June 15, 2008
McCain Takes Gitmo Ruling Personally
Why Does GOP Candidate Scorn Supreme Court's Affirmation Of Right Of Habeus Corpus?
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Gitmo Tribunals
Detainees on trial, photos and a history of the naval base.
-
Interactive
We The People
Background on the U.S. Constitution, when it has been amended and how it's done.
Why would the normally stoic senator become so hyperbolic about a ruling that, at its essence, strengthens the vitality of the “Great Writ” of habeas corpus - a bedrock constitutional right?
There are several reasons. As a political matter, McCain clearly understands that in his quest to enchant the hard-right wing of the Grand Old Party, he must rail upon the Supreme Court whenever it happens to disagree with the Bush Administration on legal aspects of the war on terrorism.
This is why, just a few weeks ago, McCain delivered a speech that hammered the federal judiciary, sweeping away any lingering notion that he intends to govern as a moderate on legal policy and priorities.
So, whether or not McCain really believes what he says, it is good politics (read: inaccurate and unfair) to declare that the Court just sided with the terrorists over the President when five Justices ruled that the terror suspects detained in Cuba may challenge their detentions in our civilian courts.
And it is good politics to warn of the detainees clogging those courts with frivolous lawsuits - like current domestic prisoners do - even though the suspects so far only have sought to have some sort of objective, neutral fact-finder evaluate the government’s classification of them as “enemy combatants.”
The main reason for McCain’s strong language, however, is as personal as political.
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.
This is not necessarily fair. It’s not just John McCain who failed or refused to do the right thing. Last week’s ruling was the fourth defeat in a row for the Administration at the Supreme Court. And on the past three occasions the Congress has responded not by embracing the hints and clues left by the Court’s majorities - by, say, brokering a desperately-needed deal between executive and judicial branches over a terror law policy - but by siding with the White House.
McCain and other so-called “moderates” have had the power for years to avoid these Supreme Court showdowns and show-ups. They just haven’t had the political courage to exercise that power.
All of which means the Supreme Court isn’t the only reason why the terror detainees remain in legal limbo. The White House is to blame for pushing beyond the legal limits of executive power. And the Congress is to blame for allowing it to happen despite entreaties by the judiciary for help.
If I were a good man like McCain, I’d be embarrassed by this. And perhaps he is. And perhaps that embarrassment is expressing itself in anger instead of consideration. In any case, it’s misguided.
Contrary to the angry candidate’s remarks, last week’s Boumediene ruling is not on a par with the Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision that tagged slaves as “property;” its 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that endorsed the “separate but equal” doctrine; or its Korematsu v. United States decision that affirmed the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
In fact, the recent ruling on detainee rights will be revered, not reviled, by future generations, who will study the first decade following the terror attacks on America with a curious mix of regret and sadness about lost opportunities, legal and otherwise, that hampered our collective response.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from CourtWatch
-
Video
Blagojevich Indicted For Corruption
-
Video
Madoff Heads To Prison
-
Video
Landmark Legal Cases
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 144 CommentsHe might be old but his age didn''t make him in the brain category. Dumb really Dumb!!
There is no question that prisoners of war should not be granted access to our judicial system. That is why, as a Republican, I am so incensed at the abuses of it''s war powers authority by the Bush administration. To kidnap, torture and then incarcerate a completely innocent foreign national, for over 4 years, is simply inexcusable, even if there were only one case, such as the case of Mr. Kurnaz. It is not the Supreme Court which has compromised our ability to exercise military force, it is the Bush administration itself, by this, and various other egregious mistakes and general incompetence.
The war on terror, particularly on it''s front-line in Afghanistan, is being lost for no other reason than the relentless failure of the Bush administration''s stewardship. Worse, the moral high-ground on which this nation must stand, if it is to stand at all, has been squandered. Thank God for the Supreme Court, which by it''s ruling, began the process of reclaiming that ground.
When we imprison people without the right to Habeas Corpus -- without being able to answer to the charges against them -- we infuriate the rest of the world.
