that type of comment proof Scalia is an "activist judge" and Republicans hate him?

To those that are misrepresenting this SCOTUS ruling, please get your facts right. The ruling says that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended, but the government has to show cause for doing so. All this means is that they can't pull anyone off the street, dub them an enemy combatant and detain them indefinitely. This is not some kind of judicial activism. It's always been the standard. During the Civil War, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended, but SCOTUS still ruled that the government had to show cause to do so.

I second WonderLlama's motion.

Third.

The entire right-wing establishment believes that bad people don't get protections under the law, and that good people can break laws if they want to.

That's the logic here, that's the logic in telecom immunity. Step 1 is to determine whether or the person is good or evil, all else follows from there.

HTML

test

I hate to be so late to the comments, but I watched something tonight that was very disturbing. Ghosts of Abu Ghraib was bad enough, and I've always wondered what they meant by gitmoize Abu Ghraib so here is the address. Sorry, I don't know how to create the actual link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1406667377798601297&hl=en

This is a documentary where seven british men volunteer to undergo treatment similar to Guantanamo Bay for forty-eight hours and be questioned by former U.S. military interrogators.

If these people are dangerous it is because we made them that way. Who wouldn't confess or point fingers at their neighbors just to stop the abuse. After years of this horror, if they were even still sane, what would they have to fear? I highly doubt the food and the reading material would be high on their list of grievances. Absolutely disgusting.

As pointed out, more people have died defending Habeas Corpus than have died from terrorism. I would say the same goes for freedom.

OK never mind link was created for me...duh

I am disappointed in McCain. His handlers have told him what he has to say to win. But when it contradicts his principles, it shows. This former Republican will vote for Obama.

Well about our Constitution Bush said, "It's only a phucking piece of paper", and we all know what Cheney thinks, "so?". Now we have McSame weighing in with, "the worst decision in the history of this country"! Where has this imbicile been for the past 70 years of his life? There can be no doubt that he's lost his mental faculties trying to satisfy the Pug base! He is a DECEITFUL OPPORTUNIST constantly speaking DOUBLE TALK looking for GLORY in all the wrong places who thinks that if he goes along with Bush/Company he will secure the base. Just think what the SCOTUS would look and sound like if he managed to fool enough people to vote him into office! There would be NO ONE left standing for us - we the people!

JamesRyan said, "McCain is the one who takes questions for hours on his plane and bus"

The only reason McSame talks to the press while traveling is so he can earn "press credits" [political capital] so that when he opens his mouth and speaks DOUBLE TALK [look at all the videos of him stating one thing] and then DELIBERATELY states a totally opposite view on it another time, he wants the press to give him a FREE PASS on all his "gaffes and lies" since they should NOW CONSIDER HIM THEIR BUDDY because he was "nice to them while traveling"! Yeah, right! McSame is an OPPORTUNIST! He always has a REASON to "USE PEOPLE" while trying to achieve his other higher goals! He's SLICK AND SNEAKY! He's another Nixon with NO MORAL CHARACTER! He is NOT A "HERO" - that's a misnomer, but he is a CONTROL FREAK! He made 32 propaganda films for the Viet Cong while a POW and "talked" so that he could come home. EVERYTHING he has done or said since returning from Viet Nam has been in preparation for the next rung in the ladder of success. And he will "use" his POW status to get the "sympathy vote"! ANYTHING to help him achieve the POWER he so desperately wants!

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

This is me shaking my head.

This has nothing to do with Habeus.

They would get counsel in military tribunals.

They would get the same rights as our own soldiers get. You would think that would be good enough. Instead the media lies that they wouldn't get rights.

Military tribunals are the correct venues not civilian trials.

At this point they are getting neither trials nor tribunals. We are holding them without trial. Hence the whole habeas corpus thing.

Please stop being so dense.

mcCain-enAble has it right on one point; "there are some BAD people down there."

namely, the sadists running the joint.

"one of the worst decisions in US history?

I wouldn't place it in the top 100,000 worst US decisions.

someone please factcheck his "30 released detainees' having attacked "America."

courts are made to be clogged up with SUSPECTS, and if they had been doing this methodically from day one of their rendition, they would have passed thru like painless gallstones.

so much for executive omnipotence.

So on one hand McCain says he supports speedy trials for all Gitmo detainees, but then speaks out against the thing that gives detainees the right to have their day in court? I didn't think the Straight Talk Express could go in two different directions at once...
--
My Site: Cuban for Obama: ALL the 2008 Election News in One Place

McCain's statement evidences his embrace of the neocon movement. His "flips" or inconsistencies wrt habeas corpus, torture, and FISA are a deliberate and calculated evolution, explained here:

"Conversely, if McCain amends his position, he risks looking like he's flip-flopping, a potent charge that Republicans memorably leveled against John Kerry four years ago. So instead his campaign is insisting, improbably, that their candidate has never changed his mind...

...Yet there's a more important issue here, which is why the neo-cons are pressing McCain to adhere to the Bush administration's line. And that's the administration's theory of the so-called unitary executive, which says that the president's use of military force cannot be reviewed by courts.

McCain's earlier statements -- especially where he says presidents must "obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress" -- seem to question the administration's interpretation. Beyond wiretapping, that touches on topics such as John Yoo's so-called torture memos, the applicability of the Geneva Convention to detainees, Bush's signing statements, and military commissions. Questioning the justifications for Bush's warrantless wiretapping means questioning the rest; no wonder McCain seems a little worried about where this may lead."

In fact, his Deputy Communications Director, Michael Goldfarb(one of a handfull of neocons on his staff), wrote that the president has "near dictatorial powers". I believe that if McCain is elected, we will see more attacks on our Constitution and continued preemptive military aggression (and the deception used to sell it).

A bit of a change of (legal) subject, but I have a question:

I wonder, since Larry Johnson and others like Rush Limbaugh KNOWINGLY broadcast false information, and embellished on it, with malicious intent (to damage her, and consequently his, reputation) why these networks aren't vulnerable to a libel or defamation (or other similar type) lawsuit.

I would appreaciate comments from any lawyers reading this!

I don't think there would be a political downside to this and a "cease and desist" order coming down from a bench might be sufficient and very timely motivation on the part of networks to stop broadcasting Swiftboat attacks.

What do you think! I would LOVE to hear!

Michael,

You and others in the MSM could do us all a favor by clarifying the issue when discussing topics such as this by referring to the detainees at Gitmo as "presumed" enemy combatants. As others have noted previously, they have not been convicted of anything yet. Just because the Bush clan claims it, does not make it so.

I'm using a dead thread to try out some HTML tags because I'm tired of using quotation marks for other people's words

Does it work when I just use the /i command?

Could this be the same man who was detained for seven years and tortured as an enemy combatant? After all that, and he still doesn't get it?

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has