Columnist George Will took John McCain to task for calling the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week on detainee rights “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
“Did McCain’s extravagant condemnation of the court’s habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents?” Will asked. “More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court - meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees - a campaign issue.”
The conservative columnist defended the ruling as beginning to mark “a boundary against government’s otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely.”
41 Comments
While George Will is a bit conservative for my tastes at least he is a man of principle. Unlike the neocons and McBush.
McCain Takes Gitmo Ruling Personally
“Following the last Supreme Court ruling on this topic, which also struck down stubborn Administration detainee policies, the Senator (a Vietnam torture victim himself) invested no small amount of his own treasured (and well-earned) historical capital to try to broker a deal on the detainees.
And, in late 2006, he did.
It’s called the Military Commissions Act. It was a terrible idea from the very beginning, and it was one of two federal statutes undercut by the Justices last Thursday. It’s no wonder the nominee is taking the defeat personally.
After first insisting that federal law clearly and unambiguously outlaw “torture,” McCain suddenly caved to White House pressure on the MCA, allowing the Administration to insert into the law a clause that effectively allows (and, indeed, legally buttresses the efforts of) the executive branch to implement torture as a means of interrogation.
Without McCain’s pander, there would have been no bad law for the Court to strike down last week. Without McCain’s grandiloquent appeal to Democrats and moderates during that lame-duck session, there quite possibly might have been a better law that just might have passed its constitutional test this term.
McCain’s sell-out on the torture language is not the reason the Justices declared the MCA unconstitutional. It is not the reason why the detainees now have more access to federal courts than they did before. But it is emblematic of the larger and much more destructive, seven-year-long sell-out of the legislative branch in the legal fight against terrorism.
And that emblem, thanks to the Supreme Court, now has John McCain’s face on it just in time for the run-up to the general election.”
http://tinyurl.com/5a4s5x
Igno Ramus? Is that like a first and last name?
Like Capn Ramus or Chas Ramus?
Actually, I do have issues with the decision myself.
An enemy combatant should not be given civilian court status and habeas corpus. An enemy combatant being an non-uniformed agressor who plays by no rules and is often declared an outlaw by their country of origin, no longer allowed back in as a citizen.
I believe that a time limit should be set to appear before a tribunal judge or panel though. Perhaps 18 months maximum with an acceleration process invoked if certain conditions are met.
Islamic terrorists are modern day pirates, but worse. They have no honor and no set of rules they play by. They will indiscriminately kill women and children to accomplish their goals of Jihad.
“Regular” imparts his version of wisdom –
“Islamic terrorists are modern day pirates, but worse. They have no honor and no set of rules they play by.”
And that’s what’s supposed to make America superior.
We do have a set of rules we’re supposed to play by. It’s called the Constitution of the United States of America. And it limits the power of the government and/or the president to summarily ignore the rules.
Don’t really care MonkeyHawk. If it were me, I would have just shot them in the head and saved everyone the trouble of being held in prison.
Don’t really care MonkeyHawk. If it were me, I would have just shot them in the head and saved everyone the trouble of being held in prison.
Then lets hope no one calls the FBI and informs them you are an al-qaeda cell leader…
That would be more proof than some of the folks being held today. Those same folks you would shoot in the head.
The rules are there for a reason. You act just like one of the ‘terrorists’.
Regular better hope the govt. doesn’t decide to give rewards to accusers here like they did in Afghanistan, else someone might bop him upside the head and collect a bounty.
George Will is wrong about one thing: no ignoramus who advised McCain on this could be mistaken for being clever; politically calculating, perhaps, but not clever.
One need only look at McCain’s clueless statements about diet and reading materials, issues that have nothing to do with a habeas corpus petition, or indeed the basic concept. McCain’s statement was easily as moronic as Rick Santorum declaring that the Lawrence decision would lead to rampant sex with dogs.
P.S. Taking Regular’s advice, why are we wasting so much money on criminal trials in the U.S? If we let the police execute defendants on sight, that’d be a hell of a lot more efficient! Guilt, innocence, evidence–who cares? And those grieving relatives who dare to sue–kill them too! That’ll show them who’s boss! USA! USA!