How would we feel if our dad or our daughter were thrown into a prison in Equador or somewhere -- indefinitely -- without being able to answer to the charges...?
Why then, would we NOT expect the families and fellow citizens of these Guantanamo detainess to seek revenge...? When our leaders do *** like this they make America a more dangerous place to live.
We need to start acting like the moral country we once were.
And that is why I will never vote for McCain.
Bob Barr ''08
This is what we have come to expect from the network that blithely accepted forged documents to "prove" GWB received preferential treatment in the National Guard during the Vietnam era!
This statement assumes an unending series of new generations to look back at this decision, whereas if the Islamic Extremists have their way, the United States as we know it will have no freedom, but will be under Islamic Sharia Law.
This court has interpreted the constitution as being a suicide pact. McCain will gain if he sticks to his guns in opposition to this ruling.
Instead, the pudit (I will not honor him/her with the title "reporter") does not report. He or she ascribles reasons for McCain''s opposition to the ruling without allowing McCain to speak for himself.
Isn''t this what people are accusing the Bush Administration of doing to the detainees at Guantanamo?
(Fairy tale #1)
is a typical reactionary who cant read nor interpret information. Makes me so mad when foolish people speak up and criticize without merit. Learn how to read moron.
He is fast adopting the ways of this administration when he should know that the American people are not going to elect a Bush clone. This country has had enough of the Bush''s and I will bet not another Bush will become president for at least 50 years.
He is not losing his marbles, he has already lost them and I think he is also developing Alzheimer''s.
American agents grabbed these people off the street or off the battlefield and they have disappeared into a never ending hell. Our Constitution does not give us the right to keep these people forever (guilty or not). There has to be a resolution. What McCain has done is the politically expedient thing to pander to the Republican far right, but it makes no sense to the rest of us.
McCain seems to have studied the current administration and gleaned the worst characteristics from the players. Should we call him "BuCheney" now?
I am now at a really bad crossroad as a voter. McCain will be another 4-8 years of the Bush/Cheney regime and Obama appears to be a veiled racist, wanting to be friends with everyone, but just waiting to install an activist black federal government. I don''t see how I can place a vote for either camp. Homer Simpson anyone?
May We Learn from our past?
Posted by DerbyDaddy at 02:39 PM : Jun 15, 2008
...and it''s SO hard to get you rightwing crackpots to come out and spit your bitter indignation at a perceived slight (rolls eyes.) Who are you trying to fool here? You jackasses do it like no one else can.
Go look in a mirror you brainless tool. You are no better than those you bash.
%u201CHe that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.%u201D -Thomas Payne
what this story shows is that regardless of the decision, civil rights are often a illusion in the US. they are fine if you are white and live in the suburbs - but in times of "crisis" or if you are a person of color (Sean Bell for example), they often go out the window. how many years have people sat in gitmo with no hearing - completely violating the consitution? this many years later a court decision comes down? too little to late
both republicans and democrats share the blame for this - both parties went on the jingoistic fear-mongering spree after 9/11, voting for the patriot act - to provide cover for invading 2 nations. both parties continue to support this mass-muderous war in Iraq. the US is responsible for the deaths of about 1,000,000 Iraqis (about 300,000 through directly military action, the rest because of the invasion - according to the Lancet studies, which may not be perfect, but use reliable methods) - the democrats could stop the war right now, 40 of them in the senate, by blocking all funding - but they do not because both they and the republicans are pro-war parties.
what this story shows is that the US is a brutal murderous power around the world- both due to the democrats and the republicans, and sometimes this brutality even shows inside the US - or at least in our military bases.
Sam R.
Old McCain- not even president and he is already above the law and the consitution...
"All of which means the Supreme Court isn%u2019t the only reason why the terror detainees remain in legal lingo."
You meant "limbo" right?
nickcooper.com
"All of which means the Supreme Court isn%u2019t the only reason why the terror detainees remain in legal lingo."
You meant "limbo" right?
nickcooper.com
%u201CHe that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.%u201D -Thomas Payne
RIGHT ON!
from jbalish103
"I blame the educational system. History has been erased with pie in the sky b.s."
