McCain Takes Gitmo Ruling Personally

Why Does GOP Candidate Scorn Supreme Court's Affirmation Of Right Of Habeus Corpus?

(CBS)  John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, told a crowd of supporters in New Jersey Friday that the Supreme Court’s latest Guantanamo Bay ruling is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

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.

[ioweign]

And that is why he is a HERO ?? Posted by IOWEIGN

And what is your service to America, or do you just take rather then give anything. I think you are a selfish taker. McCain has earned his rights, you were simply given them, and therefore as a little selfish individual will criticise those that provided your rights. You are scum.

Posted by msgtsteve at 04:08 PM : Jun 16, 2008

No one provides me or anyone our rights, Dipshit.

McCain has been at the Federal trough for 71 years - from birth to present he has been taken care of by the US taxpayer. Check out McCain and the USS Forrestal fire.

I served USN 68-72

[jon2012-2009]

I believe he is saying that one cannot call himself a patriot without being religious and that our form of goverment will not work on a non religious population.
Posted by msgtsteve at 04:04 PM : Jun 16, 2008

You believe. How about proof? Okay, as long as we''re clear it is all just belief, it only exists in your mind, not in the real world.

[jon2012-2009]

Everyone knows liberals are pedophiles and absolutely do not know how to tell teh truth.
Posted by msgtsteve at 04:28 PM : Jun 16, 2008

A third of this country are pedophiles! That''s a gem.

[msgtsteve]

Seig Hillary!

[it_oldtimer]

Here''s an excellent article that demonstrates McSame''s poverty of character:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

[taxguydave]

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than thsoe which spring from any other cause. [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792]

f they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... [George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]

------------------

I guess those Republicans in Congress must be real liberals. They were in complete control of Congress 2001-2007. The budget escalated by over 50% during that period. Taxes were cut (and still haven''t been raised again), and we went from a $3 trillion national debt to almost $12 trillion. Real conservative, that.

But don''t worry--they''re not giving your grandchildren''s money to illegal aliens. $600 billion/yr for war and the military, $40 billion/yr for social programs (including veterans benefits, which I''m sure you oppose).

Try reading sometime. Actual facts are good reading!

www.cbo.gov
www.treasury.gov

[taxguydave]

Here are some Founder''s quotes on religion that can actually be verified--

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ''Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment''" (James Madison, Veto, 1811)

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support." (George Washington, letter to the Touro Synagogue 1790. )

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith." (Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man)

There''s more where that came from. All cited, so you can go read the texts of the originals. They don''t seem to have been a bunch of theocrats, after all.

[taxguydave]

mudrose--

If US military bases are not US sovereign territory, then John McCain is not eligible to run for President.

He was born on a US military base outside the US.

[taxguydave]

mudrose--

If US military bases are not US sovereign territory, then John McCain is not eligible to run for President.

He was born on a US military base outside the US.

[ioweign]

"===So by McCain''''''''''''''''s logic, the North Vietnamese would have been within their rights to send McCain to a secret prison camp in China, never to be heard from again.===
Posted by gkc99

Actually, it is believed that did happen in a few cases - with both China and the Soviet Union."--Posted by Rafterman1



But they missed McCain.

Posted by gkc99 at 08:19 AM : Jun 16, 2008


And that is why he is a HERO ??

[walt1944-2009]

"Bagdad John McBush" McCain disagrees with the right that citizens and non-citizens, especially those labeled, guilty or not, as "terrrrrrrrrrrorists" by the Great Emperor Bush II, should be allowed a fair trial and the benefits of "habeus corpus".

Both the Great Emperor Bush II and McCain, as well as every neocon Fascist Nazi Republican out there, would rather see a return to the days when the Gestapo and SS in Nazi Germany (and the Secret Police in Russia), would burst into a person''s home, drag them away to prison, keep them locked up for years, tortured, then sent to a concentration camp or gulag no matter how guilty or innocent they were (and many of them were INNOCENT!)!

Naturally, those who want this kind of "justice"(???) forget that often THEY get caught up in the net themselves!