P.S. If I may be allowed to modestly toot my own horn, I noted in 2006 that administration’s position regarding detainees substituted the Executive Branch for the Judiciary’s position in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison.
Kennedy actually referred to the “political branches,” but said the same thing. Not that it took any great insight to see that in 2006–just the sense required to come in from the rain!
Naturally the Bush regime doesn’t want to give their Gulag prisoners a trial, then they’ll realize how many innocent people got rounded up.
It’s a shame that America took it’s playbook from the Nazis. When the Nazis occupied France and rounded up members of the Marquis they were just locked up and never given a trial. After America’s short tour in Europe (shorter than our occupation of Iraq at least) the Nazi war criminals were able to be given trials.
The Nazis were given trials and we have yet to suffer another Nazi attack. Go figure.
P.S. Taking Regular’s advice, why are we wasting so much money on criminal trials in the U.S?
==================================
You didn’t read the part where I said law enforcement arrests should be handled differently, now did you?
Or, you chose to ignore it.
Did Ignoramus advise Obama on the 2nd Amendment?
Actually Pirates were given trials.
I’ve read that at least some of the people we’re holding are there because they were set up to settle old scores or tribal feuds. If we know they’re terrorists or al-Queda, I’m with Regular. Let’s shoot them in the head and be done with it. But it seems to me that we need to find out if they belong there in the first place.
We need to stand by the Constitution. Show me where it specifically says the Constitution only protects citizens of this country and no other. I always thought the Constitution was about humanity, not just Americans.
You didn’t read the part where I said law enforcement arrests should be handled differently, now did you?
Actually, I’m well-acquainted with the detainee shell-game, and the lawless arrests that have taken place. I’d like to see you find any body of law–the Geneva Convention, Cuban statutes, hell, even Western common law–where these legal nonpersons have had recourse. Bet you can’t do it.
Were it not for the third branch of government that types like you want to put out of business, it would trivially easy to declare, say, suspected meth dealers or, hey, even better, undocumented immigrants as “enemy combatants,” and summarily whack them.
Defining an arbitrary class of legal nonpersons is easy to do; it’s just not particularly American.
“We need to stand by the Constitution. Show me where it specifically says the Constitution only protects citizens of this country and no other. I always thought the Constitution was about humanity, not just Americans.”
The only law in the Constitution that specifically applies to citizens is in regards to who is eligible to be President. The Constitution says only citizens born in this country are eligible. Everywhere else in the Constitution the document refers to people. The Framers were quite clear about inalienable rights for everyone regardless of nationality.
“But it seems to me that we need to find out if they belong there in the first place.”
Don’t you understand nano? As long as they are “towel-heads” they are automatically guilty!
/sarcasm off
The only law in the Constitution that specifically applies to citizens is in regards to who is eligible to be President.
So why, exactly, should we allow that damn Panamanian to run this country? I think he’s up to something shady: Off to Gitmo for you, John! Your time in Hanoi will prove to be useful!
We may like to recall that G. Gordon Liddy and his pals in the Nixon White House discussed and considered plans to kidnap and ‘disappear’ anti-war leaders during the war with Vietnam.
“The Framers were quite clear about inalienable rights for everyone regardless of nationality.”
Mankind have those rights. It has little to do with who is covered under American Law.
“It has little to do with who is covered under American Law.”
The SCOTUS disagrees with you - I thought you ‘Pukes were ALL about the rule of law…..
Guess not.
Justice Robert Jackson:
The Constitution is not a suicide pact
The SCOTUS disagrees with you
Not by much.
“Not by much.”
You were okay with a SCOTUS decision - 5-4 - that put your candidate in office in December 2000.
Remember - you told us to “get over it?”
Well, hypocrite, get over it.
“5-4 - that put your candidate in office in December 2000.”
That would be 7 to 2
Not so close.
“In a per curiam opinion, by a vote of 7-2, the Court in Bush v. Gore held that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, and by a vote of 5-4, held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. The 7-2 portion of the per curiam opinion was decided based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The critical 5-4 portion of the per curiam opinion involved the remedy for that Equal Protection violation. Three of the concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.”