Also RIGHT ON; too bad he/she has no idea what they are otherwise talking about. What we have been about as a people, what has made us great as a people, has been the grand experiment of our democracy. Few people anymore know its history, workings, or requirements, and this leads to continued elections of the imperial morons we have so repeatedly seen in the White House.
My dad was a right-wing, John Birch Society-embracing ideologue who nonetheless taught me that the end never justifies the means. How sad and frightening that so many people of his mindset have so conveniently(?) forgotten that truth.
they fried his brain in VN. Have someone read
The Constitution and The Bill of Rights to him,
I believe he needs to be tutored.
GP
what this story shows is that regardless of the decision, civil rights are often a illusion in the US. they are fine if you are white and live in the suburbs - but in times of "crisis" or if you are a person of color (Sean Bell for example), they often go out the window. how many years have people sat in gitmo with no hearing - completely violating the consitution? this many years later a court decision comes down? too little to late
both republicans and democrats share the blame for this - both parties went on the jingoistic fear-mongering spree after 9/11, voting for the patriot act - to provide cover for invading 2 nations. both parties continue to support this mass-muderous war in Iraq. the US is responsible for the deaths of about 1,000,000 Iraqis (about 300,000 through directly military action, the rest because of the invasion - according to the Lancet studies, which may not be perfect, but use reliable methods) - the democrats could stop the war right now, 40 of them in the senate, by blocking all funding - but they do not because both they and the republicans are pro-war parties.
what this story shows is that the US is a brutal murderous power around the world- both due to the democrats and the republicans, and sometimes this brutality even shows inside the US - or at least in our military bases.
Sam R.
Ethics: Abramoff Scandals, Libby outs a CIA operative, Gonzo politicizes Justice, and just about anyone in the White House could be labeled a liar, torture, extraordinary rendition, non FISA wiretaps.....etc........
Foreign Policy: Iraq war, AQ still on the loose, Bin Laden still on the loose; and are we safer?..................
Responsive Government: Katrina, bungling Iraq war intelligence, maybe even bungling the 9/11 intelligence......etc.......
I%u2019m going to do everything in my power to see that Republicans LOSE in the next elections. I mean across the board, state legislatures to the White House, there is no longer a place for Republicans in the world I want to live in. The Republican of today is an indefensible talking point repeating polarizer of nations, which in my mind no longer deserves quarter.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' presents us with a frightfully narrow victory (5-4) that favors the elimination of ''secrecy'' in government activities where ''personal liberties'' are at issue.
The Court''s ruling puts an end to ''The Inquisition error'' committed by our President. The potential for ''abuse of liberties'' has been greatly reduced because ''Gitmo activities'' can now be appealed to a ''public forum'' (a civil court) for judicial review.
The Court''s ruling, in this matter, strikes a ''chord of liberty'' for all people in the Free World.
I understand that when we are in a calamity that extraordinary measures seem attractive. However, to have those ''extraordinary measures'' occur in secrecy and outside of the "Balance of Powers" (judicial review) is tyrannical and can lead to future abuses.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' is a subtle restatement of the necessity of judicial review and the maintenance of the balance of power.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' presents us with a frightfully narrow victory (5-4) that favors the elimination of ''secrecy'' in government activities where ''personal liberties'' are at issue.
The Court''s ruling puts an end to ''The Inquisition error'' committed by our President. The potential for ''abuse of liberties'' has been greatly reduced because ''Gitmo activities'' can now be appealed to a ''public forum'' (a civil court) for judicial review.
The Court''s ruling, in this matter, strikes a ''chord of liberty'' for all people in the Free World.
I understand that when we are in a calamity that extraordinary measures seem attractive. However, to have those ''extraordinary measures'' occur in secrecy and outside of the "Balance of Powers" (judicial review) is tyrannical and can lead to future abuses.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' is a subtle restatement of the necessity of judicial review and the maintenance of the balance of power.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' presents us with a frightfully narrow victory (5-4) that favors the elimination of ''secrecy'' in government activities where ''personal liberties'' are at issue.