Besides, wasn''t something called World War II fought AGAINST this kind of "justice" and barbarianism??? The spirits of those who fought and died in that war and every war since then have to be truly upset at what the country they fought and died for has become!!!!!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, DEFINITELY MORE OF THE SAME, McCain!!!!

[gkc99]

the United States declared war on Vietnam, based on no attack on the USA.

So, to the Vietnamese, the American military was the "terrorists".

What''s the difference when someone is dropping napalm and high explosive on your house?

So, according to McCain''s, there was no obligation on the part of the North Vietnamese to hold him as a prisoner of war.

They could have simply called him a terrorist and sent him to a slave labor camp in China, never to be heard from again.

And McCain should have approved of that course of action, based on his stated "philosophy."

[sjw1253]

The need for balance is essential to democracy. The need to protect rights of any human being is the only way a democracy can endure.

I am glad to see this ruling. I am sure there is much more to all of this than my basic understandings of human rights - but the bottom line is that human rights must be preserved for ALL if WE want our descendents to enjoy the freedoms that we have been so fortunate to enjoy.

[joyous88]

the republicons, bush ,Mcsame, they are jjst the ew fscist party, the new american NAZI''s ,

you can trust mcsame to start wars , rape the treasury, spend a fortune on the wealthy and screw the seniors and veterans

thats what republicons do, thats why theu have to lie
cheat and steal to win elections,

thats why they have the swift boiat veterans , all draft dodgers selling their filth for them

republicons like mcsame are Traitors to america

[aldon61]

This is the correct post I was responding to:

I really I hope you get Obama, you will regret that day, do you realize that you or no one else knows anything about this man. What little that is known is bad and you blind fools can''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''t see it. If all you can come up with on John McCain after so many years in public life is to call him names then you are pathetic.

Posted by dmw1167 at 07:10 PM : Jun 15, 20
************************************
I do know what McBush is and Senator Obama IS NOT BUSH/MCSAME! How anyone out there can vote to continue on this path to destuction we''''re currently on is beyond any comprehension! We''''ve got to wake up people, this madness has to stop.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by aldon61 at 11:27 AM : Jun

[aldon61]

people will win or lose on intellect"

banders6 - if this is true how did George Bush win.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Oscarez at 09:21 AM : Jun 16, 2008

I do know what McBush is and Senator Obama IS NOT BUSH/MCSAME! How anyone out there can vote to continue on this path to destuction we''re currently on is beyond any comprehension! We''ve got to wake up people, this madness has to stop.

[mudrose-2009]

He''''''''s right....it IS one of the worst decisions in th history of this country. They should close GITMO and sship all their islamo-terrorist arses over to a prison in Iraq.
Posted by LibH8er

See, it doesn''''t matter. The decision made not only Gitmo a part of America but any military installation we have across any continent can now be considered American territory and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the courts. This is very bad law. It''''s tantamount to have a lawyer read anyone the military picks up there Miranda right on the battle field which is why I''''ve been saying "When in Doubt, Take Them Out". An old sailor friend of mine said that was the philosophy during WWII.

My response would be to say to President Anthony Kennedy - if that''''s what you want, then you enforce the law but with the kind of ninnies we have on the Hill now especially that Petrified Puke of Pure Slime Pewlosi, it ain''''t never gonna happen.

[irliberal]

Any chances that McSame ever had of being president are going down the drain... *whoosh*

Kind of sounds like *flush* too. Probably more appropriate.

[mudrose-2009]

Such gibberish....This illegal combatant nonsense is like the German high command in occupied Poland calling the Polish underground "illegal combatants." It''''s about as stupid as the coined term "war on terror"
Posted by frankson2

Well, thanks goodness there won''t be a President RamaLamaObama to dispute the war on terror by going abroad and having tea and sympathy with terrorists. The very idea is pure gibberish.

[frankson2]

Such gibberish....This illegal combatant nonsense is like the German high command in occupied Poland calling the Polish underground "illegal combatants." It''s about as stupid as the coined term "war on terror"