Five to four………………….
5 to 4.
And the American people were so pissed, they elected him again.
Damn it man!
“And the American people were so pissed, they elected him again.”
And now he has the lowest sustained approval ratings in American presidential history.
I will resist the temptation to say - I told you so.
He lied and started an unjustified war that made no one any safer, lied some more to cover up his lies so he could be reelected (narrowly) during war time. That’s a sad fact!
Reggie,
“An enemy combatant being an non-uniformed agressor who plays by no rules and is often declared an outlaw by their country of origin”
You mean to tell me that our founding fathers wouldn’t have wanted the Constitution to have applied to….them?
Another part of the “detainee” situation for McCain to be proud of.
Probe: Pentagon lawyers sought harsh interrogation
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks pursued abusive interrogation techniques once used by North Korea and Vietnam on American POWs despite stern warnings by several military lawyers that the methods were cruel and even illegal, according to a Senate investigation.
http://tinyurl.com/5a7xd9
From the link above:
“A senior CIA lawyer at the meeting, John Fredman, explained that whether harsh interrogation amounted to torture “is a matter of perception.” The only sure test for torture is if the detainee died.
“If the detainees dies, you’re doing it wrong,” Fredman said.”
McCain wants to continue the bushco war of choice for a hundred years. McCain for bush’s THIRD term! Warmongers, murderers, crazy men!
Justice Robert Jackson:
The Constitution is not a suicide pact
The case in question involved a single priest making “anti-semetic, pro-Nazi” (Wikipedia) rants. Obnoxious, awful speech, but still speech. Thanks for your endorsement of censorship, fleetie. Jackson, for all of his farsighted opinions, was seriously out to lunch on this one.
Now, from memory, Justice Douglas: “The purpose of free speech is to invite dispute. It often serves its noble purpose best when it {pisses people off}.
The case is Terminiello v. Chicago. Look it up yourself.
P.S. Care to look up the procedures and standards of proof for the war crimes tribunals that Jackson headed? Gee, I didn’t think so, as it would utterly undermine your thoroughly asinine argument.
Since we are only over there with our military for the OIL and not because of the fact that the Islamic Terrorist have issues with bombing American Embassy’s, Buildings, Navy ships or Killing Americans where ever they can.
Maybe we should just bring home all our military and see how long it takes for those whackos to start with the car bomb here in the U.S.
Maybe we should just bring home all our military and see how long it takes for those whackos to start with the car bomb here in the U.S.
Uh. . .right. The moment we stop policing a civil war in Iraq, they will attack in the U.S.
I don’t suppose you can explain how spending billions and diverting hundreds of thousands of American soliders to policing a civil war in an occupied country somehow keeps the wackos from us attacking here?
Please go on: this could be grimly entertaining. Though I suspect that one post burnt out the 9-volt battery that powers what passes for your brain.
P.S. psst. . .Afghanistan is just as bad! Pass it on!
Rage,
Keeping most of our military personnel halfway around the world prevents them from staging a military coup d’etat here over poverty-level military pay, repeated deployments and mistreatment of wounded soldiers until Honeywell and Blackwater, et al, are finished looting the treasury.
Imagine that, being able to face your accuser…hmm.
Rage, You probably think it’s all about the oil. Let me tell you the secret. We are really stealing the sand to clean up our beaches.
Lindainks,
“The Pentagon in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks pursued abusive interrogation techniques once used by North Korea and Vietnam on American POWs despite stern warnings by several military lawyers that the methods were cruel and even illegal, according to a Senate investigation.”
Did it ever occur to anyone that McCane may have briefed the administration on what techniques the Vietnamese used to get him to betray his country?
“Did it ever occur to anyone that McCane may have briefed the administration on what techniques the Vietnamese used to get him to betray his country?”
It was either torture or use the modern technique that convinced McCain to sell out his country, lavish campaign donations and use of a corporate jet.
One Trackback
valium…
valium no prescription…