The Court''s ruling puts an end to ''The Inquisition error'' committed by our President. The potential for ''abuse of liberties'' has been greatly reduced because ''Gitmo activities'' can now be appealed to a ''public forum'' (a civil court) for judicial review.
The Court''s ruling, in this matter, strikes a ''chord of liberty'' for all people in the Free World.
I understand that when we are in a calamity that extraordinary measures seem attractive. However, to have those ''extraordinary measures'' occur in secrecy and outside of the "Balance of Powers" (judicial review) is tyrannical and can lead to future abuses.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' is a subtle restatement of the necessity of judicial review and the maintenance of the balance of power.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' presents us with a frightfully narrow victory (5-4) that favors the elimination of ''secrecy'' in government activities where ''personal liberties'' are at issue.
The Court''s ruling puts an end to ''The Inquisition error'' committed by our President. The potential for ''abuse of liberties'' has been greatly reduced because ''Gitmo activities'' can now be appealed to a ''public forum'' (a civil court) for judicial review.
The Court''s ruling, in this matter, strikes a ''chord of liberty'' for all people in the Free World.
I understand that when we are in a calamity that extraordinary measures seem attractive. However, to have those ''extraordinary measures'' occur in secrecy and outside of the "Balance of Powers" (judicial review) is tyrannical and can lead to future abuses.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' is a subtle restatement of the necessity of judicial review and the maintenance of the balance of power.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' presents us with a frightfully narrow victory (5-4) that favors the elimination of ''secrecy'' in government activities where ''personal liberties'' are at issue.
The Court''s ruling puts an end to ''The Inquisition error'' committed by our President. The potential for ''abuse of liberties'' has been greatly reduced because ''Gitmo activities'' can now be appealed to a ''public forum'' (a civil court) for judicial review.
The Court''s ruling, in this matter, strikes a ''chord of liberty'' for all people in the Free World.
I understand that when we are in a calamity that extraordinary measures seem attractive. However, to have those ''extraordinary measures'' occur in secrecy and outside of the "Balance of Powers" (judicial review) is tyrannical and can lead to future abuses.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' is a subtle restatement of the necessity of judicial review and the maintenance of the balance of power.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' presents us with a frightfully narrow victory (5-4) that favors the elimination of ''secrecy'' in government activities where ''personal liberties'' are at issue.
The Court''s ruling puts an end to ''The Inquisition error'' committed by our President. The potential for ''abuse of liberties'' has been greatly reduced because ''Gitmo activities'' can now be appealed to a ''public forum'' (a civil court) for judicial review.
The Court''s ruling, in this matter, strikes a ''chord of liberty'' for all people in the Free World.
I understand that when we are in a calamity that extraordinary measures seem attractive. However, to have those ''extraordinary measures'' occur in secrecy and outside of the "Balance of Powers" (judicial review) is tyrannical and can lead to future abuses.
The ''Guantanamo Ruling'' is a subtle restatement of the necessity of judicial review and the maintenance of the balance of power.
what guys? The ones who have not been charged with any crime? The ones who have been unconstitutionally detained for years without seeing any evidence against them? The ones who may have been captured by mistake, who may not have started with bad feelings toward the U.S., but have been converted, by GWB, into radical terrorists filled with hate?
If the governement does not have the evidence to hold them, then they should be freed. It is an embarrassment to the U.S. that it took a Supreme Court ruling to make it happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by BagdadsHere2 at 04:10 PM : Jun 15, 2008
+ report abuse
Sparky! With the RECORD of George W. Bush and his creditablity with the American People... THIS IS NOT your best argument... NOT CLOSE!! Sieg Heil!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by andor3 at 04:45 PM : Jun 15, 2008
+ report abuse
EXCELLENT POINT!! With what we''ve seen out of the Bush Administration to this point THAT is the ONLY sane thing to do!! These people are so INCOMPETENT they would screw up a game of checkers!! Sieg Heil Bush
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 144 Comments